A typical American Family on Guns: Figuring Out How to Work Together for Change

I live in a fairly typical American family when it comes to guns. Let's just say my wife and I have different views. My wife doesn't hunt. She doesn't even like guns. But, she does appreciate my love for hunting and guns - and we share a deep commitment to preserving our environment. And, I accept that she was a financial supporter of the Brady Campaign. And, I also support her and respect her opinions. On guns, we're like James Carville and Mary Matalin - happily married, on different sides, but still respectful of each others' views.

Over the years, I've also learned that my family's marital division on guns is not uncommon. In fact, in my travels all over the country, first playing pro football and now hunting, I've heard the same thing, surprisingly, from many of the law enforcement guys I've met. A lot of their wives don't like having guns in their homes.

Now, I, like many of my fellow gun owners, feel a responsibility to improve our nation's policies on responsible gun ownership. While I know there is a constitutionally protected right to own a gun, there are limits. I don't believe a convicted felon gang-banger has that right.

I also strongly believe we have to conserve the lands and game where we learned to hunt and shoot. Unfortunately, gun politics are dominated by the right-wing, extremist leaders of the NRA. Their intransigence to engage in any discussion with anyone who has ever disagreed with them on anything has had a detrimental effect on the hunting and shooting tradition.

The leaders of the NRA in no way represent my hunter friends and me. The advice I got from the wise people around me, like my wife, was to start talking about the people who felt the same way. There are a lot of them. That's why I started the American Hunters and Shooters (AHSA). We work to protect our guns and the lands we love, but without the rabid extremism of the NRA leadership.

At AHSA, we support the recent Supreme Court decision in Heller that proved we do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That decision means we no longer have to engage in battles about the Second Amendment. Our side won. We have to use that victory as a platform to move forward to the bigger issues facing us today. That's the test for gun owners. The NRA leadership has failed that test. They want acrimony. It helps with fundraising.

At a time when gun owners need to focus on real issues, they're putting their personal partisan agendas first. You can see the proof of this in our report, RealHunters, RealConservation. There's also further proof from the NRA itself with a new vicious attack on Obama. With that group's current leaders, things will never change.

But, we can't wait for the NRA to change. Hunters and shooters have to make change happen. So just like I have to work out my gun issues with my wife, we need to find a way to put away partisan approaches to responsible gun ownership and to save the lands we love to hunt and shoot in.

Comments

[kaveman1]

Any comment on this statement Ray?


Rep. Alcee Hastings told an audience of Jewish Democrats Wednesday that they should be wary of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

Just curious.

[djkrlsn]

I quess ALcee Hasting doen not know about the JPFO and the JDL

[kaveman1]

Anyone wishing to join a real association dedicated to preserving the hunting and shooting sports, yet feels at odds with the NRA can check out the North American Hunting Club(NAHC). The NAHC IS NOT a Brady Bunch front group. The AHSA IS.


http://visitors.huntingclub.com/

If you have any questions, I have been a life member since 2005. I'm in no ways an expert on the organization, yet I can testify as to what I have seen thus far.

[CaseyTool]

NAHC=NRA front group

[Thirdpower]

Of course it is. I'm sure we'll see some evidence of that anyday now.

[kaveman1]

Sorry tool, they are not.

The NAHC is aligned with hunting/fishing retailers who donate equipment to the NAHC who then send it to members to try for free for 30 days. If you like it, pay a discounted price, if not you simply return it at no charge other than S&H.

This creates word of mouth advertising for the retailers at a fraction of the price of TV, radio or print ads. They donate freebies because it's cheaper. That's their deal.

Oh, and I'm also a long time member of The National Geographic Society. You know, that OTHER NRA front group.

[CaseyTool]

Meanwhile, we note the following:

(http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080916/BC_puppy_killer_080916/20080917?hub=CTVNewsAt11):

"Wellard is accused of shooting the puppy, Seymour, just metres away from its home on Quadra Island Saturday morning. Owner Nick Rose was outside doing chores with his three young sons doing chores at the time.

Rose said the puppy bounded out of the yard to meet two hunters walking down the road, one of whom he was familiar with.

That's when the puppy was shot in the head.

"I ran to the end of our driveway and looked around the corner and there was our little puppy, quivering in his death-throes at the side of the road," Rose told CTV News.

