WILD BILL

NRA Doesn’t Represent Both Hunters and Gun Owners

Thank you for enunciating everything I've ever felt about guns and the NRA. The NRA has become so politicized in areas that they have no business being in, I fear that their members are being held hostage by their "all or nothing" approach.

When Schweitzer was first running for governor, I heard several people griping about his supposed pandering to gun owners. I personally knew that he was a gun proponent because I'd shot rifles behind his house. The idea that if you don't lie somewhere near Sen. Sam Brownback or Kit Bond on the political spectrum, you can't have a viable agenda for gun proponents is absolute fantasy.

Congrats. You have spent 1500 words, attacking the NRA while completely ignoring the idea that the AHSA is a gun grabbing organization.

I am a hunter and a gun owner. I see the NRA's purpose to be the protection of my Second Amendment rights with the vigor of the ACLU protecting the rest. I don't see them as the National Hunting Association.

If someone wants to start an NHA, that is fine. Let that group concentrate on hunting, but don't use it as a venue for gun grabbing.

Mr. Schneider, you certainly aren't adding to your gun owner cred by quoting "gunguys.com". That has to be one of the poorest, most sneeringly sarcastic attempts at gun rights satire I've ever seen (and I've been following this issue closely for most of my life).

So, as long as nobody tries to ban your grandfather's .30-30, you're good with a ban of my AK-47 (which sports virtually identical ballistics)? What precisely is the difference between the rifles? Is a Remington 742 (semi-auto with a wood stock) an "automatic assault rifle"? I have one that is far more powerful than any AK made. Once you climb on that slippery slope, you need only look at England to know where it ends.

What's really wanting here is an honest politician (I actually believe there is such a thing) with a truly pro-gun AND pro-conservation agenda. But because of this country's one-dimensional politics, conservation and guns are, sadly, often mutually exclusive packages.

That's quite a universal statement:
"NRA Doesn't Represent Both Hunters and Gun Owners"

Really? Or because they don't represent *you* they therefore don't represent hunters and gun owners?

Dale

Well said. I too was once a member of the NRA. I noticed that protection of gun ownership and hunting rights ws not enough for them. They seem to only support candidates that run the whole gambit of the right wing agenda. Gun ownership does not have to be a Republican/Democratic issue ( it certainly is not in Montana) and has been made more so by the NRA.

By quoting The Gun Guys website you lose all credibility. They support neither gun rights or hunters rights and promote the confisication of all firearms, right down to your "battle worn 870". You, sir, are a complete fool.

Joe, your comment is of a type. "He agrees with someone I don't like, therefore I don't like him and can simply insult him rather than address his argument." That doesn't make for very good or productive conversation.

I believe that Schneider has assessed it correctly as far as he goes. In fact, I strongly believe, backed by a couple of generations worth of direct involvement and experience, that the NRA cynically panders to a select segment of opinionated, but generally naive and intellectually less mature, people, deliberately whips them into a paranoid frenzy, manipulates them with spin-doctored information, and then uses them and their money to pursue a political agenda that has only marginal relation to the gun ownership, shooting sports, or hunting issues that they purport to focus on. It has been that way for years. Hardly anybody with a mental age greater than sixteen takes them seriously as anything more than political vampires and social vandals. Even for those of us who are hunters and shooters, the existence of a carnival act like the NRA, clowning around while purporting to represent us, actually poses more of a strategic credibility problem than any knd of tactical solution to the growing erosion of our public image, particularly among younger people with more than a high school education.

"Joe, your comment is of a type. "

Perhaps so, but Joe's comment is also right on the money. Go read some of the posts on gunguys.com...if there were "truth in web site naming" laws that site would have to be called "anti-gunguys.com".

The NRA isn't perfect, but with 4 million members in a country of over 80 million gun owners do you actually expect them to be able to be all things to all people? If so, you are rather Naive.

So, because they don't espouse YOUR preferred policies they are bad?

Follow the money. Not only is gunguys.com decidedly anti-gun, the AHSA is funded by and was founded by some profoundly anti-gun organizations. It is not an organization that intends to compete with the NRA in supporting hunters rights, it is a front group designed to drain members from the NRA and, thereby, weaken it in an effort to have gun ownership tightly regulated or eliminated.

You might not like the NRA's policies toward habitat management...but having the best hunting lands in the world does you no good if you don't have the tools necessary for hunting...or were you planning on throwing rocks at your prey?

This has nothing to do with insulting the author as Mr. Weber implies. This has everything to do with not being duped into supporting an organization that would actively undermine our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Please keep in mind, the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to hunt. But without the God Given and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, hunting would be a bit problematic no?

Oh, and to the author:

"the NRA, or at least factions within, views AHSA as a threat and employs its patented bullying style to comes after anybody who writes about it."

The NRA does have a political structure just as any organization formed by human beings...but to accuse the organization as a whole, or "factions within" as trying to bully you simply because some
INDIVIDUALS who happen to be members wrote you exroriating letters regarding your position is a bit defensive don't you think?

