objective views of AHSA

[d2huffman]

I saw a reference to AHSA in one of the dump Zumbo threads and went to their web site. What was there interested me and I would like to get some objective comments. Also saw a follow up thread that said they were just a front and said to go to freerepublic site. That site didn't look to objective to me. There was a reference to Democrats that the groups presidents had contributed to, but not much else. I would doubt that they are only contributing to one party if they really want to influence votes. Just like corporations, any progressive organization should be trying to influence votes from both parties. Thanks.

[wildbio]

I've never felt the NRA has represented me as a hunter/conservationist and I'm anxious to see what the AHSA can do to further the cause of firearm owners AND hunters.

some interesting articles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/06/AR2007010601300.html

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/is_the_nra_starting_to_get_it/C426/L426/

http://www.naweoa.org/article.php?sid=258&PHPSESSID=1c2bb1902e7a65c39fb53ca7b9b90804

[d2huffman]

Thanks for the links. Making sure that the people who started AHSA are truely hunters is good and I am glad to see that the NRA is broading it's view. I dropped my NRA membership several years ago because their focus became to narrow and uncompromising. Over the years the organizations that have worked for habitat and access have found that some of the groups that were our enemys are our alies and by finding commonality we have done more.

[garrymny]

So whats the hoopla over Jim Jumbo? I guess I missed that thread. Well, as for not thinking the NRA represents all of your interests, as someone said in this thread, maybe not, but if it weren't for the NRA the majority (not all) of Democrats and a few select repubs would already have our guns piled into a scrap heap. Specifically, my own unfortunate senator Schumer would have my model 1400 winchester (dreaded semiauto) if his law would have been passed. There are countless other examples, but we don't need to go there. So, although I may not agree with all they do, I will always support them as they are the only organization strong enough and organized enough to save the second amendment.

[big350]

So whats the hoopla over Jim Jumbo? I guess I missed that thread. Well, as for not thinking the NRA represents all of your interests, as someone said in this thread, maybe not, but if it weren't for the NRA the majority (not all) of Democrats and a few select repubs would already have our guns piled into a scrap heap. Specifically, my own unfortunate senator Schumer would have my model 1400 winchester (dreaded semiauto) if his law would have been passed. There are countless other examples, but we don't need to go there. So, although I may not agree with all they do, I will always support them as they are the only organization strong enough and organized enough to save the second amendment.

AMEN this is THE organization that protects, not just hunters, but shooters of all disciplnes. And don't forget, the second ammendment isn't about hunters or shooters, it's about our Rights and Freedoms, its' about who we are as a Nation.

[garrymny]

Before you support or join AHSA, I suggest you look behind the curtain and see who's pulling the strings. In my mailbox today was the March Issue of American Hunter, a publication of the NRA. NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox wrote an article in the insert Titled "NRA Hunters Alliance". The article shines some light on this organization that used illegal and false advertising to help elect Clair McCaskill to the Senate in the Missouri Race. This defeated the NRA indorsed Jim talent. To quote part of the article "the AHSA paints itself as pro-gun despite its lengthy roster of staff ties to and board support for extremist anti-gun groups." One of the mailers sent out by AHSA claimed that the "NRA is selling us out" by supporting politicians who are trying to take away our access to public lands. The irony is that the NRA was and is is working with the Great Rivers Habitat Alliance in Missouri to protect thousands of acres of wetlands from development. As the article states the NRA has a long and documented record on behalf of wildlife conservation. particularly in protecting hunters access to public lands. And it is THE leading organization protecting our second amendment rights. The magazine had a long list of NRA accomplishments concerning hunters and habitat. Far too many for me type here. Bottom line; as the article said "AHSA's efforts on behalf of wildlife and habitat conservation are simply non-existant. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. (Disclaimer; this last statement in no way supports or opposes the introduction of wolves into the Rocky Mountain states, I'm tired of fighting that battle!)

[MOhunter]

typical victory claiming. what defeted talent was the min wage and clone vote normaly democrat that came to the poles, and selceted the democrat senate seat choice. ohh and he had no talent.

