"No one needs an assault weapon," Schoenke said.

[GEM]

Why does anyone need to hunt? One can live as a vegetarian and not hurt animals.

The RKBA is to preserve liberty and protect ourselves from evil-doers - thus the RKBA is protective right to preserve the best of humanity.

Hunting is an exploitation of innocent animals that should be allowed to live free. Hunters have the worst instincts and motives as compared to the proponents of the RKBA.

How about that?

I regret my Thanksgiving dinner now.

 

[Old Fuff]

"Need" is the key word in the ant-gunner's lexacon. If you don't NEED it you can't have it. Look at California. If you want to buy a gun your must pick one from a government approved list, and if it isn't on the list you can't have it, because you don't NEED it. They of course pick what you need and don't need.

The leftest/Socialist/Democrats believe that it's government's right and responsibility to dictate what the common people should have, based on their concept of "need." They would extend this to everything from automobiles to television programing if they could.

If hunters buy this "you don't need..." business they deserve what they will eventually get...

 

[wally]

I think there are a fair number of shooters who'd vote to ban hunting. My wife is one, she has a very Disneyesque view of nature and gets upset when our cats kill a mouse. She's not the type to try and force her views on someone else, so she certainly wouldn't work to ban hunting, but if it came up for a vote, she'd vote against hunting.

"If I don't need an assult rifle, you sure don't need a hunting rifle". Might be a good way to wake up the RKBA sleepers and fence sitters!

--wally.

 

[chaim]

Hmm, American Hunters and Shooters Association...Last I saw, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or recreational shooting. I want my guns for self defense (whether against the establishment of a totalitarian government, an outside invasion, or against home invaders) and military style rifles with high capacity mags are the best defense in some of these situations (.223/5.56 makes a great home defense round). From what I can tell, this is a big reason most of the founders wanted the 2nd Amendment added. Further, this group is abandoning one of their own stated consituencies, recreational shooters. Last I saw, Highpower shooting was one of the most popular (if not the most popular) of the rifle shooting games, and one of the more popular of all the shooting games. Hmm, what is the most popular rifle in Highpower, oh yeah, the AR15 (with the M1A being pretty popular as well).:banghead:

As several people have said, and others have alluded to, be very careful (and some of the AHSA people need to consider if any of them are sincere, and I'm sure some of the members are), it isn't just "assault weapons". It is just a first step. First it is the "assault rifles". Most people don't own one, many (if not most) people have heard the propaganda enough that they don't really think the average person should own one. But it won't stop there. Next will be either all military weapons usually defined as anything the military has ever used (which would mean bye bye 1911s, S&W M10 revolvers, Beretta 92s, Mosin Negants, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, SMLEs, etc). Next (or concurrently with the "military firearms") will be "sniper rifles", defined as any highly accurate bolt action with a scope (and if we are really unlucky, any single shot, bolt, or possibly even lever rifle with optics might just count). Next (or likely, concurrently with one or both of the proceeding steps) they will ban all "cop killer" ammo- both any ammo that will go through the typical police ballistics vest (which includes all rifle ammo except the rimfires) and any hollowpoint (since both have been termed "cop killer" by antis and the press at one time or another- depending upon which they were going after at the time).

Anyone who thinks I'm just being paranoid- these are all things that one bill or another at the national level has already proposed, and they will try again (and again, and again) until they win or we kick enough antis out of office.

 

[Dan from MI]

I noticed a lot more hyping of AHSA by the media lately - enough so it seems very organized. While I'm a critic of the NRA's overly friendly and overly forgiving policy towards incumbents, I'll take them over the outright gun grabbers at AHSA like Bob Rickert.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/recreation_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_85_5124309,00.html - Ed Dentry: NRA alienates hunters with latest positions

The AHSA has come out in support of wilderness designation for the Browns Canyon parcel. Incensed that any hunters and shooters might run contrary to its eminence, the NRA has run home to mama and reverted to default name-calling.

A statement from NRA accuses AHSA of being "an anti-hunting and anti-gun front group."

