AHSA Makes Their Stance Known


PDA






Phil DeGraves
November 13, 2008, 02:14 PM
Rosenthal article on HuffPo


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r..._b_142783.html

John Rosenthal
Posted November 10, 2008 | 04:48 PM (EST)
What President Obama can do to reduce Gun Violence
President Elect Obama should implement 7 tested and proven initiatives that will have an immediate impact on reducing gun related violence, accidents and suicides without affecting the Second Amendment or having any negative impact on responsible and law abiding gun owners

Of the average 34,000 gun deaths in the US every year approximately 11,000 are homicides, 18,000 are suicides and 5,000 are unintentional accidents. We can change these horrific numbers.

If I were President Obama, one of my first acts would be the immediate implementation the following gun violence prevention initiatives to reduce gun access by children, criminals and terrorists without any undue restrictions on responsible gun owners like myself.

#1 Mandatory criminal background checks for all gun sales
Current Federal law only requires Licensed gun dealers to perform criminal background checks. Consequently in 32 States "private dealers"/individuals can legally sell guns at thousands of annual gun shows, countless flea markets and yard sales, and out of homes, backpacks, car trunks or on street corners without running a background check or asking to see an ID. Only the first gun sale from a "Federally Licensed" gun dealer requires documentation and all "secondary" gun sales are legally allowed to take place without any paperwork or record keeping. As a result, convicted felons and suspected terrorists can and do buy guns simply because there is no background check required or conducted.

#2 Require responsible and safe gun storage for all firearms unless they are in the owners direct control
Approximately 40% of American homes have at least one firearm. Most guns used in child accidental gun injuries and deaths and teenage suicides come from within the home. Responsible guns owners safely secure their guns -unloaded and locked unless they are in their direct control. Seventeen States have such a safe-storage/Child Access Prevention requirement and all such states have a lower incidence of gun injuries and deaths among children compared to states without such a requirement.

#3 Allow Law Enforcement to maintain and share critical "crime-gun" trace data
Current Federal law prohibits the BATF from sharing crime gun trace data even among law enforcement agencies. In 2000 the BATF used crime-gun trace data to determine that just 1% of licensed gun dealers provided 57% of guns used in crime. Instead of supporting law enforcement efforts to identify and arrest illegal gun dealers, the Bush administration made police the enemy of "gun rights", requiring prison sentences for any police official that shares crime-gun trace data with even other law enforcement.

#4 Restore and improve the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons
The 10 year Federal ban on 19 specific military style assault weapons beginning in 1994 was supported by every major US law enforcement organization representing over 450,000 police officers. Although so called assault weapons make up approximately 1% of the US gun stock, statistics clearly show that they are the weapon of choice by gangs, career criminals and terrorist organizations and disproportionately show up in crimes. The Bush administration let the ban expire in 2004 even though the ban resulted in a dramatic 66% reduction in these weapons used in crime over the 10 year period.

#5 Repeal the Federal law giving Immunity to the gun industry
In 2007 Congress and the Bush administration enacted legislation prohibiting the ability to sue the gun industry even for negligence and blatantly marketing to criminals. For instance, the Tech 9 semi-automatic pistol, one of the guns used at the Columbine High School massacre, was marketed as "having a finish resistant to fingerprints", the Hertzel 22 cal handgun is marketed as "capable of penetrating 48 layers of soft body armor" and the Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle with a 2 mile range and designed to penetrate steel, is touted as being able to "take down an aircraft with one shot" and they tell you where to put it. Osama bin Laden bought a dozen of these US made Barrett's when fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan! The gun industry makes, markets and sells inherently dangerous product (like automobiles, knives and drugs- all regulated) and they should be held accountable for their actions.

#6 Enact National Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations for firearms
Congress has prohibited the National Consumer Product Safety Commission from oversight of the gun industry. Therefore guns have NO consumer safety, manufacturing or marketing standards for how they are sold. Consequently toy guns and teddy bears have more regulations on how they're made than real guns that result in an average of 34,000 deaths a year in the US. The gun industry flaunts their "freedom" from regulation and continues to make and sell guns without minimal safety features and in some cases knowingly market their deadly products directly to criminals and terrorists without any accountability. Massachusetts, which is home to Smith and Wesson, the nation's largest handgun manufacturer, enacted the first in the nation Consumer Protection regulations for firearms and such oversight had no negative impacts on legitimate gun makers, dealers or buyers in the State.


#7 Create incentives for the gun industry to make "personalized guns"
According to gun maker Smith and Wesson, guns could be made with personal recognition technology such that only the intended user could fire the gun. This practical technological solution would save the lives of countless victims of gun violence, accidents and suicides each year. It could also help save the lives of the 17% of police officers killed in the line of duty by a criminal accessing the officer's gun. In fact, in an agreement with the Clinton administration, Smith and Wesson promised to invest a portion of net profits into "personalized gun technology".


If President Obama and Congress were to enact just these 7 national gun violence prevention initiates, the 34,000 annual gun deaths and 80,000 injuries would be reduced to a fraction without any undue hardship on responsible gun owners like myself. I'm hopeful. President-Elect Obama knows all too well that 70-80 percent of the 80 or more gun deaths every day in the US are non-white, urban Americans. He also knows that an overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners and law enforcement officers, support criminal background checks for all gun sales, the Ban on assault weapons and responsible safety standards and regulations for gun makers, dealers and owners that do not infringe upon Second Amendment rights.

Now all that is needed is a loud public outcry and the political will for sensible and responsible domestic gun policy.

From his Bio - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal

In October 1995, as a gun owner, recreational Trap Shooter and businessperson John founded Stop Handgun Violence. The organization has been symbolized by a large 252 feet long and 20 feet high biilboard that he built on the side of a parking garage that he owns along the Massachusetts Turnpike near Bostonís Fenway Park. The billboard campaign has dramatically communicated the extent of the national gun violence problem as well as practical solutions and need for effective uniform national gun laws and initiatives.

Stop Handgun Violence was the lead advocate for Massachusetts enacting the most comprehensive gun laws and first in the nation consumer protection regulations for firearms and MA is among the top three states with the lowest firearm fatality rate (3.2 per vs. 10.6 per 100,000 popoulation national average) in the United States.

In 2005 John co-founded a new membership organization called American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). AHSA is an alternative membership organization to the NRA for moderate gun owners who care about gun rights as well as gun safety, conservation and wildlife habitat and support for law enforcement.


Also see this about "factcheck.org"

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/275051.php

If you enjoyed reading about "AHSA Makes Their Stance Known" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SSN Vet
November 13, 2008, 02:21 PM
and there you see AHSA's true colors...

notice they didn't publicize any of this when they endorsed O-man!

liberal power mongers always practice lies and deceit

ArmedBear
November 13, 2008, 02:22 PM
For instance, the Tech 9 semi-automatic pistol, one of the guns used at the Columbine High School massacre, was marketed as "having a finish resistant to fingerprints"

This guy is a Trap shooter?

You'd think that any half-serious gun owner would know that this means that the gun doesn't get rust marks on it.

Shawn Dodson
November 13, 2008, 02:29 PM
For instance, the Tech 9 semi-automatic pistol, one of the guns used at the Columbine High School massacre, was marketed as "having a finish resistant to fingerprints"... A stupid marketing claim indeed, but no different than the refrigerator door finish that's marketed as being resistant to fingerprints.

The reasoning behind a fingerprint resistant finish on a gun is plain ol' aesthetics as opposed to helping criminals escape justice.

Highland Ranger
November 13, 2008, 02:40 PM
Hmmmm so if we completely outlaw guns, the only real benefit will be to the accident victims because it makes sense that the suicide and homicide people can and will find another way (i.e. not gun related)

As for the 5000 accidents and injuries . . . . remind me how many people die and are injured in car accidents again? Once we're done with these guns we really need to start walking everywhere. We'll have fewer fat people, everyone will be healthier and we can get rid of those pesky suburbs and rural areas and no more gasoline problems to boot!

Oh and IBTIL.

