# New Pro-Gun Group



## MossyMO (Feb 12, 2004)

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=133168&section=Outdoors

Moderate gun group forming
By Tony Dean, The Forum
Published Sunday, July 16, 2006

Hunters disenchanted with the National Rifle Association now have a choice. There's a new pro-gun group, the American Hunters and Shooters, about to begin a nationwide membership drive.

Personally, I like the idea of a pro-second amendment organization that is just as concerned with the Clean Water Act and wetland protection. The AHSA differs with the NRA on issues such as 50-caliber rifles and background checks on gun show purchases.

The American Hunters and Shooters Association is a new pro-gun rights organization that says it is also concerned with supporting good conservation legislation. That doesn't sit well with either the NRA or the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

In fact, the NSSF obtained a Web site domain last January under the heading "Hunters and Shooters." The site didn't go up until the day after the AHSA held a press conference at the Outdoor Writers Association of America conference in Lake Charles, La.

Its new site, http://www.huntandshoot.org, is similar to that of the AHSA's http://www.huntersandshooters.org - so close that one of the founders of the AHSA, John Rosenthal, considers it a blatant attempt to confuse and deceive those intending to go to the AHSA site. While Rosenthal might be overreacting, you can't blame him for being a bit paranoid regarding the NRA crowd.

The NRA has reacted to the formation of the AHSA by demonizing organizers, suggesting they are really anti-gunners wearing camouflage. After spending time with and quizzing AHSA folks quite intently at the recent Outdoor Writers Association of America Conference, I would hardly call them anti-gun people.

Of the AHSA founders, Bob Ricker spent enough time with the NRA as its legal counsel to know that it can be a formidable enemy. With 4 million members and $200 million in their checkbook, the NRA is no pushover.

On the other hand, another of the AHSA organizers spent much of his life going up against those bigger than he. AHSA president Ray Schoenke is a former All-Pro guard for the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys football teams. He spent his lengthy career protecting Sonny Jurgenson from some of thebiggest and meanest defensive linemen and linebackers in the NFL. He doesn't seem daunted by the size of the NRA.

He's a hunter and owner of a Chesapeake Bay area hunting preserve and feels strongly that the NRA doesn't represent him. Ricker believes that many hunters joined the NRA because "it was the only game in town."

The NRA, despite its size and wealth, apparently feels threatened by the AHSA. The irony is that many hunters who believe in conservation say the NRA too often endorses political candidates with poor conservation voting records as long as they vote right on guns.

Yet the NRA and others such as "Gun Magazine" and "Gunweek.com" have attacked the AHSA as a bogus organization and a front for gun control groups as well as their support of the Democratic party.

There's room for both groups. In fact, two organizations battling on behalf of gun rights makes sense, just as one of them battling on behalf of conservation also makes sense. It also makes sense from another more political perspective. The NRA says the AHSA is aligned with the Democratic party. So what?

For years, the NRA has aligned itself with the GOP, and demonized Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein and other Dems as "anti-gun." The criticism hasn't changed opinions, which leads us to believe it logical that having a pro-gun group that can talk to these folks is worth a try. Browbeating hasn't worked.

Tony Dean is the host and executive producer of "Tony Dean Outdoors," a television series that airs across the Upper Midwest. His daily radio show, "Dakota Backroads," airs 42 times daily on 39 North Dakota and South Dakota radio stations, plus two in Minnesota. He can be reached at [email protected]


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

From their website: (supporting the open fields bill)


> The loss of access to hunting lands is perhaps the largest contributing factor to the decline in hunter numbers and license sales nationwide. Increased access could jump-start an upward trend in hunter participation.


Sounds good to me. NRA = When I get my American Hunter magazine I hardly read it any more. The DVD that came with the subscription was a canned hunt movie. :eyeroll:


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

I read this a few days ago, and frankly am still sitting on the fence. Here is why, I do NOT want any further gun restrictions--as I do agree with the NRA about lets enforce the laws we already have. And that included gun shows. Yet NRAs singleness of purpose, has alienated sportsmen regarding closely related issues as mentioned above.

A damned if you do, and damed if you don't situation. :-?


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

I just finished reading the "Guns vs. Greens" article in the most recent Delta Waterfowl magazine. Fascinating stuff. I had no idea there was such turmoil going on between the NRA and the OWAA. In the magazine, there also are two articles from opposing sides: the first from James Parker titled "Divide and Conquer" and the other is by Tony Dean called "Hunters Need Allies." As you may have guessed, Tony is for conservation and working together with environmentalists whereas James sides with the NRA and believes in gun rights first, everything else second. I have to say, after reading both views and weighing the arguments, I came to a couple conclusions: 1) as much as we need the NRA, they sure are bull-headed when it comes to their viewpoints (something that certainly stands for their character when it comes to gun rights, but acts against them in this scenario), and 2) a house divided will fall. Now by saying that, I don't mean the NRA is going to collapse anytime soon (I certainly doubt it, in fact) but, had they decided joining forces was a good idea for both conservation as well as their hunting heritage, well we all might be better off.