You claim that the AHSA is so small that it is nothing for the NRA to worry about, but in the same breath accuse the NRA of trying to bully some small-time hunting mag writer? Methinks you are trying a bit too hard to play the martyr.

I am a life member of the NRA. But that doesn't mean that I speak for the NRA. When I send you this comment, I am doing so because it expresses MY opinion on the matter...and I'm not trying to bully you. I'm just trying to tell you that you are wrong. There's no need to get so defensive about it.

This is an e-mail to my Friends.
I post it here so no one can say I'm "talking behind his back ."

This guy does not know or does not want to admit that the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment is as a last resort to shoot your elected and appointed officials.
It is not for shooting sports.
The 2nd is meant to be a threat and a means to kill government employees. That simple.

This guy is also anti- gun.
He just is not smart enough to know it.
Or does not want to admit it.
Either way a failing on his part.

When he states , " nor do I think all gun control laws, such as the ban on automatic assault rifles, are bad. "
I will take this man at his words .
He stated " automatic assault rifles " , not semi - automatic.
So my assumption is he is not talking about importing laws on semi- auto or the Brady Bill that sunsetted.
Since these do not deal with ' automatic assault rifles " but semi - auto weapons.
Different State laws and the National Firearms Act of 1934. { NFA } do deal with ' automatic assault rifles. "
There are different States that ban the ownership of " full - auto weapons."
{ Witch is part of the definition of an assault rifle. }
The 1934 NFA allows for the ownership of full auto assault rifles after jumping through a variety of hoops and paying a $200.00 Excise tax.

It is my assessment that Bill has , in my words no one else's , " I love to hunt and fish , I've been a gun owner all my life , save my corner of the world hunting range ,
and nobody would ever want and I will defend my grandpa's goose gun , " NRA sportsman mentality.

Not an idealist or believer in the Rights of Man or a Constitutionalist .

" I believe the Second Amendment is one of our basic freedoms ... " Says Bill.
The question is , what freedoms are basic and which ones are inalienable ?

I know and he doesn't.

Duncan

In all your gushing over the AHSA, you forgot to mention that their leader is a former honcho of one of the big gun-ban lobbying firms.

But you knew this, right?

Also, you're not worried about the feds taking aim at your old .30-30?

Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and the usual crew tried in 2004 to ban .30-30 ammunition along with other centerfire cartridges.

It evidently can penetrate police body armor, so your nice old octagon-barrel .30-30 is a "cop killer."

But you knew this, right?

I just went back and read the original article and the comments to which Mr. Schneider was referring.

I originally thought the Mr. Schneider was simply a selfish hunter who only cared about HIS rights and HIS ability to pursue his hobbies with no regard to gun owners who don't happen to be hunters. "Go ahead and ban all the other guns, I don't care as long as you leave my hunting guns alone".

After reading the original article and the comments, I have changed my mind. The commenters to his origninal article very eloquently spelled out the problems with his assertions. Pointed out that the scary looking gun ban (aka "assault weapons ban") had nothing to do with "automatic weapons" or "machine guns" and specifically detailed many of the AHSA's connections with the gun ban lobby. He failed to address any of those issues and even re-iterated his support for the imaginary "automatic assault weapons" ban.

The entirety of Mr. Schneider's rebuttal was "The NRA is picking on me!"

What a classic tactic of those who have no solid ground for their arguments: Deflect attention from the valid points which they cannot counter by assuming the mantle of "victim".

I guess NRA members aren't allowed to point out flaws in anti-NRA journalists arguments. If we do, we are "bullying".

And he employs some of the classic anti-gun straw men: "hunters didn't need machine guns to hunt." Who said they do? And what the heck does that have to do with the Second Amendment? Which Constitutional Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon the right to hunt? It sure isn't the Second. The Second Amendment prohibits the government from infringing the right Keep and Bear Arms.

"NRA has been frequently criticized for its ultra-narrow focus on protecting Second Amendment rights" Protecting ALL American's Second Amendment Rights is "narrow" as compared to concentrating on protecting Wildlife areas for hunters? I think Mr. Schneider needs a new dictionary...the one he's using is broken. I seem to recall that "NRA" stands for "National Rifle Association" not "National Hunters Association" or "National Wildlife Habitat Protection Association".

This is the first sentence of the History of the NRA from the NRA web site: "Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871."

Um...Sorry...I don't see anything about hunting there. Want to protect wildlife habitat? Join the Sierra Club. Want to protect the Second Amendment? Join the NRA. This is not rocket science.

Mr. Schneider, much like the AHSA, is no friend to gun owners so I will no longer address him. He is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing and does not warrant expenditure of my effort.