RKBABob
November 13, 2008, 02:44 PM
#4 Restore and improve the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons
The 10 year Federal ban on 19 specific military style assault weapons blah, blah, blah....Yeah, I'll say that the AWB was specific... so specific that the Tec-9 needed only minor changes to be sold as the AB10 (AB=After Ban). It was all about the threaded barrels... they're killing people, those threaded barrels! :neener:

Although so called assault weapons make up approximately 1% of the US gun stock, statistics clearly show that they are the weapon of choice by gangs, career criminals and terrorist organizations and disproportionately show up in crimes.Yes, they're "so called" assault weapons... which the more knowledgeable refer to as "firearms".

What does "weapon of choice" mean? That could mean that it is the "most desired" and not necessarily the most widely possessed. Statistically, most criminals probably do really, really want an AR-15. Hell, why not? They're nifty!;)

They show up disproportionally in crimes? Dang! I never knew the crackheads were carrying battle rifles in my town. Just imagine... I could be standing in line at gas station when someone comes in with a $1,500 rifle with an $800 ACOG scope with Dr. Optic short range sights, and he could just get away with the $75 in the register becaus of a rifle like that!:banghead:

The Bush administration let the ban expire in 2004 even though the ban resulted in a dramatic 66% reduction in these weapons used in crime over the 10 year period. The Bush administration didn't let it expire, congress did. As for the 66% reduction in "so called" assault weapon crime, maybe its true! Maybe there were 3 crimes using AR-15s in 1993, but only 1 AR-15 crime in 1994... a 66% reduction!


Excuse me now, I've gotta go :barf:.

ArmedBear
November 13, 2008, 02:46 PM
The Bush administration didn't let it expire, congress did. As for the 66% reduction in "so called" assault weapon crime, maybe its true! Maybe there were 3 crimes using AR-15s in 1993, but only 1 AR-15 crime in 1994... a 66% reduction!

Or maybe after 1994, they used 2 AR's without bayonet lugs or flash hiders. Remember: an AR with a muzzle brake and no bayonet lug was never legally an "assault weapon."

esq_stu
November 13, 2008, 02:48 PM
There is not a single thing I can say about the author or the org that would not contain a 4-letter word

That org needs to be discredited, big time.

Prince Yamato
November 13, 2008, 02:48 PM
Although so called assault weapons make up approximately 1% of the US gun stock

Not after Nov. 5, 2008 they don't! :evil: I'm going to bet that they were higher than that in 1994 too. Since Sept. 13, 1994, their numbers have grown exponentially and today, I'd bet that it's the hunting rifles that are in the minority.

RKBABob
November 13, 2008, 02:50 PM
Or maybe after 1994, they used 2 AR's without bayonet lugs or flash hiders. Remember: an AR with a muzzle brake and no bayonet lug was never legally an "assault weapon."You know, it really makes sense that they banned those bayonet lugs... long-range rifles with bayonet lugs can easily be converted into something as deadly as a short-range knife! :eek:

RPCVYemen
November 13, 2008, 02:52 PM
Why does what John Rosenthal says have anything to do with AHSA?

Mike

sniper5
November 13, 2008, 02:55 PM
Maybe the NRA should change it's name. Something like "The American Society to Reduce Crime Victims" that sounds so much more fluffy without that nasty gun thing in the name.

foghornl
November 13, 2008, 02:56 PM
Reminds me about the time I was shooting my SKS and was asked "Hey, Dude, isn't that an 'Assault Weapon'?"

"Only if I butt-stroke you in the face with it..."

Phil DeGraves
November 13, 2008, 02:59 PM
Why does what John Rosenthal says have anything to do with AHSA?


John co-founded a new membership organization called American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA).

That's why.

BHP FAN
November 13, 2008, 03:16 PM
Oh,co-founded....that means it has TWO members? As for bayonets,don't you remember all those drive by bayonetings we used to have?

RPCVYemen
November 13, 2008, 03:17 PM
John co-founded a new membership organization called American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA).

Ooops!

He's had nothing to do with the organization for quite some time, and they have publicly disavowed his public comments on gun policy:

Mr. Rosenthal has had no involvement with AHSA since May 21, 2007, and does not speak for AHSA. Any public views expressed by Mr. Rosenthal regarding the "gun issue" or other firearm policy matters do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the American Hunters and Shooters Association.

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/node/1419


Mike

RKBABob
November 13, 2008, 03:20 PM
Well, you don't see Charleton Heston advocation a renewed ban on scary-looking firearms, do you?

RPCVYemen
November 13, 2008, 03:30 PM
Well, you don't see Charleton Heston advocation a renewed ban on scary-looking firearms, do you?

If I see Charleton Heston doing anything, I would be pretty nervous. Unless he's driving around in a pink Caddy with Elvis ... :) That would be cool.

But it is clear that in AHSAs' view, Mr. Rosenthal hasn't had the capacity to make AHSA's "stance" on anything known for well over a year, correct?

Mike

MT GUNNY
November 13, 2008, 03:31 PM
Foghornl:

"Reminds me about the time I was shooting my SKS and was asked "Hey, Dude, isn't that an 'Assault Weapon'?"

"Only if I butt-stroke you in the face with it..."


HAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAHAA!!!!!!

RKBABob
November 13, 2008, 03:34 PM
But it is clear that in AHSAs' view, Mr. Rosenthal hasn't had the capacity to make AHSA's "stance" on anything known for well over a year, correct?:scrutiny:An anti as the co-founder, though? That sure makes me suspicious.:scrutiny:

hso
November 13, 2008, 03:43 PM
While Rosenthal is obviously a gun-prohibitionist of the widest stripe the fact that the AHSA disavows him puts the OP on shaky ground trying to equate the two. We need to be able to do a lot better than that if we're going to start off a thread like this one.

Know thy enemy, but get the facts straight.

RPCVYemen
November 13, 2008, 03:49 PM
An anti as the co-founder, though? That sure makes me suspicious.

I bet a lot about AHSA makes you suspicious. :)

His gun views also made the AHSA BoD suspicious - they felt that his membership in certain other gun organizations were incompatible with serving on the BoD of a pro-gun organization like the AHSA. Wouldn't you agree?

we acknowledge that his active involvement with certain gun control organizations made it very difficult for Mr. Rosenthal to subscribe to and support our policies that at times could be inconsistent with those of a pro-gun hunting and shooting organization.

But the title of this thread is a little misleading. Notice it didn't say "Former Member of the Board of Directors of AHSA Makes His Stance Known" - that would be the truth. But the truth is not nearly as interesting ...

Mike

RKBABob
November 13, 2008, 03:59 PM
His gun views also made the AHSA BoD suspicious - they felt that his membership in certain other gun organizations were incompatible with serving on the BoD of a pro-gun organization like the AHSA. Wouldn't you agree?Yes, I would agree... that's why I'm so suspicious!:scrutiny: Why would an anit-gun advocate become a founder of a pro-gun org? It casts suspicion over the entire organization, and that's just something AHSA is just going to have to overcome by demonstrating by their actions that they are true to their published agenda. When they start publicly advocating on behalf of gun owners (and not just 2 shot skeet shooters) my doubts may go away.

The Lone Haranguer
November 13, 2008, 04:06 PM
Congress has prohibited the National Consumer Product Safety Commission from oversight of the gun industry. Therefore guns have NO consumer safety, manufacturing or marketing standards for how they are sold.
A gun that can't fire would certainly be safe. :rolleyes:

SuperNaut
November 13, 2008, 04:11 PM
Senior MemberNotice it didn't say "Former Member of the Board of Directors of AHSA Makes His Stance Known" - that would be the truth. But the truth is not nearly as interesting ...

I disagree.

The current AHSA board members are quite interesting. Ray Schoenke for example, or Bob Ricker, or Joseph J. Vince, Jr.. This begs the question: Why, when so many of the current BoD members are anti-gun shills, would they boot Rosenthal?

The truth is always interesting, unless your interest lies elsewhere.

RPCVYemen
November 13, 2008, 04:12 PM
When they start publicly advocating on behalf of gun owners (and not just 2 shot skeet shooters) my doubts may go away.

