Skip to content

NRA-Driven Constitutional Amendments Would Secure “Right to Hunt”

Vin Paneccasio

Voters in Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Wyoming are deciding this election cycle whether the “right to hunt” should be guaranteed under their states’ constitutions. While the Republican Party defends “the sanctity and dignity of human life,” its bosses at the National Rifle Association want to ensure that members of the drooling class have the freedom to satisfy their malignant bloodthirst.

As Salon’s Jillian Rayfield reported late last month, ballot initiatives in the above-mentioned states “are being pushed by the National Rifle Association primarily as a way of preemptively protecting hunters and gun owners from ‘radical’ animal rights groups.”

In an October 12 post encouraging voters in Kentucky to secure their right to kill any species other than ours, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action explained that “the National Rifle Association has been working throughout the country to adopt meaningful state Right to Hunt and Fish constitutional amendments for good reason. We see what the well-funded ‘animal rights’ extremist groups are doing to erode our sporting heritage in countless states.”

A question facing voters in Idaho asks: “Shall … the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended … to provide that the rights to hunt, fish and trap, including by the use of traditional methods, are a valued part of the heritage of the State of Idaho and shall forever be preserved for the people and managed through the laws, rules and proclamations that preserve the future of hunting, fishing and trapping; (and) to provide that public hunting, fishing and trapping of wildlife shall be a preferred means of managing wildlife?”

Voters in Kentucky are being asked: “Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky Constitution to state that the citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject to laws and regulations that promote conservation and preserve the future of hunting and fishing, and to state that public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife?”

Nebraska residents are being asked to vote on “a constitutional amendment to establish the right to hunt, to fish, and to harvest wildlife and to state that public hunting, fishing, and harvesting of wildlife shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.”

And voters in Wyoming are being asked to support or reject a proposed constitutional amendment whose language reads: “The adoption of this amendment will recognize and preserve the heritage of Wyoming citizens’ opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife, subject to regulation as prescribed by law.”

I’m obviously not the first person to wonder why the knuckle-draggers who are obsessed with killing don’t just say so. Why, in other words, is hyperbole their default setting? I suppose it’s because saying, “We enjoy inflicting pain and suffering,” or, “We derive great pleasure from taking life,” would reveal the barbarism they prefer to call their “heritage.”

(It should be pointed out that so-called “wildlife management” is a rather uninspired euphemism for “sanctioned slaughter.”)

By worrying publicly that the “extremists” among us – that is, those of us whose evolution leapfrogged (an apt choice of word, don’t you think?) the drooling class – are going to expose them as the savages that they are, the bloodlust-full psychopaths have betrayed their subhuman status.

These are the same self-righteous Neanderthals who fear evolution (not that they believe in it) in any form. Loath as they are to extend civil rights to women, same-sex couples, and those of other races, the very suggestion of affording the same to other species has them positively apoplectic.

If one really wants to see a member of the drooling class frothing uncontrollably at the mouth, he or she simply has to point out that progress has been and will continue to be made in spite of their odious existence.

Put simply, the members (one more apt word choice, if you’ll excuse the phallic suggestion) of our primitive subspecies are asserting that while they’re entitled to certain rights, the more evolved among us are not. And as they’re noisily demanding theirs, they’re working just as hard to take away some of ours.

Since we’re being forced to defend the progress our species has already made, we should fight tirelessly for the rights of other species.

Monday Maul cartoons are created for The Daily Maul by New York-based artist Vin Paneccasio. Providing a fix for your schadenfreude jones, while spiritually rewarding, can be physically and emotionally exhausting. You can keep us alert and fairly lucid by keeping us caffeinated. And you can support our work by visiting the Shopping Maul and getting yourself some schadenfreude-fantasy you can wear.


  1. Dan Flowers wrote:

    Your stereotypes truly crack me up! I’d love for you to explain them to my female, gay, and professional biologist hunting friends! Oh, and John who is an atheist and then ask any of them how much time and money they have contributed to habitat purchases and management through charitable donations, memberships, license fees tariffs of sporting equipment etc. I can tell you how much Dave. Over 18 BILLION dollars a year! How much did you give last year Davey-boy? How many hours did you volunteer? No, babbling away at your keyboard doesn’t count. I mean REAL effort that benefits REAL wildlife…

    Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Permalink
  2. David Brensilver wrote:


    I’d be happy to explain things to your friends. They can e-mail me at


    Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *