American Hunters and Shooters Assn is ANTI-GUN

[birddog]

I may be a little off here, but it seems to me that the hunters do indeed care more about just their sport than about gun rights in general...

Whenever this topic comes up, I end up posting -- somewhat angrily. My friends and I are hunters AND gun enthusiasts AND concealed-carry people. Whenever I see "in general" in a post, I cringe. In general, it's not right to pigeonhole people as "not caring about the 2A". If that's how it seems to you, you need to find other hunters to talk to. You might be pleasantly surprised. Just like other brands of gun-nuts, we're not all the same.

 

[Deanimator]

A lot of the very knowledgeable shooters I know are hunters. At the same time, I've heard a lot of people who ONLY hunt, gleefully throw other shooters under the bus. It's like watching reformed Jews trying to get the SS to go after the Chasidim instead of them. Of course I've seen no small number of these same hunters voting for the Clintons, Gores and Kerrys too. Whenever one of them says, "You don't need an AK47 to hunt." I always ask, "Why do you need to hunt?" Strangely, this ALWAYS seems to baffle them.

Back in the '80s, NPR ran a week long series on guns. Their "PRO-gun" interviewee was a hunter/trap shooter who ONLY owned shotguns, hated handguns, and who said that if push came to shove, he'd give up his shotguns, if people REALLY thought he ought to "for the good of society".

 

[dakotasin]

this thread is about an anti-gun organization that is running under the guise of a legit pro-hunting organization. it serves no purpose other than to splinter the gun-rights groups. it is purely for bait.

and, not to miss a step, much of thr is quick to bash hunters - playing right into the hands of this bait.

for some reason i am always surprised by the backlash of thr against hunters - though i have no idea why i should be anymore... so much of thr is either anti-hunting or against hunters. and by some of the posts on here, playing right into the hands of this facade of an organization.

the most ironic part of all this is the prevalence of 'tshtf' scenarios on this board... if a true shtf scenario were to unfold across a state or a nation, hunters will be about the only people who will survive because they know how to go find food, and won't lose their lunch in the process of prepping such food for tonight's dinner...

 

[the pistolero]

Just like other brands of gun-nuts, we're not all the same.

You're right...and upon further reflection, I see that I jumped the gun, so to speak, in saying "in general." I would never want to stereotype anyone, as God knows how all we gun owners get pigeonholed as a bunch of borderline homicidal maniacs just waiting on something to trigger that impulse. Still, though, this:

A lot of the very knowledgeable shooters I know are hunters. At the same time, I've heard a lot of people who ONLY hunt, gleefully throw other shooters under the bus.

makes me wonder just how many hunters out there are more concerned with just their sport than they are gun rights in general. I really did think we were all in the same boat. And you might say the same of target shooters, though to what extent I do not know -- either way, one is too many, but once again, I am sorry I came across as stereotyping, as that was not my intent.

 

[hoghunting]

An Update on AHSA

According to Gun Week:
"AHSA Executive Director Robert Ricker has become an outspoken critic of the National Rifle Association, for whom he once worked, and he was an outspoken opponent of federal legislation to protect gunmakers from municipal junk lawsuits, even though now the AHSA website touts its support for this legislation".

 

[birddog]

Regarding the last two posts by Dakotasin and Pistolero, thank you!

It's nice to see someone else here at THR stand up and defend hunters, and it's even nicer to see someone re-think a post.

Definitely a High Road moment.

Here's to many more.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

In defense of hunters...

I made an extensive rant about Jewish anti-hunting sentiments above, but I still defend hunting rights. I myself would never do it and find it repulsive, but it is a long tradition, hunters are fellow gun-owners, I know many would stand up for me, so I stand up for all of them.

I know there was a big divide between hunters and "evil black gun" owners for a while, but I think that divide is breaking down. Part of it is that "evil black guns" have become more standard equipment these days. Part of it is that there is more awareness that gun banners want ALL the guns. Even in England with its long hunting traditions, pure hunters have to go through a mountain of hassle to get access to plain old hunting guns. American hunters know the same could happen here.

 

[LAR-15]

If they support repealing the DC handgun ban then I can support them

 

[SnP]

Don't Tread On Me

That's my favorite Oleg poster. It pretty much answers the "why you do need" question in a direct and honest way. No beating around the bush, no BS - straight forward with the politically incorrect Patriotic answer.

Mine too, on the Polictical Crossfire forum I us it as my sig.