That seems unlikely, given that AHSA is run by the likes of president Ray Schoenke, formerly of the Washington Redskins, who hunts and owns a shooting preserve in Maryland; and executive director Bob Ricker, who for 20 years was a top lobbyist for the firearms industry.

What seems more likely is that the NRA has run amok on its ATV. No one can accuse it of being anti-gun. But the anti-hunting evidence is mounting.

AHSA supports banning "cop killer bullets" like the .30-30. Who is anti-hunting?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_martha_r_061103_is_nra_grip_on_congr.htm - Another hit piece.

 

[Blackfork]

I need mine.

I need my assault weapon. I can't shoot National Match team events without a service rifle. Neither can the thousands of others who shoot all over the nation in CMP and NRA sanctioned service rifle and highpower events every weekend.

This guy is woefully uninformed. Wonder if he is happy being uninformed or would like to be educated?

 

[the pistolero]

executive director Bob Ricker, who for 20 years was a top lobbyist for the firearms industry.

Of course, what they fail to mention, was that Ricker was a turncoat, as Cam Edwards wrote, later testifying "as an expert witness for those hoping to hold gun manufacturers and sellers responsible for the actions of criminals."
I am hard pressed to say the hunters deserve what they get if they keep promoting this "need" business, though. If they were the only ones whose guns were confiscated, certainly, but of course disarmament isn't going to go down like that. They'll deserve it, indeed, but the rest of us won't, and it's that reason alone I hope it never happens...

 

[GTSteve03]

I would point out that the government does not use semi-auto assault weapons. They use the real thing. So you won't be using the same weapons they are.

Secondly, if a war is ever waged against a repressive government, it will be fought like the insurgents fight in Iraq, with roadside bombs, improvised explosives, etc.

You don't want to go toe to toe with a professional army.

Granted, some government small arms are equipped to go full-auto, but rarely if ever do they use it. The standard issue M16s and M4s are most often used semi-auto by the soldiers in order to maintain a high level of accuracy. Full-auto is never very useful unless its from a dedicated light MG like the M249.

IEDs and the like are being used quite a bit in Iraq, but that's not the only thing causing casualties. Sniper fire, drive by attacks and ambushes in general are also being used to decent effect.

Mostly untrained militia groups have gone toe to toe with professional armies in the past with the victory usually going to the militias.

 

[xd9fan]

"No one needs an Assault Weapons"

he's a blind idiot if he thinks after the Assault weapons are outlawed that they wont go after the hunting rifles and start restricting the hell out of them. Wake up hunters!!!!!

"There's a middle ground."

Accually there is no middle ground here. Every gun law in these United States started with "common sense" and "finding a middle ground". Its time hunters look in the mirror and start asking some hard questions. "what do you believe in?,.......Do you trust the Govt or the People with Our Rights"

Hunters, you are either for the Bill of Rights or you are not. If you cant see the problems ahead then I will not lift a damn finger to help you in your legislative fights.

No one needs more than a single shot rifle for hunting either. Careful what you wish for boys.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

I can think of several reasons so called "assault weapons" are appealing to civilians. For the record, there is no such thing as "assault weapons". They are merely military derivatives that are semi-automatic and marketed to civilians. Just because they have synthetic stocks and/or pistol grips, anti-gunners like to use the term "assault weapon". Its a joke in my book. I think a deranged lunatic with a scoped .308 rifle would be far more dangerous than someone with an AK-47 type rifle. The range of lethality is much greater, as is the accuracy.

Back to the reasons to own "assault weapons".
1) They are relatively inexpensive, except for the AR-15 type.
2) They are very reliable under adverse conditions
3) They normally fire widely available ammo, which is usually not expensive
4) Large ammo capacity is a good thing in emergencies, such as a natural disaster or the LA riots scenario.
5) Assault weapons are only used in about 1% of the total crimes in the U.S. They are dealing with a non-issue!

As far as the AHSA goes, they are a wolf in sheeps clothing. They organization is headed up by several former board members of Handgun Control Inc. They use terms like "common sense" legislation on their website....red flag, red flag!! That my friends is a lexicon of the gun control movement. As the NRA states, the gun control advocates are donning camo!

 

[Nightfall]

"No one needs an assault weapon," Schoenke said.

