Peltola: ‘Second Amendment rights are about food security’


While it’s not what the late Congressman Don Young would have advised, Congresswoman Mary Peltola says that for her, the Second Amendment is about food security. It’s about hunting.

That is the extent of the message. It’s not about safety. It’s not about protection. It’s about food.

The ad has Peltola doubling down on her pursuit of requiring gun safes for firearms owners, universal background checks for gun purchases, and even prohibiting some types of firearms.

That may be why Peltola has earned a “D” rating from the NRA.

In fact, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The writers of the U.S. Constitution made firearm ownership the second right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, because it was second only to the freedom of expression, religion, and association.

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” the right reads. Some place an emphasis on “well regulated Militia,” while others emphasize “security of a free State,” and still others emphasize “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

In no instance, does the Constitution mention hunting, subsistence, or food security. And no conservative would make the argument that the Founders of the nation were thinking about hunting, rather than revolution.

Peltola’s views on gun regulation are also diametrically opposite of what the late congressman believed:

“All Second Amendment supporters will agree that firearms do not belong in the hands of violent criminals or the seriously mentally disturbed. However, instead of using tragedies to justify limiting access to firearms for all Americans, lawmakers should use them as motivation to reform the way we recognize and care for the mentally ill, in addition to protecting our citizens from radicalized terrorists,” Young said.

“Gun ownership is built into the fabric of our nation. Nearly a third of American adults own a firearm, and Alaska has the highest rate of gun ownership with 62% of adults saying they own a gun. All Alaska residents are eligible to subsistence hunt on state lands, and many Alaskans rely on gun ownership to feed their families and communities through the practice. Subsistence hunting occurs year round and is critical to rural Alaskans who rely on it for nutrition and stability. It is also central to the customs and traditions of many communities,” said Congressman Young.

“Federal law has regulated the sale and possession of firearms for decades. Several high-profile incidents of gun violence have prompted proposals to modify this framework, including by reinstituting the assault weapons ban; imposing universal background checks; and broadening restrictions on gun possession by foreign nationals, suspected terrorists, and others. Firearms restrictions, however, must comport with the requirements of the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller upheld as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms. I am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment, and will continue to fight in Congress to ensure that all Americans’ Constitutional rights are protected,” Young wrote.


  1. Even Don Young made mistakes (all Alaskans don’t get to subsistance hunt) but Peltola was only expressing what it meant to her, living where she does.
    Granted, Americans have their own reasons for owning a firearm and I witnessed when Americans shifted their reasons from predominantly hunting issues to protection issues (mainly due to crime prevalent in the cities). No doubt the NRA was aware of this shift as more of their members owned handguns, rather than hunting rifles.
    I personally don’t believe I need a gun for protection, yet I own many (most hunting guns). Further, were I living in a crowded city I’m sure this attitude would change and thus many Americans feel the need for this protection.
    That said, I also don’t believe we should allow large capacity magazines for our so-called assault rifles and would not attempt to outlaw semi-automatic guns (just their capacity).

    • Fudd alert ^^^^^^ Once again the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.. you and river boat gambling cpt memaw peltola need to take some history classes.

    • Bill yankee,
      You seem to have an abundance of common sense, which is uncommon amongst the majority of posters on this site.

      • Exactly Gunner. Yankee has an abundance of common sense from a Marxist/Totalitarian perspective.

        • OK Wayne give us a why my opinion is from a “Marxist/Totalitarian perspective.”
          We know that limits can be put on gun ownership and my idea doesn’t place any limit on guns, only on large capacity magazines that have been regularly used in many of our largest shootings. Do you feel the need to use these capacity magazines and why? Granted it would also require some sort of plugs for automatic hand guns but we use them regularly in shotguns and wouldn’t cause problems for any sort of target shooting and also you can carry numerous clips.
          Go ahead and cry us a river about how this will impose hardships on gun owners.

          • “We know that limits can be put on gun ownership……”
            Not “limits”. “Regulations” is the correct word.

          • Bill do you carry? I’m thinking that you may not based on your comment, “you can carry numerous clips”. you also ask, “Do you feel the need to use these capacity magazines and why?” well let me try to answer that question, folks who carry today do not do so openly. My problem with your comment is where would you carry them? the nice thing about having plenty of capacity in a single magazine is i don’t have to carry extra magazines. This question of yours is, in my belief, an attempt by the left to limit gun owners. People will always be thinking of ways to do something bigger and better than what is out there. have you looked at the air guns? it won’t be long before they figure out how to put capacity in a smaller package……

          • Ak, you didn’t read my original comment or you would know I don’t need a gun for protection so why would I carry? Tough noogies to you if you think you need more than 10 rounds for your protection and can’t carry another magazine or clip to double that.
            If you can carry, you can certainly also add another magazine. And how is any of this designed to limit gun owners?

    • An “assault rifle” is a select-fire rifle capable of fully-automatic and semi-automatic fire. Assault rifles are already higly restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

      I assume you are referring to the political term “assault weapon” which has no industry significance, in which case I ask you what you consider to be a “large capacity” magazine, and why you think law-abiding Americans can’t be trusted with a magazine larger than some arbitrary limit determined by you?

      • You are correct and I should have used “assault weapons” as I clearly was not referring to fully automatic rifles. That said, my own opinions on what is a “large capacity” magazine is anything larger than 10 rounds. I also know that back when we earlier had the “Assault Weapons Ban” it included 10 rounds to be outlawed that included the Ruger 1022 that was the most popular gun of that era and it caused much grief. And the “why” law-abiding Americans can’t be trusted is that we have no way of knowing when that law-abiding American suddenly becomes the law breaker who shoots up schools, churches, etc.. The limit is strictly to limit the carnage and would clearly not impose and unreasonable limit on the 2nd Amendment IMO.

