Remember this: A Stone in the water makes a ripple over 'there'.
Today I was doing some prescribed burning on the pine plantation. I took a break and began to meditate over a controversy that seemed to be brewing across the great pond, far away from my little speck of the world.
Today I was doing some prescribed burning on the pine plantation. I took a break and began to meditate over a controversy that seemed to be brewing across the great pond, far away from my little speck of the world.
The problem originated with W.H. Smith’s ban on hunting and shooting magazines
that could no longer be purchased by children under the age of 14. This sounded
fairly odd. After reading comments on
the outraged nature of shootists in the United Kingdom I decided as a great
neighbor to the British to take a closer inspection on this new change in
buying magazines. I wondered if they would outlaw any book to the nature of
learning to shoot, hunt, or fish? It reminded me of Hitler and his book burning
escapades.
Let us delve into this. What do we know as a ‘fact’ in the
UK?
·
There is no minimum age for applying for a shotgun
certificate.
·
One must be at least 18 years old to own a gun.
·
Children under 14 must be accompanied by a
responsible adult.
·
Any criminal activity in lieu of using a weapon
by a minor is archived with the authorities.
After reviewing this information it seemed pretty
straightforward that the law had things covered much like here in the States.
So what was the problem really?
I researched further to find that an animal activist group,
Animal Aid, had published a report earlier this year labeling that country
sports magazines as ‘pro-violence’ and having a ‘corrosive, long lasting effect
on impressionable young minds’.
W. H. Smith reported they were doing responsible business
practices by putting a till or age requirement on the magazine purchases with
shooting , hunting, but surprisingly not everything gun related.
I then wanted to know exactly who was this Animal Aid and
how did they get the power to write a report that would make a store change its
age requirement policy by implying the store, magazine purchaser, or random
citizen didn’t have the common sense to be morally able to judge for themselves
or their families on whether such a subject in a magazine was appropriate for
their lifestyle?
This is the link I found on the purported ‘report’:
The
list of objectives in short:
·
Put magazines on the top shelf out of sight and reach of children under the
age of 14.
·
Requiring children to be 18 and over to purchase the hunting/shooting
magazines which would categorize them with pornography (sexual explicit content)
and tobacco.
·
To have the Secretary of State ensure there is no form of gun promotion in
schools.
This
also extends to youth organizations. Then you have clipable copies of magazine
photo-ops of random people during some form of shooting, hunting, or just the
dead animal in less than spectacular positioning. Death ain’t pretty. It never is. This report also states that it
targets kids but if they are not 18 years or old can’t necessarily buy a gun.
What rhetoric!
The
report eventually stops referring to minors as children then goes on to
designate the minors as ‘young blood’. Animal
Aid makes hunting/shooting groups sound like a gang living in the barrio that
punches you in so you can go take part in crime and sale street drugs.
It’s
all in the wording. We learned it in school when you are trying to write a
persuasive letter to get something that you want for right or wrong reasons
even if manipulation is dripping between the typeset. Then there is a quote by
Jeffrey Masson to lend psychoanalytical credence to their argument when no
child was reported as to being ‘shrinked out’ by a licensed professional on
whether or not the child was mentally traumatized (even though this is still on
a case by case theory).
Further
reading the Animal Aid digresses that shotgun certificate ownership is
declining every year but yet they feel compelled and threatened by the owners
of guns for hunting and shooting to write a report belaying the point? Was this
a couple of more nails in the coffin for the UK shootists? I wondered.
On I
read. It stated the gun lobby research reported that if a person doesn’t ‘go to
gun’ by age 14 then the child to adult is less apt to take to gun activity.
This was a clear indicator Animal Aid was trying to circumvent the spread of
shotgunning by intercepting the education of the UK’s youth by making the
literature semi harder to acquire. What next? The library? Online googling? The
list could go on……but really it’s just to cause a controversy and bring
sensationalism to their causes. With that said I on occasion do take a second
look at situations where I feel like there is undue killing but again it’s a
case by case basis.
Using
the term ‘recruitment’ makes it sound like the UK is building a secret army of
children soldiers. If an adult enjoys the sport and endeavors to instruct and
extend the option of partaking in the sport itself then recruiting is a far cry
of a word to use. You can give a person an option but they must make the
independent decision on whether that is something they are willing to take part
in, short term or indefinitely.
Eventually
they get into the specific magazines and the thought crossed my mind that Animal
Aid was not sued for loss of livelihood because of the negative press the
magazine, who should sue as a collective, bring ‘bad business’ to their door. If
Colin Farrell can sue for his sex tapes ruining his career why can’t a hunting
magazine sue for loss of readership, annual income, and intentional wanton
attack on publisher morals and reputation? There has got to be some miss-step
in there on the part of Animal Aid. Probably a few.
Animal
Aid has no problem immorally using children to promote their stance.
Animal
Aid documents in pictures, the magazine name and the issue month year. Anyone
can go to back issues to see who these children are. If it’s a disturbed mind,
could hunt that child down and kill them just for animal activist reasons.
Hereby Animal Aid put a target on a child’s back and put the child itself in
harm’s way. Who is worse? The magazines or Animal Aid?
I
felt like a little ‘pot calling the kettle black’ was going on here.
After
this controversy that child is going to need to learn to shoot to protect himself
from unwanted advances. It always
boggles my mind when someone thinks they are doing a noble act for the greater
good of some cause only to find after closer inspection that they are doing
just as much or more damage as the one they are lobbying against. Now that…….is
insane. Two crazies do not make you mentally competent.
With
all organized endeavors there is always the opportunity given to engage youth
to a different form of social or physical outlet. For every child that you
might find shooting there is probably one in the street or vice versa.
