The Appleseed Project on the front page of the NY Times.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thomas Jefferson would be very proud. Nice find Sebastian - I was unaware of this program.

The NY Times´ "special brand" of intellectual-snobbery-bias is clearly evident and self demeaning. They will indeed boost attendance!
 
I did the first day of an appleseed recently (hottern' heck! people falling out!) After that, I found an AR15 on sale....I'm getting better.

I thought the NYT article was much better than I would expect. It was especially good that they included audio of the history segments.

Took two barely willing teens with me to the appleseed--in the early afternoon, they both spontaneously THANKED ME heartily for bringing them!
 
It is incredibly biased towards equating the appleseed with "the dark elements", but will probably boost attendance 10 fold.

I disagree with you. It definitely examines the uncomfortable relationship between Appleseed and 'the dark elements,' but the author allows Dailey expansive page space to articulate the distance between his organization and said 'dark elements.'

The exceptions to the rule of the responsible gun owner generate headlines and casualties. The largest threat that Appleseed poses is the possibility that some future gunmen will find their way from some dark-side message board to an Appleseed boot camp. “There’s always going to be someone who thinks the revolution is sooner rather than later,” Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center says. “Now they’re learning to be snipers. You would hope Appleseed would do some screening.”

When I asked Dailey about this, he said, “If we recruited 500 people from one of these crazy boards and 499 of them wound up agreeing with us, then what would you say?”

“I would want to know about the one who didn’t agree,” I said. “You’ve taught him how to kill with a rifle out to 500 yards.”

“Well, the only precaution for that is not to teach the skills at all. Why even let them have the hardware, in that case?” He proposed an analogy. “What if the inmates in the asylum were stabbing each other with knives? Do you give them plastic spoons? Or do you cure the insanity?”

“But part of what you’re doing is sharpening the knives.”

“If we can cure the insanity, I think it’s a fair trade.”

It's fairly clear that the author is allowing Dailey to win the rhetorical exchange here. Dailey gets the last word. Heidi Beirich gets her hysterical message utterly destroyed.

Additionally, the author notes as a given that nearly all gun owners are responsible citizens, but that there is a tiny minority that garner all the notice in the press.
The exceptions to the rule of the responsible gun owner generate headlines and casualties.

An anti-gun writer would never acknowledge that the norm is responsible gun owners.

There are tremendous moral complications in the RKBA. An uncomfortable one is that certain of us may abuse that right, just as any other right can be abused. The author brings up this complication, and allows Jack Dailey huge amounts of space to address it.

Some of us would like to pretend this complication does not exist and view the airing of it as heresy. I think these people do the RKBA movement a disservice. If we reflexively avoid discussing the complications involved in civil liberties, we appear thin-skinned and dishonest- that our conviction to civil liberties is more a matter of irrational, religious faith than a rational adherence to the Enlightenment era principles that informed our republic's founders.
 
“I would want to know about the one who didn’t agree,” I said. “You’ve taught him how to kill with a rifle out to 500 yards.”

Jeez, you'd think they were teaching people to build atomic bombs or something, marksmanship just isn't all that hard - learn some discipline and then practice a lot. Lots of people can pick up the basic skills by simple experimentation.
 
The Appleseed Project featured in the New York Times!

The Appleseed Project has definitely hit the main stream! We are very excited to see that the New York Times has published an in-depth, six page feature on our all-volunteer Marksmanship and Heritage program.

Unfortunately, there are several mis-characterizations in that article that The Appleseed Project wishes to address. It appears as if we were unfairly portrayed by a Mainstream Media outlet using subtle innuendo, outright falsehoods, and everything in between to label us as something we are not, as has happened with many pro-Liberty organizations in recent times.

Please read our official response to the New York Times below and we invite you to help us educate anyone and everyone with these corrections.



Dear Sirs:

It is with some sadness and disappointment that we at the Appleseed Project read the New York Times article this evening. When the NYT originally asked us to host their media team in order to better understand what we do, we welcomed them. When they wanted access to our students, programs, and instructors, we acquiesced without hesitation.

We did so because we have nothing to hide and no secrets in our program. There is no reason whatsoever to restrict or fear an open and honest press.

We spoke with happiness and excitement about the stellar growth of our program over the last four years and our mission to bring every American to a greater sense of responsibility for our nation and to live out that feeling through civic involvement.

Frankly, we opened ourselves up and said our piece in trust that it would be conveyed by the press to its readers.

Sadly, today's article is not about us. It is not about the Appleseed Project. It is about militias and about anecdotal gun owners who are not members of our program. The constant focus on the militia movement, the Tea Party, and Mr. Faire are at the center of this article and as a result this article is not about us, since those things are not, and never have been the Appleseed Project.

