American Hunters and Shooters Association >:(

This supposed pro-gun organization is running radio ads narrated by a former Washington Redskins football player Ray Schoenke, who is their president. They are saying Obama will protect the rights of gun owners.

I’ve never heard of them before. With a name like the American Hunters and Shooters Association they must be for gun rights, right? What we’ve got here is a sheep in wolf’s clothing. After some research it’s clear that these guys are, at best, a group that wants to conserve land and see gun ownership restricted to hunters and sport shooters. Their web page space is mostly taken up by anti-NRA rhetoric. That may be because their executive director was a former NRA employee.

Their president and spokesman Ray Schoenke has written several Huffington post pro-Obama and anti-NRA articles. The Huffington Post, is a well-known liberal publication, isn’t it a bit odd for gun advocate to write for a liberal publication? In this article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ray-schoenke/hunters-and-shooters-supp_b_97028.html Ray Schoenke, their president, states “Hunters and Shooters Support Obama: He ‘Gets It’”, and then cites ONE example, Obama voted for an amendment that prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency. He also mentions conserving land and ties that into Obama advocating hunting somehow. So that one marginal pro-gun example is enough for Schoenke to ignore all the evidence that Obama is anti-gun, including Obama’s recent statement “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress.” What I want to know is how much are they paying Schoenke to be president of AHSA and endorse Obama?

Their executive director, Bob Ricker was a former NRA lawyer but switched sides and began going against gun manufacturers. See the following CBS story for details: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/09/60minutes/main553147.shtml Now he is involved with a “Hunters and Shooters” group that endorses Obama? How convenient.

John Rosenthal was formerly with the AHSA. He wrote this article with the following nugget “Gun Shows are the equivalent of al Qaeda terrorists walking right onto the airplane while law abiding citizens wait in the TSA line!” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/gun-shows-and-terrorists_b_119932.html

Regardless of what you think on gun issues, it really pisses me off to see the an organization with a name like the “American Hunters and Shooters Association” advertising that they are for the rights of gun owners when their leadership biography clearly shows otherwise.

They can call themselves what they want. It’s a free country.

And we can call them what we want to as well.

While I am no gun lover I agree it is bogus. Hardly a new tactic though. I have seen other organizations (as an example) that look like they are about women’s health and providing contraception and abortion services and so on that are really social conservatives luring in unsuspecting women.

I do not think anyone who bothers to pay a little attention deems the AHSA as anything other than a front for gun control advocates. I think they are less harmful, in the whole, than my above example since when it comes down to debating laws I doubt they will get a seat at the table alongside the NRA as if they are on the same side.

No - what’s odd is a non-gun advocate masquerading as a gun advocate. There are many liberals (myself included) who would describe themselves as gun advocates.

I’ve anecdotally found that a lot of hunters, though by no means all, really hate all the other gun owners -target shooters, collectors, self-defense owners, etc. They’re convinced they’d be allowed to hunt in total peace if it wasn’t for the rest of us stirring up the population against all gun owners by owning guns that get into the public eye more.

I think the Democratic party knows that, and I’m glad to see it. Thus Obama’s statement that even if he wanted to ban guns, he doesn’t have the votes for it.

The AHSA is widely considered to be a joke. Nobody gives a damn about what they think. They’re a nonentity as far as gun owners and gun advocates are concerned.

I can see their point. :slight_smile:

I hope you mean gun rights advocates. As distinct from actually encouraging widespread ownership of small arms, which would be retarded.
Anyway: American Hunters and Shooters Association. Judge for yourself.

Remember the “controversy” about a “spy” that the NRA hired to keep tabs on the obvious? This is much more insidious. It gives an air of legitimacy to Democrats’ gun-control agenda. “See, we have a gun-rights organization backing us up!”

What a vicious fraud. At least with Mary the Spy she wasn’t telling anybody anything they didn’t already know (Sample conversation: NRA: “Does the Brady Campaign and the VPC want to enact gun-control measures?” Mary the Spy: “Yes.”).

These cats are totally misrepresenting the views of gun-rights advocates and are doing it in plain sight because most people have no interest in digging any further.

I already have. It’s the equivalent of a supposedly pro-abortion group advocating for unacceptable limits on abortion, and further being in bed with the Catholic Church while masquerading as the equivalent of NARAL.