How about you stick to deciding what you need, and I'll decide what I need. Don't try to stick your nose in my life and try to dictate to me how to live, and we'll both live happily ever after.

I love how the Tribune tries to paint the NRA as a bunch of crackpot conspiracy nuts when the connections between AHSA and a number of extremist antigun organizations are a provable fact.

You're just not familiar with the new principles of journalism, where you can't let "facts" get in the way of doing what's best for society.

 

[SoCalShooter]

I'll stick to the NRA thank you very damn much. I dont need a car that does not to 60 in 3 seconds but I want one of those too.

 

[SuperNaut]

"No one needs an assault weapon," Schoenke said.

Okay this is probably overkill but:

1. No One eh? Not anybody anywhere Mr. Schoenke? Why then do they sell? Who are you to decide?

2. Needs? My needs and wants are none of your business Mr. Schoenke. I'm also fairly certain that what you would define as a need and what I would define as a need greatly differ. We are not the same and I have no desire to be the same as you.

3. An? I agree with this part, I'd like more than one.

4. Assault Weapon? I notice that he is not saying "Assault Rifle" but "Assault Weapon," why is that I wonder? Creeping incrementalism maybe? The now expired AWB had some ridiculous definitions of an assault rifle I highly doubt it will help to broaden the terms to include all manner of weapons. The gun industry is the only industry in the world that politicians penalize for making their product more efficient and effective. I'm not a Rand fan, but I find such behavior to be spookily parallel to some of the content in Atlas Shrugged.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

We All Need Guns...

...because the day may(most likely will) come when we'll need to USE them!

We all have the inherent right to defend ourselves, family, home, and land. United or not, we still have the need to have the tools on hand and at the ready, and with a goodly stock of ammo. We need to be at the ready ourselves, too. Even if our arms stay locked up in our gun safes, they still serve to deter tyranny. That's a need if there EVER was a need!

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[Mojo-jo-jo]

Exposed...

"American Hunters & Shooters Association" is run by Robert Ricker. He was originally an attorney for the NRA, but moved over to the anti-gun lobby in the 1990's. He's the guy that set up the "Clinton/S&W trigger lock agreement." This is one of the typical "new image" anti-gun groups that's trying to pull hunters away from the NRA by saying that hunting guns are O.K. but other guns BAAAAAAD.

Take a look at these:
http://www.gunowners.org/op0624.htm
http://www.vahv.org/Resources/RickerNow.html

Whois for http://www.huntersandshooters.com/

Registrant:
American Hunters & Shooters Association
PO Box 1739
Frederick, Maryland 21702
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: HUNTERSANDSHOOTERS.COM
Created on: 25-Apr-05
Expires on: 25-Apr-07
Last Updated on: 27-Apr-06

Administrative Contact:
Ricker, Robert
American Hunters & Shooters Association
PO Box 1739
Frederick, Maryland 21702
United States
2023153370 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Ricker, Robert
American Hunters & Shooters Association
PO Box 1739
Frederick, Maryland 21702
United States
2023153370 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.VERTEX.NET
NS2.VERTEX.NET

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Just picking a nit

to shoot straight and speak the truth (as the late Bill Ruger admonished)

Actually, the book To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak the Truth was written by the late Colonel Jeff Cooper.

I don't recall seeing that phrase attributed to Ruger.

 

[Martin Aston]

Well, I think he's FOS because an assault weapon is generally considered as something capable of firing full auto and/or having a mag capacity of whatever... Fercrisake, an M1 Carbine with a 30 round clip and bayonet lug is considered an assault weapon...go figure... Basically, I guess any military or military style weapon is what you might call...assaulting. But, aside from hunters and shooters there's also collectors. An MP-40 is obviously an assault weapon that's more likely to be found in a collection of military weapons then poking out of a camo draped deer stand.

While most assault weapons wouldn't necessarily be the first choice of most hunters there are obviously people like Blackfork who need his for his National Match or who find them the ideal weapons for dealing with particular critters and varmits. That's sound fair enough to me...