Frankly, there are among us those who feel that we have been poorly described and treated in this article, and I will return to that point in a moment.

The real tragedy here, however, is a complete failure of the press to see the real story: Why does Appleseed double every year? Why are people of all races, genders and ideological affiliations drawn to the Appleseed Project? What is going on here?

In its rush to cover the desired story, that is, scary militia groups, the NYT simply misses what is really important. Therein lies its disservice to both its readers and our program.

Now, with respect to specific themes in the article that we feel incorrectly describe the Appleseed Project, let us simply address each in turn:

Inaccuracy #1: Appleseed is Militia

Appleseed is not a militia or interested in militia training. Appleseed teaches only in individual marksmanship skills and the history of April 19th, 1775. Appleseed does not provide training in military tactics or unit operations. Rather, Appleseed uses marksmanship as a way for modern Americans to reconnect with the Founders through a shared, traditional American skill. No more. No less. Appleseed does not see our government as an enemy or force of arms as a solution. Rather, our enemies are laziness, ignorance and apathy. Appleseed sees education and lived history as the means to get people to the real solution: Personal involvement in civic processes to ensure a better future for our nation. Our ancestors fought so that we would not have to; all we have to do is get off our couches and get involved.

Where militias offer a dark haven for people with concerns about an unwelcome future, Appleseed offers reason for hope and sees bright, happy days ahead. That is the real reason we are not a militia nor associated with any such like-thinking group.

Inaccuracy #2: Appleseed is White (and thus Racist in some fashion by extension)

Appleseed is filled with students and instructors of all races, creeds, genders, and identities. We make no distinction for color, religion, sexual preference, political beliefs or any other discriminatory category. Our program is comprised at all levels of all Americans, and we explicitly urge all Americans to come. We have no patience for those who would take this great nation and divide it up by race, or who would single out someone else for ridicule or derision. There is no place in our cadre, among our students, or at our events for those who would put petty distinctions above unity and our joint past and future.

Inaccuracy #3: Appleseed is Anti-Government, Anti-Military, Anti-Law Enforcement

Appleseed is not anti-government, anti-military, or anti-law enforcement. Among our volunteers are people who work in law enforcement, the military, the government and nearly every civilian trade. We teach students who work in law enforcement, the military, the government, and any civilian occupation precisely because we are all Americans and inheritors of the same heritage and history. And together we must make our joint future.

Appleseed has zero tolerance for anti-government, anti-military, or anti-law enforcement attitudes, comments or advocates. To the contrary, we offer free spots on our shooting lines for active duty military personnel and have been called onto military bases to teach troops deploying for overseas duty in combat theaters. Elected officials at any level of government are invited to participate in Appleseed without charge. Finally, it is our goal to get each and every participant involved in the body politic, which means we are always clear that we hold our government, the government given us by the Founders, in the highest regard.

Soldiers, police officers, and government officials are not our enemies. They are our neighbors, friends, and protectors. At Appleseeds they are our honored guests.

Inaccuracy #4: Appleseed is Right Wing


Appleseed is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization with no interest in partisan politics. Appleseed volunteers and students come from all political parties, economic classes, and ideologies. We have no place for left wing, right wing, or any "wings" at all. Our program could not function that way, nor do we want it to.

Our only interest in politics is with the political details that led to and followed from the events of April 19th, 1775. From our retelling of those events we find that students are often motivated to move into civic involvement themselves. We do not frame the prospective involvement of our students and look forward to the day when we see two Appleseed graduates from opposite sides of the political spectrum running against each other in a national election.

Our goal is civic involvement across the ideological spectrum.

Inaccuracy #5: Appleseed has a Secret Plan


We wish we had a Secret Plan to get more people involved but we don't. There is no inner group, no special level, no wizard behind the curtain. There is only this: Our ancestors were left with two paths: submission or bloodshed. They chose the latter so that we could be left with a third path: citizenship and civic participation. To take this third path we must get off the couch, turn off the TV, and get involved in our communities. Those who would blather about a "choice" between submission and bloodshed in modern American do not understand what American was meant to be, or is.

Civic participation is not our secret plan. It is our openly stated mission.

In conclusion, it is my hope that the NYT and its readers continue their search for authentic information about the Appleseed Project so that they learn for themselves exactly what the Appleseed Project is, and what it seeks to create: a more active body politic. The current article is simply woefully lacking in that regard.

