Outrage Of The Week: The Anti-Hunting NRA?!

[308Mike]

From NRA-ILA:

[center]Outrage Of The Week: The Anti-Hunting NRA?![/center]

Friday, August 22, 2008

The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) 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 released on August 21, 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 all 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, they fail 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 birdhunting. 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 is 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. (For more information, see Anti-Gunners Don Camo As Elections Loom.)

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 Barack 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.

[center]Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.[/center]

[cu74]

In a report released on August 21, AHSA makes the ridiculous argument.....

So, who gets and/or reads these reports? I suppose they make it into some newspapers and magazines, but how are that any different from the reports the NRA releases?

Most of the NRA reports go out to Pro-2A folks like us. My guess is that most of the AHSA "readership" is Anti-Rights folk. It seems that both organizations spend almost all of their effort preaching to their respective choirs. Is the AHSA buying space in the hunting-related magazines? Are they publishing their own? It is pretty apparent that the NRA has been doing a poor job of reaching out past the Already Faithful with their "releases". Is the AHSA doing a better job?

Surely I must be missing something here - but it's late and my buddy Jack Daniels is helping me read these posts................

[Aglifter]

I got sent an AHSA recruitment letter once. They do try to recruit NRA members, they keep clinging to the belief that union members would be more supportive of the left, if they didn't think their ability to hunt were threatened... If the left was ever the party of tradesmen, it certainly isn't now... Which does cause a bit of a disconnect, I think it might, partly, be a response to working for small businesses v. being a corp. toady or partly disliking having to pull weight for slackers.

[randy]

In a report released on August 21, AHSA makes the ridiculous argument.....

So, who gets and/or reads these reports? I suppose they make it into some newspapers and magazines, but how are that any different from the reports the NRA releases?

At one level, it's all propaganda.

IMHO the NRA stays closer to the facts of the matter, but that's because they can afford to as the facts are on their side and their side is the right side.

The practical difference is the releases of AHSA and their fellow travelers in the Brady Bunch etc. are often used as sources in news stories, articles, editorials and such with no discussion of the source except something like "the pro-Hunting... or "the gun safety group...". A casual reader skims those articles and things "well gee, they're pro hunting and they don't think the legislation is so bad, so I guess the NRA is an extremist organization".

And I've often seen the assertions made by false front organizations like this used with no attribution, but delivered as simple fact or common sense, not debatable as everyone agrees with it. The old "20 (or 40 or whatever)% more likely to shoot a family member than a burglar" BS for instance.

News releases from the NRA, if quoted at all, are often heavily trimmed, and always play up the fact that it's from the NRA, a biased organization with a political agenda, and the information is always presented as an opinion, not fact, even on the most simple, non-disputable things.

[cu74]

In a report released on August 21, AHSA makes the ridiculous argument.....

So, who gets and/or reads these reports? I suppose they make it into some newspapers and magazines, but how are that any different from the reports the NRA releases?

The practical difference is the releases of AHSA and their fellow travelers in the Brady Bunch etc. are often used as sources in news stories, articles, editorials and such with no discussion of the source except something like "the pro-Hunting... or "the gun safety group...". A casual reader skims those articles and things "well gee, they're pro hunting and they don't think the legislation is so bad, so I guess the NRA is an extremist organization".

Thanks. I hadn't totally forgotten the MSM Bias thing, but I guess I was underestimating it. I'm usually pretty aware of "Never Underestimate Your Enemy" but blew it on this one........

[Catbird]

Politicians, especially at the national level, are often asked how they regard the second amendment. If the first sentence of their reply includes the word "hunter" or "hunting", you can be sure that what they really mean is, " I promise that if it's up to me, your hunting rifles will be the last guns into the chipper".