AHSA's Ray Schoenke on semi-automatics (Interesting!)

[derby378]

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.

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.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/14/132131/43/273/630261

And the AHSA is the group making waves with its endorsement of Obama.

I am beginning to warm up to these guys a little more.

[WWFZD]

1. Very interesting,

thanks for the link - from a libertarian, formerly mostly Republican voting, supporter of our fine governor Strickland.

""There is probably no governor, I would say, in the United States of America, who has a stronger, better record in the support of the Second Amendment than does Governor Ted Strickland and I'm proud of that," Strickland told a rally in Chillicothe "
True.

If Ted says "if you are a gun owner, if you are someone that honors and respects the Second Amendment, you have nothing to fear from Barack Obama" that carries a lot of weight with me.

[bossy22]

2. interesting indeed

hopefully most people will see the assault weapon ban for what it really is- a peice of feel good pointless legislation

[Howzit]

3. Not pointless legislation

There is definitely a point to it, but the point is not to prevent crime against members of the public. Nor to disarm Achmed and his palls from "over there".

[aikoaiko]

4. The AHSA is correct, McCain and Bush were wrong for endorsing the AWB and so is Obama.

Obama is still the better candidate overall, but wrong on supporting the AWB. Its fine is the AHSA thinks so too, but I'd like to see how they come to endorse Obama based on his gun rights record.


As national candidate, he can't think like a Chicago politician anymore.

[benEzra]

5. ASHA needs to shout this from the rooftops.

Maybe their intent is to be a shooters and hunters group, rather than an arm of the gun-ban lobby, after all. This would certainly be a step in that direction.

I wonder if this was the issue that John Rosenthal (rifle ban zealot extraordinaire, the guy who claimed that AK's and AR-15's are "designed to pierce police body armor at 1000 yards" and "have no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible without reloading") got the boot over. I hope so.

[bossy22]

6. john rosenthal

is no longer part of the organization??

i thought he was still a part of the board of directors

[benEzra]

13. He resigned in 2007 because his continued involvement with gun-ban organizations

was undermining AHSA's attempts to be seen as a pro-shooters organization. He still works for SHV, Massachusetts' premier gun-ban group.

[bossy22]

19. ohh i didnt know that

because on many sites they still have him listed on the board at AHSA

[jody]

7. “Biden says he would not restrict gun ownership” but promises to renew AWB

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7505549&mesg_id=7505549

[bossy22]

8. promises?

it doesnt seem like he promises- it seems like he supports it- but that is different than promising to renew it. just because you like an idea that doesnt mean you are going to push for it

i have a good feeling that the AWB isnt comming back- i think congress is too afraid of touching it- its a loser for democrats and really doesnt do much for the country- its a symbolic measure that just pisses off voters in western regions...Pelosi knows this

[bossy22]

9. here is an interesting report on this similar thing in the california progress report

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/the_heller_gun_8.html

"Obama – unlike Hilary Clinton – voted for the Vitter-Obama emergency powers amendment. Given Heller, the bogeyman of gun confiscation is over – indeed the Second Amendment Foundation just won its suit via a settlement against New Orleans. In so far as to a “new assault weapons” law the NRA fear that type of law could not pass for two reasons. One, Nancy Pelosi is not going to let it get to that stage. And, two, people forget that the 1994 law passed primarily because of Republicans – most of whom are gone. Indeed, if the NRA thinks assault weapons are a deciding vote, why did it endorse McCain in light of his Aye vote on S. 1805?"

the dems have too many issues they want to resolve- including creating a de facto universal healthcare system (which i agree with it- im not a big fan of the single payer system), ending this war, turning around this economy- why would they risk this oppurtunity on a purely symbolic measure- they wouldnt

not to mention harry reid ain't no fan of the AWB himself- nor would he want to put some of his blue dog dems in danger for such a silly measure

[jody]

10. Obama's bill S.2237 renews the AWB. If that's not a promise, I don't what is. n/t

[bossy22]

11. and if it is a promise

it doesnt seem like he is going to make good on that promise since the bill is going to sit in comittee until it dies

obama/biden arent goingt to push for an assault weapons ban- they would be silly to do that and there advisors know that.

[bossy22]

12. that doesnt mean

i think that obama is a total putz when it comes to the 2nd amendment (but is not close to the total putz in general that McCain is). I think biden generally supports gun rights- except in the nature of assault weapons. Biden continually has been on the record saying he does not support licensing/registration- which is in my belief the way a right turns into a governmant granted privalege.