Then again, who knows. I don't know everything that has been going on and certainly don't know everyone's "true agenda." In the end, I hope each group can come to terms and work together, maybe not as one "big group" but as the individual smaller groups they already are. With everyone specifically focusing on their chosen aspect of hunting, game management and conservation WHILE listening to the comments and concerns of the other groups, maybe we could make a giant leap forward.

I just hate the idea of joining a group that has staunchly stood for gun rights, but has no desire to work with anyone for anything other than their own agenda...it seems rather one-sided, don't you think?


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Good summation, Duckslayer and I think a lot of people would agree with you about the bull headedness, etc. of the NRA, and also that an organization that also promotes the outdoors is good. I'm going to join the new organization and also keep my NRA membership, especially with elections coming in the next couple of years.
I'd be surprised if the Dems don't make great gains with all the current unrest and dissatisfaction with George W., the economy (although most people seem only concerned with gas prices for their gas guzzlers - the "me first" mentality" I've never seen any concern in the gas prices websites about farmers gas prices, etc.) Iraq. etc.
Once the Dems have the bit in their teeth I'm sure we'll be again fighting a lot of silly anti gun legislation, etc. 
By the way, I'm a "Repulicrat" who doesn't take chiselled in stone sides on most issues.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

HH,
I tend to agree with you,
However it is my beleif that any moderate group is very ineffective when it comes to politics. If a moderate group compromises they and we will all loose ground. Last published gun control legislation listed the 1100 and similar weapons. I own a nice Berretta and a Ruger 10/22. 
How many of you Waterfowl hunters want to back to a bolt action shotgun? :eyeroll: 
If any of you think that stating in the middle is an answer to dealing on this issue you are sadly mistaken.
Go NRA full steam ahead :sniper: 
Oh, and this to me sounds like divide and conquer started by the liberal left.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> For years, the NRA has aligned itself with the GOP, and demonized Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein and other Dems as "anti-gun." The criticism hasn't changed opinions, which leads us to believe it logical that having a pro-gun group that can talk to these folks is worth a try. Browbeating hasn't worked


 No flippin way is there any reasoning with those 3

Wanta bet that if Hilly Mae is the Dems choice in 2008 there will be an ad showing her similar to Kerry's with a gun or talking to gun holding actors. uke:

Face it boys the Dems are controlled by the far left and the far left want your guns. :sniper: :sniper:


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I just got this month's issue of American Rifleman! Even assuming that their view of the new organization will be slanted, the track record of the leaders and board of this new group as outlined by the NRA must be correct. If not, there would be HUGE lawsuits for libel, slander and incorrect information!
Anyway, it seems that the majority of the leaders and board of directers are veterans of antigun organizations like HCI, Brady bunch, etc. 
After reading this information (twice) I get the distinct impression that this new "progun" middle of the road organization is, in fact, really a clever new clandestine anti gun organization whose purpose is to try seduce people who are dissatisfied with the NRA's too firm stand, and to get them to join the "new" organization which will sell them out sooner or later. 
So I would definitely watch this new group like a hawk! If even half what the NRA says is correct, it is definitely a "WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!"I wouldn't give up on the NRA, even though I don't always agree with their stance.

Like everything else, we have extreme organizations on each side, and we ultimately end up with something in the middle ground. (the feminist movement is a good example - on one hand we have ultra conservative "keep em barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen being subservient to men" types, and on the other hand we have radical ball crunching feminists - when the smoke clears we have a pretty good middle of the road compromise) The system works reasonably well.

If we had no extreme organization working and watching out for us, we'd have something way over on the left, probably run by a Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy or Nacy Pelosi lookalike! We will always need the NRA even if we don't agree with them all the time! Especially with elections looming, and the current dissatisfaction with George W - the antigun epople are probably salivating and rubbing their palms together!


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

"For years, the NRA has aligned itself with the GOP, and demonized Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein and other Dems as "anti-gun." The criticism hasn't changed opinions, which leads us to believe it logical that having a pro-gun group that can talk to these folks is worth a try. Browbeating hasn't worked. "

Actually, thinking about it, I disagree with Tony Dean on this one. Browbeating HAS worked! Where would we gun owners be if the NRA hadn't been there to Browbeat the antis?


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

HH,

Good Post. :beer: :thumb:


----------

