Democrats Use Fake Hunters Group to Push Gun Control

The left is using fake front groups? I’m shocked. Truly, truly shocked.

Politico dedicated an entire piece to Bull Moose Sportsmen and their survey which claimed that the majority of hunters support Obama’s current phase one of gun control.

But there’s one problem. Bull Moose Sportsmen only has about 5,000 members and it’s run by Democratic political hacks. Also no one where its funding comes from.

Bull Moose Sportsmen, which claims 5,000 members… Bull Moose Sportsmen is a fringe organization run by Democratic activists that has been rejected from membership into the major gun and hunting groups’ umbrella organization because it refuses to reveal its funding sources.

While calling itself “nonpartisan,” Bull Moose Sportsmen is run by Democrats. Co-Founder Gaspar Perricone, who told Politico that, “Background checks fall within the ethics of responsible gun ownership,” is a former staffer for Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat.

The other co-founder of Bull Moose, Tim Mauck, was Mr. Udall’s finance director and was paid $4,743 by the senator’s campaign in 2012.

According to some public filings, the “non-partisan nonprofit organization” gave $17,000 in the 2012 federal election, and all of it went to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado. It spent $117,540 in support of Mr. Bennet in the 2010 cycle. The group raised $354,228 in 2011 and spent $295,863.

So Bull Moose Sportsmen is basically a front for some figures in the Colorado Democratic Party. Its name and use of T.R. is yet another tiresome effort to co-opt Teddy Roosevelt for the left’s causes.

What would Teddy Roosevelt have thought of being exploited by the gun control crowd?

President Theodore Roosevelt carried a handgun when appearing in public, telling one friend, “I should have a chance of shooting the assassin before he could shoot me, if he were near me.”

Yes, but surely the President (it feels good to write that after so many years) only meant that he should be able to carry around a gun.

“The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world… The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!”

And to make it so

In 1903, the War Department Appropriations Bill authorized the establishment of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice as well as the National Rifle and Pistol Trophy Matches, a concept strongly supported by President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid rifle shooter

In 1905, another step forward was taken, when President Roosevelt signed Public Law 149 into effect, authorizing the sale, at cost, of surplus military rifles, ammunition, and related equipment to rifle clubs meeting requirements specified by the Board and approved by the Secretary of War.

But… but semi-automatic weapons of war and death

Semi-automatics have been around for more than 100 years. President Teddy Roosevelt hunted with a semi-automatic rifle, as do millions of hunters today.

Bull Moose might want to change its name and stop using the Teddy Roosevelt logo. It could try Woodrow Wilson instead.

  • gee59

    I have noticed that the 1st Amendment covers radio, television, telephone, cell phones and internet – none of which existed when the Constitution was written nor for many decade afterward. But the 2nd Amendment only covers muskets

    • wilco40


  • George

    We had what the Govt. had when cons was written. And, now we don't, and the cry baby Libtards wanna cry over a beefed up .22. Lmao…We need more fire power. The 2nd was put in place to fight any type of tyranny. The 2nd has NOTHING to do with hunting, period…

  • Viet Vet

    Teddy Roosevelt was also a Life Member of the National Rifle Association.

    I was in an online group for awhile about 5 to 6 years ago, called: Gun and Game, and I had the distinct feeling it was a leftwing group, or rather was run by leftwingers. Many members leaned left, although I think the majority were legitimate pro-gun, pro-hunting types, while not having a clue about what was going on. The left leaning ones seemed to be subtley trying to persuade the members to 'moderate', and more receptive of gun control. You heard the democrap talking point: "sensible gun-control" alot. Obummer was just starting to gear up for the presidential race, and the lefties were doing everything they could to persuade the others that he was not anti-gun. One of the sys ops, a woman in TX, with TX in her user name, said her favorite history book was Howard Zinn's, A People's History of the United States. She finally banned me.

  • AdinaK

    Fake hunters groups, no shock there. It would be a shock if they didn't fake this group or that. In fact, more to the point is the false flag operation, aka Fast & Furious, in order to ram through gun control where many actually died, both in the US & Mexico.