I will address those readers who follow his position however:

Hunters who meekly follow along with his "the NRA doesn't support hunting" argument are simply burying their heads in the sand if they truly believe that the anti-gunners won't go after THEIR guns too. If you really believe that your hunting rifles and shotguns are safe, you simply are not paying attention to the rhetoric that comes from the gun-ban crowd. Have you not heard the recent calls for banning of "precision sniper rifles"? Can you say "bolt action, telescopically sighted hunting rifle?" How about the calls for banning those "powerful street sweeper weapons"? Can you say "Pump shotguns?"

Of course, if they ever succeed in banning those, and the violent crime rates actually increase as is the inevitable result, how long do you think it will be before the calls to ban single shots and black powder will be made?

Look at England for gosh sake...some there are calling for bans on KITCHEN KNIVES because crime has gotten so out of hand since banning handguns and most rifles and shotguns. You don't think it can happen here? Wake up people! The only reason it HASN'T happened here is because there is a core group of dedicated, freedom loving individuals who are willing to do the hard work to protect the Second Amendment for ALL gun owners.

"Hunting guns are not going to be banned" is the mantra. Very true for the time being. Why not? Because the NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, CCRKBA etc etc etc have been fighting the battle for you. In stead of villifying the organizations for not paying enough attention to your own narrow interests, you should be thanking them for doing the heavy lifting for you. You have the luxury of sitting around whining about the organizations lack of interest in YOUR selfish concerns because you don't have to invest the time engaging in the daily battle to keep the gun grabbers away from your rifles and shotguns.

Gun rights are not about hunting. They are not about target shooting, they are not about self defense, they are not about defense against tyrannical government. They are about all of these things. Focusing on your one narrow interest to the exclusion of all others plays right into the hands of the gun-banner's "divide and conquer" strategy of which the AHSA (and Mr. Schneider's "journalism") is a vital part.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."
-- Thomas Paine

"It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's."
--Mark Twain

Re: Second Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court has never -- not once in 230 years -- ruled in favor of the NRA's preferred interpretation of the second amendment as an absolute right to bear arms, regardless of context or lethality.

NRAers may appeal to notions of freedom and the Constitution, but the NRA's only real source of strength is legislative, not Constitutional. As such, to argue that opposition to the NRA is tantamount to opposing the second amendment is wrong on its face.

The NRA doesn't argue for the "absolute right to bear arms, regardless of context or lethality". Please point to that NRA policy that has supported the elimination of all Federal Firearms Regulations, including the NFA which restricts the ownership of automatic weapons.

Another Straw Man.

With that said, however, I more vigorously support the position of the GOA, which is more in line with the position that you falsely attribute to the NRA.

1. The Supreme Court is not the Be-all and End-all of Constitutional law. The members of the Supreme court are just as human as anyone else and are just as prone to issue bad rulings based upon faulty logic or personal biases...Dredd Scott comes to mind. Kelo vs New London is a more current case in point.

2. In the 5 cases the Supreme Court has heard directly related to the Second Amendment, the issue has basically been avoided. The closest that SCOTUS has come to issuing a difinitive ruling vis-a-vis firearm regulation was Miller in which they ruled that a sawed off shotgun is not protected under the Second Amendment because it has no viable military use and, therefore, could not be related to the maintenance of a "well regulated militia". By extension, that ruling could be interpreted to mean that ANY weapon that DOES have military utility (such as a true "assault rifle" aka automatic weapon or machine gun) IS protected by the Second Amendment.

True, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the right to Keep and Bear arms is an absolute right to any weapon, but they have decidedly not ruled in the other direction either. In other words, from a SCOTUS standpoint, the issue is far from settled...therefore, your contention that "opposition to the NRA is tantamount to opposing the Second Amendment is wrong on its face" is wrong on its face.

Mr. Schneider;

People like you are the reason our gun rights are in danger. The NRA is not the problem. YOU ARE! The proponents of the assault weapon ban are just like the Islamist Terrorists. They will use any tactic to eliminate what they hate. Jews and Americans are the target in one case; and the private ownership of firearms is the the target in the other case.

The assault weapon ban is nothing but one way to convince people that all guns are bad and start eliminating them. Semi autos will be first, then double action revolvers, pump action and lever action firearms will be next because they hold a lot of shells, and fire almost as fast as semi autos. Optical sights will be eliminated becasue they are used on evil "sniper rifles". Bolt action rifles will be eliminated becase "real sportsmen and hunters" do not need rifles that have more than one round of ammunition. Bolt action Military rifles use multiple round magazines and have been used to kill tens of thousands in wars. Sportsmen do not need derivatives of weapons of war.

The gun haters will find all sorts of reasons to eliminate guns from private hands, and giving them a starting point with the ineffective assault weapons ban is just playing right into the hands of the gun haters.

Give the gun haters an inch, and they will take a mile.

The NRA is right. You, and your "resonable approach" are both dangerous and WRONG.