But obama on the other hand in my view, views the second amendment as a suggestion. He believes in teh rational standard interpretation of the second amendment- which means as long as there is a rational reason for infringing on that amendment- its A-okay.

But in the end i dont think either of them will have the chance to sign an AWB...presidential candidates once elected only get a fraction of what they want done, done. They have to pick and choose which battles to fight- and frankly i dont think gun control is one of them


Also unlike clinton- obama isnt pushing gun control....gun control was an important peice of Clinton's agenda- only a minor one of obama's.

[benEzra]

14. Biden seems to be under the mistaken impressions

that (1) most gun owners are hunters and skeet shooters, and (2) the "assault weapon" issue is about a few fringe guns, instead of the most popular centerfire rifles in U.S. homes.

I wish someone on his staff would do a little digging on the issue. I did contact the DNC last year and the platform committee this year (as have lots of others), so far to no avail.

I'd love to sit down and have a cup of coffee with him and discuss the issue. He's a smart man. I think it's just that everyone around him is an echo chamber and/or clueless on the issue.

[jody]

18. I agree. I would like to discuss RKBA and the several aspects, e.g. AWB, CCW, with Obama and Biden.

They listen only to gun-grabbers with their own agenda and our Dem candidates pay the price in elections.

In too many states, a Dem candidate must campaign against a Repug candidate and the Dem Party with its vote-loser promises such as to renew the AWB.

[iverglas]

29. I wonder whether he's under the quite understandable impression

that (1) most gun owners are hunters and skeet shooters

that gun owners who ARE hunters and skeet shooters really don't give a crap about the gun militants and their agenda, and are normal, decent people with the same concerns as their fellow normal, decent people, but may need something to counter the disinformation spread by the gun militants.

[benEzra]

32. In a 1950's Field and Stream paradigm of the U.S shooting sports, perhaps.

In the real world, 12.5 million Americans were licensed to hunt in 2006.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf

Between 65 and 80 million Americans own guns. Do the math.

Even if you accept the NSSF's estimate that the Census Bureau license figures undercount the number of hunters by 30% (which I doubt, since the NSSF is assuming that all licensees actually hunt), that would only be 17.5 million hunters, best case. According to the NSSF, another 4 million Americans shoot skeet and 3 million shoot sporting clays (not sure if those overlap or not, but I suspect they might).

Currently 40 to 45 million own handguns, 16 to 30 million own "assault weapons," taking H.R.1022 et seq as the operative definition. And many of those 12.5 million hunters also own nonhunting guns that would be affected by an AWB.

Several years ago, the Georgia Arms Collectors association put the number of SKS carbines alone in U.S. homes at seven million. AR-15 sales are running in excess of a third of a million per year (and it's been on the market since 1961, though sales didn't really take off until the early '90s). I think Ruger sold its two millionth mini-14 a couple years ago. Add to that M1 Garands, M1 carbines, civvie AK's, Kel-Tecs, various .22's, CETME's, FAL's, HK's, Benelli's, Marlins, Feathers, FN's, etc. etc. and you are talking about tens of millions, not even counting the tens of additional millions that would be affected by an over-10-round magazine ban.

I'm not sure when the number of "assault weapon" owners alone exceeded the number of hunters, but it was probably well prior to 2004. And skeet is a VERY small slice of the pie (there are more SKS owners alone than that).

[jody]

34. Your numbers are reasonable. Don't forget trap. n/t

[benEzra]

35. The NSSA lumped trap with skeet, as I recall.

I think it was 4 million skeet + trap and 3 million sporting clays.

[jody]

53. OK, NSSA and NSCA are a joint organization and ATA is separate. n/t

[iverglas]

36. "Do the math."

In the real world, 12.5 million Americans were licensed to hunt in 2006.
... Between 65 and 80 million Americans own guns.
<etc.>

As I understand it, quite a few people in the US vote Republican. Quite a few people in the US would vote Republican if the Democratic Party promised a pistol in every pocket.

The math looks pretty simple to me.

[benEzra]

45. And just who, exactly, is advocating "a pistol in every pocket"?

Way to dodge the fact that your 1950's characterization of U.S. gun ownership is inaccurate, though. More Americans *do* own "assault weapons", as defined by H.R.1022, than hunt.

In case you haven't noticed, I *live* in one of those blue/red teetering states, with a Dem governor and state .gov but which went for W in '00 and '04. Methinks I have a little better perception of the conditions on the ground here in NC than you have from up there in Canada.

[iverglas]

48. Uh, I give up.

Me: Quite a few people in the US would vote Republican if the Democratic Party promised a pistol in every pocket.