        • Oh lord help us… what next we can only own single shots because you know “it’s clearly not imposing and unreasonable limit on the 2nd Amendment”

          • My opinion about no magazines larger than 10 rounds is hardly a road to single shots but you know that JW. No limit to how many magazines other that what you can haul or carry, too.
            Give us your take on what about that limit is an unreasonable limit on 2nd Amendment. Take your time-you’ll need it IMO.

        • What difference does it make how many rounds I have in a magazine if I am a law abiding and responsible person, who is using that firearm in a law abiding and responsible manner?
          Oh… you never know when a law abiding American becomes a law breaker. Got it.
          Do you know when the bus driver will snap and kill a bunch of people on the bus? Or when your pharmacist snaps and puts the wrong pills into the bottle? What if the air traffic controller decides it is time to kill a bunch of people, or the person maintaining the water system decides to dump in 20% the chemicals because they are having a fight with their wife?
          So, if you can trust all those people, why can you not trust the average American?

          • Because we don’t know when that law abiding American suddenly becomes one who shoots up a school of kids. The idea of limiting the capacity of magazines is only to curb the amount of chaos that results from such. And we don’t trust those people you mention, many are licensed in their professions, but they are not in the possession of an offensive weapon designed to kill people (big difference). Many law abiding citizens keep these offensive killing weapons for the defense of themselves and homes but when they run off the rails, the damage is too great (IMO) to not limit that capacity.

        • There shall be no limits imposed on the 2nd Amendment period! just like your girl meemaw Peltola you two are ignorant to what the 2nd amendment stands for. You should go read the latest ruling by the Supreme Court on the 2nd amendment..

        • “Because we don’t know when that law abiding American suddenly becomes one who shoots up a school of kids.”
          And. Because I have a firearm that has a magazine holding more than some arbitrary number of rounds, I am suddenly a threat? Perhaps you do not know how quickly a magazine swap can happen? If someone is intent on killing, they will do it. Regardless of the law in place.
          What difference does the weapon used to kill make? Surely you are aware the worst mass murders in the US did not use a gun at all?
          Telling me, a law abiding and responsible citizen that I am not allowed to legally possess an item I purchased legally, because someone I have never met might commit crime somewhere is a pretty clear violation of my rights under the 6th, 8th, and likely the 4th and 5th amendments.
          Limit the carnage? Sounds good. But how exactly will that happen? As noted above, a mag swap negates any imposed limit. Practice a little bit, and it can be done almost instantly. Do you really think someone will shoot up a school and only bring on magazine? Or maybe you think someone will be able to disable the shooter while they are spending about a half second to swap to a full mag?
          How exactly will a magazine limit do anything except cost the millions of law abiding gun owners money? Magical thinking does not work.

          • Bring all the magazines you want, just none outlawed, and this is about saving lives-more important that whether/not this costs law abiding gun owners some money.

        • “…this is about saving lives…”
          Please provide a single instance where a magazine limit saved a single life?
          Or, provide some evidence that the assault weapon ban of 1994 made any difference whatsoever in overall crime rate.
          Or anything whatsoever that demonstrates an improvement in safety.
          Sorry, magical thinking does not count. Give me some evidence that magazine limits will make any difference whatsoever. Anything.
          Otherwise, it is a meaningless and futile gesture. Makes the politicians and simple minded think they are making a difference when there is no measurable effect. Sorry, I am not going to give up my standard size magazines so that you can feel all warm and cozy thinking you did something.

          • Magazine limits will save lives as time is eaten up in replacing them giving time for whatever law enforcement is on its way. This is not rocket science and is the main reason these shooters use these large capacity magazines. And few consider these “standard size magazines.”

          • Actually the weapon ban of 1994 did effect the overall crime rates, it increased them. I do wish you luck in trying to convince this guy. I think its worth a try, but i have little hope that these people will see things from any other view point that contains actual logic.

        • “Magazine limits will save lives as time is eaten up in replacing them giving time for whatever law enforcement is on its way. This is not rocket science and is the main reason these shooters use these large capacity magazines. And few consider these “standard size magazines.””
          OK, let’s break this down from the bottom up.
          “And few consider these “standard size magazines.””
          Well, except for pretty much every gun owner, the manufacturers, the dealers, the people who make accessories and pouches. Well, pretty much everyone except for gun control advocates.
          “…time is eaten up in replacing them giving time for whatever law enforcement is on its way”
          Average response time for law enforcement is… debatable. Some sources say as low as three minutes, others say average is 15 minutes. It all depends on what active shooter situations are chosen for the analysis. The FBI one deliberately ignore numerous incidents where the response time was well over 20 minutes, so that is not a supportable analysis.
          How many rounds can I shoot in 10 minutes? Even with a 10 round mag? Carrying a dozen 10 round magazines is a piece of cake, they are really light, especially if they are not fully loaded. I could shoot a hundred rounds in five minutes, including mag swaps.
          Are you really that clueless to think the shooter is going to be delayed by magazine swaps? And the police will show up before the shooter can cause real damage? Sounds like magical thinking to me.
          Just did an experiment. Performed a mag swap with my eyes closed. Took less than a second. Made the test more difficult, and put the mag into my jacket pocket (not any kind of mag carrier), and it still took less than two seconds. I asked my neighbor with advanced arthritis, who does not shoot, to do a mag swap, and it took them less the 15 seconds. A total newbie to using an AR patterned rifle still swapped out a mag in a handful of seconds.
          How will that “eat up time” in any meaningful way?
          And when the police do show up within minutes, but refuse to enter the building, what difference does that “eat up time” make? Uvdale could have been over in a minute or two after the police arrived, same with Parkland, but the cops cowered in fear outside. So, magazine limits did… what exactly? HINT: it starts with a n, and ends with othing.
          Magazine limits have been in effect in CA for decades, and… plenty of shootings there. NY State has them, but look at the Buffalo supermarket shooting. And, Chicago has limits as well. Gee… lots of shootings there.
          Nothing but wishful thinking. Magazine limits do nothing, and if you were even remotely honest with yourself you would realize that wishing and hoping will do nothing.

