Mike,
Here are the issues.
1. Your OP was disingenuous. You tried to make it sound like you were researching the issue, and interested in joining BHA. You clearly were not.
2. Your post advises to research political group funding, quoting propaganda from a dark money group. This is problematic on every level because the group they (and you) are trying to smear are a non-profit that openly reports their funding. Yet you haven't taken your own advice and not researched the dark money's funding in any sort of way, and still consider them reliable. BHA's openly available list of donors includes an impressive list of companies from the hunting industry.
3. You have expressed a concern that BHA is anti-gun, to which many posters have disproved with verifiable information. You have provided no information that BHA is antigun.
4. You have posted a quote from 2008 from BHA's director, where he indicated that he thought there was a lot of fear surrounding Obama and gun control. You have extrapolated from that that:
a. Land Tawney supports gun control.
b. That the organization BHA therefore supports gun control.
Any 9th grade debater can explain the problems with making these types of conclusions.
5. You ignore the facts and cling to conspiracy. The facts are:
a. BHA has never supported a gun control ISSUE, ever.
b. BHA gives away guns and has gun company executives on its board.
c. BHA works tirelessly on issues important to hunters like conservation and public access.
You must understand that BHA represents a lot of people, not just Land Tawney.
I don't like dark money groups from either side including the far right (Koch) and far left (Soros). Dark money conspiracies are more than theories.
I posted that I thought this thread was a wreck. Now though, I really think it has been overall quite positive, and most readers can find some good information here. Judging from the PMs I have received, it also seems like BHA has had a nice boost in membership.
1. From 9th grade you surely remember that the "thesis" is the foundation of an argument either in debate or in essay form. Although neither of us can prove that I was or was not disingenuous in my original post, I can give you my word that I was not. I was open and honest as I am now.
2. I noted the green decoy as one of two sources. The other being a source where BHA was quoted and both sides, green decoy and BHA arguments were stated. I then went on to source quotes from Mr. Tawney directly. Please remember the full quote as you only included the portion you wanted to argue. “There’s a lot of talk about Obama and guns, and — I’ll be honest with you — a lot of fear,” said Tawney.
“But at least he’s not trying to fake it. Not like John Kerry with a dead goose over his shoulder and new hunting outfit one month before the election.” . John Kerry is now our Sec of state who is negotiates things like UN arms treaties etc. Is this only propaganda sources I noted? Keeping track? Now we are moving to 7th grade which might be a little advanced.
3. I expressed concern that BHA is anti gun based on the fact that many of their national leadership supported President Obama and actively worked on his campaign. Its circumstantial evidence at best but it does support my initial thesis to do research before donating money. From an objective view point this is not conspiracy and a question I would like Land/BHA to answer.
4.“But at least he’s not trying to fake it. Not like John Kerry with a dead goose over his shoulder and new hunting outfit one month before the election.” Remember to include the whole quote before only arguing your point of view. That is defined as an "out of context" argument.
a. Land Tawney actively worked on the campaign for the the most anti 2nd amend president ever. So maybe that was the one thing Land disagreed with, its possible.
b. See point A.
5.
a. BHA has not supported a Issue as a group, but individually they have directly supported national Politicians that ARE anti gun.
b. I dont disagree that they give away guns and have never stated otherwise. Strawman Argument
c. I dont disagree and have stated otherwise, "I believe in the stated mission of BHA" This is your Strawman approach again
I have never expressed support for a dark money group, I noted green decoys as one of a few opposing view points which conveniently you have left our or have to argument to discredit. Strawman again....
I think we may need to get you back to Speech 101. You remember that group agreement is not the same as a factual thesis......