Responsible adults or parents are always worried over their children. Who are
they hanging out with? What kinds of friends do they have? Are they involved
with the wrong crowd? Is my kid being menaced on the internet by pedophiles?
Parents
have enough on their plate raising their offspring. If the parent finds an
outlet that procures the traits of an adult that can become a productive member
of society, not to mention if war breaks out and they have to be sent into some
terrible country to help fight for freedom, other people’s lives, or their very
own: would it not be worth it? I say yes.
Onward
into this ridiculous report I find they are admitting that there is lessons,
education outlets, and some form of conservation or animal husbandry going on
with a plan that is reasonably organized.
Animal
Aid states the BASC is reaffirming the tradition of countryside life. This
educational information was based on lifestyle, conservation, education and
safety. But this is a bad thing to promote?
I
began to wonder what crack pot wrote this because it is a sympathetic plea
rather than a thought provoking treatise on the pro’s/con’s of shooting let
alone hunting. Made me glad I live on this side of the ‘great pond’.
As I
had stated in previous blogs on over hunting I wonder how much of this are non-hunters
or animal activist viewing the non-stop posting of dead animals? Not that I am
telling people to not post their photos.
Think
for a moment that you are a non-hunter viewing things on the internet and the ‘number’
of photos is a designation to the amount of carnage that they believe is
actually happening even if the pictures are taken at different hunting season
or even years. There is no differentiation in their minds. It’s the amount of perceived
deaths and the toll is rising in their mind because they do not hunt and don’t
immediately realize that a season ends, animals don’t always die, and hunters go
home empty-handed.
It is
like the old turn of the phrase when someone says about another person, “Its
selective” hearing, seeing, or limited understanding or denial. They see what they want to see and interpret
it that way with biases to their own belief system but most people are guilty
of this.
By
the end of this report the Animal Aid reduces to name calling in regards to
children that partake of hunting. This is less than admirable and certainly not
something I would think would come from a free thinking morally based adult
with their head squarely above the shoulders.
This
report is purely emotion driven and any professional indication on the part of
Animal Aid is mute. They could do the
same thing to a person who hit a deer with a car. Don’t let that person drive a
car because that person might kill a deer with it.
The
main thing that struck me about this little report was the way in which Animal
Aid took it upon themselves to be the judge and jury on what they deemed
morally fit or an outrage without other peoples input or even consideration.
They made objectives, one of which was successful in W. H. Smith. Why is it
that this group, Animal Aid, can somehow exclude everyone else and get their
requirements met? Who made them, for lack of a better word, “God”?
It’s
the total removal of everyone else from what Animal Aid wants. It can be read
as Animal Aid deciding that normal adult citizens no longer have the long
vision of a moral or ethical compass and thus must influence government or
other parties through force, coercion, or less than noble means to get their
objectives met.
Animal
Aid is doing a slight of hand trick by taking the citizens right away to make
decisions on their behalf by questioning morals, common sense, or lack thereof.
To some degree it is almost like martial law. One day the government just takes
over and you have no rights unless the government says so. Animal Aid is
subjecting citizens to loss of what we call in the states ‘inalienable rights’ by replacing
or influencing citizens with their
agenda by taking YOUR
HAPPINESS AWAY and YOUR RIGHT TO DECISION MAKING.
Animal
Aid is also meddling into the structure and functioning of the family by
questioning how you raise your child, if you are a competent enough parent for ‘exposing
your child’ to violent behavior, and suggesting to a ‘higher power’ that the
average citizen can no longer function as the decision maker or nurturer of
future citizens.
A
little frightening there because you wonder if someone in the animal activist
regime or government has been planning a ‘Pied Piper’ move by taking the
children and brainwashing them into believing this Unstable Mother Earth really
wants them to hold hands and and sing Cum Ba Ya.
On
things like this I don’t argue to far on the point of ‘but the other magazines
have this in them’. That is just a waste of time.
I
feel what needs to be done is set up one organization that is specifically
targeted at this kind of animal activist behavior. You would need an expert on
Public Relations, and a Strategist. You have to out think them and cut them off
at the pass. The nature of this attack
should be delegated to people that are experts in this type of problem. The
main thing is Communication.
There
should be a streamlined avenue of communication to keep dialogue open to all individuals
that could be potentially affected by this problem.
There
should also be a set of guidelines and rules for handing different types of
situations when they arise and who should be handling them and in what way.
A group
of lawyers that can find a loop hole when there is no air to breath.
It
should be militantly executed but keep the ideas of all the crazy things you
wouldn’t see coming in clear focus to.
I am
kind of appalled that the UK citizens are appalled that this is happening. The
animal activist people have been working on this for a long time. They are
chipping away at things. When you see a group of people broadsided by something
and are taken off guard that means you’ve gotten a little to secure in your position
and need to tighten up the ranks. The whole state of affairs where hunting and
shooting as it exist in the UK needs to be reassessed for any kind of weakness
or point of entry on the part of attack.
I
also thought about perceived power on the part of Animal Aid. When they got W. H. Smith to ban children
under the age of 14 from purchasing the hunting magazine there was some influence
or power there. Find out the point of this supposed power and diffuse it like
one would diffuse a bomb. I am not saying be a internet terrorist but one can
go the proper routes to undo such evil trickery.
If these kinds of things are in place one needs to question what is not functioning properly and address the weakness.
You
have to be smart, pay attention, know when to act, and do it.
Otherwise,
I’ll be watching from my lily pad on this side of the pond.
Written by: W Harley Bloodworth
Written by: W Harley Bloodworth
~Courtesy of the AOFH~