The dog was a gift to son Max to mark the end of his three-year cancer treatment. "

[Mark0]

"Meanwhile, we note the following:"

While truly sad, it is worth noting that the above story occured on Quadra Island, B.C. Canada.
U.S. gun laws do not extend to that locality.

Unfortunately some individuals are so blinded with internal rage at the mere mention of the word 'gun' they attempt to equate every violent incident with the presence of a firearm and simply refuse to acknowledge that the tool is not the problem.

Violence can be committed with any number of tools:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26839528/

"Police said Smith, 41, got angry when his rat terrier, Sam, wouldn't stop barking. Smith struck the dog on the head with a golf club, causing massive skull and brain injuries. The family rushed Sam to a veterinarian's office. The dog had to be euthanized at 3:30 p.m. "

[Thirdpower]

I'll ask again.

Can ANYONE tell me what the AHSA has actually done to support 'hunters' and 'shooters'?

What programs does it run? How much hunting land has it gotten opened? Anything?

[shedances]

Post something with substance. You're just sending people on more wild goose chases ... AGAIN.

[Thirdpower]

You're right. Asking what the AHSA has done IS a 'wild goose chase' since they've done NOTHING to support hunting or shooting.

I'm so glad you agree.

[djcrsn]

Kelli--I agree with THirdpower--trying to find how AHSA actually works to protect the rights of lawabiding gunowners and hunters is indeed a case of a wild goose chase meets blindman's bluff. AHSA supports my rights as a gunowner to the same extent that the Brady Campaign, the VPC and the NOT GunGUys do--in the view of all these organisations--the RKBA does not exist despite the plain words of the 2nd AMendment.

[Mark0]

"You're just sending people on more wild goose chases ... AGAIN."

Coming from you, that is hilarious!!!

Have you not repeatedly told others to do their own homework?

Are you not the person who provides "information" with no link, telling others to look it up for themselves...

...or alludes to a referance in a series of works, but not indicating the particluar work simply for the sake of making others search for it?


Perhaps I can save you some time.
There is nothing to look up.

[Wilson333]

Translation:

Since I can't answer your question honestly without embarassing myself, I will pretend that your question is not a valid one.

Phony AND tranparent.

[CaseyTool]

Ray:

Congrats on your 'Skins career and your outstanding service to the public today.

Don't you find it peculiar to be harangued by NRA groupies accusing you of supporting gun bans? Especially, when their isn't one organization advocating a total gun ban anywhere in the US?

Also, isn't it interesting that these same NRA groupies advocate selling any firearm to anyone regardless of their criminal history or training?

Let's put this in a football context. In order to make it to the NFL, you probably trained a great deal. You ran, lifted, watched what you ate, drilled, etc. You had a lot of experience at lower levels of football--high school, college. Even after this effort, you still had to try out and compete for a job each and every year.

IOW, you didn't just show up at an NFL game, put on the pads, and run out on the field and play. You'd get crippled or worse. The least you could expect is embarrassment. And it's just a game.

Yet, NRA groupies subscribe to the notion that any yahoo can buy a firearm and behave responsibly.

[kaveman1]

Hey Jade.

Can you remind us all where an NFL career is enshrined as an American birth right in the Constitution.

I'm having some trouble finding that part.

One more thing. Could you kindly provide some evidence for your accusations?

"...when their isn't one organization advocating a total gun ban anywhere in the US?"

Uhm... Rebecca Peters of IANSA(funded by billionaire George Soros) advocates a total world wide ban on any firearm capable of firing a projectile over 100 yards. Surely you know enough about guns that this encompasses ALL guns.

[CaseyTool]

Who is this kaveman1?

Possibly Thirdpower's sockpuppet.

Let us toy with him.

He says: "Rebecca Peters of IANSA(funded by billionaire George Soros) advocates a total world wide ban on any firearm capable of firing a projectile over 100 yards."

Rebecca Peters said no such thing. The person who made that charge is Wayne LaPierre, Chief Terrorist of the NRA. He made it in a debate with Ms. Peters in 2006. He stated: "You want to ban every rifle that can shoot over 100 meters. . That’s a football field for people back in the US. That’s every hunting rifle in the United States. "

The moderator asked Ms. Peters if this was true:

Ms. Peters: "No. We recognise that hunting, for example, plays an important role in many cultures. You do not need a semiautomatic firearm; you do not need a handgun to kill a deer, to go hunting. We recognise that target shooting is also a sport in many countries. "

Clearly, LaPierre was lying.