AHSA on:

Gun Rights
DC Gun Law
Gun Industry Immunity

So they believe there is an individual right to bear arms, DC homeowners should be allowed guns to protect their homes, and gun manufacturers should only be held liable if they actually do something illegal. Some gun control organization.

My impression is that they are 1) a rational alternative to the Wild West nuts at the NRA and 2) an organization that seems intent to actually serve the millions of us everyday gun owners who want to hunt and shoot in relative peace instead of the lunatic fringe that thinks the world will end if they don’t have access to every gun and ammo combination ever made. I’m not a member, but the information I’ve seen on them shows them to be a pretty reasonable gun rights organization. I’d certainly join them long before the lying NRA.

I’m not a fan of the NRA either, but their “lying” is predicated on the idea that Obama is telling the truth when he says “[Obama] believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.”

His voting record at all levels suggests otherwise, hence the immediate skepticism on the behalf of the NRA and their reliance on things that he has either said before or had done in his name by others.

Lying? Not really. FactCheck is taking Obama at his word, which is already ambiguous at best.

All of this is moot anyway. Obama has bigger fish to fry than guns. He won’t have the time or the capital to take on a losing issue anyway.

It’s not just his voting record. From Obama’s own campaign site (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement), 4th bullet point under “CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT”:

(Emphasis mine.)

For those unfamiliar with it, the Assault Weapons Ban banned the sale of a number of scary looking semi-automatic rifles which had the same physical appearance as military arms. These weapons are typically weaker than the traditional hunting rifles left untouched by the law. More importantly, the number of assault weapons that were used in crimes has always been negligible.

They may be sincere, but they’re yutzes. They act like gun control advocates, hiding behind a tissue-paper rationale that eliminates most of the constitutional arguments for gun control.
I don’t really think they’re sincere.

But superior in rate of fire, yes? Doesn’t that make a difference? I mean, you wouldn’t need a rapid-fire weapon to hunt, unless you’re hunting humans.

No, it doesn’t. At best it suggests he will not protect the rights of Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use every gun. I don’t agree with everything he’s done, but he definitely seems to be in the realm of trying to find a sensible gun control policy, not to “take all our guns away”.

As for the Assault Weapons Ban, I think he, and other sensible gun control advocates, are mistaken and they should be lobbied to get a sensible bill that addresses actual important gun characteristics or throw it out altogether. Instead, we get hyperventilation from the NRA. In a perfect world, it would be fixed or scrapped, but it gets way more attention than it deserves.

Gun control: Oh noes! Ban the scary guns! (ignore all the others)
Gun rights: Oh noes! Can’t buy the scary guns! (just all the others)

And you and they are both wrong.

No. the guns were banned on cosmetics alone. Semi auto guns without the scary features were left alone. “rate of fire” or “rapid-fire” was never a consideration.

Also, where is the word hunting mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment?

And I choose to believe that his ideas are not reasonable. Not even close.

You mean like being mentioned in the Democrats Party Platform? Many contend that if that party and their candidate are content to ban guns simply by the way they look, they cannot be trusted to protect our gun rights. I see no reason to disagree, certainly not because of the PUMA-like AHSA.

You’re falling into the deceitful trap that was likely the intent of the people who crafted the assault weapons ban. The term “assault weapon” was invented to be confusing similar to “assault rifle”. I suspect that most people are deceived by this – there’s no way I’d know this stuff if I didn’t have a pretty serious interest in firearms.

The Wikipedia definition of an assault rifle is:

In plain English, selective fire generally means you can set the rifle such that holding down the trigger makes bullets continue to come out of the rifle until you either release the trigger or it runs out of ammo. Such a firearm unambiguously falls under the ATF definition of a machine gun and is thus covered by the '34 NFA and '86 FOPA. The AWB doesn’t affect it at all.

Instead, the AWB affects semi-automatic rifles and carbines with various features that make them similar to their selective fire cousins. However, since they lack that key selective fire feature, it’s really just a ban on rifles that look scary. For example, one of the “naughty” features is the bayonet lug. Despite the complete non-existence of rifle-mounted bayonet crime, there are politicians advocating the ban of rifles because they’re capable of mounting bayonets via the AWB. Yes, this is absurd as it sounds.

And even automatic rifles aren’t as bad as people make them out to be. The legally owned ones are rarely used in crimes (along the lines of even a shop teacher could count the incidents on one hand). Like most non-hunting, non-self-defense guns, they’re primarily used to savagely ravish pieces of paper, bowling pins, and other inanimate objects that make for fun targets.