AHSA ?

nra
nssf
du
delta
nwtf
trcp

problem is they all fight eachother for members some join up on projects but tend to grate eachother in views.

[jackG]

Any person or organization that has the NRA in its sights is dedicated to gutting the second amendment. The suggestion that the NRA is unacceptable because it is unyielding in its defense of the an individual right to possess and use firearms is bizarre. It indicates that the person or organization propounding that notion does not understand either the intent or function of that amendment.

[garrymny]

MO Hunter, why would the AHSA bash another organization that has supposedly the same goals as their own? Jack G is exactly right, with so many real adversaries of our gun ownership rights and hunting rights, the AHSA could have spoken out against our real enemies instead of spending many thousands of dollars trashing the one and only organization that has done more to save our rights than any other. Join the NRA, and read the magazines, and you will get an awakening. You CANNOT dispute the fact the current congressional leadership and the majority of the democratic party is **** bent on repealing the second amendment....they have convicted themselves with their OWN words, and with thier votes all of which are a matter of public record. WAKE UP..

[MOhunter]

gues you cant ask what the AHSA is anymore.

shame realy.

[jackG]

Ask all you want, but you already know what it is.

[d2huffman]

Thanks for feed back, allthough it sounds like NRA is also engaging in bashing an other hunter organization. I will definitly do some more research before I consider joining. From what I read, I don't think Talen can blame his defeat on AHSA. It is pretty common for new groups to file just past the reporting date, this has bugged me on several orgs in WA in the past few years - especially on initiatives. They still have to file reports and meet the requirements of the law and the advantage is probably pretty minimal.

[garrymny]

d2huffman, the NRA was just responding to the ad's and accusations that AHSA had made about them. They have to set the record straight, because as we all know from listening to the media, if you tell a lie enough times, people will take it as truth.

[jackG]

There is one thing being overlooked here. The NRA is not a hunting organization. There is nothing in the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment about hunting. Hunting is not a Constitutional right. No more than driving a car is. The NRA is the only organization of consequence that I'm aware of that stands between all comers and the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is about the right of each and every citizen to possess firearms. That fundamental right is really the right to protect yourself and your property. Protection from criminals, from tyranny, from the government itself if need be. Read the Federalist papers. The Founders made it very clear.

Anyone trotting out the suggestion, as did Pres. Clinton and many members of his party, that the 2nd is really about hunting ducks or something, is trying to steal a base. They're invoking and argument that has nothing to do with this issue. Hunting is a byproduct. Without firearms, short of using sharp sticks there won't be any hunting. But then you'll be defending yourself from armed criminals with a bow and arrow. That's what this is about.

The antigunners tried coming in the front door and got tossed off the porch. By the courts and by the voters. Now they're trying to climb in the back window with these kinds of zany arguments. Personally I'll take the Constitution and it's unflinching defense of it by the NRA every time. If you value your liberty, I suggest you do the same.

[garrymny]

Jack G, if all hunters thought like you and I do about the second amendment right, the NRA would have 20 million members instead 3.5 million. It is a crying shame that the few have to shoulder the load for the many. The Clinton adminsitration argued in court that the second amendment does not apply to individuals. Nothing more needs to be said about thier stance on the issue. Now we have real problems in the conress. Get ready its going to be an uphill battle.

[wranglerdude]

jack G, You are exactly right about the 2nd amendment and the NRA. Folks, get out your checkbooks, like I will do tomorrow and send the NRA some money.

[garrymny]

wranglerdude, thank you for joining us in the fight to save our gun ownership rights. garry.

[big350]

For those of you that decide not to join the NRA, may I suggest you take that $35 and go buy a shovel to bury your guns. They are coming for your guns, that's fact, they don't slur their words when they say it, Cut and run if you must, but we (members) are going to stand side by side and not give in to the banners attempt to destroy our Constitutional Rights. I have nothing against hunting organizations, I belong to several, but it comes down to this, without guns, firearms season is closed, PERMENANTLY!

[d2huffman]

I appreciate your commitment to protecting our 2nd Ammendment rights. I am equally concerned with protecting our free speach, equal protection rights and other as they have been attached as well. I don't think we can be single issued. To me, the people that we need to discuss and convince are not the people at the ends of the spectrum on this debate but the "reasonalble" people in the middle. I also still have termendous faith in our nation as a democracy to vote to uphold those rights if we are vigillent and reasonable as firarms owners and hunters. As an Indepentant, I don't like the NRA's close relationship with the Republican party and I would not join the AHSA if they have a similar relationship with the Democratic party. If you look at how most large corporation try to influence politicians they spread their money around to make sure they maintain influence when there are power shifts.

[big350]

I appreciate your commitment to protecting our 2nd Ammendment rights. I am equally concerned with protecting our free speach, equal protection rights and other as they have been attached as well. I don't think we can be single issued. To me, the people that we need to discuss and convince are not the people at the ends of the spectrum on this debate but the "reasonalble" people in the middle. I also still have termendous faith in our nation as a democracy to vote to uphold those rights if we are vigillent and reasonable as firarms owners and hunters. As an Indepentant, I don't like the NRA's close relationship with the Republican party and I would not join the AHSA if they have a similar relationship with the Democratic party. If you look at how most large corporation try to influence politicians they spread their money around to make sure they maintain influence when there are power shifts.

I know what your saying, I felt the same way when my union gave all my dues to the dems. But the Constitution leans neither left or right. I've stated on other posts that I don't agree with everything the NRA stands for, but their number one mission is to protect the 2nd ammendment. We are all concerned with all of the freedoms granted in the Constitution, but consider this, without the 2nd ammendment, how do you protect the other 26?
have a nice day

[jackG]

Associating the 2nd amendment with a particular political party is not the fault of the amendment or its supporters. Nor does feilty to the 2nd, obviate the 1st or any other amendment. They are not mutually exclusive. The government does not bestow rights. It doesn't own them. The founder's revolutionary notion is, the right to free speach, to keep and bear arms, to worship, or not, to assemble, and all the others belong to each of us already. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights prevent the government from taking them. To understand the importance of the 2nd, one need only consider the position taken by some of the Founders. They refused to ratify the 1st, until the 2nd had been ratified. Their argument was, without the 2nd to uphold it, the 1st wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. They understood the necessity of armed citizens.

My freedom as an individual is assured in part, by my and others ownership of firearms. Some people, and that of course includes some elected representatives, would prefer to see us deprived of those firearms. Never mind what the 2nd says, they're really uncomfortable with us being armed. And they will do anything and everything they can, including having municipalities sue gun manufacturers as being liable for illegal use of the guns, to putting monumental taxes on ammunition, to harrassing gun dealers with 3rd world country tactics, to openly lying and misrepresenting facts, to obfuscating the issue by saying how much they support hunting, or "hunting is okay," and walking around DC in hip boots (Clinton did that when the assault weapons ban was passed), to going to court and alleging that while all the other rights apply to individuals, this one doesn't. The Clinton Admin pulled that trick.

I'll be very candid, the D party is relentlessly dedicated to disarming us and gets more energetic every minute. Why is that? I have serious doubts about any elected representative , in any party, who does not trust his or her own citizens to own firearms. Some like big governement. I don't. The Founders were dedicated to limited government. Because historically, throughout human history, governments get big, move left and devour their own. I don't like welfare states, I don't like having half my property confiscated and given to someone who didn't earn it, or having someone elses taken from them and given to me. You may. That's your affair. But don't get confused. Trade your basic liberties for trendy political fads and there is no going back. It will be like getting toothpaste back in the tube.

I love hunting and shooting sports. There are few more satisfying things than tramping through coulees on an icy autumn day trying to get a shot a big muley. Or target shooting a high powered rifle just for fun. Or having a high tech firearm in your home, just in case. It's great. It's about being free men and women. They cite other countries noting how guns are not permitted there. Well, we're not other countries. We're Americans. There has never been a country or people on earch before, like us. We are unique in all human history. Be proud of it. Love it. And enjoy it. But ,don't just give it away over politicals.

[big350]

Thank you Jack G. I can't see anyone expressing my feelings better than you just did.

[garrymny]

Jack G for congress!!!!!!!!!

[wranglerdude]

wranglerdude, thank you for joining us in the fight to save our gun ownership rights. garry.

Garry, just to set the record straight, I joined the NRA in 1984, became a Life member in 1988, and an Endowment member in 1996. This isn't exactly my first rodeo!

[Madawaska]

Jack G, I found your comment "the government does not bestow rights" to be quite interesting, at least from the Canadian perspective. When the government of the day did away with the British North America Act in Canada (which did guarantee Canadians certain rights, freedoms and privileges) in 1982, it replaced it with a flawed Constitution and something called "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms". Most Canadians believe that the Charter grants them all and sundry "rights and freedoms" but it was crafted by a Government that believed that it would decide what "rights" Canadians would enjoy. The right to keep and bear arms was pointedly left out. Anyone who doubts this should read "Farewell the Peaceful Kingdom" (might not be bad reading for Americans either, just as a warning) which provides an exhaustive analysis of what we really got to replace the BNA Act. In this case, the government DID bestow rights. So inasmuch as the NRA jealously guards the 2nd Amendment, I would be wary of any institution that does not put your 2nd Amendment rights first. Joining and supporting anything after the NRA is a convenient luxury you have.

[jackG]

Madawaska - an excellent point. I'm not educated regarding your Canadian system. However, when the Aussie's had their firearms taken, I did some reading.

The US Founders used the words, "Endowed by their creator" in reference to individual rights. They proposed that you already have them. Their citation of rights stipulates that those belong to us because we're human beings and they set up a system that prohibits the government from infringing upon them.

So what happened in Australia? In their Constitution, the "rights" are not inalienable. The rights are totally provisonal. Meaning, you have them provided the government decides to let you. In Australia, confiscataing people's firearms was no different, from a legal standpoint, than changing the speed limits, or raising or lowering taxes. Taking people's guns was a political decision.

Canada and Australia are very good examples of politicizing "rights. " Do not even think about going down that road here. Individual liberty is lost at every step. I've spoken with gun owners from Great Britain and Canada regarding what they have to go through and it's scary. They are treated worse than criminals.

After an autumn hunting trip I bought a new 270 short magnum. I scoped it and have been sorting it out at the range. I don't have to check in with anyone when I go shooting. I don't have to account for my ammunition usage. I've not had people showing up at my house to see what I'm doing with that rifle. My phone has not been tapped (that I'm aware of). I can get a license and go hunt to my hearts content without getting a pass or note from the minister of guns. I love it. And I'll do anything I can to keep it that way.

[garrymny]

wranglerdude....after I posted that I realized that you were probably already a member and just going to make another donation. thanks for helping us all keep our guns, I urge anyone reading these forums to join the NRA today.

[garrymny]

From the Charles Daly website:

It was recently related to Charles Daly that a new organization called American Hunters and Shooters Association was giving away Charles Daly Shotguns to select “Founding Members.” While we appreciate that AHSA has a fine eye for quality shotguns, by no way does this amount to an implicit endorsement by Charles Daly of this new organization with a left leaning tilt.

The AHSA leadership is notorious for their alignment with decided anti-Second Amendment factions. Their leadership includes:

Ray Schoenke. This former Democratic gubernatorial candidate has championed many liberal causes in the past including Athletes For McGovern.

Bob Rickers. Once an NRA employee and former director of the firearms industry association, ASSC, Rickers has since switched sides and begun working for gun control groups lobbying to shut down gun shows and further restrict gun owners.

John Rosenthal. One of the founders of the Massachusetts based group Stop Handgun Violence, which has the led the fight in Massachusetts to pass the Gun Control Act of 1998, providing Massachusetts with the some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country requiring licensing, registration, gun safety training, and storage on all firearms. Further this act banned assault weapons and what the state deemed "junk guns” and requires gun dealers to perform background checks and register every firearm sold.

Jody Powell. Former press secretary to President Jimmy Carter.

Again, we are pleased that this association has chosen Charles Daly shotguns and appreciate their discerning eye when it comes to selecting a quality firearm. But Charles Daly is not associated with, nor does it endorse the American Hunters and Shooters Association.