NRA Competitor Gaining Ground

Discussion in 'In the News' started by EOD, Jun 18, 2007.

  1. EOD

    EOD New Member

    77
    0
    0
    There is just one problem with this group. It is run by antis. Just another tactic of the antis to divide gun owners.

    http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/ ... d/C41/L41/

    NRA Competitor Gaining Ground


    By Bill Schneider, 6-17-07


    Last year at the annual conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA), I caused a little ripple in the Force when I reported on a news event sponsored by the American Hunters & Shooters Association (AHSA), a new group that bills itself as an alternative gun-rights organization with “a real agenda to preserve our Second Amendment.†By ‘alternative,†the group means--and are not shy about saying it--they plan to compete head-on with the four-million-member National Rifle Association (NRA).

    You can review the articles, here and here, but in brief, the NRA does not welcome the competition, and some snipers sent in some pointy comments following the articles.

    Well, it’s June again, and I’m back at OWAA, in Roanoke, Virginia, and on the second hectic day of the conference, I ran into the AHSA gang again and asked them how the battle was going.

    “When we went to OWAA last year,†AHSA executive director Bob Ricker answered, “we had several articles come out, yours being the first, including one in New Republic.â€

    After that, things started to happen for the new group, Ricker said. At that point, they had basically no members; now, they have “more than 5,000.†And they might have made the difference in changing the color of the U.S. Senate.

    He explained that his group became “very involved†in the Senate race where Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill barely defeated long-time Republican and NRA stalwart Jim Talent. That race, along with Jon Tester’s squeaker over Conrad Burns in Montana and George Allen’s surprise loss to James Webb in Virginia, tipped the Senate over to the Democrats and changed a lot of things in this country.

    “The NRA was pissed,†Ricker said, “and they said we made the difference in Missouri.â€

    In the race, McCaskill opposed a Bush Administration plan to sell off parts of the Mark Twain National Forest, and Talent supported it. The AHHA opposed the public land sales and supported McCaskill’s position and appealed to hunters and gun owners to elect her to keep the Bush administration and the NRA from disposing of public lands valuable to hunting and other outdoor activities. The voters agreed, it seems, and the NRA ended up with another black eye.

    Later, in January, AHSA supported the effort led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which was intended to keep illegal firearms away from criminals. The two groups faced off again on this issue, with the AHSA supporting the mayors and the NRA claiming it was “gun control.â€

    The mayors are still working on the issue, but Ricker told me. “This was not gun control. It was intended to stop criminals, and it had nothing to do with the Second Amendment.â€

    The NRA, though, strongly disagrees, and has heavily criticized Bloomberg, a republican, for the effort.

    Not intimated by the Gun Giant, AHSA leaders took its message to St. Louis in April, and it was no accident that they set up their news conference in the hotel across the street from where the NRA was holding it’s annual convention.

    “The night before our news conference, Wayne LaPierre himself (NRA executive director) called our hotel manager and tried to get us thrown out, but he wouldn’t do it.â€

    Then, the next day the NRA showed up with a film crew at the AHSA press event, and the ASHA made the same mistake and tried to throw out the NRA.

    No blows were landed, though.

    Not yet.

    Stay tuned for more progress reports. And keep in mind that America has about 80 million gun owners, but only 4 million belong to the NRA, so it will be interesting to see if AHSA can actually develop itself as a true national alternative to the NRA--and provide the other 76 million gun owners a place to go.
     
  2. tace

    tace New Member

    1,981
    0
    0
    You know, I don't mean to offend but this is the same "you are with us or againts us" attitude that is so damaging to the overall 2A cause.

    Bush had the same attitude. If you didn't sign up to support the war (before it started), you were anti-American. He didn't see anything wrong with keeping ppl locked up indefinitely without charging them or invading everyone's privacy without any oversight.

    I strongly believe in 2A, but I can't get myself to join NRA because of all the weird stuff they pull.

    I believe in responsible gun ownership, because I don't want the thugs around the corner who have drug selling convictions be able to walk into a gun shop and buy an AK.

    Do I wanna be in a situation where I have to register EVERY gun I own? NO!

    Do I wanna be in a situation where I have to ask for permission to buy a gun? (except the wife, but that's a personal choice ;) )
    NO!

    Do I have a problem with having to get a GFL to carry? Not if its done by the law. Meaning, you walk in, apply, they run the background check on the computer and you get your GFL within 60 days. And if they deny, then they have to let me know why and how to remedy.
     

  3. EOD

    EOD New Member

    77
    0
    0
    The organization mentioned was founded and is run bu anti gun people. It is not a gun rights organization although it tries to masquerade as one.

    a GFL, as all permits to bear arms, is simply unConstituional. There wouldn't be any druggies next door if there weren't any unConstituional Federal drug laws. Making alcohol illegal made organized crime thrive and had many bad consequences but at least the followed the rules. The Fed has no Constituional authority to make any laws against drugs. It has only led to more criminal activity than would otherwisw exist.
     