    For that, and so much more, when will the AG fall, as well as his boss –

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel

    • teq

      When will this regime fall. Good question. The ATF is the SS of the AG and his boss is now called the most micromanaging and controlling president since Nixon. But Obummer is covered with Teflon and nothing sticks to him. There is no one to take him on right now.

      • Viet Vet

        Obummer is covered by the "media."

    • Viet Vet

      What's hilarious and disingenuous on the part of leftists, is their insistence that we would still be able to have our hunting guns, they only want to ban the "assault rifles." But for the last 40 years these same leftists have been doing everything possible to shut down hunting. Many states had to pass laws making it illegal to harrass people in the legal pursuit of hunting.

  • Spikey1

    Fake leader with fake economics, why should we be surprised by a fake hunting group…

  • tagalog

    Don't you find it interesting that when the Constitution was being drafted, there was a debate over the inclusion of a Bill of Rights that was over the issue of whether, if we had a Bill of Rights, that list of rights would be the only ones that the government had to respect and if if wouldn't be better to keep the list of rights out of the Constitution entirely so as to insure that we kept ALL of our rights free from government intrusion?

    Now, today, the shape of that debate is how far (not whether) the government can encroach on the Bill of Rights. Have you noticed that we have long since stopped arguing over the existence of rights that aren't included in the Bill of Rights, and that now we frame our debate over rights over whether or not a claimed right fits into the Bill of Rights? We no longer think in terms of a broad spectrum of rights, and we now have only the Bill of Rights left, a list of rights that the govenment has been systematically treading on for quite a while.

    • Viet Vet

      That's exactly correct tagalong. It was anti-Federalists like George Mason and Patrick Henry of Virginia, who said they wouldn't support the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was incorporated. It was James Madison, considered the Father of the Consititution, who argued against the inclusion of a Bill of Rights on the grounds, he said, that it was redundant. He said that the federal government didn't have one bit more rights or power than that enumerated it in the Constitution, and that all other rights were reserved to the states or the people. Further he said, as you alluded to, they couldn't possibly cover all rights in a Bill of Rights and that sometime in the future evil doers could try to claim a right for the government, because it wasn't one listed in the Bill of Rights.

      The 9th Amendment was drafted in order to address Madison's concerns and the 10th Amendment was to reaffirm that all rights not specifically enumerated to the federal government were reserved to the states and the people.

  • Brujo Blanco

    The 2nd Amendment says nothing about hunting. It does establish the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. I contend that without a constitutional convention the termination of this right is illegal. This amendment places a restriction on government and not. on individuals. If this right falls the other rights will follow. The fall of the 2nd Amendment will pave the way for the elimination of other rights.

    • Viet Vet

      An Amendment can also be repealed by way of a new proposed amendment being supported by 2/3 majority vote of both Houses of Congress, which would send said Amendment to the States (or the people) where a 3/4 majority vote is required for ratification.

    • Donald Kosloff

      Careful, don't fall into the statist's trap. The Second Amendment protects a right that existed before the Constitution was written. The Constitution delegated limited rights from the sovereign people to the federal government, as limited, enumerated powers. The Constitution did not establish any rights.

      • Viet Vet

        The Founders declared in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence that our sovereign rights come from the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

      • tagalog

        The Second Amendment can be repealed but its repeal doesn't take away the right; it just allows the government to assume the power to regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

        Then the people must defend that right by armed force. I am skeptical that in this welfare state, that there are enough people who would be motivated to fight for our rights, as long as we're getting to feed at the public trough.

    • tagalog

      The Second Amendment specifically talks about the right to keep and bear arms by relating it in some only partially determined way (see U.S. v. Miller) to the arms that would be used by a militia force.

      So any and all militia arms are appropriate to be kept and borne by the citizenry. Militia and National Guard forces use the standard-issue arms issued to the regular, standing, army, so those arms are the ones we citizens have the right to keep and bear.

  • Viet Vet

    Fear a politician, political party, or government, that fears an armed citizenry!