Do you wish to admit to being misinformed or shall we assume the inevitable?

[Thirdpower]

Poor Jade. Caught in another lie. I, unlike him, can admit a mistake. The actual cite is CNN Oct. 23, 2002, not 2003. Here's what she said:

"And that means that no -- civilians should not have sniper rifles, or rifles that they can kill someone at 100 meters distance, for example. There needs to be a much greater degree of proportionality in the firepower that's available."

Since .22's are dangerous to well over 100m, that makes pretty much everything including flintlock muskets.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/23/i_qaa.01.html

Here's where she claims you should only be "allowed" single shots after 'proving' you need it for hunting:

"I think Americans who hunt -- and who prove that they can hunt -- should have single shot rifles suitable for hunting whatever they’re hunting. I mean American citizens should be like any other citizens of the world. "

That's in the IANSA transcript as provided.

[Mark0]

"Also, isn't it interesting that these same NRA groupies advocate selling any firearm to anyone regardless of their criminal history or training?"

That is a lie, Jade, designed simply to create fear and anger in the reader, and though you repeat it often, it is no more true this time than it was any of the other times you have told it.

[Mark0]

"Especially, when their isn't one organization advocating a total gun ban anywhere in the US?"

Well thats not true either, is it?
There are organization that openly advocate bans on firearms of several varying types.
And many of those organizations, and the people who comprise them, do support any legislation which constitutes a ban on any type of firearm.

Most certainly some people, and the organizations they belong to, do advocate total bans, amoungst their comiserates if not openly

Alas many of those people do not possess the honesty, nor the fortitude, to openly disclose their intent to the world, but that does not mean that they do not advocate a total ban, nor does it indicate that they would not support a total ban if the opportunity arose.

How about you, Jade?
Would you support a total ban on firearms?
Dispense with the propagandizing and be honest.

[CaseyTool]

Let's see: Markos equates total gun ban with banning "firearms of several varying types."

Hmmmm.


Not very logical.

[45superman]

"Especially, when their isn't one organization advocating a total gun ban anywhere in the US?"

So a ban isn't a ban, unless it's a total ban? A "partial ban," therefore, is no ban at all?

English not your first language (or second, or third), I take it?

[djcrsn]

Jade--look at 2 things--it was NRA SUPPORT THAT PASSED the improvements to the NICS and look up Project exile. Also--you claim that the laws that were the basis for the Heller case were not a ban when you could not own a handgun or functional handgun in your home?

[kaveman1]

Click on the link in Ray's post "new vicious attack on Obama."

Tell me Ray, how is quoting him word for word a vicious attack?

Just curious.

[molonlabe]

Ray,

Since you support Obama, then can I correctly assume that you and the AHSA do not support concealed carry?

If in opposition to concealed carry, what statistical evidence are you drawing from to substantiate negative repercussions of concealed carry, ie, show me the Blood in the Streets(tm) and Wild West Shootouts(tm) which the Brady Campaign predicted but never came to fruition.

[djcrsn]

Second attempt--Mr Schoenke--if you are so big on my right to KABA--why are all your talking points drawn from the Brady Campaign and its allies. Also--why is almost all the AHSA finacial support coming from gun banners (and why did you make a $5000 donation to HCI (BC's predecessor)? I also missed you at the last gun rights conference here in Los Angeles.

[Thirdpower]

His current claim on the 5K donation is that he was just trying to help out his wife. Between the two of them and their foundation, the total is well over $10K .

[shedances]

Stop throwing around false numbers, Thirdpower! You don't know how much another person's donated to a cause of their choosing (& that includes an author of any blog here) ... unless they have stated so specifically or you have access to their financial records/co­ntribution­s, which you never should have.

[kaveman1]

Howdy Ray.

Why are you droning on about "cop-killer" bullets when the Brady Campaign claims they got those outlawed back in 1986?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/history.php

Are you gonna call 'em up and correct them?

[CaseyTool]

Better gun fetishist research, please.

The cite from the Brady Campaign merely notes it "successfully lobbied" Congress on the issue. As a result, the manufacturing and importation of armor-piercing rounds is banned--but not the sale and transfer.

It might help the discussion move forward if gun fetishists did a bit of research before commenting.

[Thirdpower]

Like on population figures?

[Mark0]

Outlawed for importation.
Outlawed for manufacture.

If they can't be imported or made on US soil the supply will run out and there will be none left to sell or transfer.