I agree - I joined because of their published agenda. If they do not advocate the issues in their public agenda, or do start advocating issues contrary to their published agenda, I will resign my membership.

Mike

DRYHUMOR
November 13, 2008, 04:13 PM
34,000 gun related deaths in a population of some 300 MILLION, is less than 1%

RPCVYemen
November 13, 2008, 04:19 PM
The current AHSA board members are quite interesting. Ray Schoenke for example, or Bob Ricker, or Joseph J. Vince, Jr.. This begs the question; Why, when so many of the current BoD members are anti-gun shills, would they boot Rosenthal?

We already a thread about AHSA conspiracy theories, secret agendas, and fronts.

My feelings about AHSA conspiracy theories (and conspiracy theories about "secret" public agendas) are in that thread. I don't want to relive that fun.

But if you're correct, shouldn't the title of this thread be "AHSA Hides Their Stance"? They can't both have a secret agenda and make it known, right?

Mike

SuperNaut
November 13, 2008, 04:21 PM
Not quite, we had a thread where you hand-waved and mischaracterized uncomfortable data, kinda like now.

Why is that?

Maelstrom
November 13, 2008, 04:37 PM
Simple solution, Yemen.

LINK US TO THEIR PUBLISHED STANCE.

If we're all crazy and paranoid, them show us how crazy and paranoid we are.

Provide a direct link to something AHSA is doing to SUPPORT gun ownership.

This, children, is called "Put up or shut up" time.

Can you say "Put up or shut up"?

ArmedBear
November 13, 2008, 04:42 PM
long-range rifles with bayonet lugs can easily be converted into something as deadly as a short-range knife!

I've got a bayonet for mine.

Figured it would make it harder for someone to grab the rifle from me in a home defense situation.

Okay, really I just saw the bayonet to fit my AR at a surplus store for a good price, and bought it on impulse.:)

Dain Bramage
November 13, 2008, 04:43 PM
we acknowledge that his active involvement with certain gun control organizations made it very difficult for Mr. Rosenthal to subscribe to and support our policies that at times could be inconsistent with those of a pro-gun hunting and shooting organization.

This sentence jumped out at me on the AHSA site too. English is my second language, but it sure sounds like AHSA is saying that their policies can at times be inconsistent with those of a pro-gun hunting and shooting organization.

Could be one of those da Vinci Code conspiracies where the evildoers say what they're going to do in plain sight, but nobody, except Tom Hanks, notices?

mljdeckard
November 13, 2008, 04:49 PM
Did Barrett make rifles that went to the Mujahiddeen in Afghanistan? I don't think he was in wide production until the Soviets pulled out.

RKBABob
November 13, 2008, 04:54 PM
Whoa, you're right Dain Bramage. I didn't even notice that until you pointed it out.we acknowledge that his active involvement with certain gun control organizations made it very difficult for Mr. Rosenthal to subscribe to and support our policies that at times could be inconsistent with those of a pro-gun hunting and shooting organization.

RPCVYemen
November 13, 2008, 04:59 PM
LINK US TO THEIR PUBLISHED STANCE.

I thought most people knew the url - folks seem to (claim to) know a lot about the AHSA, I though folks would know their website. Here is the AHSA web site:

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/

Here are their published policy positions. I strongly support 2, weakly support 2, and disagree with one. I will let you guess which one.

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/issues/gunrights

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 13, 2008, 05:06 PM
Could be one of those da Vinci Code conspiracies where the evildoers say what they're going to do in plain sight, but nobody, except Tom Hanks, notices?

And you uncovered it! The AHSA is a tool of the Priory of Sion! To tell the truth, I sort of like that - I may make it my new sig.

Actually, if you go to the website and read the whole press release, it the antecendent of the "that" is Mr. Rosenthal's involvement with anti-gun orgs. It is expressed with strange corporate legalese ...

Mike

30 cal slob
November 13, 2008, 05:36 PM
AHSA = Brady Campaign, re-labeled.

Dain Bramage
November 13, 2008, 05:43 PM
RPC, I'm not seeing any policy statements at that second link, except for a vague acknowledgement of the 2nd Amendment.

RPCVYemen
November 13, 2008, 05:48 PM
RPC, I'm not seeing any policy statements at that second link, except for a vague acknowledgement of the 2nd Amendment.

The second link should take you to a "Gun Rights" page. Look under "Legislative Alert" in the beige (I am not very good with names of colors) box in the upper right corner. Those are clickable links:

Overturn the DC Gun Ban
S.397: Protect Gun Makers
Give FBI Access to NICS
Support Legal Gun Use
Oppose .50 Caliber BMG Sniper Rifle


Mike

garymc
November 13, 2008, 07:22 PM
So they agree with the overturn of the DC gun ban, but think all manner of restrictions can be put in place of it. It's vague, but the rkba looks more like the rka. You can only have a gun in your home or business, but nowhere else? And that is only if it's consistent with the "purposes" of the 1968 GCA. Does that mean sporting use only?

The second one, they want to reduce the protection of manufacturers of guns from litigation.

The third one, they want to remove the privacy protections (whatever they are) of law abiding people buying guns. Instead of keeping databases of criminals and terrorists and comparing a buyer to see if there is a match, they want a database of buyers in case they need the information later.

The fourth one they want to essentially outlaw private sales of guns. They quote some wistful remarks by dealers who want a monopoly on the ability to sell guns. I wouldn't much oppose a deal where a gun show had a desk where a private seller and buyer could go over and conduct a NICS check FOR FREE if that would shut up the crying about gunshow loopholes. But that's not what they're angling for. And how in the heck do they label this "support legal gun use?"

The regulation of 50 cal "sniper" rifles will go a long way to remedy the myriad problems we've been suffering from due to these. Same red tape as machine guns under '34 NFA. We have been having problems with them, haven't we? I'm sure there must have been something somewhere.

OK, Yemen, which of these do you disagree with? And which are you in favor of? I'm keeping my position on these gun control measures secret.

threehorse
November 13, 2008, 08:51 PM
AHSA is a leftist anti-gun organization designed to lure stupid and uninformed gun owners into thinking that AHSA is on their side.

Ray Schoenke, the "founding president" (according to Wikipedia) is a regular diarist at dailyKos.com.

Read the Wikipedia information about Ray Schoenke and AHSA.

Read the diaries that Ray Schoenke has posted at dKos.

These people are not on our side.

RPCVYemen
November 13, 2008, 10:21 PM
OK, Yemen, which of these do you disagree with? And which are you in favor of? I'm keeping my position on these gun control measures secret.

On their policies:

I am strongly in favor of the following on:


AHSA believes the Washington DC Firearms Control Regulations Act should be amended to allow law-abiding citizens the opportunity to acquire and possess handguns, rifles and shotguns in their homes or place of business consistent with the purposes of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
AHSA believes manufacturers of lawful products should not be held responsible for the criminal acts of third parties unless it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the manufacturer, authorized distributor or dealer aided or participated in the unlawful act, or through negligence or other willful conduct, contributed to the unlawful act.


I support the following:


AHSA believes the FBI should be given reasonable access to National Instant Check System (NICS) purchase records to insure terrorists and other prohibited individuals do not have access to firearms.
AHSA supports requiring all transfers of firearms at gun shows to be subject to all federal, state and local laws and regulations currently applicable to federally licensed firearm dealers including the conducting of the instant background check on purchasers.


I am opposed to:


AHSA believes the .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles should be regulated in the same manner as the federal government regulates machine guns under the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.



I am opposed to the policy you describe.

to essentially outlaw private sales of guns.


I almost agree with you on this:

I wouldn't much oppose a deal where a gun show had a desk where a private seller and buyer could go over and conduct a NICS check FOR FREE

I don't know that a NICS access has to be free - only because I hesitate to ask other taxpayers to bear the financial burden of verifying my private transaction. As long as the cost is truly the cost of running the check, i.e., it is not punitive in nature, and is relatively quick, I don't object.