You: And just who, exactly, is advocating "a pistol in every pocket"?


Are there invisible posts in this thread?

Did I write them?


In case you haven't noticed, I *live* in one of those blue/red teetering states, with a Dem governor and state .gov but which went for W in '00 and '04. Methinks I have a little better perception of the conditions on the ground here in NC than you have from up there in Canada.

I wouldn't expect you to know, but I live in a riding represented by an NDP member of Parliament federally, and by a Liberal Party member of the provincial legislature.

Any other funny facts you'd like to share?

[benEzra]

15. Here's hoping. We don't need another 1994 in 2010.

obama/biden arent goingt to push for an assault weapons ban- they would be silly to do that and their advisors know that.

Here's hoping. We don't need another 1994 in 2010.

[jeepnstein]

16. And that's exactly what it'll get us.

President Clinton has admitted as much. It cost him a huge portion of his agenda and nearly got him removed from office when the balance shifted in the Legislature. Why would Obama be willing to also engage in such a fool's errand?

[jody]

20. It's important for a candidate to LISTEN but it's critical to LISTEN TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE. n/t

[jeepnstein]

21. That's why I like our candidate so much...

He doesn't strike me as a particularly hide-bound ideologue. It will be refreshing to have someone in the White House who can at least listen to reason. I'm sure I'll disagree with some of his decisions but at least I won't have to wonder about his sanity or IQ.

I'm a life long Democrat and a gun owner. I don't hunt anymore but I do shoot ground hogs on occasion and am a Deputy Sheriff. Oh, and I have an AR in my gun safe and I consider it to be the last firearm that should ever be subject to a ban. The Bill of Rights enumerated MY rights, not the governments, and I do not wish to surrender any of them.

[iverglas]

22. oh dear; et tu

President Clinton has admitted as much.

"Admitted as much"?

I trust you can provide us with the actual "admission". So few do seem willing/able to do that.

[benEzra]

23. From his autobiography:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

Yes, the 1994 Feinstein non-ban was a HUGE mistake politically, as well as being idiotic on its merits.

[iverglas]

24. the salient portion,

buried as it is in that lengthy quotation, would be this:

The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members
on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...."

There are also:

They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts
had already... defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote.

Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot
of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....

And that would be an "admission" of ... ?

[benEzra]

25. An admission that the passage of the Feinstein non-ban cost a lot of Dem seats

and was a huge political mistake.

Clinton had been badly misled WRT the popularity of the firearms affected by the legislation, and WRT the irrelevance of hunting and hunting guns. He was advised that a pro-hunting, ban-nonhunting-guns stance would allow the DLC/Third Way'ers to have their cake and eat it too, and that was not in fact correct.

[iverglas]

27. yeah yeah yeah

And Hitler admitted that he was brought down by the concentration camps.

Not by the Allied forces. They had nothing to do with it.

[benEzra]

31. Do you think the gun ban would have been such a huge issue among gun owners

if the gun ban hadn't been passed? Hmmmm?

What was it, exactly, that motivated all those gun owners to vote the pro-AWB Congresspeople out? Oh, wait, it was because those Congresspeople voted for the AWB. Wow, what a coincidence.

Cause, effect, as the Merovingian would say...

Clinton had been led to believe that the AWB was a non-issue with gun owners (because most gun owners supposedly were hunters, and the AWB didn't affect anyone but a tiny fringe, blah blah blah). That advice was flatly wrong, as others with more knowledge of the issue tried to point out. Clinton forced the issue, and proved the critics were right; the AWB provoked an immense (and well deserved) backlash, and ranked as one of the greatest political miscalculations of the decade.

[pipoman]

33. Possibly the century

when combined with the advice given Clinton that voters would forget/not understand the NAFTA enough as to not effect elections. IMO it was the combination of these 2 issues which cost us elections in the ensuing years.

[iverglas]

37. life is just so simple, isn't it?

Clinton had been led to believe that the AWB was a non-issue with gun owners (because most gun owners supposedly were hunters, and the AWB didn't affect anyone but a tiny fringe, blah blah blah). That advice was flatly wrong, as others with more knowledge of the issue tried to point out.

The actual facts seem to be that it was a non-issue until THE NRA MADE IT AN ISSUE and flung huge amounts of money into making it an issue.

Cause, effect, as anyone with a stitch of sense and an iota of integrity would say.

The AWB did NOT provoke "an immense (and well deserved) backlash". THE NRA DID.