  4. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0
    I don't care for the NRA. I do, however, like GOA and Georgia Carry :)

    The 2A is very clear, and the NRA waffles too much for my liking. That being said, they may feel that they have to compromise to protect our rights. I just disagree with that position.

    I don't care for this new group at first glance.
     
  5. tace

    tace New Member

    1,981
    0
    0
    GFL is unconstitutional, huh? Here I thought that was the "well regulated" part of 2A, but everyone has a different opinion on that, everyone is surely entitled to their own view, IMO.

    Perhaps, if there are more ppl like you who believe this, you should take it to the courts. Maybe they can sort this issue out for good.
     
  6. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0
    NOTE: I'm not an English professor/teacher/instructor, etc.

    "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."

    The adverb 'well' and the adjective 'regulated' modify the noun 'militia,' and do not modify the noun 'right.'

    Politicians, judges and lawyers seem to understand the grammar rules of the English language a little different than I.

    ETA: Here is a much better treatment of the subject than mine.
     
  7. tace

    tace New Member

    1,981
    0
    0
    That's a good article, thanks for the link.

    Now, my question is, if there are NO regulations to gun ownership, as NRA would love to have, how in the heck does that constitute "a well regulated militia"?

    Or am I missing the point because I look at the semantics of the language and not the grammar?
     
  8. EOD

    EOD New Member

    77
    0
    0
    Well regulated could closely be tied to the NG. All people are part of the militia evn according to current U.S.C. So requiring someone to have a license to carry a weapon sure goes against the RKBA. If you can license it you can prevent it. It has been taken to court. But SCOTUS has avoided the issue for over 70 years. But even by the Miller decision I am entitled to carry an M16. So why are there laws against that? The Constituion gives the Federal Government zero authority over firearms, alcohol, drugs and explosives so why are there Federal laws against all of them? Seperation of Church and State is a fallacy yet is followed blindly. The gov can take your property away and give it to a developer. Our courts work so well.
     
  9. EOD

    EOD New Member

    77
    0
    0
    Have you ever read the preamble to the BOR? The 2nd is further restrictions on the government it does not grant anyone any rights. The Constituion doesn't grant any rights but merely highlights a few. Read what the FFs wrote on the subject. They felt that all citizens should be armed exactly the same as the military.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    Tace, Does "well regulated" apply to the right or to the militia? Does it say the well regulated right of the people? I think you are confusing two different portions of the sentence.

    Think about the example in the linked article. A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

    If there are NO regulations to restrict book ownership, as the librarians would love to have, how the heck does that constitute "a well educated electorate"?
     
  11. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0
    The militia must be well regulated. I think the Founding Fathers foresaw the potential of a "Mahdi Army" in the US. The Founding Fathers were no fans of mob rule, and rightly feared the power of stupid people in large groups.

    We had unregulated militias. We called them lynch mobs. :wink:

    Edited for clarity, and to add: I don't think the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wrote in anything other than the regular ol' English of the time. Semantics are used by people to make things mean what they don't really mean.
     
  12. EOD

    EOD New Member

    77
    0
    0
    Actually all males were considered part of the unregulated militia according to the FFs.

    http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dyn ... uotes.html

    "What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear--and long-lost--proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

    "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - United States Senate, Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

    "The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms. This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

    "The "arms" here meant are those of a soldier ... The citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be the instruments of private feuds or vengeance." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

    "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. 1824. ME 16:45.

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States … Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789

    "The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

    "The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…" Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D [Section 13: Restraints on Powers of Congress con't]. Whole Book.

    "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (Julian P. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

    "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;…" Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).

    "to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them …" Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788. See a discussion on who wrote these letters is available on the Constitution.org website HERE!

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).

    "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).

    10 USC Sec. 311 01/02/01 TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES Subtitle A - General Military Law, PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA, Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes -STATUTE-

    The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    The classes of the militia are -
    the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
     
  13. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I whole-heartedly concur with M249's opinion.
     
  14. EOD

    EOD New Member

    77
    0
    0
    Don't forget about SAF. They have done some really good work including lawsuits. The NRA even had to join a couple to keep from looking too bad.
     
  15. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0
    I had heard, but hadn't done research.

    So, now that I have been informed that I am a member of a government-sanctioned militia, where can I purchase my chosen militia weapon? *points to user name* :minigun:
     
  16. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    True. Alan Gottlieb and his team does great work. His bowtie always cracks me up, especially the Penn & Teller show where he is holding an AK.
     
  17. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    If you want to read a book that goes through all the detail read Clayton Cramer's Armed America
    http://www.amazon.com/Armed-America-Rem ... 1595550690
     
  18. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0

    Nah. There's no chance you'd need to defend yourself on day 59. :roll:

    I'm with GAGunOwner and others. I don't think any American should be required to get a license to exercise an inalienable right.

    But, I'm a bit on the extreme* side... For example, I don't oppose non-violent felons having guns. That's right, I don't care if Jimbo the Bootlegger or Dwayne the Dealer have firearms.

    ETA: *Extreme to people who don't believe in real freedom.