        • “You got nothing CB. Just a bunch of gibberish.”
          I have a LOT more than you do.
          Magazine limits do nothing. It will not save a single life. You have nothing other than magical thinking backing your belief up.
          I have real world experience with firearms, and have tested my statements.
          Dismissing it because it disagrees with your wishful thinking is the action of a child, not of a rational adult. It gets in the way of actual solutions.

          • Your insisting you have the answers without any back-up does not make them so CB. And saying you’ve tested your statements, relative to real world experience with firearms, also means nothing IMO.
            We are talking limiting the lethal power of automatic firearms, to save lives, and you talk gibberish. That’s the action of a child (also IMO).

        • “And by-the-way CB, this is another of your extreme right-wing comments. Heheh!”
          Please explain.
          What is right wing about assuming people are innocent until proven otherwise?
          What is right wing about an analysis of a proposal before implementation?
          What is right wing about basing public policy on demonstrable results instead of wishful thinking?
          What is right wing about anything that I have written? Or is it just extremist because it disagrees with your beliefs?

          • Because the majority of Americans favor some form of gun control and you have taken a position against a mild form that doesn’t outlaw guns, but large capacity magazines. Has nothing to do with assuming people are innocent until proven guilty.
            You don’t agree but you’ve not given a valid reason for it IMO.

        • “You’re insisting you have the answers without any back-up does not make them so CB. And saying you’ve tested your statements, relative to real world experience with firearms, also means nothing IMO.
          We are talking limiting the lethal power of automatic firearms, to save lives, and you talk gibberish. That’s the action of a child (also IMO).”
          I never said I had the answer to anything.
          I said your answer is wrong.
          Your proposal of limiting magazine capacity will do nothing. If you could not be bothered to read, and attempt to understand what I was saying, instead of simply dismissing it, you might find out your solution is not as fantastic as you think.
          “Because the majority of Americans favor some form of gun control…”
          Yeah… I saw that poll. To say the questions and the surveyed were slanted is an understatment.
          “…and you have taken a position against a mild form that doesn’t outlaw guns, but large capacity magazines.”
          Because the proposal will do nothing to improve safety. Not a damned thing. It is a meaningless feel good measure.
          “Has nothing to do with assuming people are innocent until proven guilty.”
          So, why this statement? “Because we don’t know when that law abiding American suddenly becomes one who shoots up a school of kids”
          We also do not know when someone will decide to drive drunk. Your justification clearly indicates that you think every gun owner is a criminal. Last time I checked, we have due process in this country. And, the 6th amendment requires the Government to allow me to hear the charges against me, as well as the right to confront my accuser. Yet, your proposal/justification says that is all moot, because “…we don’t know when…” Sorry if I feel like you are accusing me of a crime I did not commit here, but that is the way I feel.
          Another thing to note. I am opposed to limiting magazine size because:
          1. There hare hundreds of millions of standard size magazine in private ownership that have capacity that exceeds 10 rounds.
          2. No one has an inventory of them.
          3. Unless you go around and search every gun owner’s house, you will not have any idea how many there are out there.
          4. If you grandfather in existing magazines, your gun control measure is meaningless.
          5. If you demand that everyone who owns a magazine with a capacity that exceeds 10 either destroy the magazine, or alter it, you have imposed a financial burden on them. Under the 5th Amendment, the government must now make us whole. What is the cost to the taxpayer for a meaningless and useless gesture?

          Give me an idea that might actually make a difference, and I might be on your side.

          • They would be outlawed and not grandfathered in-further, nobody cares about the minor financial burden imposed on those who now own large capacity magazines. Collectively, it amounts to a large sum but individually just peanuts. No different than the treatment of bump stocks.
            You say it’s meaningless and useless but you’ve not given a single reason why. And because you might be able to change out magazines in a flash, under ideal circumstances, doesn’t mean the average mass shooter can do anything of the sort under extremely stressful conditions.
            Nobody cares what side you are on-this is just an opinion of mine that doesn’t infringe on gun ownership and will save lives. If it doesn’t solve the problem, there will likely be a ban on all semi-automatic guns that I’m opposed to because that would be a financial burden.

        • “You say it’s meaningless and useless but you’ve not given a single reason why. And because you might be able to change out magazines in a flash, under ideal circumstances, doesn’t mean the average mass shooter can do anything of the sort under extremely stressful conditions.”
          I have given plenty of reasons why it is meaningless, futile, and useless.
          You, on the other hand, are so blinded by your “magical thinking” that you dismiss them without any consideration whatsoever.
          Reality disagrees 100% with your stance.
          You have this delusion that somehow a mag swap will “eat up time” and allow the police to respond. Did not make a difference in Parkland, Uvdale, Sandy Hook. The police either arrive way to late, or did nothing but cower outside. Heck, if I was the shooter in Uvdale, I would have time to reload the magazines, not just swap them out.
          Do you perhaps know of a mass shooting where the police stopped it within minutes? I don’t. The shooter usually has all the time they need. The only exceptions I know of are where an armed citizen stopped the shooter, not the police.
          Your “solution” is stupid and will do nothing for public safety. Your reasoning for it “the law abiding citizen can snap at any time” is equally stupid, especially since you inherently trust the very same people to fly planes, dispense drugs, and drive tankers full of gasoline around town. This may be news to you, but these people own guns as well.
          The only thing your magazine limit is limiting is your ability to consider other options.