Mike

rbernie
November 13, 2008, 10:39 PM
AHSA believes the FBI should be given reasonable access to National Instant Check System (NICS) purchase records to insure terrorists and other prohibited individuals do not have access to firearms. I have never heard any cogent argument that explains how allowing the FBI to access NICS data will catch folk that are not prohibited from buying firearms but who are otherwise known terrorists. It further remains unclear to me how giving FBI access to this data will "insure [that]... other prohibited individuals do not have access to firearms". If they are prohibited, they're in the system as prohibited. If they're not in the system as prohibited - how can they be prohibited? The logic of this escapes me.

I do believe that allowing the FBI to access this data will result in the stockpiling of purchase data in direct conflict with the Brady Bill. The Delaware State Police recently proved this fear out, by being caught with more than five years worth of purchase data, in direct violation of the law, and using that data to adjudicate pending purchase requests.

Having the Federal Government retain firearm purchase data is one of the most dangerous increments towards firearm registration that can be imagined, and supporting any legislation that allows for that is anti-RKBA in the extreme.

AHSA supports requiring all transfers of firearms at gun shows to be subject to all federal, state and local laws and regulations currently applicable to federally licensed firearm dealers including the conducting of the instant background check on purchasers. Since all licensed dealers at gun shows are already required to perform background checks, this provision essentially increments our society to prohibiting any private transfer of firearms. Is that your intent? If so - why?

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 12:05 AM
I do believe that allowing the FBI to access this data will result in the stockpiling of purchase data in direct conflict with the Brady Bill.

You have right to your belief, but you are objecting to what you claim the AHSA policy might lead to, not to the policy itself. The AHSA policy supports FBI access to existing NICS records. I don't object to that access.

I am also somewhat skeptical that any government information - once collected - ever goofs poof and disappears. I think the the notion that the informations is not currently being "stockpiled" is straight from Pollyanna. But that stockpiling is independent of any AHSA policy.

Since all licensed dealers at gun shows are already required to perform background checks, this provision essentially increments our society from prohibiting any private transfer of firearms. Is that your intent? If so - why?

I do not think that it's fair to require dealers at gun show to perform NICS checks but a guy outside in the parking lot not to perform NICS checks. That places law abiding dealers at a competitive disadvantage. I am generally skeptical of government policies that disadvantage law abiding entities.

BTW, for anyone curious to hear both sides of the story about the AHSA, I was looking for articles of incorporation for the AHSA, and stumble across this article. It was pretty eye opening - the NRA-ILA wasn't exactly telling you the whole story:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/american_hunters_and_shooters_association_responds_to_its_critics/C41/L41/

I don't understand why the NRA-ILA never tells the whole truth - it seems like they always prefer the dramatic incendiary half truth to the whole truth. Why? I don't get it. I guess they feel like half truths are more effective, but I find it a very annoying tactic. Why not tell us that Ray Schoenke was a major contributor to an NRA A+ rated Congressman - John Dingell. Why not tell us that Ray is involved with the Civilian Marksmanship Program? Would telling us the whole truth weaken their position somehow?

I looked up some of what that article says - just to do some quick verification. I have only had time to check out a couple of facts from that article, they appear to be substantially correct - and give a somewhat different impression than the NRA-ILA party line. I haven't had time to check anything else.

Ray Schoenke evidently was in fact appointed to the governing board of the Civilian Marksmanship Program by the Secretary of the Army.

I found and read Bob Ricker's actual statement. His statement seemed to focus on an internal argument about whether or not the shooting industry should try to police itself or not. From my read, it was a sworn statement of facts about what different organizations said and did in that policy dispute. I am not sure what he was supposed to do. Was he supposed to lie and say that people did not say things that they in fact said? Asking him to lie or requiring him to keep silent seems wrong to me.

Here's his statement - what facts are in dispute?

www.gunlawnews.org/images/ca4095_proceeding_3703.pdf

Mike

TX1911fan
November 14, 2008, 12:28 AM
RPCVYemen, answer this to me truthfully. If Karl Rove co-founded an organization dedicated to protecting and preserving the 4th and 5th Amendments, and the BoD was comprised of die hard neo-conservatives, and then Karl Rove was published in the mainstream press directly attacking the 4th and 5th Amendments, even if the organization he co-founded weakly disavowed his comments, would you be the least bit suspicious of the group he founded? Especially if the majority of the money taken in by the group was donated by die hard neo-conservatives?

I'm not saying, by the way, that I think Karl Rove is anti 4th or 5th amendment, but I believe RPCVYEmen does, so I use that as an example. RPCVYemen seems to think that just because AHSA SAYS it supports gun rights that makes it so, and that they couldn't possibly have an ulterior motive in saying so, such as, oh I don't know, tricking a lot of people into believing their drivel and then quietly leading them down the primrose path.

RPCVYemen, we don't think that AHSA will have any effect on people who strongly believe in the RKBA. We think they are trying to pass themselves off as a gun organization so they can influence public opinion and marginalize the pro-RKBA community. If the press can point to a "pro-gun" organization that believes in "common sense" gun control they can report that the rest of us are just nuts! You are just a pawn who has fallen for the trick.

Again, to get to my example, if would be like Karl Rove and his little pro-4th and pro-5th organization saying "Hey, we fully support the 4th and the 5th, but the Patriot Act is a good idea, so all you ACLU types are just zealots." The press could pick this up, and those of us who don't follow these things all that closely then think, "oh, ok, I guess the ACLU are the nuts because we have this cool, well funded, pro-4th organization who has studied the issues and really believes the Patriot Act is ok. And their STATED policies totally support the 4th, so they must be legit. I think I'll send them some money."

Ever hear of the Trojan Horse?

Why don't you just admit that you really just hate the NRA and you are supporting AHSA as their "rival." If that's the case, join GOA instead. They hate the NRA almost as much as you, but at least they are TRULY pro-gun.

rbernie
November 14, 2008, 08:56 AM
I do not think that it's fair to require dealers at gun show to perform NICS checks but a guy outside in the parking lot not to perform NICS checks. That places law abiding dealers at a competitive disadvantage. I am generally skeptical of government policies that disadvantage law abiding entities.Both the private sale and dealer sale are law-abiding in the eyes of the Federales and in most free states. You are choosing deliberately perjorative words to paint the FTF deal as somehow tainted in the eyes of the law, when in fact that's the future state END RESULT you want and not the current situation.

Semantics aside - can you point to any demonstrable repeatable HARM that arises from FTF sales? No anecdotal "it'll keep people from selling Uzi's from the back of their Corrolla" stuff (since people that break the laws now will continue to do so even in the face of new laws), but something along the lines of "XXX percentage of firearms seized in Dramatic Nun Killings were bought via FTF transactions when the buyer was in fact a prohibited person".

I am not required to sell my car only through dealers (so they can verify the drivers license status, donchyaknow), even though the car is a far more dangerous weapon. Why would I impose such a measure on firearm owners? More to the point, if you cannot point to any statistiically documented harm - why do you feel the need to legislate things just to feel better?

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 09:32 AM
you are choosing deliberately perjorative words to paint the FTF deal as somehow tainted in the eyes of the law,

I don't think that I did that. But I will rephrase my comment

That places law abiding dealers at a competitive disadvantage to law abiding private sales out in the parking lot.

Does that answer your objection?

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 09:52 AM
If Karl Rove co-founded an organization dedicated to protecting and preserving the 4th and 5th Amendments, and the BoD was comprised of die hard neo-conservatives, ...

If Dick Cheney founded and organization that whose stated policy was the preservation of the 4th Amendment rights of Americans citizens, I'd be surprised. If he was later thrown off the board because of his support for extensive use of National Security Letters, I would think that that organization would be taking a consistent position.

If the stated of the 4th Amendment organization was to protect 4th Amendment rights, and the only alternative organization dedicated to protect those rights gave boatloads of money to people who want to force all school children to recite the Apostle's Creed every morning, I would probably join the 4th Amendment organization which had been co-founded by Dick Cheney.

If the ACLU then told me that President of the 4th Amendment organization had supported the use of National Security Letters was a shill for 4th Amendment rights, and it turned out that he or she had in fact supported other 4th Amendment litigation, I'd be mad as heck at the ACLU.

Does that fully and completely answer your question?