In response to the statement in the article:

"Here's how Wray put it: "I know a man who raises snakes. His snakes are important to him, so he raises mice to feed to the snakes. He takes good care of the mice, because he needs lots of them to support his snakes. We hunters are the NRA’s mice. They want lots of us, too, but they worry because there’s always the outside chance we might start thinking for ourselves."

If "hunters are the NRA’s mice." who plays the role of the snakes in this little morality play? It would have to be non hunting gun owners.

That is despicable. Law abiding non hunting gun owners in the USA are NOT "snakes" that feed upon hunters. We are people that believe in the Bill OF Rights and in protecting ourselves, our families, and our country through the responsible ownership and use of firearms.

To imply anything less is repugnant. Shame on you sir.

To Curtis Stone, 7-21-06.
Good article.

To Derek Scruggs, 7-21-06.

"The Supreme Court has never -- not once in 230 years -- ruled in favor of the NRA's preferred interpretation of the second amendment as an absolute right to bear arms, regardless of context or lethality."

I think you are right .

To my knowledge the only real 2nd Amt. case to go to the Supremes was
US vs Miller.
Miller lost and the case was remanded to the lower court.
It dealt with a shotgun not on the NFA registry.
http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html
http://www.gunlawnews.org/NFA-34.html

But in all fairness the Supremes did not rule against the 2nd as a right to bear arms in Miller.
It dealt with a tax issue.
Also the defendants did not show up in court.
So the decision was made in absentia.

The Supream's , to my knowledge , have never made a clear ruling on the 2nd Amt.

The NRA does have great legislative influence.
They supported the 1934 NFA .

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247

They also help on drawing up legislation on the 1968 GCA and the " Brady Bill. "
Along with supporting different candidates with clear anti-gun history.

The NRA is the largest special intrust lobby for hunters and sportsmen in the US.
It is also America's largest anti-gun lobby.

To the Readership :

Join the NRA and help support Sara Brady and anti-gun legislation.
Join Gun Owners of America and support the Constitution.

Thank you
Duncan Adams

Regarding the common belief that municipalities are not going to confiscate guns, that they previously forced people to register.

It was done in England.

And in Canada.

Both countries with strong hunting traditions.
But you say not in the US

CA has begun doing just that. Confiscating previouly registed firearms.

NYC did that years ago.

Chicago is also on this track.

Add to this Australia, New Zealand, Germany, South Africa, etc. All countries where registration led to confiscation and outright bans on firearms.

So please don't tell me that the government doesn't want to take away the firearms of sportsmen or hunters.

It is false, and you know it, or at least you should know it if you were willing to do 5 minutes worth of research.

The NRA needs to focus on protecting 2nd amendment only. They need to get out of the business of representing hunters because the folks they help get elected help destroy wildlife habitat. That's a fact.

Bill, you are a brave man for writing the article. Ya know your not doing your job if it doesn't drum up controversy and confrontation...and judging by the flaming you are getting. You get 5 stars!@

cheers

Tony Heckard

Bill,

Very well put, your argument about hunters and gun rights.

Keep up the good work.

Drusha Mayhue

Bill doesn't understand anything, and it is obvious by this article.

Hey Bill, the Second Amendment isn't about hunting!! THere is nothing in the Constitution about hunting, or in the Bill of Rights. THere is, however a little blurb about the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. YOu need to go read it. THe assault weapon 'ban' was an infringement, and if you can't see it, you are an idiot.

Oh, wait..you already proved it with this article.

Bill you wrote, "In looking at today's political landscape, it seems like we might need another group to step up and save hunting before the NRA destroys it."

On the other threads where you bashed the NRA for not being a hunting group I gave you specific groups that are standing up for field sportsman. You have ignored my replies on those threads and act like they don't exist here. I can't give you the benefit of the doubt given my specific information. You have a real burn on the NRA. Fine. But, please don't act like you don't know any alternatives. Very, very disingenuous on your part. :(

Bill you wrote, "In looking at today's political landscape, it seems like we might need another group to step up and save hunting before the NRA destroys it."

On the other threads where you bashed the NRA for not being a hunting group I gave you specific groups that are standing up for field sportsman. You have ignored my replies on those threads and act like they don't exist here. I can't give you the benefit of the doubt given my specific information. You have a real burn on the NRA. Fine. But, please don't act like you don't know any alternatives. :( Very, very disingenuous on your part.

I'm not sure if the NRA is interested in helping hunters- I couldn't find their mission statement on their website. However, I can surmise the source of the 2nd Amendment. Just look at its history:

The founding fathers had just finished the revolutionary war when they wrote the constitution. They had seen the vital role that armed civilian militias had in defeating the British. They also could not have envisioned the developments in weapons that would happen in the next 150 years. Furthermore, they had unstoppable confidence in the wisdom of the common individual to make wise decisions for society at large, ie democracy, which up to then had been viewed by governments as a form of mob rule ( hmmm, democracy does look like mob rule at times...).