 

[Connecticut Yankee]

BEWARE! Ricker/AHSA Quoted Recent NYT Article on S&W

There was a recent NY Times article on the turnaround at S&W, I don't have the link but it was sometime last week. In it Ricker was quoted in one paragraph towards the very end involving one of the big S&W revolvers, he made some disparaging remark about how the gunmakers are making them 'larger' or 'vicious'. He was identified as a member of the AHSA and then it said something to the effect of 'a hunters group'. This is EXACTLY the slick Willie way they will be slipped into articles and news stories as if they were a neutral hunters group arguing for 'common sense' gun laws. I didn't bother to write to the Times because they'd never publish my letter but if he shows up or if the AHSA shows up in your local paper consider writing and exposing them.

 

[benEzra]

for some reason i am always surprised by the backlash of thr against hunters - though i have no idea why i should be anymore... so much of thr is either anti-hunting or against hunters. and by some of the posts on here, playing right into the hands of this facade of an organization.

I'm a nonhunter who is very pro-hunting, but sometimes I find myself resenting hunters a bit also. I think here are some of the reasons why there's sometimes a divide.

(1) Some hunters act as if most gun owners are hunters, and forget that 80% of gun owners are nonhunters.

(2) Most of the "hunters" we see on TV are the ones handpicked by the gun prohibition lobby to stump for bans on nonhunting guns. They usually express the opinion that hunting is the only legitimate reason for anyone to own a gun.

(3) The fact that nonhunters pay most of the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition, but in many/most states ALL of these funds go back to hunters and nonhunters don't see a single red cent. Florida uses some of this money to build and subsidize shooting ranges for everyone, but Florida is an exception.

(4) I as a nonhunter can't carry anything larger than a .22 pistol in an NC national forest YEAR ROUND because some hunters are afraid that I, who have no interest in hunting, might be inexplicably overcome with buck fever and start poaching deer if I were "allowed" to CCW my 9mm or have a carbine in the car when I'm out stargazing.

(5) Some of us have run into only-owns-a-deer-gun types at the range who give nonhunters an earful of crap for owning modern-looking small-caliber self-loaders. Said crap often includes the phrase "you don't need one of those for hunting." (Thankfully, I've never had this experience.)


Nonhunting gun owners are among the best friends hunters have, but it's the minority of Field and Stream types who think that only they should be able to own the gun of their choice that really upset the applecart. Thankfully they're not numerous, but they are VOCAL, and the majority of hunters who support the 2ndA need to speak out on behalf of nonhunters once in a while. We nonhunters certainly speak out for you guys...

 

[dakotasin]

...I still defend hunting rights. I myself would never do it and find it repulsive, but it is a long tradition,...

it has nothing to do w/ tradition. it has a lot to do w/ self-reliance, and taking care of my family.

some people eat meat, some eat lettuce. i like meat, and i prefer my meat to be fresh, hormone-free, antibiotic-free, pesticide-free, herbicide-free, dye-free, preservative-free, and to taste, well, like meat... how people can buy meat from a wal-mart shelf, and actually eat it on purpose absolutely blows my mind. i digress...

ben- i've followed some of your writings in the past, so i'm familiar w/ your arguments.
#4 seems like a state problem to me, so i can offer no assistance or reasoning there. it ain't that way here.

#5 is a pet of mine. i see that many here on thr have this mind-set. i hunt. i am a hard core hunter, and there are 4 gunshops that are over an hour away from me (think of a triangle - i am an hour away from either point, and the 2 points where the gunshops are are an hour away from each other) in which nearly every employee knows me by name. i picked up a 338 not too awful long ago, and i ran into the same 'what do you want that for' nonsense. sometimes these questions aren't in disdain, but serious questions. taken in context, it could be something like: 'how can i get one of those while justifying the expenditure of $1000 to my wife, when the phone bill and mortgage are both due by friday?'

i ran into a similiar question when i dashed into cabela's w/ an ar-15 to get an appropriate scope set-up. in both instances, i replied 'to have and to hold'. that was all that was necessary. it was met w/ chuckles, i expounded by saying it was for prairie dogs (this got more laughs on the 338, knowing nods on the ar-15), and ultimately, found out one of the counter-jockeys at cabela's only has one gun - an ar-15. because my gun opened an avenue to discussion, he sold an ar-15 while i was standing there, looking up mounting hardware. point is, maybe these questions do come up frequently, maybe not, but they aren't always combative in nature.

back to my main point... the subject that started this thread is based an anti-organization, using the facade of hunting to further its cause. that so many of thr'ers quickly jumped up to slam hunters is shameful. hunters aren't the problem. and, obviously this organizations goal - to splinter gun groups - is working just fine.

birddog- thanks. can only take so much anti-hunting crap from 'friends' (read: fello gun owners) before it gets me worked up enough to respond.

 

[dakotasin]

nevermind... i've settled back down. and i can't delete a post entirely once its up, evidently.