[tburnsten]

40. Seems more like it was a non-issue

until congress went well out of their way to make it an issue. Nice attempt to blame the NRA for a massive Democrat-led SNAFU that lost us control of congress as soon as voters got a chance to evict their representatives.

[gorfle]

41. wow!

The actual facts seem to be that it was a non-issue until THE NRA MADE IT AN ISSUE and flung huge amounts of money into making it an issue.

Wow! You mean the NRA called the administration on anti-firearm policy? Shocking.

The NRA didn't make the issue. They simply called attention to it. And rightfully so.

[iverglas]

44. Will you people make up your goddamned minds?

There are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES in this ongoing nonsense.

(1) Is/was Democratic Party firearms policy good/bad, right/wrong because it loses elections?

(2) Is/was Democratic Party firearms policy good/bad, right/wrong on its merits?

They are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.

A policy may be good/bad, right/wrong because it loses elections -- but THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING as a policy being good/bad, right/wrong on its merits.

The two discussions are DIFFERENT.


If you are going to argue that Democratic Party firearms policy is good/bad, right/wrong because it loses elections, ARGUE THAT POINT. The MERITS of the policy are NOT RELEVANT to that point.

If you are going to argue that Democratic Party firearms policy is good/bad, right/wrong on its merits, ARGUE THAT POINT. Whether that policy LOSES ELECTIONS is NOT RELEVANT to that point.


This:

Wow! You mean the NRA called the administration on anti-firearm policy? Shocking.
The NRA didn't make the issue. They simply called attention to it. And rightfully so.

is just more conflation (the conflation identified in my italics) of the two issues identified above, PLUS the third and real issue: that the Democratic Party did not lose elections because its firearms policy is good/bad, right/wrong on its merits, or because that policy loses elections. The party lost because of A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN against it, led by the NRA, that DECEITFULLY MADE the merits of the policy an issue in some voters' minds.

Those comments can also hardly be interpreted as anything but a statement that it was good that the Democrats lost the elections in question.


Bill Clinton, for example, has NEVER SAID that Democratic Party firearms policy is bad or wrong.

He has also NEVER SAID that Democratic Party firearms policy lost an election.

He said that THE NRA-DRIVEN BACKLASH to the policy lost an election.

If you choose not to acknowledge that these things are all different, you choose your own public image.



typos fixed

[tburnsten]

49. Both are wrong

And they lose elections for the same reason they are just poorly though out policies. We do not live in a weapon-free, hostility free world and gun control doesn't really do anything to prevent crime, but it does mightily inconvenience people who enjoy shooting, whether or not you aggre with the their choice of hobby or if you approve of the variety of shooting sports that exist nowadays beyond olympic style slowfire bullseye.

[iverglas]

51. okay; if I don't answer, I'm evading ...

... but I'm afraid that trying to answer, i.e. to figure out what this had to do with anything I'm saying, well, that would appear to be a pointless exercise.

[gorfle]

52. Yes and Yes.

There are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES in this ongoing nonsense.

(1) Is/was Democratic Party firearms policy good/bad, right/wrong because it loses elections?

(2) Is/was Democratic Party firearms policy good/bad, right/wrong on its merits?

The Democratic Party firearms policy is bad and wrong because it loses elections.

The Democratic Party firearms policy is bad and wrong on its merits.

[iverglas]

54. you are so

cute.

[gorfle]

55. And also...

...correct.

Cute and correct. A winning combination.

[benEzra]

47. No, the AWB did...

as the law was not, as you seem to imply, a figment of the NRA's fevered imagination; it was, in fact, written into the U.S. Code.

The NRA would love to take the credit for 1994, but 1994 would have played out similarly without the NRA. There are between four and eight times as many "assault weapon" owners in the USA as there are NRA members, FWIW.

If you choose to believe that the tail is wagging the dog, feel free to do so, but you are quite out of touch on this issue as it plays here (rather than Up There).

[iverglas]

50. now there are invisible words in my posts ...

Me: The actual facts seem to be that it was a non-issue until THE NRA MADE IT AN ISSUE and flung huge amounts of money into making it an issue.

You: the law was not, as you seem to imply, a figment of the NRA's fevered imagination; it was, in fact, written into the U.S. Code.


If somebody can read those two statements as being somehow related, maybe you could give me directions to the planet you live on.


The NRA would love to take the credit for 1994, but 1994 would have played out similarly without the NRA.
There are between four and eight times as many "assault weapon" owners in the USA as there are NRA members, FWIW.

