In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
NRA supports gun owners' rights, not radicals C&P
FrancF
Member Posts: 35,278 ✭✭✭
The American Hunters and Shooters Association is once again trying to confuse hunters into believing two bold lies: that the NRA does not support hunting, and that AHSA and the Sierra Club do.
In a report printed in the Tribune Aug. 22, AHSA makes the ridiculous argument that NRA is anti hunting because NRA does not support the same candidates that Sierra Club and other environmental groups support.
The problem is these groups rate candidates on their radical environmental record, not on their support for hunting or for gun owners' rights. In fact, the politicians endorsed by the Sierra Club are a "Who's Who" of the most anti-gun politicians in American history. Gun-ban advocates like Barack Obama, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Frank Lautenberg, Jack Reed and Teddy Kennedy have been endorsed by the Sierra Club.
Since Teddy Kennedy wants to ban almost all ammunition used by hunters in America, it is impossible to see how the Sierra Club is supporting hunters by endorsing him.
Groups like the Sierra Club rate lawmakers on many issues that have nothing to do with hunters or hunting, and do not rate on some issues that do. While the Sierra Club supports massive set-asides of land under wilderness designations, it fails to consider hunter access to these lands.
Wilderness designations often create problems for hunters because they do not provide for methods of access needed to actually use the land for hunting, since all improvements - including roads, trails and other changes - are prohibited.
Such designations also prohibit programs to provide food and water to wildlife during times of drought. These policies are hardly good for hunters. Neither is Sierra Club support for anti-gun politicians who would end gun shows, ban guns and ammo, and support gun registration and gun licensing.
NRA knows that without our Second Amendment rights, Americans will lose our firearms to radical politicians like Obama. And without the right to own firearms, our hunting tradition will not survive. With this report, AHSA has made one thing perfectly clear: it is willing to sacrifice Second Amendment rights - and in the end, hunting in America - on the altar of its radical anti-gun agenda.
On the other hand, the NRA Political Victory Fund grades candidates first and foremost on their position on the protection of the Second Amendment, but also on their positions in support of issues relating to hunters.
These issues include access to hunting lands, proper scientific management of game species, and expanding opportunities for hunters and hunting.
NRA is also one of the most effective advocates for issues that truly impact hunters. Over the decades, NRA has worked hard at the federal and state level to protect and enhance our hunting heritage. NRA worked to reform federal law on migratory bird hunting. We have fought to keep federal lands open to hunting, to open more federal lands for hunters, and to protect conservation reserve programs that provide vital habitat for game species.
In the states, NRA has worked for passage of youth hunting programs, for no-net-loss bills that ensure the amount of public land available to hunters is not diminished, and for increased hunter access plans like Open Fields and walk-in programs. AHSA has done none of this.
AHSA claims it is promoting "conservation," but in truth, the groups it is endorsing are radical environmental groups. For these groups, hunting is either not a factor at all, or, at best, something to be endured but not promoted. In fact, these groups oppose hunting if it interferes with their radical agenda, as it did when it came to listing polar bears as endangered and banning the importation of polar bear trophies.
AHSA knows its report is phony, which is why it never lists any of the anti-gun politicians it is attacking NRA for not supporting. But for AHSA to mislead gun owners and hunters is nothing new. AHSA claims to be pro-gun, but in reality, they are not.
AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a "sportsmen's" group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA's leadership are well documented.
In 2000, AHSA President Ray Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign.
Former AHSA board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, and has recently unveiled a new anti-gun billboard in Massachusetts attacking gun shows with misleading and untrue claims. And one of the leading organizers, and current executive director, of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits.
AHSA is a front group for left-wing zealots who want to fool sportsmen into voting for anti-gun candidates by lying to them about the issues. That is why AHSA has endorsed Obama and his extreme anti-gun views.
That is why AHSA is now attacking NRA for failing to endorse men and women who would end most gun ownership in America, including the guns used by hunters. NRA members, and everyone who really cares about our hunting tradition, should be reassured that NRA does not, and will not ever, endorse the vast majority of radical anti-gun zealots regularly supported by the Sierra Club and AHSA.
Jay Printz is retired sheriff of Ravalli County and a member of the nation board of directors of the National Rifle Association.
http://tinyurl.com/6ekvpy
_____________________________________________________________
Rebuttal From AHSA
Why Does the National Rifle Association Leadership Support Congress's Biggest Opponents?
As the self-proclaimed "largest pro-hunting organization in the world," the National Rifle Association has long claimed to represent America's hunters and shooters in the fight to protect one of America's oldest traditions. The NRA's bylaws include an article setting a core goal "to promote and defend hunting.as a viable and necessary method of fostering the propagation, growth and conservation.of our renewable wildlife resources."
