Posted on 06/28/2006 2:59:59 AM PDT by Oakleaf
Guest host on Glenn Beck show highlights anti-gun ASHA Written by Jeff Garvas Monday, 26 June 2006 Glenn Beck is a conservative radio talk show host who claims to be neither Republican nor Democrat, and his talk-radio show is very popular among conservatives. Beck recently joined CNN Headline News of all places to host a nightly television show themed along the lines of his radio show. The two shows are lightly interconnected, and Beck regularly interviews other radio show hosts on his television show.
Imagine the surprise regular viewers had Monday night when Beck's guest host Diane Dimond of Court TV fame (where she tracked the Michael Jackson fiasco) interviewed Bob Ricker of The American Shooters & Hunters Association. Dimond introduced the interview by slamming the NRA, estimated there are between 190 and 250 million guns in the United States, and then stated "I just think there are too many of them out there. Who needs an AK47 to go hunting?"
Dimond and Rickers went on a tirade of agreeing to more and more tired old rehashed gun control proposals, starting with asking Ricker how effective "gun buy backs" are to asking why not have mandatory background investigations at gun shows. It couldn't have been scripted better by the Brady Campaign.
This, of course, is just the begining of the story. If you don't know who Bob Rickers and the ASHA is you're going to need some duct tape to wrap around your head, as Glenn Beck would say, because this might just make your head explode.
If you're a fan of the Glenn Beck Program you're going to wonder why the show would take this path after his radio show website linked to this World Net Daily coverage of the UN Conference on small arms on June 18th: NRA warns of U.N. gun control.
Is the Clinton News Network pushing the Beck program towards liberal tendancies and guests?
Bob Ricker used to work for the National Rifle Association in the 1980's. An excellent resource on Ricker and ASHA can be found on the Gun Laws News website. According to that website the ASHA's president has a very interesting past:
... a close advisor to the John Edwards for President campaign. Prior to working for John Edwards, he was the Policy Director for the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Kavanaugh served as Senator Edward M. Kennedy's Chief of Staff and worked with him through both his 1994 and 2000 re-elections.
Why would the Glenn Beck Program be pumping this organization and it's efforts to strip law abiding gun owners of their rights under the guise of being a pro-hunting organization?
Ricker testified in the NAACP junk lawsuit against gun manufacturer's too, proving just where this man's loyalties to gun owners lare. But what bout ASHA? Is it really that bad of an organization? It depends what your thoughts are towards the NRA, the AWB, and gun control. There is an excellent recent story titled Saving Hunters From the NRA where ASHA comes out swinging at the NRA in an obvious effort to divide and concur hunters away from others in the pro-gun movement. Sadly, some are going to buy into it without realizing who is hiding behind the curtain.
But the truth of who ASHA and Bob Ricker really are becomes incredibly clear in this boston.com story: Taking aim at gunmakers:
''There needs to be more pressure put on the gun industry," he said. Referring to one of the ways convicted felons fraudulently get their hands on guns, he said, ''Clerks in gun stores need more training. If a 21-year-old woman comes in and wants to buy 10 .44-caliber Magnum handguns, a red flag should go up."
Ricker has become executive director of a new group based in Washington, the American Hunters and Shooters Organization, that he says wants to promote responsible gun regulation. He calls it ''the progressive alternative to the NRA." (emphasis added by OFCC)
One has to wonder how any hunter (or gun owner in general) could possibly perceive Bob Ricker and ASHA to be favorable to their heritage, history, and rights after writing this piece in 2004: Bush Dances with the NRA Devil (by Robert Ricker):
As it turned out, in April of this year, Senate Democrats and several moderate Republicans banded together to stop the gun lobby's immunity legislation by amending it with measures to renew the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and require criminal background checks on all gun sales at gun shows. This revolt by the Senate stunned the NRA. The immunity bill with the assault weapon ban and gun show provisions attached went down in flames 92 to 8.