Ditto; directions, please? To the place where there is a logical connection between these two statements? (Not to mention where the proof of the assertion "1994 would have played out similarly without the NRA" can be found. It isn't the planet where Bill Clinton lives; that much we know.)

And those two statements were even made by the same person ...



If you choose to believe that the tail is wagging the dog, feel free to do so, but you are quite out of touch on this issue as it plays here (rather than Up There).

Yup. Me and Bill Clinton. Just living on another planet.

Another planet from the one some folks hereabouts inhabit, anyhow.

[pipoman]

26. Self Delete

[jody]

17. AHSA versus the Gallia County Gun Club

Supporter details Obama’s stance on hunting rights

That’s right. American Hunters and Shooters Association President Ray Schoenke conducted a two-day tour across Ohio Tuesday and Wednesday, stopping at the Gallia County Gun Club yesterday to confirm Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s support for the rights of hunters and sportsmen.

The AHSA is a non-partisan, gun rights organization and an alternative to the National Rifle Association. The organization aims to protect sporting heritage and hunting and fishing conservation, while promoting gun safety.

* * * * ** * * *

“We need to communicate this message to gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama,” Saxbe said. “We’re very thankful for much of what the NRA has done, but they’ve made their choice in this race to support John McCain and unfortunately some of the things being said by the candidates and people supporting the candidates are just not true, and that’s why we’re here.”

The three men mainly pushed the message that those who don’t want to vote for Obama should not, but if they don’t want to vote for him because they think he will take their guns, then they should rethink that decision because no one is going to take away the right to legally bear arms.

Guest VIEW: Clarifying the position of gun club, NRA

The so-called member of the Gallia County Gun Club, Mr. George Myers, was a member about two years ago, but according to the club’s secretary, he was dropped as a member in good standing for failure to pay his dues, and for violation of club rules. In my opinion this article was nothing more than a political stunt from a group that nobody heard of, and is less than two years old compared to the NRA that has been protecting our Second Amendment rights for over a 137 years.

American Hunters and Shooters Association: The Ultimate in Political Camouflage in an effort to mislead and divide the gun-owning community and to dilute gun owners' political impact. Anti-gun activities want to ensure that 1994 and 2000 never happen again. To achieve their goals, they have created new organizations with names designed to confuse gun owners and hide the real agenda. The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) is one of those groups.

AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a “sportsman’s” group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA president Ray Schoenke has a long history of giving political donations to some of the most anti-gun politicians, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy.

In 2000, Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign. AHSA board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, the Massachusetts anti-gun group. One of the leading organizers of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits. (For more information, see Anti-Gunners Don Camo as Elections Loom).

[iverglas]

28. huh; sorta like ...

AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a “sportsman’s” group.


... "Black Man with a Gun" then.

[SteveM]

30. Why don't you ask the "Black Man with a Gun" for his outlook? (nt)

[iverglas]

38. okey dokey

Just as soon as jody tells us the AHSA's.

[iverglas]

39. hey -- I like this bit!

In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA president Ray Schoenke has a long history of giving political donations to some of the most anti-gun politicians, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy.

I know I'm just an ignorant outlander, but aren't they all Democrats?

And I thought those anti-gun people were Republicans.

I know, I know. They're sly Republicans ...

[gorfle]

42. There are..

And I thought those anti-gun people were Republicans.

Sadly there are probably far more anti-gun Democrats than anti-gun Republicans.

[derby378]

43. I think she's trying the old "guilt by association" bit

And yes, Schoenke did give to those folks - in the past. He knows better now. He's learning. A lot of Democrats are.

[iverglas]

46. guilt by associating with Democrats?

What universe am I in?


And yes, Schoenke did give to those folks - in the past. He knows better now. He's learning. A lot of Democrats are.

I just give up.

The Brady Campaign and its associates, which I am told AHSA and Schoenke are examples of, are Republicans, have I not got that right?

The personalities in the Brady Campaign contribute to the Democratic Party / Democratic Party candidates who support firearms control measures that the Brady Campaign supports.

Schoenke is one of those personalities.

I'm assuming that the only conclusion I can reach is that they are very clever stealth Republicans, giving money to prominent, highly respected Democrats like Ted Kennedy in order to skewer the Democratic Party on its firearms control policies and bring it down.

(Why has the NRA not thought of this, I wonder.)

Now I'm told that Schoenke is "learning", i.e. presumably not giving money to Democrats again. On what authority do we have this?

And would this not be the ruination of their sly plan to skewer the Democrats, to damn them with praise from bad quarters?

Will somebody give me a road map, please?