So, concerned that American citizens would need to overthrow their government again at some point in the future, they included the second amendment, thinking that that would be enough to empower citizens to overthrow their governemnt.

Nothing to do with protecting your home, property, or family. Nothing to do with hunting. That wasn't the intention of the founding fathers at all. The ability of regular citizens to overthrowing the government was the goal.

I really admire the Founding Fathers, but boy did they ever screw that one up. I don't care how well-armed your citizen milita is, it will not be able to overthrow the US government. Insurrections and civil disturbances have been quelled over our 229 year history. The founders goal of enabling a citizen revolt through arms simply can't happen, given the technological changes since the constitution was written. ( To the founders credit, the other 9 amendments in the the BOR appear impervious to technological change.)

Insead, changing technology has made arms more effective. Hunters use them more effectively to bring down prey; felons use them more effectively to perpetrate crimes; muggers use tiny little (but deadly!) handguns to mug people in urban areas. The founders didn't have any interest in protecting these uses of guns- they were only interested in protecting the ability for citizen revolt.

So, as I see it, we in the 21st century are left with lots of the downsides of the second amendment, but none of the advantages.

The NRA doesn't care that the original intent of the 2nd amendment has been eroded by technological advances in weaponry (and armor). Just like Bill Schnieder points out, they use the threat of "They are gonna take away your guns." to maintain a political base, which they then use to pursue their agenda. The NRA's agenda has nothing to do with what is contained in the second amendment, nor little to do with the interests of gun owners, and nothing to benefit hunters. The NRA has become a political organization, an outreach arm of the ultra-conservative branch of our society which uses fear to manipulate millions of people into making choices they otherwise would never make. Good on him for making the point that mainstream hunters want 1) a Place to go hunting 2) some actual wild game to find, pursue, and kill 3) and, yes, a gun to kill it with. The only hunters that are uninterested in making sure armor-piercing bullets are legal are the ones who are hunting bullet-proof-vest-wearing elk. So now its good to hear that there is an organization that can advocate for the interests of hunters.

As a follow-up, why hasn't the NRA legally pursued what they claim are State and local statutes that violate the second amendment? If they are correct, the supreme court would strike down those statutes.

Well, probably because the Supreme Court would re-affirm that gun ownership is a "regulatable right", just like many others. See Curtis Stone's point number 2 above.

Thanks for the article, Mr. Schnieder, I'll go look at the huntersandshooters.org today.

Jim Earl

Typical country club gun owner. You don't care if the government confiscates "automatic assault rifles" as long as they leave your 30-30 alone. Well, look around jerk. Your political heros won't stop with "automatic assault rifles". They won't stop at ANYTHING. And when they are done, there won't be any HUNTING either. Unless you can kill it by throwing a rock! Like Ben Franklin said, we either all hang together or we will surely hang alone.

This article isn't fooling anyone. The org AHSA, is
nothing more than a front for the banishment of
privately owned firearms. They claim this, they
claim that. Were it NOT for the NRA taking on
org's like the Brady Campaign, the VPC, and others
such as the AHAS, there wouldn't be ANY hunting
or shooting at all !

The NRA does what it can to preserve gun rights
for responsible gun enthusiasts. The association
was never meant to be a defender of gun rights
when it first started. It was formed so those of the
Civil War could get together, have shooting events,
and perhaps mend the feelings of those from both
sides of the war.

Now the NRA has been put into a totally different
role and that being to defend lawful firearms
ownership and responsible firearms enjoyment.

Don't be fooled by the AHSA or like orgs. Their
sole purpose is to see private gun ownership come
to an end.

Ask yourself this. Why are people like the
Brady's, the AHSA, the VPC, etc, so afraid of the
oldest civil rights group in the Nation ?

What is it that threatens these anti-gun,
anti-freedom groups so much that they would
resort to back door, smoking mirror tactics to
try and destroy the right to keep and bear arms ?

BG

I have a gun safe full of semiautomatic rifles capable of taking high-capacity magazines. One of them is a Romanian WASR-10, which looks just like an AK-47, but is not, since it lacks selective fire capability. It is a perfectly legal firearm. You and your gun-grabbing friends are welcome to TRY to take it or any of my other firearms away from me.
Were you Kerry's dialect coach when he said "Kin ah git me a huntin' license heah?"

Some of these folks who have commented need to re-read the article in it's entirety. I don't beleive it's about the AHSA or he VPC. I think it's about the NRA saying they represent hunters when in fact they do not. No one is saying that the NRA doesn't do a great job supporting 2nd Ammendment.

Tony, the NRA does not say that they represent hunters. The NRA advocates for all shooting sports. Beginning in 1949 the NRA became very active in Hunter Education courses that are now taught in many states. The NRA advocates for 2nd amendment rights, promotes shooting sports, and participates in firearm and hunting safety courses. Not bad. I just don't get the axe that is being ground about the NRA not representing hunters. There are many quality field sports organizations like the TRCP that do that job very well.