But it turns out that its by-laws are just empty rhetoric.
A report released today by the American Hunters and Shooters Association (which I founded in 2006) reveals an ugly truth: the NRA's leadership is spending its Members' money to support the campaigns of the biggest conservation opponents in Congress. Contrary to its stated goals and assurances to the hunting community, our unprecedented analysis shows that NRA's leadership overwhelming supports Members of Congress with the worst conservation voting records.
For example, 144 House Members supported the Roadless Conservation Act of 2007, which seeks to limit road construction and corporate development in our National Forests. Those 144 members received and average grade of D minus from the NRA. Alternatively, the 291 House Members on the other side of the issue averaged B pluses - and seven times as much campaign money from NRA.
Did the NRA's leaders even take a position on the Roadless Conservation Act of 2007? No. They are flat-out ignoring conservation issues.
Given this, it's not surprising that since 2000, the NRA's leaders have contributed $4,085,277 in campaign money to support the 193 Members of Congress who received poor ratings from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) and only $390,897 - more than 10 times less - to the 245 Members of Congress who have received high ratings from LCV.
The NRA's campaign contributions, endorsements and ratings of Members of Congress expose the organization's strong anti-conservation bias. Despite their lofty bylaws and forest friendly taglines, the NRA is standing by silently as its allies in Congress are helping to destroy America's wilderness.
Hunting is an American tradition that depends on conserving America's wilderness and wildlife. To fully enjoy our rights and heritage, hunters and shooters deserve leadership that will protect our guns and our land. America's hunters are beginning to ask whether anyone in Washington recognizes that.
The American Hunters and Shooters Association, unlike the NRA, is dedicated both to protecting the gun rights of Americans and preserving America's hunting heritage through conservation and responsible wildlife management. We understand the crucial relationship between protecting our rights as gun owners and protecting the lands we love.
So, for the three million NRA Members who are tired of seeing their $25 dollar contributions wasted by an NRA leadership supporting anti-conservation Members of Congress and Wayne LaPierre's $900,000 salary, we offer a different choice.
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.
America's hunters and shooters should no longer stand by the NRA because it's clear the NRA has long stopped standing up for them. And by the way, my salary is a dollar a year.
In a report printed in the Tribune Aug. 22, AHSA makes the ridiculous argument that NRA is anti hunting because NRA does not support the same candidates that Sierra Club and other environmental groups support.
The problem is these groups rate candidates on their radical environmental record, not on their support for hunting or for gun owners' rights. In fact, the politicians endorsed by the Sierra Club are a "Who's Who" of the most anti-gun politicians in American history. Gun-ban advocates like Barack Obama, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Frank Lautenberg, Jack Reed and Teddy Kennedy have been endorsed by the Sierra Club.
Since Teddy Kennedy wants to ban almost all ammunition used by hunters in America, it is impossible to see how the Sierra Club is supporting hunters by endorsing him.
Groups like the Sierra Club rate lawmakers on many issues that have nothing to do with hunters or hunting, and do not rate on some issues that do. While the Sierra Club supports massive set-asides of land under wilderness designations, it fails to consider hunter access to these lands.
Wilderness designations often create problems for hunters because they do not provide for methods of access needed to actually use the land for hunting, since all improvements - including roads, trails and other changes - are prohibited.
Such designations also prohibit programs to provide food and water to wildlife during times of drought. These policies are hardly good for hunters. Neither is Sierra Club support for anti-gun politicians who would end gun shows, ban guns and ammo, and support gun registration and gun licensing.
NRA knows that without our Second Amendment rights, Americans will lose our firearms to radical politicians like Obama. And without the right to own firearms, our hunting tradition will not survive. With this report, AHSA has made one thing perfectly clear: it is willing to sacrifice Second Amendment rights - and in the end, hunting in America - on the altar of its radical anti-gun agenda.
On the other hand, the NRA Political Victory Fund grades candidates first and foremost on their position on the protection of the Second Amendment, but also on their positions in support of issues relating to hunters.
These issues include access to hunting lands, proper scientific management of game species, and expanding opportunities for hunters and hunting.
NRA is also one of the most effective advocates for issues that truly impact hunters. Over the decades, NRA has worked hard at the federal and state level to protect and enhance our hunting heritage. NRA worked to reform federal law on migratory bird hunting. We have fought to keep federal lands open to hunting, to open more federal lands for hunters, and to protect conservation reserve programs that provide vital habitat for game species.
In the states, NRA has worked for passage of youth hunting programs, for no-net-loss bills that ensure the amount of public land available to hunters is not diminished, and for increased hunter access plans like Open Fields and walk-in programs. AHSA has done none of this.
