American Hunters and Shooters Association
The American Hunters and Shooters Association does not represent the law-abiding gun-owner's rights.
Oh, they say that they do.
But they do not.*
Their web site is a fan dance of implications that it's a pro-gun rights group. But even its own site lays out their group's policy statement on its stance toward allowing FBI access to NICS records (which NICS was never supposed to be used for. That was how it got passed-- on the promise that it would never be used in this way.).
The implication is that all decent gun-owners are hunters, and that those interested in conservation should be interested in joining their association. In fact, they use that last issue (conservation) as a wedge for shooters. They accuse the NRA of failing to support conservation efforts, and that's why the NRA is a bunch of baddies.
Friends, this is a red herring. The NRA is not about conservation, any more than the AMA is about airline deregulation.
If you were thinking about joining the AHSA in a support of 2nd Amendment issues, think again. In this statement from their president Ray Schoenke, they take shots at the NRA, and make clear that they plan to equivocate their support for the 2nd Amendment:
And, for 77 million gun-owning Americans who are not Members of NRA, we invite you to join an organization that is steadfast in protecting our Second Amendment rights, conserving our environment, and will support common sense efforts to keep guns away from criminals.This is code for "abating your rights."
And what about Ray Schoenke and his fellow leadership of the AHSA? They are, to a man, people who work for abridging and banning rights to own firearms. Ray Schoenke himself has donated over $10,000 to the Brady campaign. Jon Rosenthal campaigned for and saw passed some of the strictest handgun registration laws in this country, in
When Barrack Obama tells you that he supports 2nd Amendment rights, and claims as proof that he is supported by the AHSA, understand that he is in fact thus proving his support for the abridgement of your rights to keep and bear arms. Barack Obama wants to take your 2nd Amendment right (which is not about hunting) away.
Advocates for a given right do not, first shake out of the box, qualify their support. Politics is about compromise. If your advocate is compromising from the start, what will the eventual compromise be? Will you be advanced in your fight for your rights, or regressed?
Do not compromise. Certainly do not do so by throwing in with conniving, mealy-mouthed, weasel-talking, inverse-speaking people such as these. Keep your rights, and don't sign on with those who would take them.
You. Hold. You HOLD!
___________________________________________________________________
*The popular term for this type of person is "liar."
Labels: Bah, civil liberties, guns, Politics, The Fall Of Western Civilization
posted by Matt G @ 8:07 AM
6 Comments:
>>
Barrack (sic) Obama wants to take your 2nd Amendment right (which is not about hunting) away.
<<
I've seen posts similar in tone on a couple of other blogs, and I'm curious:
Even without the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment (which will give Democrats a bit of trouble where abridging gun ownership is concerned), are you really going to base your voting choice on a single issue?
I don't care for some of the things that Obama espouses, but he's so much more palatable than McCain (and his *unbelievably* cynical choice of VP) that I'm not having much trouble making a decision.
Are you saying that you're willing to vote for another four years of Bush-type policies (which in my mind threaten civil liberties *far* more than gun control does) solely on the basis of Obama's stance on guns?
I'll admit to some embarrassment at adding the second "R" to Obama's first name, Anonymous. I'll rectify that right away.
I am not a single-issue voter. Never have been. The problem is, issues which I support are spread across both of the major parties' platforms. This is the crucial flaw in the bipartisan system that keeps me from EVER identifying with one party or the other. I will admit that there are issues which I feel more strongly about than others.
The thing about the Second Amendment is that it is the only right recognized by the U.S. Constitution which is regularly imposed on more and more, at an individual level. Once the State takes a freedom away, it is almost impossible to get it back within the same government.
"Are you saying that you're willing to vote for another four years of Bush-type policies..."
Frankly, I'm impressed that you would buy that McCain's administration would equal a carbon copy of Bush's. McCain has made something of a career of pissing off his own party. Hell, his own best buddy in the Senate is the former Democratic VP candidate, who decided later to go Independent. If you're buying that McCain is Bush's desciple, then you've bought far too much of Obama's rhetoric for me to sway you with my rough, fallibly-spelled words.
For the record, I'm highly critical of many, many things that the present administration has done. I tend to think that under a McCain administration, had an Abu Grab incident occured, or a Gitmo incident occured, heads would have rolled. I tend to think that McCain wouldn't have put up with discussion of waterboarding as a viable interrogation technique. I might also be critical of John McCain, but I'll say one thing-- he lacks not a spine, and he's been there.
>>
McCain has made something of a career of pissing off his own party.
<<
But not, apparently, when it really counts. I think his decision to choose the woefully-underqualified Palin as a running mate indicates that he's willing to buckle under to his party's wishes. He seems to have decided to win at any cost, whether or not it's the best thing for the country. I can't respect that decision.
My characterization of McCain as a Bush wannabe has much less to do with Obama's rhetoric than it does with McCain's recent record. He seems chillingly in step with Bush on too many key issues.
I have historically voted fairly conservatively, but at this point I think the very concrete dangers of continuing along our current path outweigh the abstract dangers of voting Democrat.
I think Wick Allison's endorsement of Obama summarizes the issue fairly well.
(Sorry for the previous anonymous post; dang browser.)
I remember when these guys first came around. I slammed them then as a wolf in sheep's clothing (back on the now defunct Packing.org). They are trying to drive a wedge between hunters and shooters, gun owners and enthusiasts. It's bad enough that gun owners can't stick together when hunters won't stand up to protect anything except their hunting guns, and the open carry movement seems to revile the very idea of concealed carry, and concealed carry permit holders don't seem to care about stopping legislation aimed at reducing hunting land. They won't watch each others' backs, so they are ripe for this kind of thing.
I'm not a single issue voter by any means, but I've always used the second amendment and taxes as a barometer of sorts for whether a candidate falls in line with my line of thinking. It has only proven incorrect once in my life for the candidates I've voted for. And that is why I dread this election, because either way, we're pretty much up a certain creek without said paddle. I don't trust either man to protect my guns or lower my taxes.
Excellent post Matt, this was also discussed last Friday on blog radio with Breda. They are some sly suckers...
sort of like saying he's pro-black because he's got the support of the KKK, an organization with an abiding interest in black rights. In fact the exact same interest that the AHSA shows in your 2nd amendment right.
Post a Comment
<< Home