        • “…but a waste of my time.”
          Yet, here you are responding to every reply I post.
          Obviously I am not a waste of your time. If I was, you would ignore my replies.
          Your classification of my posts as gibberish indicates more about your reading comprehension and open-mindedness, than it does about my actual written comments.
          Now, go sit in the corner and color. Adults are talking.

      • “I agree with Bill Yankee 100%……..”
        And, obviously, numerous people disagree with him 100%. So?

    • Bill ,

      If Americans hadn’t had nearly equal firearms your last name wouldn’t have been Yankee and we wouldn’t be Americans.

      If the black slaves had access to high capacity automatic weapon magazines they wouldn’t have long been slaves.
      How about the Ukrainian peasants before Russia subjugated them ?
      How about the Chinese peasants before japan subjugated them ?
      I trust you with an automatic weapon regardless of magazine size because i know you will use proper gun safety techniques and not pull the trigger until appropriate.
      The whole magazine question is a red herring.
      If children were correctly cared for and their social needs met we wouldn’t have a tyrannical government saying it must keep the guns out of citizens hands despite their rights.
      Yankee support the sides with solutions not the side who would infringe on human rights.

        • Billy Boy, geez speaking of gibberish I just read your grim litany above. Whoa Pard, take a breath I’m worried about you!
          Now that you’ve settled down some, what if we had a scale for Magazine capacity. Naturally this would also include wheel guns too. So what if I was packing a Glock 43X with a 10 round capacity and at the same time had a Ruger 480 strapped to my chest with a 5 round capacity, could I then also carry my Glock 20 in my belly holster with it’s 15 round Mag fully charged. I mean wouldn’t that equal having 10 rounds per heater Billy? Do the Math and get back to me.
          I’m for Liberty and not stupid servitude to any political party’s Commie, soul crushing, enslaving, gun grabbing, freedom eclipsing agenda.

          Heh Heh

          • Your Glock 20 would need altering to qualify Bobby Boy. And this policy is not gun grabbing either. Those large capacity magazines would be outlawed, just as bump stocks have been outlawed.
            This has nothing to do with Liberty, just common sense. Heheh!

        • “Huge collection of gibberish!…….”
          Looked pretty easy to read, good spelling, and good grammar. Perhaps you just don’t like the message?

  2. In many countries only muzzle-loaders are allowed, which technically fulfills the peoples need for hunting. That is the direction the far left, and Peltola are heading. In Alaska ex-felons are allowed muzzle-loaders, under both state and federal law.
    With Alaska’s bears, that gives one less than even odds of surviving an encounter.
    With violent and always well armed criminals, the odds are closer to zero.

      • Brunei
        Marshall Islands
        Myanmar (except for Chin people)
        North Korea
        Solomon Islands
        Vatican City / Holy See

        • Brunei:Firearms are prohibited for citizens.
          Cambodia:Firearms are completely prohibited for civilian use without exceptions since 1999.
          Marshall Islands
          Myanmar (except for Chin people):Possession of firearms for civilians is generally prohibited except Chin hunters
          North Korea: According to 2009 law civilian possession of firearms is prohibited in North Korea.

          Solomon Islands
          Vatican City / Holy See:No weapons are allowed into the Vatican under any circumstances.

          There is a Federal definition that a muzzleloader is something other than a firearm, and because it is a Federal definition it is American only and does not apply to any other country.

          You are wrong joseph.

          • You are correct, US laws and definitions apply only in the US. However, many other countries have similar laws, worded differently, sometimes even obscure, and confusing, much like our tax laws.
            Your 3 minute excursion into google may be the most work you’ve put out in years.

      • Many countries exclude from their gun control law items such as antique weapons, like muzzle loaders. Muzzle loaders are generally classified as not firearms, per se.
        Many on the list above even ban muzzle loaders, some all together and some only new manufacture replicas.
        Machetes are banned in some African countries.
        Switchblade knives are legal in Alaska, also legal in some other states, but illegal in others.
        Pay me $60 bucks an hour (minimum rate for any serious research) and I will break it down for you; by country, region, county, and city.

    • Black powder rifles, which constitutes pretty much 100% of the muzzle loader market are not subject to ATF rules. No background check is required.

    • “……That is the direction the far left, and Peltola are heading……..”
      The only direction Bush Alaska is (and always has been) going is hunting for us and not for you, and you can bet that they will not allow themselves to be limited to muzzleloaders.

  3. Obviously, Peltola is not well educated. She represents Bethel Natives first, then other Natives, then environmental nutcases, then leftover Democrats, then her liberal White friends…….but not most White men. Get rid of this brainwashed woman in November, or she will ruin this state. Begich 1. Palin 2. Peltola 0.

    • Agree with Naomi. How did we get this wacked-out woman in our lone congressional seat? Are Alaskans really THAT stupid?

      • One doesn’t have to be a bigot just for pointing out someone’s character flaws.
        I’m Alaskan Native, and I find numerous questions over Peltola’s political positions; some of which raise questions about her loyalties to her own Native people, Alaska, and America.
        If she is completely sold out to the radical, commie leftists, then she’s a traitor to all.
        I question your true loyalties also. Have you taken your 30 pieces of silver?

      • Name callers go to the rear of the line, Lucy.
        No brain creds on your end. Just a ridiculous mouthpiece. You qualify for a BLM rally.

        • Lucinda, the brainwashed rookie here at MRAK, has a 7th grade approach to argumentation. Just use ad hominem attacks. Lucinda’s comments are next to worthless. Must be a dumbed down Democrat.

  4. I’m rather happy that she supports me bringing my weapon to the grocery store. There are sometimes some pretty unsavory characters hanging out there.

    • I thought you are an indigenous persons? Why are you carrying a colonial person’s invention? Isn’t cultural appropriation insulting to natives?