If anyone has any interest in continuing this conversation or attending an event, please be sure to contact us through our website http://www.appleseedinfo.org or via our email [email protected] and we will be happy to meet you.

We are open to all inquiries and harbor no ill-will toward the NYT or the author. We are certain that what lies behind this unfortunate description of our program is a deep-seated concern about firearms, marksmanship training and heritage programs. It is our stated mission to change that through the hard work of education and apparently we are right where we need to be.

Thank you for your time, and thanks to your readership as well,


The Appleseed Project
National Branch
 
Last edited:
wow, that's an unexpectedly coherent and well-written response. good job. downside is it is not the NYT's policy to publish well-written responses. best bet is to copy their ombudsman
 
Thanks for the tip, taliv. We'll certainly do that!

This response is not only being posted on various forums like THR, but also with all of the media contacts - firearms-related and not - so even if the NYT never publishes it, many people will see our rebuttal.

Anyone and everyone, please feel free to forward or repost this in whatever way you feel is appropriate.
 
If the NYT hates it, I want to buy stock in it.

As far as a secret agenda - like maybe defending our country or preparing us to collect our own food during the coming times? O.K. with me.

RMD
 
Even though the author's bias was clear, I think mainstream exposure can only help.

I copied the Appleseed response to a forum I moderate which gets 500,000+ visitors per day.
 
I definitely agree with Lemmy.
I own guns like all of us, but we must examine our position carefully and be self-critical when need be.
Its fine to teach legal marksmanship, but we have to understand that we are teaching people how to skillfully use deadly weapons. I do not believe it is a good idea to teach as many people as possible how to shoot 500 yards. Unless you were competing, why would you shoot that far? (Hunting at that distance is inconsiderate to the animal, IMO)
And as much as we all may like them, there is no arguing that an AR-15 or any other AR for that matter is very deadly. The direct reason ARs were invented was to kill humans.
Since it is legal to own guns, lets all enjoy them. Especially for those of us who use them as a means to put meat on the table.
I believe in gun ownership and I know that 99.99% of owners are responsible. But I do not believe the second ammendment applies today as well as it did 250 years ago. Should you be able to have the right to own a gun? yes. But worrying about zombies or a corrupt government is absolutely ridiculous. The government will not be overthrown with AR's vs their aircraft + tanks (sorry, its not just powder & ball anymore). And much to my disappointment, there will be no zombie assault for us to mow down.
So I say let us enjoy our rights--but let us be cautious and wary with our responsibilities, instead of just fighting for every inch of ground we can take. Although gun ownership has always been contested, Americans have always been able to own a wide array of guns. The fact that we are allowed to own modern combat weapons says to me that we already have generous responsibilites, there is no point in getting militant about it.
 
I do not believe it is a good idea to teach as many people as possible how to shoot 500 yards.

I disagree technically and ideologically.

Technically they are teaching people to shoot at 25 yards at a target sized to simulate 500 yards. This is nothing more than learning the basics of shooting how to do it properly. Appleseed is not a sniper training school and shooting at the actual distance of 500 yards is a whole different animal.

Ideologically your assertions are no different than the magazine capacity limitations or sporting purpose only laws, ridiculous! Good people are good people and teaching them to shoot well poses no more danger to you or anyone else than a good person who does not shoot as well. If you want to fix a problem, cure the cause (bad people), not the instrument (guns). It really should be that simple.
 
I don't believe the 2nd Amendment is about being "allowed" to own guns as a hobby.

It is about protecting the right of armed revolution, should the worst case happen and revolution becomes necessary.

Anyways, we are not there yet, and Appleseed's mission is to prevent us from ever getting there by curing people's apathy.
 
:eek:>Montbars
But I do not believe the second ammendment applies today as well as it did 250 years ago

Be very very careful with that line of thinking.
It is a fundamental right as stated by DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago

but let us be cautious and wary with our responsibilities, instead of just fighting for every inch of ground we can take. Although gun ownership has always been contested, Americans have always been able to own a wide array of guns. The fact that we are allowed to own modern combat weapons says to me that we already have generous responsibilities, there is no point in getting militant about it.
The '86 hughes ammendment, and $200 taxes per DD says otherwise.
 
The point is precisely to "get militant" by recognizing your responsibilities as a CITIZEN. Not merely as a CIVILIAN. We are supposed to be armed and dangerous. That was the whole idea at the founding. We would need no standing army because the people guarded themselves. I applaud Appleseed as a step in the right direction. Of course participating as a citizen is not just about shooting targets at 500 yards. It's about voting, participating in government and being an informed member of the citizenry. How many local government meetings and public hearings go ignored by the public? How many even bother to vote in boring local elections? By taking up arms to defend your 500 yards of country, you're taking a profound psychological and even spiritual step along the path from mere civilian to full citizen. It's not the only required step, but it is one of them.
 