Mike

rbernie
November 14, 2008, 09:59 AM
Does that answer your objection?The former, but not the latter. You completely failed to address the WHY of the issue.

My question was:
Semantics aside - can you point to any demonstrable repeatable HARM that arises from FTF sales? No anecdotal "it'll keep people from selling Uzi's from the back of their Corrolla" stuff (since people that break the laws now will continue to do so even in the face of new laws), but something along the lines of "XXX percentage of firearms seized in Dramatic Nun Killings were bought via FTF transactions when the buyer was in fact a prohibited person".

mtgmike
November 14, 2008, 10:04 AM
The Bush administration let the ban expire in 2004 even though the ban resulted in a dramatic 66% reduction in these weapons used in crime over the 10 year period.

Read that again. They just blasted their own theory. The ban kept those guns from being used in crime, but it made ZERO reduction whatsoever in the # of crimes committed. If it made an improvement, you can bet this line would read differently.

rbernie
November 14, 2008, 10:13 AM
The Bush administration let the ban expire in 2004 even though the ban resulted in a dramatic 66% reduction in these weapons used in crime over the 10 year periodNot according to the US Department of Justice. In fact, the DoJ tracking showed that semiauto rifles with military features were used in a disproportionately LOW number of gun crimes - less than five percent, if I recall correctly.

Got data?

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 10:18 AM
The former, but not the latter. You completely failed to address the WHY of the issue.

The competitive disadvantage - I thought I explained that:

I do not think that it's fair to require dealers at gun show to perform NICS checks but a guy outside in the parking lot not to perform NICS checks. That places law abiding dealers at a competitive disadvantage. I am generally skeptical of government policies that disadvantage law abiding entities.

Mike

rbernie
November 14, 2008, 10:25 AM
You're playing games, and you're back to using the 'law abiding' moniker for dealers and implying that FTF deals are not law abiding in some fashion. I suspect you're just guilty of sloppy cut-n-paste and are really trying to say that you believe that some good comes from NICS and you wish to extend that to all transactions. If so - OK.

But then why not allow private sales to perform a NICS check instead of mandating that a dealer be placed in the middle of the transaction?

More to the point - have you ever gone to the US DOJ web site and reviewed the data on NICS rejections? Almost ten percent of the rejections are successfully fought and overturned because they were WRONG. I can't even begin to guess how many people were turned away without fighting it, when in fact they had no reason to be labeled a prohibited person.

What do you say to those people?

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 10:31 AM
But then why not allow private sales to perform a NICS check instead of mandating that a dealer be placed in the middle of the transaction?

I agree 100% with that.

and you're back to using the 'law abiding' moniker for dealers and implying that FTF

Sigh. No, I cut an paste from an earlier post because you asked me why I supported required NICS checks for all sales at gun shows was a good idea. I was demonstrating that I thought I had answered that question.

Do you understand why I object, whether or not you in fact agree with me? I am not trying to persuade you to agree with me, I am answering your questions about why I think the way that I do on this issue.

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 10:34 AM
Almost ten percent of the rejections are successfully fought and overturned because they were WRONG.

I accept your that this is true - though I haven't been to the DOJ site. But that is no reason to require NICs checks by dealers at gun shows, but not non-dealers at gun shows.

Mike

rbernie
November 14, 2008, 10:38 AM
I accept your that this is true - though I haven't been to the DOJ site. But that is no reason to require NICs checks by dealers at gun shows, but not non-dealers at gun shows.
It points to fundamental flaws in NICS, both in the data collection process and in the appeals/adjudication process. Extending the use of the system with its current flaws seems unwise.

If you told me that you, or AHSA as your proxy in Washington, supported a streamlined appeals process overhaul of NICS and allowing private citizens to use it to verify that FTF deals were not involving a prohibited person - I'd be solidly in your corner. Until then, we will have to disagree.

And none of this addresses how giving the FBI access to NICS data makes us A Better Nation in any way.

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 10:45 AM
It points to fundamental flaws in NICS, both in the data collection process and in the appeals/adjudication process. Extending the use of the system with its current flaws seems unwise.

Yeah, there are to ways to think about a flawed system:


Make its use binding on all parties at gun shows - so that even though it's flawed, it's equally flawed for everyone. No one gains a competitive economic advantage by not being required to use the (flawed) system.
Don't make anyone new use a flawed system - people who are currently required to use is are just SOL (sorta outta luck).


You can imagine reasonable positions for both, but I support the 1st.

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 11:31 AM
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article...itics/C41/L41/

I have had time to do a little more verification - even some anti-AHSA sights seem to accept that Schoenke was in fact on the transition team for Gov. Robert Ehrlich - who allegedly has an NRA "A" rating. I wonder why the NRA forgot to tell us all that? Probably a type, like their forgetting to tell us about his involvement with the CMP?

Mike

NeoSpud
November 14, 2008, 12:38 PM
RPCV - I respectfully disagree about the "economic disadvantage" on dealers at gun shows. I had a much longer reply here, but I've cut it short to keep to the point. :p

Basically, I just don't think that the number of individual's selling a few guns each at a gun show even dents the number of guns sold by dealers at the very same show. If there's any disadvantage there, I believe that it is nominal. I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that dealers are hurting due to individuals doing FTF transfers. Please correct me if that's wrong.

One other point: Functionally, there is no difference between selling a gun FTF to someone you pm-ed here on THR's Trading Post and selling a gun at a gun show. The gun shows just facilitate FTF sales by individuals because it creates a common grounds for them to meet, the real-life equivalent of gun forums (like this one). I wouldn't support an NICS check for FTF transfers at gun show, nor THR.

Phil DeGraves
November 14, 2008, 02:00 PM
I agree with neo. Economic disadvantage? Are you serious? The reason you purchase a FTF from a private seller is that you don't have to pay retail, and the seller doesn't have to take wholesale. Anytime we can exclude the government from our personal lives and business is a good thing, not a bad thing. Criminals are criminals because they BREAK THE LAW, not because they bought a gun in a FTF transaction without a NICS check.

yeti
November 14, 2008, 02:30 PM
Dealers are almost always at an economic disadvantage vs private sales in direct competition. It is part of the cost of being in business.

A certain % of attendees are drawn to the show in hopes of a private sale. This is traffic generated by the prospect of FTF sales to the advantage of the dealers.

If I have a NIB gun I want to sell, I am at an economic disadvantage to the dealers who can buy at a cheaper price direct from a distributer or manufacturer. That is one of the perks of having the license and having to comply with extra regulations.

I think it is a wash. I can sell a few odds and ends, and a couple of guns I don't want with out having to deal with the cost and paperwork a dealer has. A dealer can sell some things at a lower price because his license allows him to purchase in bulk and at wholesale prices, he has purchase options denied to me because he does have a license.

And if you are in the gun business, and you find no economic reason for you to try to sell at gun shows, why are you there? If you are like me, you enjoy the show, being around other gunnies, seeing some new or unusual stuff, you are having a good time, if sales are made it is a bonus. If you are there to make a profit, and with all the economic advantages you gain by having an FFL, you find yourself losing money, because of a few competing private sales, it is your business plan that need re-evaluating, not imposing new federal regulations on private sales. I don't have the FFL, I don't gain your economic advantages, don't force your burdens on to my back without giving me the same benefits you enjoy.

Eyesac
November 14, 2008, 03:39 PM
RPCVYemen. I am convinced that you are part of the AHSA organization. I don't know why an organization with every intent to deceive wouldn't have representatives on gun forums defending them, and you seem to do just that everywhere it's mentioned. You sir, are my enemy. If you consider this a personal attack, so be it. But I'm convinced.

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 03:45 PM
I am convinced that you are part of the AHSA organization.

You are 100% correct - I am a member of all the groups listed in my signature.

You sir, are my enemy.

Oh well.

Have a nice day,

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 04:02 PM
Dealers are almost always at an economic disadvantage vs private sales in direct competition. It is part of the cost of being in business.

As a dealer, many of those decisions (location of a store, how big of a storefront, how much inventory to stock, how much to pay/train your employees) are more or less, etc). Those are all commercial decisions that you are free to make. Maybe you think the way to succeed to do an enormous volume with low margins. Maybe you're going to stock nothing but English double rifles, and you'll see one month. You can make that decision, and live with the economic consequences.