      • My relatives hail from Southern Mississippi, before they were forced on the trail of tears to present-day Oklahoma. My tribe the Choctaw, were considered during the day to be one of the four civilized tribes. We even gave money during the Irish potato famine. No I don’t have a problem with carrying guns. I find it more efficient than carrying a bow and arrow.

  5. Peltola, or whatever her current name is, is a left wing nut job. The NRA give her a D rating. I give her a F-.

    Alaskans overwhelmingly voted to improve our inherent right to keep and bear arms in 1994.

    Article 1, Section 19:

    “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]”

    We simply can not have a nut job in Congress voting to ban firearms when the Alaska Constitution recognizes that firearm ownership is an individual liberty- as does the US Constitution.

    Vote Palin. Sarah supports our fundamental liberties.

    • If I read American political history right, there was never any professional, standing military contemplated by the founding fathers. Militia being only an armed citizenry, which could be called to arms when needed.
      During the revolutionary war, a British general, seeing some well trained militia, exclaimed “Those are regulars, by God”. He wasn’t saying they were professional soldiers, but militia as well trained and armed as regulars.
      America would be just as well off, maybe even better, if there was only a militia, and training camps that stored the heavy weapons. Our state national guard fulfills the militia role, and our all volunteer standing military is an arrangement which evolved because of federalists.

  6. Cracks me up these people that (rely) on hunting for food…. yet they somehow get their rifles, snowmobiles, clothes, I phones, boats, and fuel with ease. Couldn’t they just replace the new skiff order with a grocery order?

      • Yes but calling me ignorant doesn’t answer my question. How is it that they can get boats, gas, guns, ammo, WiFi, clothes,phones, planes, televisions, snowmobiles, and everything else shipped out to them? But they can’t get food shipped? I will wait for a reasonable answer not just name calling. Fuckner.

        • I called you ignorant because by definition you were void of the answer or information. But I’ll answer your question. You can’t buy moose in the grocery store or Caribou either. Natives prefer to eat as much of wild game as is obtainable. We pick wild blueberries, wild greens, mushrooms and when I was on St Lawrence Island, there was a little tuber that washed up on shore that we ate kind of like a radish. They can and do get food shipped out and that is mostly a contributing factor to the increase plague of diabetes among natives. Fortunately most natives still eat traditional food including seal, whales and Bear. You have to boil beer pretty good though so you don’t get the intestinal parasites. I hope that answers your question and if you have anymore feel free to ask away. I’m a wealth of knowledge

    • Your ignorance of the Bush is amazing, and your comment off topic. I support your free speech rights, but reserve my own to call you an ignorant bigot. What some people do with the small amount of money they do have may seem foolish in your eyes, but it is simply none of your business. BTW, it’s not so easy to get “stuff” out in the Bush… I applaud the Bush for being able to survive out here.

      • Buying snowmobiles and boats isn’t a small amount of money. Where do these people work to afford these items that would be considered luxury anywhere else? I buy food first. Then luxury items. The fact that natives suck down two billion dollars a year of federal welfare might have something to do with it you think? All play and no work? That’s fine if they want to live in the bush and hunt for their food. But doing it on ten thousand dollar snowmobiles and new boats and rifles kind of defeats the whole purpose of it.

        • Thank you for giving natives the permission to live on their ancestral land. That’s mighty white of you. Typically natives provide for their entire family including the elders. Many of these families are considerably large so that means multiple PFD checks. Many natives work in schools as teachers AIDS and cooks and janitors and some even have degrees and our teachers. Others work in the post office or as a vpso we’re working the village government office. Some work in the clinics. Some are hunting guides and fishing guides. Some own their own boats and fish for salmon in the summer. I used to know some teenage kids that made over $100,000 a year in 2 months. Like I said you’re ignorance is overpowering anything you’re trying to shade here but continue on it’s absolutely hysterical to me and others. Keep up the good work

    • The things that you mentioned are merely tools used by bushfolk to gather firewood, hunt, trap, transport themselves and pretty much go about their daily business. It appears that you view them as luxuries when in fact they are necessities.

  7. They were thinking about travel and “adventure”. They were concerned about criminals on the Kings’s highway in Jamestown and personal safety.

    • I guess I wouldn’t know that since it says seeking adventure in the Annals of America and the Charter of Jamestown in 1606 when Our RIGHT to bear arms was signed by the Monarch. But you go on with your altered reliance of the the Article the Second of the US Constitution which you accept as the alteration “the second amendment”. There is a legal difference between the ARTICLE II and “Second Amendment” even if you can’t articulate it and understand it or not with your West High 1960’s civics approve or not. Our rights say “seeking adventure”. Hunting is “seeking adventure” and that is what the unrevoked charter of 1606 says!

  8. I don’t think she was saying that 2A is only for subsistence hunting. She was just mentioning that as an example, of the way she uses her own firearms.

  9. If she is a regular alaskan, then i’m part of the Elite alaskan crowd. Meh! C’mon if she was regular person, she wouldn’t been a legislator definitely not congresswoman. Kendall never would allow her election.

  10. He helps those who help themselves. 25,000 Conservative voters for Nick Begich made this happen They where expressing their Free Will —to hate Sarah. They will probably blame her for making them hate her. I think their hatred is so strong that they will ALL DO IT AGAIN. You can hear it in their comments.

    • I have personally listened to Nick urge his supporters to “rank the red”, by voting Sarah 2nd after him, which I had already done BTW, before hearing him so that.

      Sarah on the other hand, posted on social media, a picture of her ballot wherein she only voted for herself, and refused to rank the red by voting Nick 2nd.
      So you need to get off your high horse, it’s a long fall off that horse named Queen Sarah…..

    • Sarge, I do not hate Sarah, in fact I voted Sarah as my second. I just believe that Nick is simply a much more qualified Candidate.

