Uh.
When have hunters been truly Pro 2A?
There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to hunt, and to no end have I tangled with hunters who told me things like "you don't need that high cap" and "you guys are going to get us all in trouble and get our guns taken away".
I don't recall the Second Amendment saying anything about the right be an adult-sized child and only have guns for playing and sport. The writings of the men who wrote and ratified say nothing about gun ownership in that regard either.
More often I have dealt with, as an area cooridinator for the Florida hunters safety program in 2004, many wealthy hunters who, if guns were banned, would pay the thousands and the pull the political strings that it would take to keep their fud guns, just like rich Germans did during the nazi years, while countrymen are enslaved around them. Sure they can still have their expensive fud gun and drive their Escalade from their exclusive gated community to their $10K/ year hunting lease while the rest of us peasants live in slavery.
So I don't give a rat's ass if she hunted moose. I would hold more respect if she ever stood between an innocent citizen and a SWAT team sent by a corrupt government operating on false or trumped up charges, or formed a line in a field to stop an illegal land-grab by a developer/county commision (public-private - fascism) partnership.
You know, the things that should be hapenning already if we were not a nation of adult sized children "playing" with guns.
Well said.
I once posted this on APS, in reference to the Heller decision (I was up against a lot of the same type of gun-owners you mention, who will lick any boot in order to keep their precious duck-guns). Many folks there argue for 'McCain being the best because his was slightly more likely to select pro-2A justices':
"Well, romantic or not, I wonder:
We're fighting so hard to get a government (meaning, in this case, Supreme Court Justices) which will support our right to keep and bear arms - a right which is used to stand up to government if the need arises.
It just seems like a strange cycle after a while, because we really wouldn't need the 2nd Amendment if we always had a government that was our friend.
Believe it or not, the SCOTUS is NOT the final check and balance. There is a candidate in the fog who is trying to unite the country on a "romantic" message of "liberty" [I was referring to Ron Paul] (which everyone, democrat, or republican, or whatever, should, theoretically find appealing), but we're burning that message in order to elect a slightly favorable candidate with a small chance to appoint pro-2A Supreme Court justices, who will not take our guns (because taking our guns would thereby weaken our ability to stand up for our liberties).
Strange cycles, I tell ya."
Of course, you could imagine the blank stares that comment drew. (You'd have to read the whole thread to understand the references to 'romanticism.' But, reading the whole thread over at APS would be harmful to those with weak stomachs).