The membership of the National Rifle Association is 4 million and it is rare to hear a hunter or competitive shooter make strong statements against the organization.I guess you don't get out much beyond your sporting clay and duck blind buddies, Lew Freedman, although I notice you limited your circle of potential critics to exclude "Second Amendment activists."
That's because the NRA is viewed as the uncompromising, stalwart, shooters' rights defender.
The "authorized journalists" universally portray the "gun lobby" as a monolith, and NRA as extremist. How much research does it take to uncover deep dissensions in the ranks?
Not surprisingly, the NRA is attuned to such challenges from competing gun rights groups, hinting that the Hunters & Shooters Association might be a fifth column on the side of gun-possession foes. Though it sounds far-fetched in this case, the NRA says beware of enemy "antis" in sheep's clothing.It may "sound...far-fetched" Lew, but is it?
Again, the proof that AHSA is an organization established to recruit "sportsmen" into supporting "gun control" is irrefutable (and has been around for some time)--that is, if one is motivated to look for it.
Here are two instances where you have made assertions that reflect either ignorance of your subject matter approaching willful negligence, or a motive to lead them to a conclusion. You've manipulated your readers too blatantly here, Lew, for me to believe it's the former.
2 comments:
There are other terms from the past, that are worthy to be used as a description for AHSA:
Judas
Traitor
Benedict Arnold
Quisling
Fraud
Phoney
Perverse
Subversive
Could go on, but why?
"Ye shall know them by their fruits."
Sadly, many of those terms could also be applied to the NRA. After all the NRA is responsible for inviting the camel's nose under the tent flap.
Post a Comment