But as a dealer, you are not free to make the decision to sell guns without a NICs check. That is a government mandated economic burden.

If some folks selling guns at a gun show have to bear the cost of the government mandated economic burden, then all should. It is not fair to require some people to bear that burden, and others not. That's what I mean by an economic disadvantage.

Mike

12131
November 14, 2008, 04:05 PM
Anyone with half a brain already knew AHSA's true color before the election.

yeti
November 14, 2008, 04:32 PM
But as a dealer, you are not free to make the decision to sell guns without a NICs check. That is a government mandated economic burden.

That is part of the cost of doing business as a licensed dealer.
It is not an economic burden it is a business expense.
And you gain the benefit of additional traffic brought in by these same private sellers. I tend not to count on the dealers for that rare once in a life time deal, but there are things that I do look to dealers for, and that is because they are licensed, they have a monopolistic economic advantage, in some areas.


And frankly I would not buy from any dealer that wants to force more regulation on me, rather then sucking it up and working to have the unreasonable burdens removed from everyone. Any form of wanting to 'level the playing field' by screwing the other guy is unscrupulous in both practice and desire.

caseypj
November 14, 2008, 04:36 PM
Ray Schoenke is a lieing sack of ****, he's said many times in the past about what he'd like to do gun control wise. Now he goes on HuffingtonPost saying he doesn't want that, it's BS. It's meant to make it look like Obama has actually garnered support of a pro-gun organization when it's just the Brady Bunch with a different name.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ray-schoenke/hunters-and-shooters-supp_b_97028.html what he says now

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702579.html what he's done in the past

He's given a "$5,000 donation to Handgun Control Inc., predecessor to the main anti-gun lobby, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."

RPCVYemen, thanks for giving him money which he could in turn donate to the Bradys.

Phil DeGraves
November 14, 2008, 04:43 PM
If some folks selling guns at a gun show have to bear the cost of the government mandated economic burden, then all should. It is not fair to require some people to bear that burden, and others not.

Here's the "wealth distribution" angle.

FTF sellers are not selling to make a living like gun stores are, so you are comparing apples to oranges. Most FTF sales are to raise money to pay bills or to buy a different gun without taking the big loss you would if you traded it in to a retailer who HAS to make a profit. But I suppose it would make sense to "even the playing field" (as if the consumer ever has an advantage over the businesses) to a socialist.
Repeat after me: LESS government - GOOD.
MORE government - BAD.

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 04:57 PM
He's given a "$5,000 donation to Handgun Control Inc., predecessor to the main anti-gun lobby, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."

Did you actually investigate this claim yourself, and at least make yourself aware of his description of this event? Or are you more or less parroting what someone else told you?

Mike

carlrodd
November 14, 2008, 05:09 PM
He hopes president-elect obama knows that "70 to 80 percent" of violent gun crime is committed by black and Hispanic people in innercities, yet he supports oppressive legislation that affects the largely inoffending 80 percent of the country. Its all so unbelievably stupid, I feel silly for commenting.

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 05:13 PM
Repeat after me: LESS government - GOOD.
MORE government - BAD.

Didn't we just have a big election about this? Didn't the people claiming they were champions of small government lose?

But I suppose it would make sense to "even the playing field" (as if the consumer ever has an advantage over the businesses) to a socialist.

In fact, didn't the folks who claimed the other folks were "socialist" also lose?

But just for the heck of it, what does socialism have to do with this discussion about whether or not everyone selling guns at a gun show should have to play by the same rules?

Mike

samtron
November 14, 2008, 05:18 PM
Hey Yemen do you own a firearm? Are you a troll.

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 05:21 PM
Hey Yemen do you own a firearm? Are you a troll.

Use the search function.

Mike

samtron
November 14, 2008, 05:24 PM
emen do you own a firearm?

yeti
November 14, 2008, 05:32 PM
But just for the heck of it, what does socialism have to do with this discussion about whether or not everyone selling guns at a gun show should have to play by the same rules?


Is this the way the AHSA thinks? I'm stuck with these burdens, but rather than fight to get them lifted from me, we will argue to have them applied to everyone else? Perhaps if there is a new AWB, rather than fight to get rid of the ban, AHSA can fight to have the same ban applied to bolt action rifles, just so we all can play by the same rules.

Phil DeGraves
November 14, 2008, 05:36 PM
Repeat after me: LESS government - GOOD.
MORE government - BAD.

Didn't we just have a big election about this? Didn't the people claiming they were champions of small government lose?


Are you saying that just because the people that love liberty lost, that liberty isn't good? That the people that want government to intrude on every aspect of their lives are right just because they won?

What it tells me is that a democracy results in a population that gets the government they deserve. It has nothing to do with what's right.

You are futher gone than I thought.

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 05:54 PM
emen do you own a firearm?

Not sure quite what you are looking for. The point of my comment

Use the search function.

is that you will lots and lots of posts - many very weapon and caliber specific. Now it could be that I was asking about firearms in calibers that I actually own.

But I have to confess, it's all a front - you've unmasked me. I am a poor mink, and the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei posted all of those messages. They have been preparing my path for years. All in vain. You saw through it. :(

Here is the proof of my confession.


Take 8 $100 and soak them in gasoline.
Wrap them around a quarter.
Set the whole bundle on fire while chanting the Pater Noster backwards.
Drop the hot quarter in holy water at midnight in a cathedral.
On each ridge on the edge of the quarter, you will see the letter "AHSA".


I have been unmasked.

Have a good weekend! I know I will - I just got a new Lee FCD that I want to check out. Oops, that's just my cover - and you know the real truth.

yeti
November 14, 2008, 06:11 PM
Here is the proof of my confession.

1. Take 8 $100 and soak them in gasoline.
2. Wrap them around a quarter.
3. Set the whole bundle on fire while chanting the Pater Noster backwards.
4. Drop the hot quarter in holy water at midnight in a cathedral.
5. On each ridge on the edge of the quarter, you will see the letter "AHSA".


:D:D That is pretty funny, I tried it with only 6 $100's and it didn't work.:what:

And it doesn't change the fact that it seems your answer to a bad gun control measure, is not let's try to remove the unfair burden, but let's work to make sure things are fair by forcing everyone to suffer the same, unfair burdens.

SuperNaut
November 14, 2008, 08:16 PM
RCPVYemen, an argument from popularity is a fallacy.

caseypj
November 14, 2008, 08:18 PM
RCPVYemen, I looked, It clearly shows the Ray Schoenke in question making the donation.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=Schoenke&state=&zip=&employ=&cand=Handgun+Control+Inc&all=Y&sort=N&capcode=4vq9g&submit=Submit

You cannot deny it. Hell, Ray's wife, Nancy Schoenke sat on the BOARD of the Brady Campaign! I've been looking through your posts, pages and pages of it all relates to Obama and the AHSA, I'd bet money that you're nothing more than a shill who likes to stir the pot here.

RPCVYemen
November 14, 2008, 11:02 PM
Hell, Ray's wife, Nancy Schoenke sat on the BOARD of the Brady Campaign!

Which has exactly what to do with his beliefs?

Mike

Eyesac
November 15, 2008, 11:32 AM
You cannot deny it. Hell, Ray's wife, Nancy Schoenke sat on the BOARD of the Brady Campaign!

Which has exactly what to do with his beliefs?

Mike

Nothing. Nothing at all. And yes, he can deny it. He will always deny it. Even if the Brady bunch came down from heaven on a cloud and told RPCVYemen that they were a front for the antigun lobby to disrupt and deceive he wouldn't see the connection. That's how sold he is. Poor fella...

SuperNaut
November 15, 2008, 12:26 PM
By itself it means nothing, in aggregate it means something.

RPCVYemen
November 15, 2008, 02:25 PM
By itself it means nothing, in aggregate it means something.

To me, that is the essence of the "conspiracy theory" argument - for any conspiracy. The argument that each single of evidence proves nothing, but the aggregation means everything is the heart of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 15, 2008, 02:31 PM
Nothing. Nothing at all. And yes, he can deny it.