      That said, the answer to ousting Mary and her gun grabbing, Welfare Plantation loving, Commie / Democrat tenure in Congress is within our grasp. Answer is ,RANK THE RED!

      Sarge, you get the Palinbots to vote Nick as their second and I’ll work on getting the Nickheads to vote Sarah and at least we won’t have an anti Constitutional Representative seated come January.
      We can do this Sarge!

      • Howdy Compadre. I Ranked the Red, you Ranked the Red. The problem was the 25,000 BLUE BEGICH VOTERS, who voted for Mary. They hate me, they won’t listen to me, I doubt if they will listen to you. They are One With The Sarah Hater Matrix.. They are glad that Mary beat Sarah. I haven’t heard anything from Nick trying to reign these voters in. Maybe they are his Reserved Infantry, to beat Sarah at all cost. Come-on Old Buddy, ditch the Red/Dem matrix and put on a Drill Baby Drill Hat and vote Sarah #1. You have lost 3 elections with this guy, Sarah’s adds are Positive, Nick is going negative, you know what that means. I’ll let you digest this—too much truth all at once can be OVERWHELMING. Buenos Tardes Amigo.

        • Sarge, problem is that more Sarah folks bullet voted then Nick folks voted Mary. Tell ya what Pard, get Sarah in a lucid moment to come out and say ,” RANK THE RED”
          I’m sure that would help! I’m pulling for ya. Let’s do this!
          2-A All the Way! Rank the RED! Do it TODAY!

  11. I struggle to digest the idea that our founding fathers were unconcerned with securing our right to own weapons for hunting. Certainly, I have little patience for any Alaskan politician who is ready to de-emphasize the protections for hunting that the 2nd ammendment provides.

  12. Wow, so Mary Peltola actually makes sense ! The NRA is nothing more than a Russian-backed organization anyhow, so good on Mary.

    • “……The NRA is nothing more than a Russian-backed organization anyhow……..”
      There’s an example of the mind frame required to believe that colonial delegates put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure their ability to hunt……..which, ironically, is in danger for the majority of Alaskans under the “subsistence” ideology Peltola is hoping to strengthen. Her silly view of gun rights in order to hunt is limited to her base, not all Alaskans, or not all Americans.

  13. Peltola is not much of a patriot in my opinion since she likes to be underinformed like the rest. Here comes Congressman Palin, regardless.

    • Please explain a bit more.
      The Miller decision was won by the Government solely because Miller did not bother to show up to provide arguments.
      The Heller decision was correct as well, because it stated clearly that law abiding and responsible people should not have any rights restricted because of the actions of others. Solely because someone “might” commit a crime is not justification for restricting their right to own and use anything in a law abiding and responsible manner.
      Finally, surely you realize there is a fundamental human right to self defense against threats, both personal and political. I have this right, so do you, so does everyone. The 2nd Amendment restricts the government from unduly infringing on that right.
      So, please explain how the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller is wrong.

      • “……..The Miller decision was won by the Government solely because Miller did not bother to show up to provide arguments……..”
        And even the Miller decision recognized that all men ages 18-60, when called, were expected to show up with a weapon of military usage. It actually went well beyond the right to keep and bear military capable arms…… requires it.
        Moreover, it did not ban short barreled shotguns, machine guns, ordnance, etc. It recognized the government responsibility to regulate such weapons, just as the are in other militia systems, like Switzerland. If one wants a select fire rifle, one only need to jump through the regulatory hoops. Ditto military jet fighters.

        • Correct, some terminology is not quite legally accurate, but overall correct. The decision included the NFA being enforced as a tax as the deciding factor. If I understand it correctly. When Obamacare was upheld it was basically for the same reason. Congress did not have the authority to “regulate” these weapons in the way they did, but the did have the authority to tax them. Again, if I understand correctly. Not a legal scholar, just an interested individual.
          Curious why the “dog” could not have responded.

  14. Hunting adventure Un: on the way to the glacier to hunt moose on a well used bear trail you find the hide of a man-eating bear (story written up in the ADN). What do you do? Is it adventuresome? Unlike you a bear WIll defend its territory. Pitch a tent?

  15. In order to qualify to be an elector in Jamestown you had to gain, somehow, 50 acres and survive on it one year. That is what the founders did to become an “elector”. Would anyone in Anchorage “qualify”?

  16. Tell the scar the spans my skull that gun rights are about “food” ???

    Don’t believe me?
    Board certified.
    Argue them.

  17. The private sector provided the weapons when required in the failed taxing w/o representation fraud scheme resulted in this nation. THE Europeans aka “globalists” have wanted US men gunless ever since.

  18. Peltola, and her denial of our constitutional principals, is precisely what Alaskan conservatives are asking for….. by failing to rank the red. Thanks for nothing Sarah. At least Nick said he would give you his 2nd-rand vote.

  19. I am confused by Ms. Peltola’s logic regarding the second amendment. I cannot determine what message she is trying to convey, in the interest of debate and in the attempt to flesh out her argument I offer the following thoughts.

    Is the Representative saying that the second amendment exists only for the traditional and culturally important activity of hunting and gathering of food? If that is a correct then wouldn’t it follow that to be true to ones culture one really should eschew the evil and destructive implements introduced by the colonizers and produced at the colonizers industrial base by Mossberg, Remington, Ruger, Savage or (gasp) Armalite?

    Is the Representative saying that the right to bear arms is exclusive to protecting the SNAP program alone? (think food security) Would that also include protecting and defending By-Pass Mail? I have lots of questions here, and I hope she elaborates further. I mean please define “Food Security”.

    I suppose I could agree with Representative Peltola’s interpretation of the Second Amendment if she meant that the right of a free man to defend his larder or means of sustenance, and his FREEDOM from all threats by use of whatever arms and capacity of those arms , Shall Not Be Infringed.

