Oh, "one source." Thanks John!

Wouldn't care to tell us what that source was, would you?































Hint: it's the lobbying wing of the NRA.

As with much of the NRA propaganda, they claim to be primarily about hunting, when in fact what they wish is unregulated access to guns. Notice that the list uses inflammatory language but often does not tell you what Kerry was voting for or against, to wit:

Kerry was one of only 18 Senators to oppose the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, which ended alarming abuses being committed under the 1968 Gun Control Act. (Vote No. 142, July 9, 1985.)

How do we know there were alarming abuses? Why, the NRA tells us so! But something that is alarming to the NRA might not prove alarming to you or me.

Kerry wants to silence gun owners' voices. When NRA sought the same exemption from campaign finance rules that news organizations have, Kerry called that effort "hijacking America's airwaves."

This says to me that Kerry wanted to prevent lobbyists from masquerading as news organizations, and press releases from the NRA from masquerading as news stories. Exactly why is this supposed to be bad?


Kerry has voted to close off hundreds of thousands of acres of the California Mojave Desert to hunting.

This seems to me to be more about the Mojave desert than about hunting. Presumably even hunters understand that there will always be some places that are protected from hunting. So Kerry thinks this should be one of them. What are the REAL issues involved here? The NRA won't tell you.

Here are some more facts:

The "outdoorsman" vote is split in this election cycle, because some hunters are primarily gun voters, others are primarily wilderness voters. Bush is for unregulated gun-ownership, but he's also for privatizing and exploiting wilderness through unregulated logging, oil-drilling and polluting that would ultimately harm hunters.

Outdoors columnist Bill Cochran points out:

Who will get the outdoorsmen vote? That?s not as easy to answer as you might think. Field & Stream and Outdoor Life magazines have carried extensive interviews with both candidates, but have endorsed neither.

The editors of Field & Stream said: ?This much we know. The next president of the United States will be a sportsman. Whether it?s George W. Bush or John F. Kerry, each claims that hunting and fishing have been an integral part of his life. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, this should come as very good news.?

[...]

?The sportsmen who will vote firearms first will vote for Bush,? Paul Hansen was quoted in the Washington Post. He is executive director of the Izaak Walton League. ?The sportsmen who will vote conservation first will have a tougher choice,? he said.

Preservation groups, like the Sierra Club, have urged their members to vote again Bush, citing what they call a poor record on conservation. These groups are more concerned about mercury in water, loggers in the national forest and oil-drillers on public land than in gun rights.

[...]

Many sportsmen are comfortable with the fact that President Bush is solidly behind the Second Amendment, but they have been disappointed that he hasn?t been more of a conservationist. Some, reluctantly, have gone to the other camp, saying, ?What good are guns if there are no places to hunt?? Others chant back, ?What good are places to hunt if you can?t own guns to hunt them??

The result is a crack in the unity of the outdoor fraternity. No where is this more evident than in the ranks of the Outdoor Writers Association of America, where some members side with the NRA and others with the Sierra Club. Still others stand on the sidelines, uncertain what to do.

So if you like to hunt, remember that neither candidate may be perfect. But the fact is, Kerry is not in favor of "banning" most hunting weapons anyway.

The NRA lobbies for handguns, automatic weapons, and other firearms that hunters don't use.

The Sierra Club lobbies for forests, deserts, and natural habitats for animals, something all hunters in the world need.