Well, Bill--I'm impressed with your ability to stir things up. As strictly a firm believer in a constitutional right to keep and bear muskets to keep the ornery foreign late 1800's territories down, I'm not quite with the crowd that you brought out with the article. Nonetheless, it's great to read some interesting debate--

Knowing you, I think you pose more of a threat to the populace by your possession of bikes that you can still ride at amazing and to me scary speeds then by your ownership of the various arms you describe.

Good article. Amazing bits of feedback

Charlie

The fastest way to destroy sport hunting in the United States would be to do what Mr. Schneider advocates--namely, to get hunters (who comprise approximately 1 in 5 gun owners in the U.S.) to throw the majority of gun owners under the bus. And the fastest means to that end would be to get hunters to support the AHSA, an organization that was founded by members of the gun-ban lobby, and that advocates essentially the same positions as the rest of the gun-ban lobby.

Mr. Schneider, my wife and I are both gun-owning nonhunters who vigorously support YOUR right to hunt, who defend hunting against critics, and who FUND hunting and the purchase of game lands via the excise taxes we pay on our nonhunting firearms. But the day hunters at large endorse banning our nonhunting guns will be the day that this gun owner stops defending hunting. Period.

Part of the problem here is that Mr. Schneider is badly misinformed about Federal firearms law. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch has nothing to do with automatic weapons, which are covered by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act; rather, it is about banning civilian rifles and shotguns--ordinary, non-automatic, NFA Title 1 guns--with handgrips that stick out. As a nonhunter, I don't particularly care if Mr. Schneider is allowed to keep his .30-30, if he succeeds in stripping me of my (less powerful) Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle and my SAR-1, or my wife's Glock 26 and collectible SKS.

Sure, the NRA leaves a lot to be desired on the land management issue, and we non-republicans (i'm a center-left independent) get tired of their singing the praises of the current administration on non-gun-related issues. So address that, definitely. But throwing the majority of lawful gun owners under the bus, joining the ban-more-guns lobby, and alienating most of your support among nonhunting Americans--isn't the solution, and would be an absolute disaster for hunters at large.

I don't hunt, my semi auto rifle is to protect the constitution.

If you want my gun come and take it.

I know lots of gun owners, none of them are falling for the koolade you're selling.

Anyone left, right or so called center comes for my rifle and I'll give it to you bullets first.
btw, go to hell you fucking little hitler.

cf must be on the NRA payroll. ROTFLMAO

You do not own a hunting rifle ,sir.
You own a high power sniper rifle.
Please turn in your weapon of mass destruction and kill little animals with your hands you killer.

Bill must be on the VPC payroll, we know how much the VPC cares about the 2nd amendment

We all know how you rich white guys
don't want ghetto residents to own guns.

I can't hunt, I get all the meat I need in a store.
I don't like shooting but I have an AK47
in my closet in case the KKK come back.
& the police don't care, they are the KKK too.
You rich white guys make me sick.
The police are there to protect you
and to opress me.

you can't stand proud black men with guns can you, you KKK Kracker!

Nobody gives a shit what you ghetto types do with your guns, as long as you shoot each other with them and leave the rest of us alone.

After all you're sooo independent by getting your meat from the grocery store; you must very proud.

I have read both this and the previous article you refer to, that many Pro-Second Admendments rights people objected to. I must say, I come down on their side. You obviously do not know the people who are funding that group, or you don't care. If you don't care, then you are just a shill for the anti-gun forces, and a dishonest one at that.

You rattle on about "roadless areas" and other such non-sense. You don't really believe that the environmental whakco's are really happy about you going to those areas and shooting Bambi, do you?

You also made a statment that you aren't worried about the Federal government seizing your old decrepit firearms. I suggest you look at the history of other countries, which have instituted a "reasonable and limited ban". I will also point out no onme is calling for a repeal of the ban on automatic assault weapons, which has been in effect since the 1920's.

I have the strong opinion, that you are just another "want to ban every one else's gun but mine" idiot. Your mention of the anti-gun group "Gun guys", is a very strong clue. They are the bad joke of every one who likes guns and hunting.

I hope I am wrong about you, but I rather doubt it.

Mahlon Riggs
Florence, Kansas

It's amazing that so many commenters on this thread completely ignore Bill's argument and simply proceed to insult him as insufficiently militant about the second amendment. The article isn't about the second amendment, it isn't about gun rights, it isn't about the assualt weapons ban, it isn't about Gun Guys. It's simply about whether the NRA is doing good things for hunters, which Bill argues, quite convincingly, that it is not, and which is entirely unrefuted by any of the commenters here.

Jonathan, you wrote: "It's simply about whether the NRA is doing good things for hunters, which Bill argues, quite convincingly, that it is not, and which is entirely unrefuted by any of the commenters here."