      • Once again, an opportunity to water this desert with your wisdom is squandered.
        Robert’s comment was not very difficult to understand. There are a few places where you could ask questions, but for the most part it is trying to understand Peltola’s reason for making the food security statement. I do not see too much complaints in his post.

        • Robert’s comment is unsubstantial and a diversion. So is your comment. If you were an Alaskan, you’d know that firearms are important to obtain food security. That is what Representative Peltola was saying. You and Robert look for typos and misspellings believing such a revelation invalidates a statement. Yes, you hate anything close to democrat or liberal; you’ve proven that. But employ a bit of critical thinking next time you comment.

          • “If you were an Alaskan, you’d know that firearms are important to obtain food security. That is what Representative Peltola was saying.”
            See. Was that so difficult?
            If you had just made that statement, I would have agreed with you. But, instead you have to post some useless claptrap? Here’s a pro tip. People cannot read minds. They have no idea what you are thinking until you say what you are thinking. Try it, your contributions here on MRAK will improve.

          • Lucy Girl, fire arms are “necessary to the security of a free state” in the interest of Critical Thinking you may want to actually read the Second Amendment sometimes.
            Oh and a .556 isn’t a good weapon for the ethical harvest of Caribou and Moose, it it intended to defend one’s self from those who would “infringe” upon one’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  20. She is a uninformed democrat, misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. Their are no good democrats…

  21. So MS Peltola………once all your constituents are on food stamps they no longer need a firearm…….Right ??

    • You mean, ‘unbutton’ his pants. That’s why he poops in them 3 times a day. Secret Service had to reorganize a “poop patrol” unit just for old Joe.

    • “The right to sheep, bear, and reindeer farms shall not be infringed!”
      But they are. Even domesticated reindeer cannot be owned by non-Natives in Alaska, unless (like the late Mr. Williams of the reindeer farm) you spent a half million dollars fighting them in court.
      A bear farm? It would be easier to iwn a collection of crew served machine guns.
      Sheep ranching? Not in Alaska anywhere near Dall sheep range, which pretty much includes the entire state.

  22. The only thing she really cares about is fish. That’s pretty much all I heard her talk about. I mean look at her slogan, fish is first, before freedom and family. She’s going to pander to her fellow natives and the libtards in Anchorage to try to get elected. Republicans screwed themselves with having 2 candidates instead of one, I hate to admit it but the dumbocrats have their shit together way better. Everything democrats touch turns to shit, yet people still vote for them.

  23. Philty, who knows who voters vote for. The machines that count the vote are able to be rigged before and during the voting process. Example… Texas is not purple, it’s red. Polls and voting need to be watched very closely. In Alaska it’s not clear if rcv was dully passed. I hope the day comes, when the fraud is exposed.

  24. You know since the dawn of time, people have hunted and fished. They also created firearms.
    Good luck getting that out of their hands.

    • It used to be a career limiting move.
      Now we have open primaries and rank choice voting. Oh, and the dark money from outside keeps pouring in, likely at a higher rate.
      So, go ahead and run on a platform of banning civilian ownership of guns. If the swamp wants you in office it will happen.

  25. Who cares what it means to you?! What the 2A means is we get to own a gun. Lawmakers want to define the particular details of that gun. Her comment leads one to believe a 3-4 round bolt action is ok. Unless youre aerial hunting wolves…then there is that so…..Shes a Dem, she will vote to limit guns of sport and those used for CC. No thanks when i need to pull my 17 round SW i dont need you telling me no. When i want my 10/22 with 30 rounds to plink i dont need you telling me no. None of the limitations suggested by those of you here will fix anything. If you cant see that, your not thinking it out. You are regurgitating foolishness.

  26. Peltola is a democrat, ergo, anti-2A. It really is that simple.

    Alleging her “feelings” that the 2nd is about so-called food security is simply a dodge to appear as if she is in favor of the 2nd A. She is not.

    Hunting, target shooting, etc. is not why the 2nd A was written.

    • “Peltola is a democrat, ergo, anti-2A. It really is that simple.” This level of diminished critical thinking is one of the roots of the American division between left and right. Maybe with an urban democrat your simplistic conclusion would have a grain of truth, but not with Representative Mary Peltola who is 100% from the Bush.

  27. If Peltola gets her way, only those Alaskans who meet the definition of a “federally qualified subsistence hunter” will be allowed to purchase, possess, or use a firearm or ammunition. Peltola supports giving more power and control to the government. Thankfully, the colonist founders of this country created numerous checks and balances to help ensure a government representative of the people. These included a constitutional right for all to keep and bear arms, not for hunting, but to provide a means of defense for “we the people.” They understood how politicians and bureaucrats will abuse power and provided a final line of defense for the people against tyrannical oppression by their own government. You’re going to want more than a 10-round clip if that scenario ever plays out. If you think it could never happen, think about all of the Americans who think it’s “cool” and trendy to support the idea of socialism. Take a look at how the FBI and DOJ are being weaponized against people.
    School shootings are a symptom of mental and moral degradation in America – a red herring to distract from the goal of disarming Americans to allow for government domination over what leftists assert is an incapable proletariat. Why can’t we protect and secure schools as well as every federal government building? If we did, mass school shootings would be history and the left would lose it’s most powerful tool in the debate for increased gun control. “Oh that would be too expensive,” they shriek. Really? It’s not too expensive to secure all federal employees, but it’s too expensive to protect our kids?
    People like Peltola will not produce solutions. Her recent ads attempt to deceive people into thinking she is pro-2A and pro-oil/gas development. Most politicians are good liars; Peltola is one of the best.

