The marketing you're pointing out here is really chilling. And it's a lot more truthful than what gun proponents often will tell you.

The truth is, and I know this living in a rural part of the United States where hunting is a way of life, that hunters and other outdoorsmen are not carrying military-style assault weapons into deer camp or feral pig tree stands.

I point this out sometimes, and I usually get a reply from some gun nut telling me there's no difference between a military stye assault weapon and a hunting rifle, other than aesthetics.

Well, sorry. The hunters I know, and I was one of them for a long time, use rifles that are heavier, more accurate at a distance, and not well suited to accommodating high capacity magazines.

They're well suited to taking a single shot at a deer, at a feral pig, at a black bear, or at some other animal that's going to disappear the moment that first shot rings out.

You don't need multiple shots, because you only get one anyway.

Arguments that military style assault rifles are actually sporting rifles are disingenuous at best and actively dishonest at worst.

My point is proven every day during hunting season in the United States when armies of hunters go out into the field... Without assault weapons designed to kill people.

I should know. They're my neighbors.