Today, we find President Bush facing a slightly different dilemma. The 1994 ban on military-style assault weapons is set to expire in September, at the height of the presidential election campaign. That means Uzis, AK-47s and Tech -9s will be back on U.S. streets unless Congress acts to renew the law. The president has stated publicly he supports the renewal of the ban despite the fact that a handful of ultra-conservative leaders in the House of Representatives are holding fast to their promise to the NRA and are refusing to allow a vote on the controversial measure.
...the piece Ricker wrote in 2004 had this byline at the end: Robert Ricker will be the keynote speaker June 15 at Town Hall, Seattle at an event hosted by Washington CeaseFire.
Not so much Glenn. Not so much.
lessee...second amendment..
Ah here it is.
No? Nothing in it about deer hunting.
It says the rights of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed?
Odd.(sarc)
Excellent piece! Just what was Glenn thinking, anyway? Or is this the result of pressure by the Clinton News Network?
You lie down with dogs......
Yeah, but it means "The right of states to have militias shall not be infringed." Those Founding Fathers had trouble expressing themselves clearly, you know.
Glenn's on vacation (doing an on the road show.) All his staff are probably with him.
In the past, on his radio show, when he had a guest commentator fill in, he doesn't edit their show to reflect his views.
I imagine it's the same thing here. Whoever the guest filling in for him was, they were responsible for their own material.
I maybe wrong, but that's what I'm guessing.
its Anti-gun...... NOT ANTIGUAN.......I read looking for info on sunny island nation of Antigua....pronounced AN TEE GA :-)
No, no it does not.
it specifically says the right of the PEOPLE!!!!
It is to defend oneself from governments who are out of control, either from the outside or from within.
court precedents, and legal and historical interpretation, that all able-bodied persons, explicitly those between the ages of 17 and 45, are members of the Federal unorganized militia, except members of the organized state guards (for example, State Defense Forces which exist in about two dozen states), the National Guards of the various states (which also serve as a part of the National Guard of the United States, a military reserve subject to nationalization by the President of the United States), and certain government officials. An "organized citizen militia" must be created under the constitution itself and/or the laws of a state.
the individual right to own firearms is guaranteed by the Constitution, but the right to own firearms is not at all dependent upon the militia clause. The militia clause of the Second Amendment merely adds to the reason for the right, which is a common law right rooted in the right of protection of self, family and community.
and every "strict constructionist" (you know, conservative?) constitutional scholar who interprets the 2nd amendment feels that way.
Now if you are a "living constitution" advocate, like the Dims, you take the opposing view.
which one are YOU?
I'm anti- guano. It stinks, and is unhealthy and unsanitary. Much like CNN.
I personally am Anti-Guano.
gotta scrape it right off your shoes.
HA I beat you!!
yeah you did.
That's the trigger finger baby! reccanize. :^)
oh my trigger finger is limber and deadly.
its my typin' fingers that are slow as guano.
"Yeah, but it means "The right of states to have militias shall not be infringed." Those Founding Fathers had trouble expressing themselves clearly, you know."
They generally were pretty clear and the meaning is not what you indicate above.
- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Yeah, I'm still chicken peckin after all these years too.
I think Grut said that tongue in cheek.
If a person of middle eastern descent wants to buy a "high powered bushmaster (assault rifle)" a red flag should go up?
If a strung out black gangsta rappah type comes in and wants to buy a "44-caliber Magnum (assault) handgun", a red flag should go up?
If any black person wants to buy a "44-caliber Magnum (assault) handgun" a red flag should go up?
If any person wants to buy a "44-caliber Magnum (assault) handgun" a red flag should go up?
If John Kerry comes in wantin' to git hisself an (assault) shotgun so's he can git hisself some geese, a red flag should go up?
Where will this guy stop planting his little red flags?
Or does he really intend to plant just one big red flag?
Who needs to go hunting?
Arm Everyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.