I take issue with your statement. Read again my last comment, especially about the NRA's support of firearm and hunter safety courses since 1949. Beating up a podiatrist doesn't make sense when he doesn't do heart surgery. The NRA has been a strong supporter of all shooting sports, a very positive leader in firearm and hunting safety, and an advocate of the 2nd amendment. They don't do windows or tuneup engines. There are MANY very fine field sports organizations like the TRCP, Pheasants Forever, Trout Unlimited and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation that represent hunters and other field sporting interests. Next time you go to a place like McDonald's and order sushi please don't complain, like Bill, when they don't have it. Just go and support those businesses that do.

I take note that the anti, axe-grinding people here fail to take note of the NRA Hunter Services. http://www.nrahq.org/hunting/nraethics.asp

The Code of Ethics is not bad. Check out the left hand column of clickable hunting related services.

Craig, that's exactly Bill's point. The NRA should stick to what it does well, which is defend gun rights, and not pretend it's looking out for the interests of hunters. And people who want to support hunting should send their money elsewhere.

Jonathan, I must respectfully disagree about Bill's point. Here's why:

1. He only mentions the AHSA as the NRA alternative here on this discussion and on the prvevious NRA complaint.

2. He fails to acknowledge the other very fine field sports organizations that represent hunters.

3. He fails to acknowledge the many hunter services provided by the NRA.

In my opinion, Bill's writing about the NRA raises the question whether he is incompetent to investigate and discern the facts of how hunters are represented and the services the NRA provides, or he is slanting the story line to favor the AHSA. As the boss I'll leave it to you to decide which example of very bad journalism this is.

I've been reading the comments all weekend, and I suppose I should chime in with a few responses.

First of all, thank you everybody for taking the time to read the articles and make comments.

I could have implied to the contrary, but I do not endorse the AHSA. I went to their press conference and gave a report on what was said there. I admit that I like some of the things the group's leaders said, but time will tell if this is real or fake. Some people commenting seem to have done more research on the group and they may be right, but the ASHA is not the point of this column. It is curious, though, why the mere mention of this group really sets some people off. It is also curious that, even though I sent both articles to the ASHA, there has been no response.

I support what the NRA does to protect gun rights, and I thought I made that clear in the articles. I'm not a gun expert, which is obvious to you who are, but I support the Second Amendment as much as you do and I think the NRA does an excellent job protecting our rights granted under it.

The point I was trying to make is that the NRA's excellent record of protecting the rights of gun owners conflicts with its attempts to protect the rights of hunters. And there is a difference.

And CRaig, I agree completely with you, many other organizations such as the RMEF, TRCP, Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, Whitetail Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, and at least a dozen others do an excellent job--and I probably should have mentioned them in the column. In fact, unless something changes in the NRA political strategy, it should get out of this business and stick to protecting the rights of gun owners--and leave the preservation of hutning to these groups. Sadly, though, this sets up the liklihood that the NRA and TRCP, RMEF, et all will have to take opposing positions on much future legislation.

Bill

"The point I was trying to make is that the NRA's excellent record of protecting the rights of gun owners conflicts with its attempts to protect the rights of hunters. And there is a difference."

I think that a conflict can indeed exist, but there is no a priori reason why such a conflict HAS to exist. Hunters would derive absolutely no benefit from banning our nonhunting guns, and we nonhunters derive absolutely no beneft when hunting habitat disappears. I can see the NRA sitting on the sidelines while habitat legislation is debated, and I can see Ducks Unlimited sitting on the sidelines while a new ban on modern-looking rifle stocks is debated, but I see no reason why the NRA needs to be spiking habitat legislation, nor is there any reason why Ducks Unlimited should sign on to an "assault weapons" ban. So the hunting and gun-rights groups can move in different domains without fighting each other--or at least they should. Hunters and gun owners are natural allies, or should be.

The main potential conflict of interest I see isthe distribution of Pittman-Roberts funds (nonhunting gun owners might like to see a portion of their share going to fund shooting ranges, instead of all of it going to game lands). But I believe that issue can be resolved equitably and in a way that pleases both groups, and it's not even a national issue at the moment.

As I mentioned earlier, I think there are legitimate gripes with the NRA's handling of habitat issues, and with their partisanship, but I don't see any fundamental reasons why hunters and gun enthusiasts can't cooperate for mutual benefit.

Mr. Earl---------Even I as woman hunter and member of the NRA know that any rifle cartridge except MAYBE some .22 can penetrate a police vest. Yes that hunting rifle of yours. So you sir own a rifle that uses "cop killer ammo". Imagine that. And you should be on your knees thanking the NRA for fighting aganist Kennedy, Schumer, Kerry and others who have tried over and over to ban ALL center fire ammo. That sir includes all hunting ammo. Myabe they are just as uninformed as you but somehow I doubt it. Since you can use the internet GOOGLE is your friend. I am sure you can find the exact Senate Bill I am speaking of in less than 2 minutes. Read and learn then weep. This new group is anti-gun ownership. This has been tried before with an anti-gun front. I believe it was the National Firearm Association( Not the group by the same name today) the last time it was tried. It dried up and died once the truth got out. This fake group will also become a figment of your imagination. Look up the members of this new group and goggle and see from which rock they crawled from. They are not your friend.