Wait - can you please cite one example where Ray Schoenke has denied that his wife has served on the board of the Brady Campaign.

This a straight ahead factual challenge. Let's be clear - you say Schoenke denied his wife's involvement in the Brady Campaign, and I am directly challenging the truth of that claim.

If you have proof of that claim, lay it out.

Mike

Mannlicher
November 15, 2008, 02:38 PM
How many times do we have to hash over AHSA?
They are now, and they have always been, an anti gun outfit in sheep's clothing.
They have zero credibility with anyone other than their fellow anti gunners.
Any poster here, or in any other venue that agrees with anything AHSA or its spokespersons have postulated, is complicit with AHSA's anti gun, and anti Second Amendment positions.

RPCVYemen
November 15, 2008, 02:42 PM
RCPVYemen, an argument from popularity is a fallacy.

You are correct - my point is that calling something "socialist" that is not in fact socialist is not in fact very persuasive. I think that empty-minded mud slinging cost the candidate I thought was a stronger candidate the election - but that's all over with.

So I will rephrase it. Other than futile and intellectually empty name calling effort, can anyone explain to me the relationship between policy about NICs checks at gun shows is even vaguely related to socialism.

Here are two definitions of socialism, so that we are using the same word to mean the same thing:


1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.



1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved

Mike

Mannlicher
November 15, 2008, 02:58 PM
thats all sophist obfuscation. We all know what is meant by 'socialist', or we should know.

All liberals are socialists.
All socialists are but nascent communists, that as yet, don't have the power to send you to the Gulag.
That is changing, now that hussein is taking power.

Caeser2001
November 15, 2008, 06:29 PM
#1 Mandatory criminal background checks for all gun sales
Current Federal law only requires Licensed gun dealers to perform criminal background checks. Consequently in 32 States "private dealers"/individuals can legally sell guns at thousands of annual gun shows, countless flea markets and yard sales, and out of homes, backpacks, car trunks or on street corners without running a background check or asking to see an ID. Only the first gun sale from a "Federally Licensed" gun dealer requires documentation and all "secondary" gun sales are legally allowed to take place without any paperwork or record keeping. As a result, convicted felons and suspected terrorists can and do buy guns simply because there is no background check required or conducted.

so then why do I have to keep filling paperwork out and pay $10 everytime

RPCVYemen
November 15, 2008, 07:29 PM
so then why do I have to keep filling paperwork out and pay $10 everytime

Sounds like you shouldn't. I have never had enough money to buy more than one weapon at a time. :(

Mike

SuperNaut
November 15, 2008, 08:25 PM
To me, that is the essence of the "conspiracy theory" argument - for any conspiracy. The argument that each single of evidence proves nothing, but the aggregation means everything is the heart of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.

Uh no.

But keep on whacking at the tinfoil strawman you have created.

In the real world, corroborating evidence means something. For instance, in Law many laypersons think that a circumstantial case is weak, this simply isn't true. If you have enough supporting evidence a lawyer can convict somebody based on circumstantial evidence. In fact, without a smoking gun, this is what most cases are built upon. Similar in the sciences. Take astronomy for example; the planets that were just discovered were not discovered by looking at them through a telescope. They were in part discovered by the effects they produce on the star of their system. Yep, by supporting evidence.

So you may feel comfortable in your position flailing away at your tinfoil strawman, but I'll keep to my message (which still has nothing to do with your strawman fallacy) and I'll keep posting supporting evidence. It is easy to discern which position is strong and which position is weak.

SuperNaut
November 15, 2008, 08:41 PM
p.s. One of the advantages to posting data (as I have in multiple threads on this topic) is that I don't have to keep restating my arguments. I can let the data speak for me.

IOW, bye-bye.;)

RPCVYemen
November 15, 2008, 11:23 PM
And it doesn't change the fact that it seems your answer to a bad gun control measure, is not let's try to remove the unfair burden, but let's work to make sure things are fair by forcing everyone to suffer the same, unfair burdens.

The issues with the NICS must be fixed - I have heard enough to believe the NICS system is flawed. But I have no objection in principle to nationwide check whose only purpose is to ensure that people who cannot legally purchase or possess firearms do not in fact purchase or possess firearms.

It is important that such a system does not discourage firearms ownership by people who do have the right to purchase or possess firearms. For example, if a NICs check took three months and cost $1000, I would think that it was such a burden that it discouraged firearms ownership by people who do have the right to purchase or possess firearms. If it took 30 seconds and cost $1, I would not think that it discouraged firearms ownership by people who do have the right to purchase or possess firearms.

Mike

garymc
November 17, 2008, 02:12 AM
Well, there seems to be an assumption that NICS checks cost money (to the FFL dealer), thus making it a big financial burden for the dealer. I don't think they do. I also suspect that the 4473 forms don't cost the dealer (per form.) Are there any FFL's who can answer that? Maybe to make the comparison more equal private sellers could be allowed to sell new guns instead of just used ones. As a law abiding entity, that seems to be a serious disadvantage.

TEDDY
November 17, 2008, 04:27 PM
why is it there were no checks prior to 1968?????and then the gun control came on.what part of ("shall" not be infringed) did YOU not understand.I and others care about the constitution. aparently you either do not understand or you dont want to.when I went to school there was no PC and civics was taught.as was history and english.:banghead::fire::rolleyes::uhoh:

Justin
November 17, 2008, 09:15 PM
So I will rephrase it. Other than futile and intellectually empty name calling effort, can anyone explain to me the relationship between policy about NICs checks at gun shows is even vaguely related to socialism.

Hyperbolic labeling aside, the argument could be made that forcing a NICS check on every single "legal" gun transfer is an overbearing and generally worthless misuse of government resources. Statistics from the government have already shown that the number of crime guns purchased at gun shows constitute a minuscule number of crime guns.

But, above and beyond that, I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with such an arrangement. After all, why should the government be mandating the hoops one must jump through in order to dispose of a piece of property as its owner sees fit? Especially when such hoops have been shown to have a dubious, at best, effect on whether or not criminals are able to acquire a firearm.

AHSA does not represent me as a gun owner. Even in the New West article that was linked earlier, it's patently clear their board would happily throw me under the bus. They plainly have no interest in defending one's right to a defensive arm, except in the most milquetoast fashion, and they plainly display an open contempt for people like me who own, regularly shoot with, and enter competitions heavily geared towards practical shooting and/or the usage of so-called "assault weapons."

rbernie
November 17, 2008, 09:21 PM
Well, there seems to be an assumption that NICS checks cost money (to the FFL dealer), thus making it a big financial burden for the dealer. I don't think they do.They don't. They're a free phone call to a toll free number. About the closest thing to a cost burden in the NICS call is the labor time lost to making the call. The whole 'cost of doing business' angle is just plain silly.

But I have no objection in principle to nationwide check whose only purpose is to ensure that people who cannot legally purchase or possess firearms do not in fact purchase or possess firearms.
But this is the crux of the matter. YOU CANNOT.

You want The State to keep The Bad People from having firearms. Sadly, it has been conclusively proven that The State cannot. Washington DC, NYC, and elsewhere are living proof that criminals will always find a way to get a firearm or any other dangerous weapon that they need. There is not such thing as 'ensuring' that prohibited persons do not get firearms.

Now, we certainly can make it harder for The Bad People to get firearms. We can throw up some roadblocks - simple barriers that stop the feeble minded and those without a willingness to really work at gettin' a gun. But let's be serious - that is all we are doing with NICS.

And in the process of trying to extend NICS, we are slowly sinking in the spiral of 'diminishing-returns-for-vastly-increasing-effort'. Every spiral around the drain brings more and more .gov oversight and more and more 'inconveniences' (like those 10K people a year who were by the .gov's admission improperly denied the right to buy a firearm) as a return on the increasing investment.

At what point do we philosophically realize that it's a fool errand to try to have The State keep us safe? At what point do we say, much as many of us did vis-a-vis certain aspects of 'The Patriot Act', that the loss of privacy and social liberties are not worth the minimal positive impact (the 'safety') implied by the .gov's actions?