AHSA claims it is promoting "conservation," but in truth, the groups it is endorsing are radical environmental groups. For these groups, hunting is either not a factor at all, or, at best, something to be endured but not promoted. In fact, these groups oppose hunting if it interferes with their radical agenda, as it did when it came to listing polar bears as endangered and banning the importation of polar bear trophies.
AHSA knows its report is phony, which is why it never lists any of the anti-gun politicians it is attacking NRA for not supporting. But for AHSA to mislead gun owners and hunters is nothing new. AHSA claims to be pro-gun, but in reality, they are not.
AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a "sportsmen's" group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA's leadership are well documented.
In 2000, AHSA President Ray Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign.
Former AHSA board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, and has recently unveiled a new anti-gun billboard in Massachusetts attacking gun shows with misleading and untrue claims. And one of the leading organizers, and current executive director, of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits.
AHSA is a front group for left-wing zealots who want to fool sportsmen into voting for anti-gun candidates by lying to them about the issues. That is why AHSA has endorsed Obama and his extreme anti-gun views.
That is why AHSA is now attacking NRA for failing to endorse men and women who would end most gun ownership in America, including the guns used by hunters. NRA members, and everyone who really cares about our hunting tradition, should be reassured that NRA does not, and will not ever, endorse the vast majority of radical anti-gun zealots regularly supported by the Sierra Club and AHSA.
Jay Printz is retired sheriff of Ravalli County and a member of the nation board of directors of the National Rifle Association.
http://tinyurl.com/6ekvpy
_____________________________________________________________
Rebuttal From AHSA
Why Does the National Rifle Association Leadership Support Congress's Biggest Opponents?
As the self-proclaimed "largest pro-hunting organization in the world," the National Rifle Association has long claimed to represent America's hunters and shooters in the fight to protect one of America's oldest traditions. The NRA's bylaws include an article setting a core goal "to promote and defend hunting.as a viable and necessary method of fostering the propagation, growth and conservation.of our renewable wildlife resources."
But it turns out that its by-laws are just empty rhetoric.
A report released today by the American Hunters and Shooters Association (which I founded in 2006) reveals an ugly truth: the NRA's leadership is spending its Members' money to support the campaigns of the biggest conservation opponents in Congress. Contrary to its stated goals and assurances to the hunting community, our unprecedented analysis shows that NRA's leadership overwhelming supports Members of Congress with the worst conservation voting records.
For example, 144 House Members supported the Roadless Conservation Act of 2007, which seeks to limit road construction and corporate development in our National Forests. Those 144 members received and average grade of D minus from the NRA. Alternatively, the 291 House Members on the other side of the issue averaged B pluses - and seven times as much campaign money from NRA.
Did the NRA's leaders even take a position on the Roadless Conservation Act of 2007? No. They are flat-out ignoring conservation issues.
Given this, it's not surprising that since 2000, the NRA's leaders have contributed $4,085,277 in campaign money to support the 193 Members of Congress who received poor ratings from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) and only $390,897 - more than 10 times less - to the 245 Members of Congress who have received high ratings from LCV.
The NRA's campaign contributions, endorsements and ratings of Members of Congress expose the organization's strong anti-conservation bias. Despite their lofty bylaws and forest friendly taglines, the NRA is standing by silently as its allies in Congress are helping to destroy America's wilderness.
Hunting is an American tradition that depends on conserving America's wilderness and wildlife. To fully enjoy our rights and heritage, hunters and shooters deserve leadership that will protect our guns and our land. America's hunters are beginning to ask whether anyone in Washington recognizes that.
The American Hunters and Shooters Association, unlike the NRA, is dedicated both to protecting the gun rights of Americans and preserving America's hunting heritage through conservation and responsible wildlife management. We understand the crucial relationship between protecting our rights as gun owners and protecting the lands we love.
So, for the three million NRA Members who are tired of seeing their $25 dollar contributions wasted by an NRA leadership supporting anti-conservation Members of Congress and Wayne LaPierre's $900,000 salary, we offer a different choice.
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.
America's hunters and shooters should no longer stand by the NRA because it's clear the NRA has long stopped standing up for them. And by the way, my salary is a dollar a year.
Comments
How can this article possibly be right[?]
(for you mouthbreathers, this is called sarcasm[:)])
And the army of NRA haters led by Highball should be crawling out from underneath their rocks any time now[V]
Your understanding of the English language being rather limited, nothing you say is of the slightest consequence to the world at large.
Those unable to grasp the concept of "Shall Not be Infringed" are entirely at the mercy of their masters...and they demonstrate it daily.