For starters the Times is a rag and has been for quite awhile. I wouldn't put much stock in anything they print.

It was an OK artical, their is a connection to the right wing militia throughout the gun culture. All you have to do is spend enough time at a range to see it. While I think the artical spent a bit to much time on it, they did address the topic fairly.
 
I definitely agree with Lemmy.

Perhaps you agree with me, but I don't think you understand what I meant. Because your exposition following that statement I do not concur with.

Cosmoline, above, says what I believe far more eloquently, as regards Appleseed.

As far as the NYT's article is concerned, I find it troublesome in some regards, but overall positive, in that it allows Jack Dailey the last word in almost all cases. One needs to read the article in the context of it being published in a local NYC newspaper to understand its import. Better yet, if one can read it within the context of how the average NYC reader will be reading that marksmanship training is in the mainstream, which is what this article symbolizes. The average NYC resident is the stereotypical 'anti.' the article brings up many of the cliche concerns of these people, and allows Jack Dailey to answer them.

MeanStreaker, above, seems indignant at having to address those concerns. Perhaps he does not understand that those concerns are very widespread misconceptions that the readership of the NYT wants expressed. That the author of this article presents these concerns and generally allows Jack Dailey to answer them frankly should be taken as something quite remarkable, given the NYT's reputation for reinforcing conventional 'wisdom.'
 
Last edited:
I believe the NYT article could have been a lot worse, but it also made me glad that I moved out of NYC, became a firearm owner, and attended an Appleseed with my 10 YO daughter. If you've never lived in NYC, you can't imagine how alien the concept of firearm ownership is (if you're not a criminal, that is). All things considered, it wasn't that bad.
 
I own cars like all of us, but we must examine our position carefully and be self-critical when need be.
Its fine to teach legal driving, but we have to understand that we are teaching people how to skillfully use deadly weapons. I do not believe it is a good idea to teach as many people as possible how to drive a car.

The problem is, this logic can be applied to many things we "NEED" today that did not exist 250 years ago. Fact, automobile accidents are far more likely to injury you than your firearm. I don't see a widespread move to restrict driving priveledges in the name of public safety. But as a cyclist, I am 100% positive you, me, and every other person driving the road is part homocidal maniac behind the wheel of a vehicle. People + technology = danger


Unless you were competing, why would you shoot that far? (Hunting at that distance is inconsiderate to the animal, IMO)

Because shooting that far is fun and challenging? I shoot NRA Highpower and shoot 600 yards regularly. I assure you, somebody who earns their Rifleman badge at an Appleseed shooting at 25-yards still has a fairly steep learning curve with wind drift and bullet drop at those kinds of ranges. And it is rewarding to see a bullet hit where you wanted it to at that kind of range. To me it is an addictive challenge, and I know for others it is a similar experience. And what's wrong with wanting to learn to shoot better so next time you and your cousins are trying to hit targets WAY out there, you can beat them?

And as much as we all may like them, there is no arguing that an AR-15 or any other AR for that matter is very deadly. The direct reason ARs were invented was to kill humans.
Since it is legal to own guns, lets all enjoy them. Especially for those of us who use them as a means to put meat on the table.

Firearms are deadly. They were NOT invented to put meat on the table. They were invented to kill people wearing body armor (knights on horses). Look at the history of firearms (or aviation for that matter), some of the biggest leaps forward have been at the behest of making armies more efficient at killing each other.
Bolt action rifles? Check out the work of Mauser and study the little thing called WWI. Also note in the Second World War, the majority of participating armies were equipped with bolt action rifles as standard issue, not automatics.
Smokeless powder? Invented to reduce the chances of giving away a shooter's position on a battle field.
Brass cartridges? Increased the rates of fire of soldiers in battle. (Okay, also to make a waterproof cartridge.) Lever action rifles (Henrys and Spencers) were military weapons first.

The Second Amendment does NOT mention hunting. It is about protecting the freedom of the individual to act independent of the will of the government, as is the entire BILL OF RIGHTS (not priveleges). I don't mean that in an armed-revolutionary way, but rather so we don't become so fat, dumb and complacent that George Orwell's 1984 comes to pass.
 
I thought the article was far more even-handed than I would have expected from the NYT. In the first place, it wasn't so much about guns as it was about the ideas behind Appleseed.

I am all for honest patriotism, but the solution really is ballots, not bullets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top