Posted on 06/18/2007 9:32:23 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
AHSA = Trojan Pig
Be Ever Vigilant!!
We should take their idea and start a fake competitor organization to Handgun Control Inc. that promotes “common sense mandatory gun ownership and usage” .
Clueless Anti’s , what they don’t realize is that it’s hard enough trying to get gunowners to join true pro-gun groups as it is.
Just a bunch of pansies who want to sound like they are a big deal.
More like "Divide and Conquer", IMO ...
The best laugh line of the day!!
Where are they on Rudy?
I think they don’t like him much.
I have to say that as a resident of Missouri, I don’t recall any public presence of this group in the McCaskill Senate race. This appears to be consistent with my opinion of the organization as a whole: a lot of hot air and near-truth.
They are aiming for the "Fudds", hunters who have tunnel vision.
I just sent an e-mail around to a bunch of friends and relatives warning them about this outfit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A word of warning.
There is a realtively new kid on the block in the alphabet soup of firearm owners organizations.
They have a slick website, and spout a smooth line.
However, unlike the organizations known to firearm owners, including The National Rifle Association, The Gun Owners of America, The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Jews for the Preservation of FIrearms Ownership, and the Second Amendment Foundation, these guys are wolves in sheeps clothing.
Who are they?
They call themselves the American Hunters and Shooters Association. (AHSA). They proclaim on their website they are for "reasonable" regulation, the whole while paying lip service to the Second Amendment.
The caution is this: To the likes of Carolyn McCarthy and Charles Schumer, "reasonable" regulation means the average schmuck is disarmed. To Diane Feinstein, it means "Turn them in..every one.", and to Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City, it means a license to (illegally) send private agents all over the country in an effort to buy firearms through deception and then either sue the dealers out of business or establish constraints as part of an out of court settlement which permit the City of New York to inspect the records and sales of dealers in other states.
The Commonwealth of Virginia recently informed Mayor Bloomberg that ony of his people caught conducting such activities in Virginia would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of Virginia law.
Other "reasonable" requirements and technological "advancements" which have been touted in the past include ballistic fingerprinting, an expensive and scientifically meaningless boondoggle which only succeeds in registering firearms and owners, not solving crime and "smart" guns which would not let your spouse pick up your firearm if you were injured by a criminal and defend you--even the police think this is a bad idea.
How do we know they support such things? They say so right here . link I quote:
Development of an ASHA comprehensive federal and state government relations program focused on reasonable laws and regulations that addresses law enforcement’s need for modern enforcement technologies required to maintain the highest level of public safety, denying criminal access to firearms and ammunition that pose the greatest danger to officer safety, while not infringing on the rights of hunters and shooters to pursue their sporting activities.
One phrase jumps out at me. "denying criminals access to firearms and ammunition that pose the greatest danger to officer safety".
Remember the phrase "cop-killer bullets"? In reality, there is no such bullet made. But the bullets which pose greatest risk to someone wearing body armor are the same bullets which are used hunting big game in high-powered rifles. The ones which do the most damage are the ones best suited for self-defense.
Ammunition bans are not a new idea to the "common sense" gun banners, who realize, as should you that if you have no ammo, your firearm is at best an expensive club.
So don't let 'em bamboozle ya kid. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. The founders took the right to feed your family with wild game as a given. It isn't about recreational shooting, either. Ultimately the security of a free state depends on the people being able to resist tyranny, and that means being armed, with arms capable of being militarily significant, and that is why "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".
So many laws are bandied about as being "reasonable" and "common sense". We already have laws against doing anything evil with a firearm. We have laws precluding the insane, drug addicted, and criminals from owning one. "Common sense" says that should about cover it.
There is no way to completely deny criminals access to firearms short of incarceration. They will not abide by the law (that's how they got to be criminals!), they will steal firearms, find ways to purchase them, or smuggle them into the country, if need be. In a pinch, they can even make them.
All the laws generally manage to accomplish is to make it harder for honest folks to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their freedom. "Common sense" says that is not such a good idea.
Think about it. When it comes to the Second Amendment, there is no "reasonable" infringement which makes it harder for honest Americans to own guns.
If you support firearm owners organizations, be careful where you send your money. You might be working against yourself, and helping folks who do not have your best interests at heart.
There are lots of well known organizations to provide support for wildlife conservation, if that is your aim, and others yet who specialize in the support fo Law Enforcement Officers and the families of those killed or disabled in the line of duty--without seeking to infringe on your Second Amendment Rights.. By all means check them out and support them directly, if that is your preference. But do not be taken in by those who propose to do so by incrementally disarming law abiding Americans.
It does not matter whether you have a handgun, .50 caliber rifle, a legally owned machine gun (they can be legally owned by the average person but there are a few hoops and a fair amount of money involved just to purchase one), if you are not going to do anything illegal with it.
One of the most telling items is the company an organization keeps. I must notice that on the links page on the AHSA website, there is no link to the NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, or the CCRKBA, not one.
So much for support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Check it out, pass it around. Don't be fooled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to do the same, and use this one if you like.
Really? Cause one would hope but I have seen nothing.
If he knows..... He doesn't have enough.
LOL!
Amen.
BTTT
I'm really tired of this oxy-moron.
2nd that!!
By the description....I own a 5 or 7 of these "assault weapons"
FWIW---
The GOA isn’t a “no compromise” group if they have never accomplished anything.
JPFO isn’t “no compromise” either. They aren’t even a lobbying group. They are listed as an “educational” group. I do have the utmost respect for them, though.
When the Katrina victims were getting their guns comfiscated, it was the Second Amemdment Foundation and the NRA which sued New Orleans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.