  28. What it all comes down to is the second amendment is a right. That means I have the right to whatever aspect of/for my protection. If I want a muzzle loader or a high-capacity clip firearm(s). The reason for ANY limit on a person’s choice that they see fit for their protection, if controlled or limited by others, they use their excuses to take away your right if you are found in violation of their opinions.
    So, if you violate THEIR opinions and are found to violate their mandates/opinions, they take away your rights to own/possess a high-capacity magazine and by doing so will take away your right to own any gun. (See how they do it?)
    Stop being possessed with controlling or limiting others’ rights, because it proves you are the possessed. one. Who needs to be controlled now?)

    • The problem is those looking to limit a person’s 2nd amendment rights focus on guns.
      There is a fundamental human right of self protection against threats, both personal and political. the 2nd Amendment restricts the government’s ability to unduly restrict that right. it is not about guns or arms, it is about stopping an overbearing and potentially tyrannical government from disarming the population.
      No law abiding citizen should have their ability to own something restricted because someone else might commit a crime with a similar thing.

    • Lots of people have their rights taken away. When criminals refuse to follow the laws of society, their right to freedom can be taken away. Those laws have changed dramatically. He used to just be theft. Now it’s larceny, burglary first degree second degree etc. Laws are like tree roots and mostly there are changed and adjusted to affect the lawbreakers. Laws evolve with society. When something happens like a school shooting, or a sniper in a hotel in Vegas, people start thinking about what can we do to stop this. The quick answer is nothing. Criminals will always have guns. You’re not going to limit the amount of a magazine to stop it. It’s like you’re saying if people only have 10 rounds in their magazine that’s not going to make them crazy enough to kill a bunch of people. There are some laws that can be changed to slow this down sure. that’s what we’re working on. Nobody’s going to take away your hunting rifle. The 10/22 Ruger that you spoke of that makes a dandy squirrel rifle, while being a high magazine capacity rifle was changed and the law now reads any tubular magazine small caliber rifle is exempt. No state is trying to limit the amount of 22 rifles out there even though a 22 round shot Reagan and almost killed him. You have to use some common sense before you begin shouting with the sky is falling. I don’t believe there should be limits on anything. I think we should all carry firearms and I can assure you that living in Florida, most of us do. It’s kind of like the old wild West attitude, mostly you didn’t pick a gunfight with somebody that was carrying a gun rather you prayed on the helpless unarmed people so if everybody is armed he’s going to be a lot less crime since nobody’s calling anybody out of the saloon trying to be a gunslinger.

      • The only “process due” for “taking away rights” is a guilty verdict of a jury of ones’s peers from the same visonage per the US Constitution. Anything else is a usurpation and needs correction and remedy $$$.

  29. Peltola is a “Socialist Democrat” More government, more taxes, fewer personal freedoms. Coming from Bethel, she has no choice but to push the perception that she is pro 2nd amendment. The YK Delta is a subsistence community and firearms are a part of every household. You cannot efficiently harvest moose, caribou or migratory waterfowl without rifles and shotguns. This all has zero to do with the 2nd amendment. Much discussion here on assault weapons. An assault weapon is much more accurately defined by the person in possession of the implement of destruction. A semi automatic rifle at the range punching holes in paper or clanging steel is a recreational piece of equipment. A quart of gasoline, a Louisville slugger, a framing hammer or most any vehicle in the hands of a demented nut case can be a very effective assault weapon. The Alaska Native Community constitutes about 14% of the population of the state. Many will vote Peltola solely on that connection, some will not. It is a bit of a different world that Ms. Peltola comes from, relative to the rest of Alaska and the country. I know this from spending a number of years there. Bethel, and the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta is unique with it’s own history and culture. Someone will likely label me a racist for even pointing this out. Bring it on, you have no idea the number of longtime friends I have in all areas of Alaska be they Yupik, Inupiat or Athabaskan that will laugh in your face. I am no racist. Bethel however is not what defines Alaska. What goes on in Nunapitchuk is completely different from Sutton or Talkeetna. I believe Don Young used many times the phrase: “A congressman for all Alaska”

    • You confuse the rest of Alaska as you put it as if that’s a big chunk of the state outside of the YK Delta. As you know the small percentage of Alaska that you’re referring to resides within five miles of any paved road or along the Marine highway. In fact, much of Alaska is like the YK Delta for the Alaskan peninsula or the North slope or the Seward peninsula for the interior. You speak generally of where the majority of the population resides.

      • “……You speak generally of where the majority of the population resides.”
        ……..Which also happens to be where the majority of the people she’s supposed to be representing reside.

  30. The YK Delta is with the exception of a few little hills, Nelson Island and Kusilvak Mountain, a large expanse of treeless tundra. Some trapping and hunting available but unlike the heavily wooded areas of our state, there is very limited building material and nothing much but coastal driftwood for fire wood. There are of course similarities to other areas of the state as far as terrain features, but the Yupic culture remains unique.

  31. Jeez Mary? You don’t recognize guns for protectiion even against bears and such in Alaska? I’m pretty sure you do or have done that. I know many in bush Alaska carry (and keep around the home) guns for defense against bears. And more than a few have used guns for that purpose. As I write this at 1:44 AM in Dillingham, I see a warning that bears are prowling my neighborhood. Regarding defense against other humans – again – REALLY Mary? Where it can take days for a trooper to get to a village? Wasn’t it the summer of 2021 that some creep was scaring people along the Yukon and people were packing guns? It took the troopers a month to catch him and people were scared. 1990’s, I personally watched a video of a middle Kuskokwim woman’s testimony who shot a guy w a 410 shotgun to make him quite molesteing her. I sat locked down in Quinhagak for half a day while neighbor went on drunken rampage terrorizing his wife and kids and feeling very vulnerable with no gun. We ended up sheltering the kids too. So quit the sugar coating Mary you probably know of many more real instances of using guns for self defense in Bush Alaska.

Comments are closed.