The arguement against assault weapons is based on fear whipped up with images of Columbine and other such catastrophes. As if it's really gonna make much differance to people hellbent on a moment of mass murder whether the guns they're using are banned or not. If they can't get their hands on an Uzi or a Tec9 they'll get a single shot .410 and a pocketful of shells...

Some interesting comments have been made.

"Well...Nobody needs lasagna or a 10,000 square-foot house or a Ferrari Testerosa either. The question isn't whether we need something or not. The question is: Why should we not be able to have it if we want it?"

So what you're saying is that as long as you want something you have a right to possess it? So if I want to plant a cruise missle with a nuclear warhead in my backyard that's OK? A British Challenger tank has a top speed of 40mph; if I wanted one would it be alright for me drive it through your neighborhood?

mountainclmbr; What an interesting choice of quotes; Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan and Karl Marx...

 

[Deanimator]

So what you're saying is that as long as you want something you have a right to possess it? So if I want to plant a cruise missle with a nuclear warhead in my backyard that's OK? A British Challenger tank has a top speed of 40mph; if I wanted one would it be alright for me drive it through your neighborhood?

If I leave a loaded FULL AUTO AK-74 in my backyard, unattended and unmaintained, assuming nobody touches it, what's the worst thing that can happen?

If I leave a nuclear weapon in my back yard, unattended and unmaintained, assuming nobody touches it, what's the worst thing that can happen?

 

[Kaylee]

AHSA is still around?

Hunh.. wonder how long this incarnation is gonna last.

I swear, as many front groups as the anti-gunners come up with only to see 'em outed or ignored... the signage and stationary business must love 'em.

 

[Jerry Morris]

Martin Aston said:
So what you're saying is that as long as you want something you have a right to possess it? So if I want to plant a cruise missle with a nuclear warhead in my backyard that's OK? A British Challenger tank has a top speed of 40mph; if I wanted one would it be alright for me drive it through your neighborhood?

If that person can afford the British tank, with, or without its armaments, I see no problem. If he misused it and causes damages to city, or private property, he had better be prepared to sell it to pay for the damages, if he has to. Anyone who invests in Military Vehicles is quite prone to take precautions to insure they get to keep them. As for the Nukes, this tired argument does not deserve an answer, but,,,,, anyone who would and could make one is unstoppable anyway. Anyone who would sell one to a private individual is unstoppable. At least make a reasonable argument, Aston. Nonproliferation is proven impossible, so knock it off.



Jerry

 

[SoCalShooter]

I experience the same problem. NO rifle NO match. Ignorance is bliss if anyone has forgotten and intentional ignorance +politics =evil

 

[alan]

Regarding Ray Schoenke, former Washington Redskins football player, on whether or not anyone "needs" an assault weapon, I never took seriously the comments of current or former football players on anything other than that with which they are familiar and possibly expert, the playing of the game of football, something that I have not the slightest interest in.

While Mr. Schoenke is entitled to his opinion, on any subject, I wonder as to the following. Did the gentleman trouble to define the term he used?

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Quote:

>So what you're saying is that as long as you want something you have a right to possess it? So if I want to plant a cruise missle with a nuclear warhead in my backyard that's OK? A British Challenger tank has a top speed of 40mph; if I wanted one would it be alright for me drive it through your neighborhood?<
*************

That's one of the first arguments that I hear so of the many nanny-state antis make. You right sure you're a supporter of 2A/RKBA there, Aston?

I think Jerry probably hit the nail squarely on the hittin' spot with:

>>
At least make a reasonable argument, Aston. Nonproliferation is proven impossible, so knock it off.<<
********************

All I can add is: Really! At least try to come up with something
original.

As for Aston Martins...Make mine one of those nifty DB5s like James Bond had. A rollin' destructive device like that would cost some folks a lotta sleep just knowin' that I was toolin' down the interstate in it..

 

[meef]

Molon Labe:

No one needs Ray Schoenke.

You beat me to it.

 

[Bruce H]

I wonder how Ray Schoenke and his organization would like to be hunted in the broadest sense? Would he roll over and bawl? Would he look around and decide shall not be infringed is reallly where it is at? Would he wet his pants and complain to Feinstein and Brady?