I am hunter but I find NRA Wayne LaPierre to be a right wing ideologue to a large extent using the issues of guns and hunters and safe homes to get the gun vote to help Republicans and the corporations they serve. If he were the head of almost any other organization I think more people would realize he is a dangrerous extremist.

Yeah Charlton Heston was a better image but it was mostly show.

LaPierre is the kind of inside the Washington beltway dandy I cant stand, dont trust, won't be lead by.

I went looking for more information on the guy and found his theatrics have lead to getting a $1 million a year compensation package.

Ben 7-23-06

Stupid kkk kracker, I don't hunt I live in a big ghetto and don't have a hunting license! I don't have your disposable income to go and kill animals for pleasure like you do.
Your type always says "I don't hunt with an AK47" right?
Well give me a ride, pay for my day off and let me borrow your sniper rifle and I could kill some dumb deer too.
All I own gun wise is a semi auto AK47 ,you racsit kkk hunters hate the fact that black people own guns, if you don't like it come to hood and take them.
The history of gun control is the history of racism, look up "Clayton Cramer" you Damm rascist kkk beer bellied animal slayers, your real brave against dumb animals.
fucking KKK Krackers

When I was a kid growing up in southeastern Idaho, my father took me to meetings of the local rod and gun club. I think "conservation" club would have been a better word to describe the group, for that's what its members were first and foremost interested in. But that was back in the late 60s. If the NRA ever had a true conservation mission, it was evident then. But not now. A look at Wayne P's latest booklength rant tells the tale. It's one of strict no-holds-barred attacks on anyone who even mentions that it might be a good idea to outlaw cop-killer ammunition or keep AK-57s and Uzis off the general firearms market. The NRA does what it does in fine fashion. But it ought not to fool people into thinking that it's anything but a strict anti-all-types-of-gun control group.

Looks like the NRA just won one in Congress. http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/NEWS01/607270322/1002

Mr. Gregory writes:

"It's one of strict no-holds-barred attacks on anyone who even mentions that it might be a good idea to outlaw cop-killer ammunition or keep AK-57s and Uzis off the general firearms market."

Cop-killer bullets, i.e. handgun rounds constructed of hard materials that might allow them to penetrate police Kevlar body armor, were banned in 1986 by a bill the NRA helped write.

Actual AK-47's and Uzi's (real ones) are tightly controlled under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The "assault weapon" issue is about civilian rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out, not automatic weapons like military AK's and Uzi's.

The reason this AHSA org is stirring so much vitriol and emotion from the 2nd supporters is that it is so dishonest. I mean, come on. STEVIE WONDER could see through this bull_ _ _ _
What they are doing (We're all for guns and the 2nd Amendment, BUT.......) is no different than Al Quada, Hezbollah, and Hamas Muslims trying to gain seats in the U.S. congress and saying. "We support the American way of life, but….”

In the past 30 years I am the only member of our Montana Congressional Delegation ( yep, I'm that Pat Williams) who consistently, without exception, voted against all forms of gun control... no exceptions, despite what the members, my friends, of the current Montana Delegation in Washington might tell you.

The NRA never failed to endorse me.










but...you know what? The NRA has become an organization that would rather elect Political Right Wingers than protect our guns and right to hunt.

Look...if the habitat disappears, as it is slowly doing, we won't have anything to see through our scopes...and, tragic as it is, the NRA either doesn't understand or just doesn't give a damn.

With comments like, "nor do I think all gun control laws, such as the ban on automatic assault rifles, are bad," I can only presume you are an enemy of my right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers did not write the second amendment to protect firearms for sporting purposes. The NRA aims to protect the second amendment for what it is, not for what you think it should be.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Where in there does it say that we have the right to hunt? Technically politicians could ban hunting all together and it would be perfectly constitutional, however a ban on "automatic assault rifles" is not constitutional. These are just the weapons the right to bear arms is intended to protect. Arms that will serve well in the unorganized civilian militia, defined in Code Title 10, Chapter, 13, Section 311 of United States law.

The whole purpose of the second amendment is it to fend off the possibility of an oppressive federal government. Hence, the fact we have not experienced a massacre of an entire race inside our own border, such as when Hitler first began a full gun registration program in Germany. After the end of slavery in the south, local governments desired to initiate gun registration to keep guns out of the hands of blacks, but the second amendment made that impossible.

Unfortunately politicians and fools alike have ignored the second amendment throughout history. This is where the NRA became necessary, but I have still not seen enough effort on their part to restore our rights. I am looking forward to seeing a just action be taken upon the District of Columbia and their unconstitutional gun banning behavior.

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson