I just noticed something that should be pointed out concerning Mr. Bowmans' most recent article:
"Farmer's was one of hundreds of responses to Sunday's column, "Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts.''
Most were regurgitations of National Rifle Association propaganda. Exactly the stuff that puts hunters in the lunatic fringe, where we can be marginalized and ostracized. There's a reason more than 90 percent of hunters don't belong to the NRA: It doesn't represent our views."
Now if 90% of hunters don't feel the NRA represents their views ( which in this case should be interpreted as being a pro-gun rights view rather than the actual NRA view) then why did most of the hundreds of emails Mr. Bowman received seem to be a regugitation of their views? ( again, it would probably be more correct to say a pro-gun rights view rather than an NRA view.)
If most were criticisms of Mr. Bowmans' article & views, then why does Mr. Bowman feel that his view is representative of most hunters?
Ah, the incredible ability of the Fuddite to presume his view is not only correct despite logic, reason & facts, but a view held by the majority.