You really work hard at making the semantic argument every time, don't you?
It doesn't help your cause nearly as much as an honest discussion would.

[Thirdpower]

So can ANYONE tell me what the AHSA has actually done to support 'hunters and sportsmen"?

Hello?

[Thirdpower]

So Ray, what's the AHSA's membership numbers?

What exactly HAS the AHSA done to 'protect guns and the lands we love'? What legislation have you proposed? How much land have you gotten reserved? Be specific.

It should be noted that the AHSA endorses Obama for the presidency. The same individual that funded organizations calling for the banning of hunting rifles and ammunition, supported legislation banning and confiscating shotguns as well as closing the majority of gun shops in the United States.

Ray himself is also a contributor to the Brady Campaign.

That's how much the AHSA supports hunters and shooters.

[CaseyTool]

I think you have a duplicate comment.

Or are you merely repeating yourself?

Note the NRA's membership numbers have historically been about as reliable as Baghdad Bob's pre-war predictions.

NRA member /hunting writer Pat Wray says: "the NRA is hoodwinking hunters into thinking they are working on our behalf, while they use our money on politicians and legislative efforts which will degrade hunting, now and in the future. What it means is that they don’t care about hunters except as a cash cow. It means they will sell out hunters as often as necessary, if doing so will give them leverage in the fight over gun ownership rights. It means the NRA considers hunters too stupid to recognize how badly we are being used. Thus far, at least, they’ve been right.”

Hunters are coming around to this. They realize you don't need a TEC-9 to hunt and those who claim they do have no business hunting.

Wray again: “We hunters are the NRA’s mice. They worry because there’s always the outside chance we might start thinking for ourselves. So they keep us scared of people they want us to think are enemies. Then we dutifully cough up money . When was the last time you heard of a mouse actually helping a snake?”


This is why the NRA puts so much effort into attacking the AHSA. The NRA likes the facade that they're about hunting and conservation--it removes the focus from their real agenda.

[Thirdpower]

Of course there's no citation to show what Wray was actually saying or when. Not noting that Wray was openly advocating support for anti-hunting organizations like the OWAA (now effectively defunk) and the Seirra club. But that would involve a little intellectual honesty.

There's no need to spend much effort into attacking the AHSA. They do it themselves.

Of course Jade has to throw out the unsupported stereotypes that he needs to maintain the feeling that he's superior. Just like the article that Kelli posted showed. Do we expect anything different though?

[Thirdpower]

Ray is telling the truth. He didn't support the Brady Campaign. He donated $5K+ when it was known as "Handgun Control. Inc."

He supports the rights of hunters and sportsshooters.

[CaseyTool]

It is helpful to remember the NRA is in the pocket of the gun industry. The NRA could care less about hunters; their primary mission is to sell more firearms, period.

That's why the NRA seeks to allow firearms to be bought by anyone, without regard to criminal record or mental health or the like. The NRA has long fought for convicted felons to be allowed to legally purchase guns. And the NRA has fought against any reasonable reporting mechanism which might identify gun sellers who illegally sell weapons or prohibited purchasers.

[Thirdpower]

"In fact, the authors note, the more respondents' feelings were based on a stereotypical perception that all NRA members felt the same about rejecting gun control, the more likely they were to reject the organization as a way to distance themselves from these views."

Stereotypes, ad hominems, strawmen, and outright nonsense. SOP for the anti's.

Of course we'll never see any actual evidence for the above assertions by Jade.

[djcrsn]

Jade--how about supplying a useful little thing called PROOF

[shedances]

I agree with you, Ray ~ there is a big difference between average hunters/gunowners in this country & those who defend the far more extreme pro-gun politics of the NRA. As far as average families go, I live with someone who also shares my values ... & doesn't want guns in our home or around our kids; but I certainly see what you're saying about other couples such as police families & hunters, etc.. It is definitely time to move away from the divisive politics of the NRA. Good blog!

[Thirdpower]

Is that you Pam Anderson?

[shedances]

Pamela Anderson? Are you a celeb fan of her's? Or have you been reading too much National Enquirer lately?

[Thirdpower]

If the "typical American family" donated over $10000 to the Brady Campaign like Schoenke and his wife did, the BC would be in much better financial and legislative condition than it is now.

[1will]

That's true. On the other hand it's likely that Americans would have one less right than they now have. Of course the wealthy, famous and well connected would still be able to own guns.