We're opposed to reinstating the semi-auto assault weapons ban. There's a lot of confusion about this legislation. Most people believe an assault weapon is a full-auto. Those fully automatic guns are already regulated. The best way to deal with this issue is to make sure that criminals don't get guns in the first place.Yet in 2006 he claimed:
Bush was wrong for supporting reinstating the ban in 2000 and 2004. McCain was wrong for voting for it back in 2004 (it was an amendment to S. 1805 for which McCain voted yes.) The NRA still endorsed both of them. We don't agree with the call for renewing the ban. Also, the Heller case should have settled this. What's important is that hunters and sportsmen will have a seat at the table when the Obama administration deals with guns.
and their "Who We Are" page got changed from:
"No one needs an assault weapon," Schoenke said.
"According to a 2003 Field & Stream National Hunting Survey, sportsmen overwhelmingly support reasonable gun safety proposals. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of hunters support proposals like background checks to purchase guns, keeping military style assault weapons off our streets and the elimination of cop killer bullets."This position was defended in their (continued)inaccurate attacks against the NRA w/ the "Zumbo Myth" as late as the middle of last year.
Ray's Presser attacking the NRA (as if they do anything else) for supporting McCain states:
The NRA is holding Obama accountable for votes taken 10 years ago, but giving McCain a pass for his actions within the past 8 years.
A legitimate statement yet the AHSA is giving Obama a pass on votes and actions w/i the last five years, including opposing CCW, banning "assault weapons, voting for 3rd party lawsuits, supporting ammo bans, etc.
So does that mean that the AHSA has "demonstrated once again that it is a partisan political entity, not an organization committed to the best interests of gun owners."?
Armed and Safe has more
3 comments:
This is nothing more than a baldfaced attempt to dupe the unwary.
They change their position because it is politically expedient for them to do so. They can use their newly established position to bash McCain while all the time ignoring the fact that the candidate that they endorsed SUPPORT THE VERY SAME INITIATIVES that they are now bashing McCain over...and more.
It not only demonstrates that they are a partisan political entity, but that they are more than willing to employ the tried and true "mislead, misdirect, obfuscate" methods of the anti-freedom lobby everywhere.
Notice also that on their "Gun Rights" page, there is not a single mention of so-called "assault weapons."
If they're so "opposed to reinstating the semi-auto assault weapons ban," they're certainly not vocally opposed to it. A new ban on so-called "assault weapons" is, I would argue, the most immediate threat to gun rights on the national level, and AHSA is almost dead silent on the issue--although their endorsed presidential candidate clearly favors such a ban (and his running mate has actually written such a ban, and then boasted about it), and as Thirdpower points out, AHSA has in the past been openly supportive of such bans.
If I were the suspicious type, I might find that a bit peculiar.
Sounds like a lame attempt to gain some credibility too me.
Post a Comment