How about this for a thought-a Democratic outdoorspeople's group

[Ken Burch]

The idea is to try to get rid of a major wedge issue in Red States, where a lot of working people are hunters. We could form a group that supported a moderate position on guns(for registration of handguns and automatics but for the right to bear hunting weapons,) with ads featuring images of Democratic candidates in hunting attire looking at home in the woods.

Anybody else think this might be worth exploring? I think if we did it, it would make us competitive througout the Mountain West and the Border South, and could really put the GOP on the defensive on their home grounds without requiring deeply agonizing compromises on our part.

[napi21]

1. Well, there already IS mandatory registration of handguns.

So you don't need to worry about that part.

The problem I see with the ads featuring Dem candiates in hunting attire is that it would be almost impossible to pull off if it wasn't REAL!

Remember the ad with Kerry out in the field in his camo suit? The real humters jumped on it immediately, talking about the way he carried the rifle, and several other things that just didn't look right.

I don't think it's a good idea, unless there is a candidate who really is a hunter.

A similar thing was posted on another thread about Mark WArner supporting NASCAR. Now, Mark really IS a NASCAR fan. But several comments were made that, if he wasn't, the fans would spot it right away!

[rawtribe]

2. We have an outdoor group on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=271

[Ken Burch]

5. I knew that, but I was talking about something that might have

more of a public presence, with magazine ads and a webpage.

Basically, I'm looking for a way to steal the NRA's thunder and to demonstrate that there is a "pro-hunter" or "pro-gun" position that doesn't have to mean no gun control at all.

I also think it is a way of connecting with working-class voters in some localities.

[bluedawg12]

3. It sounds great, or an outing to a target range.

I like target prctice!

Bike rides?

Policy sessions ar someones ranch in the sunbelt for say 300 of your closest Dem friends-invite Robert Redford.

[havocmom]

4. Hmm, I live in an EXTREMELY red county of a red state and hunters are out

of favor. Landowners here are mad as hell about hunters coming in, mixing gunpowder with beer then ya-hoo-in all over private property shooting at things which do not even vaguely resemble deer, elk, or antelope.

Better to just take a page from Dr Dean's play book and insist guns should be a state issue. Dr. Dean plays very well around here. This county probably would have gone blue or damn near blue if he had been the DEM nominee, I kid you not.

But trying to come off as a bunch of hunters? Would only work for DEMS who really have been avid hunters in the past, and then, it could backfire in some places.

Just this evening, talking with a local resident about the moon, I asked "Isn't this full moon the Hunter's Moon?" The reply was, "No, it's the drunken dipshit's moon".

So maybe the best bet is to listen to the concerns of people in 'red states' and take them to heart, then find common ground to build bridges on. Most of my neighbors wanna hear ideas to solve problems. They are fed up with photo-op slickers trying to pass. They now see through Lil Boots (or All Hat/No Cattle as he is known here abouts) and would like to be treated like the reasonably intelligent folks they are. If you want their votes, start coming up with ways to make America great again. Listen to their concerns and work WITH them to face their concerns. You'll get them that way.

[Ken Burch]

6. You raise some valid points.

And part of it is the need to stop being a "fear-based" party when speaking to "red state" voters, not all of whom are against as much of our ideas as we sometimes assume.

[Lefty48197]

7. Tough to do. NRA moles are EVERYWHERE working overtime

to silence any voice that tries to do just what you have advocated. I would love to see an outdoors sportspersons group that wasn't a branch of the Republican party. That's the Republicans worst fear, so they would fight like mad to make sure it doesn't succeed.
Post this same topic in the gun dungeon and you'll get an idea what I'm talking about.
I don't want to sound too negative. I do agree with you 100%

[benEzra]

8. Only a small minority of gun owners are hunters (only 1 in 5)...

and many/most hunters also own guns the prohibitionists want to ban.

For an extended explanation of why hunting is largely IRRELEVANT to the gun issue, see this DU thread:

Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What?

The talk-up-hunting-while-demonizing-nonhunting-guns strategy was tried in 2000 and 2004, and failed miserably. Gore and Kerry both made their support for hunting so clear that no one could possibly miss it. The problem was, very few gun owners CARE if you support hunting if you tell them that oh, by the way, you also want to restrict or ban half the guns in their gun safe.

As an aside--automatic weapons aren't just registered; they are so tightly controlled under Federal law that you have to pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance to own one, and this has been the case for 71 years now. The only guns that a civilian can own without going through the extensive NFA Title 2/Class III clearance process are NON-automatic, non-sound-suppressed firearms under .51 caliber that meet the other criteria of the National Firearms Act and other applicable federal laws (e.g., no disguised firearms, no short-barreled rifles or shotguns, no smoothbore handguns, no armor-piercing handgun ammunition, etc. etc.) Over-.50-caliber hunting rifles and shotguns are granted a waiver (e.g., 0.729 caliber shotguns and .70-caliber big-game hunting rifles are allowed), but all nonhunting guns must be .50 caliber or less.