WILD BILL
NRA Doesn’t Represent Both Hunters and Gun Owners
By Bill Schneider, 7-20-06
 | |
|
In June while at the annual conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America, I went to a press conference held by an upstart conservation group called the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which has a pipedream goal of taking over representation of hunters and gun owners from the most powerful lobby in America, the National Rifle Association.
When I posted a report, Saving Hunters from the NRA, on what AHSA had to say at the press briefing, several devoted NRA members made some uncomplimentary comments about me and my article. They said I'd been duped by AHSA and should not give the group any creditability.
For the record, I really don't know if the AHSA truly represents the rights of gun owners, but that wasn't the point of the article. The point was: Imagine a little group like this trying to take on the goliath of politics. To this, I say dream on!
But all this made me think about the role of the NRA plays in preserving the future of hunting. 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.
NRA worrying about AHSA is about like Google worrying about Lycos. But for some reason, 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. Could it be that the NRA is worried that the gig is up and hunters will start to figure out they have been the ones who have been duped?
Again, for the record, I own lots of guns; I've hunted all my life (which is a long time); and I believe the Second Amendment is one of our basic freedoms we enjoy here in America, but I don't fret about the federal government breaking down my door to confiscate my battle worn 870 or my late grandfather's octagon-barrel 30-30, nor do I think all gun control laws, such as the ban on automatic assault rifles, are bad. Given that, here are a few thoughts on the NRA.
First (surprise to some of you who sent in comments), I was a NRA member for many years, but I left the flock when the gun rights group began to regularly support politicians making the Dirty Dozen lists for their views and votes on conservation issues such as protection of wildlife habitat. The politicians NRA supports are probably the worst enemies hunters have, which makes the NRA, regardless of its claims to the contrary, a contributor to the demise of hunting.
It doesn't take too much research to see the giant conflict among the NRA's mission. It's trying to represent both gun owners and hunters, but it can't do both because politicians the NRA puts into office and keeps in office do not represent both. They only represent gun owners.
One would have a hard time arguing the NRA has not done a good job of protecting the rights of gun owners, but in the process, the NRA is sacrificing the future of hunting. Bow hunters aside, all hunters are, of course, gun owners, and I have no problem with hunters belonging to the NRA to support the right to bear arms, but they shouldn't be naïve enough to believe the current management of the NRA represents the best interests of hunting. This may have been true thirty years ago, but not today.
By putting and keeping the enemies of hunters in high political places, the NRA supports unbridled development and reduction of access to prime hunting lands. Hunters need guns to hunt, of course, but they also need game animals and accessible hunting land.
ASHA, incidentally, has no qualms about stepping up to the podium and saying, without weasel words, that it supports keeping roadless lands roadless and designating prime hunting lands as Wilderness. I'll go out on a limb and say you'll never hear such straight talk from the NRA.
Many hunters who belong to the NRA tend to believe the endless barrage of political messages coming out of NRA lobbying efforts. When the NRA says vote for somebody, hunters often do it, incorrectly believing NRA supports the best interests of hunting when, in fact, the preferred politicos only support the best interests of gun owners and manufacturers.
It's a shame, actually, that politicians can't represent both hunters and gun owners. That's another long story for another time, but today, it rarely works that way.
This isn't breaking news. The NRA has been taking some lumps for months on this issue. Fellow outdoor writer Pat Wray of Corvallis, Oregon, sort of blew the lid off the issue of the NRA's conflicting mission last January with two articles on the subject, What’s the NRA’s beef with roadless areas? and NRA No Friend of Hunters.
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. So they keep us scared of enemies, or people they want us to think are enemies. Then we dutifully cough up money to help fight those enemies. Think about it: When was the last time you heard of a snake actually helping a mouse? We’re being tricked."
In response to Wray's original articles, the Gun Guys website where "everybody is a straight shooter," agreed: "One of the reasons we exist is simply to set the record straight on gun issues. For years the NRA has fed lies to the American people because it advances their agenda. And they’ve claimed to be the protectors of the American tradition of hunting. The problem is that they mislead hunters into thinking their actions will benefit hunting. All too often, hunters are foolish enough to believe them. In effect, the NRA is running one of the most effective scams in the country. They are promoting activities sure to decrease future hunting opportunities and convincing hunters to help pay for their efforts."
Last May, another outdoor writer Robert Chappell followed Wray's lead with a well-researched article, Missing the Mark, in the Milwaukee Shepard Express, which was published on the eve of the NRA annual convention in Milwaukee.
In his article, Chappell pointed out that "the NRA has supported conservative legislators intent on opening up wilderness areas, probably the most pristine hunting lands we have, to mining and drilling and the building of roads. In an attempt to justify the contradictory positions, NRA leaders have repeatedly asserted that building roads into natural, pristine habitat is actually good for hunters."
In support of this statement, Chappel quotes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam as saying “Our dues-paying members are hard-working people who are unable to take large amounts of time off to enjoy the time-honored tradition of hunting.”
Arulanadam also claimed, according to Chappel, that modern-day hunters simply don’t have time to hike; they need to drive right up to the tree stand. The NRA spokesman also repeated, again according to Chappel, the "NRA dogma" that more motorized access benefits the elderly, young and disabled hunters unable to trek through the Wilderness. This is, of course, the same old line used thousands of times by industry groups fighting Wilderness designation.
"This would seem to go against the wishes of NRA members who hunt within those areas and fear the continued loss of habitat," concludes Chapel, "and many of those hunters aren’t buying it."
Chappel quotes John See, a lifelong gun owner and hunter in northern Wisconsin--and one of those hunters no longer buys the NRA line, “They (the NRA hierarchy) are concerned about guns, but I don’t know where they’re going to use those guns,”
See lives in Menominee, Wis., which he calls “NRA country,” but says he has no use for the NRA, nor does he worry about losing his guns. “I think that’s the biggest hoax the NRA perpetrates. I don’t think there’s any chance our guns will be taken away.”
Finally, Chappel goes back to talk to Wray, who originally blew the lid off the NRA scam of blurring the lines between interests of gun owners and hunters. “Right now, the NRA is actively working against the best interests of hunters,” Wray blasted. “It’s never been quite so obvious, quite so insidious, quite so dangerous as it is now. The NRA is using hunters, misleading hunters, and using their money in ways that will work against their best interests.”
After Wray's articles came out, he had to suffer the wrath of NRA criticism, but his point went unrefuted. I suppose this could happen to me, too, but as a hunter concerned about the future of hunting, it's impossible to avoid the same conclusion. The NRA does a great job protecting the best interests of gun owners, but it should come clean with its members and admit that it does not represent the best interests of hunters.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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 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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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
Very well put, your argument about hunters and gun rights.
Keep up the good work.
Drusha Mayhue
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.
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. :(
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.
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
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
Were you Kerry's dialect coach when he said "Kin ah git me a huntin' license heah?"
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
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.
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.
You own a high power sniper rifle.
Please turn in your weapon of mass destruction and kill little animals with your hands you killer.
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!
After all you're sooo independent by getting your meat from the grocery store; you must very proud.
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
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.
The Code of Ethics is not bad. Check out the left hand column of clickable hunting related services.
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.
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
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.
LaPierre is the kind of inside the Washington beltway dandy I cant stand, dont trust, won't be lead by.
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
"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.
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….”
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.
“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