PbJloaf;
Your MY understanding of the English language being rather limited, nothing you I say is of the slightest consequence to the world at large.
Those unable to grasp the concept of "Shall Not be Infringed"sticking to the topic are entirely at the mercy of their masters...and they demonstrate it daily. the fabulouse Highball
Fixed it for you.
Another feeble attempt to direct attention away from your own faults.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the crux of the matter...not hunting, not target shooting, not youR double barrel bird gun.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is far more important then you and your cronies..the NRA.
Those four words are all that allow you to prattle on about that which you know nothing.
And how ironic..as the NRA prepared to endorse mccain..just another gun control freak dug out of the bottom of the barrel.
fideau;
Another feeble attempt to direct attention away from your own faults.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the crux of the matter...not hunting, not target shooting, not youR double barrel bird gun.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is far more important then you and your cronies..the NRA.
Those four words are all that allow you to prattle on about that which you know nothing.
And how ironic..as the NRA prepared to endorse mccain..just another gun control freak dug out of the bottom of the barrel.
You so funny. And irrelevant. That's why I like you. Thought you could take a joke. "Cookies and milk" are far more important then anything you can say. If I have offended you in any way I apologise for now and in the immediate future.
And what's a "cronie"? Is that like for checking the speed of a projectile? It's been real simple talking to you. Bye now.
"Shall Not be Infringed"
...not my spelling, not me, not the weather.
The fact that the C&P dealt with two anti-gun organizations dueling over which is the best/worst on hunting/land use, and which will be the next to cave under gun control laws is irrelevant to a discussion of gun Rights..since NEITHER support the Second Amendment...
quote:Originally posted by Highball
PbJloaf;
Your MY understanding of the English language being rather limited, nothing you I say is of the slightest consequence to the world at large.
Those unable to grasp the concept of "Shall Not be Infringed"sticking to the topic are entirely at the mercy of their masters...and they demonstrate it daily. the fabulouse Highball
[:D][:D]
Fixed it for you.
Given the title of this thread, "NRA supports gun owners Rights, not radicals C&P", the subject matter is;
"Shall Not be Infringed"
...not my spelling, not me, not the weather.
The fact that the C&P dealt with two anti-gun organizations dueling over which is the best/worst on hunting/land use, and which will be the next to cave under gun control laws is irrelevant to a discussion of gun Rights..since NEITHER support the Second Amendment...
Just ribbing you, Highman. Everyone makes typos. Now this is a civil and intelligent response of your views which can be appreciated. Doesn't that feel better?
but...BUT...everyone at GB says that the NRA are evil!![:0]
How can this article possibly be right[?]
(for you mouthbreathers, this is called sarcasm[:)])
And the army of NRA haters led by Highball should be crawling out from underneath their rocks any time now[V]
No one has ever said that the NRA does not support the rights of hunters or the shooting sports. The beef is that the NRA supports these to the detriment of the true meaning and reason for being of the 2nd Amendment.
Spend 20 minutes listening to NRA Radio (Cam and Company). You will hear the phrase 'Right to carry holder' repeated endlessly. This simple phrase sums up the problem with the NRA. A Right to Carry holder would be someone with a copy of the Constitution in his hip pocket. A CCW holder is a 'Permission to Carry Holder'. The NRA does not understand the difference, and is too deeply invested in the political process to change.
They serve their purpose well for hunters and shooting sportsmen. They are unsuited to carry the banner for the 2nd Amendment.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Highball
PbJloaf;
Your MY understanding of the English language being rather limited, nothing you I say is of the slightest consequence to the world at large.
Those unable to grasp the concept of "Shall Not be Infringed"sticking to the topic are entirely at the mercy of their masters...and they demonstrate it daily. the fabulouse Highball
Fixed it for you.
User Name: fideau
Location: Hillsborough, NC
Occupation: Retired Law Enforcement
No surprises here, eh.
quote:Originally posted by fideau
quote:Originally posted by Highball
PbJloaf;
Your MY understanding of the English language being rather limited, nothing you I say is of the slightest consequence to the world at large.
Those unable to grasp the concept of "Shall Not be Infringed"sticking to the topic are entirely at the mercy of their masters...and they demonstrate it daily. the fabulouse Highball
Fixed it for you.
User Name: fideau
Location: Hillsborough, NC
Occupation: Retired Law Enforcement
No surprises here, eh.
User Name: Rockatansky
Occupation: Occupied
Location: USA
Don't know where or what you are. Haven't stepped on your toes that I know of. Are you one of those guys that used to get beat up at the rest area all the time? I just tried to help you, but you never would prosecute. I would ask for forgiveness if I knew what your angst was about. Eh?