Why do we want to cede the responsibility for our safety to the .gov in exchange for .gov approval for even the most basic of human actions (namely, the transfer of durable property), especially in the face of tens of thousands of years of history proving that The State cannot keep the bargain that we make with it?

It defies logic.

Justin
November 17, 2008, 09:35 PM
One other quick note:

At the NRA Convention in St. Louis, AHSA had people handing out fliers for their organization. It was patently obvious that they didn't even have a neophyte's understanding of guns or shooting.

You'd think that a pro-gun organization would be able to muster volunteers for their organization that were actually halfway interested in shooting.

RPCVYemen
November 17, 2008, 09:54 PM
Even in the New West article that was linked earlier, it's patently clear their board would happily throw me under the bus. They plainly have no interest in defending one's right to a defensive arm, ...

Can you provide a quote from the New West article that states this?

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 17, 2008, 10:10 PM
Now, we certainly can make it harder for The Bad People to get firearms. We can throw up some roadblocks - simple barriers that stop the feeble minded and those without a willingness to really work at gettin' a gun. But let's be serious - that is all we are doing with NICS.

I agree. And think its better to throw up roadblocks. The tone of your article suggests that if we can't do everything, we can't do anything. I don't see the world that way. There are some things our armed forces cannot protect against - but that doesn't mean that I want to disband the armed forces.

Washington DC, NYC, and elsewhere are living proof that criminals will always find a way to get a firearm or any other dangerous weapon that they need.

No - the Washington, DC law disarmed all the good guys as well as the bad guys. That's why it was a bad law - it disarmed everyone, and denied their right to keep and bear arms. Even if the DC ban had in fact disarmed all bad guy in DC, it would have been unconstitutional, right?

The intent of the NICS system is not to disarm the good guys. When it prevents a good guy from purchasing a firearm, that's an error, and it should be fixed. I don't believe in error free systems or the Easter Bunny, but we should try to get those errors as low as reasonable, under the constraints of time and money.

Mike

ServiceSoon
November 17, 2008, 10:19 PM
#1 Mandatory criminal background checks for all gun sales
Current Federal law only requires Licensed gun dealers to perform criminal background checks. Consequently in 32 States "private dealers"/individuals can legally sell guns at thousands of annual gun shows, countless flea markets and yard sales, and out of homes, backpacks, car trunks or on street corners without running a background check or asking to see an ID. Only the first gun sale from a "Federally Licensed" gun dealer requires documentation and all "secondary" gun sales are legally allowed to take place without any paperwork or record keeping. As a result, convicted felons and suspected terrorists can and do buy guns simply because there is no background check required or conducted.The majority of criminals obtain their guns through straw purchases, which is already illegal. That is all you have to know to discuss this topic.

For ATF data click here (http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/following/followthegunindex.htm) and go to Chapter 3 page 11.

There is also data from the FBI that says criminals don't follow the laws.

Justin
November 17, 2008, 10:25 PM
Can you provide a quote from the New West article that states this?

The AHSA openly calls for renewing the ban on so-called "assault weapons." In the article, the main attempts to shore up the pro-gun bona fides of those at the top of the organization are geared towards hunting and skeet shooting. Nowhere did I see mention of an interest in self defense, or serious competitive shooting such as High Power, Bullseye, IPSC, IDPA, or Multigun.

Also I have to admit to being rather shocked at a "pro-gun" organization that believes the transfer of a gun between friends or family members, that cannot be construed by any rational person as interstate commerce, is something that should requires federal oversight.

AHSA is basically advocating the stance that if you transfer a gun to someone without going through a NICS check, that you should be made a criminal. I have to say, I find that rather ridiculous on its face.

Justin
November 17, 2008, 10:34 PM
Oh, and hey, they don't believe I should be able to compete with a .50 BMG rifle, either.

Or rather, they believe that in order to buy a single-shot precision big-bore target rifle, I should have to submit the same sort of paperwork that is required for a belt-fed machine gun.

Wow, their pro-gun stance just keeps getting better and better. Where do I sign up?

RPCVYemen
November 17, 2008, 11:20 PM
Nowhere did I see mention of an interest in self defense, or serious competitive shooting such as High Power, Bullseye, IPSC, IDPA, or Multigun.

So you claim that becuase the New West article does not say anything about these subject, AHSA must be opposed to them, and they are willing to throw you under the bus?

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 17, 2008, 11:22 PM
Oh, and hey, they don't believe I should be able to compete with a .50 BMG rifle, either.

I guess you haven't read the whole thread - on this policy, I disagree with them. I have stated that a number of times in this thread.

I think it's a silly policy.

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 17, 2008, 11:24 PM
The AHSA openly calls for renewing the ban on so-called "assault weapons."

I would like to see citation where AHSA calls for renewing the AWB. I am not arguing, I'd just like to see it, because a lot of people seem to think it exists, and I don't see any such thing on their web site.

Mike

rbernie
November 18, 2008, 12:01 AM
The tone of your article suggests that if we can't do everything, we can't do anything. I don't see the world that way. No, I do not believe that we should do nothing because we can't do everything. I believe that doing anything is a sham and a ruse and a false pretense at making us safer.

The FBI will show you data that they blocked hundreds of thousands of gun sales via NICS checks. Hooray for that. And in all of that data is an unstated implication that somehow we are safer because of that. Yet what they do not, and cannot, tell me is how many actual CRIMES were prevented as a result of these NICS rejections. It may be ten. It may be ten thousand. There is no knowing.

The whole premise of NICS is that if we deny the object then the criminal behavior will be thwarted. That premise is faulty to even the most basic of logic, and yet you seem to want to ignore this line of reasoning. Why?

Look to England and their gun prohibitions, and look at the violent crime rates in that country. Tell me how prohibiting a class of object to the criminal element has improved public safety one iota.

No - the Washington, DC law disarmed all the good guys as well as the bad guys. That's why it was a bad law - it disarmed everyone, and denied their right to keep and bear arms. Straw man. The DC gun ban should have kept guns from prohibited people (as well as non-prohibited people). It failed to do that. So how can you contend that the .gov is in a position to prevent The Bad People from arming themselves even in the face of mandatory NICS transactions for all gun sales? The .gov can't keep the guns from The Bad People when they don't even have to determine who's good or bad - all they have to do is declare the item as contraband. The point is not how broadly the DC gun ban was applied - it is how ineffective prohibiting the acquisition of guns is with regard to actually eliminating guns in the hands of criminals, much less reducing crime.

I asked you:

Why do we want to cede the responsibility for our safety to the .gov in exchange for .gov approval for even the most basic of human actions (namely, the transfer of durable property), especially in the face of tens of thousands of years of history proving that The State cannot keep the bargain that we make with it?
And you chose not to answer.

Why?

ZeroCool
November 18, 2008, 12:01 AM
The gun industry makes, markets and sells inherently dangerous product (like automobiles, knives and drugs- all regulated) and they should be held accountable for their actions.

Beyond all of the other outright lies in this article, did anyone else laugh out loud when they read this part? Why are knives on this list and since when have they been regulated like cars and drugs?

I dont know too much about the author personally, but I bet he wouldnt be too happy if they re-classified 12 gauge skeet guns as Destructive Devices and banned them. I hate elitists, even gun elitists.

Justin
November 18, 2008, 02:19 AM
So you claim that becuase (sic) the New West article does not say anything about these subject, AHSA must be opposed to them, and they are willing to throw you under the bus?

No, this is based on statements by, as well as organizations funded and supported by those who hold the reins at AHSA. Of course, there's also the fact that the only candidates that they've supported are all Democrats who are, at best, lukewarm on the gun issue. And, hey, nevermind the fact that Joseph J. Vince, Jr. has made statements on behalf of the Brady Campaign in support of the ban of so-called "assault weapons." To say nothing of their outright endorsement of a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate whose positions are positively toxic to the right to keep and bear arms. After all, Biden was one of the instrumental movers and shakers behind the drafting and passage of the ban.

Their actions very plainly speak louder than their lack of words on the subject. Of course, the fact that they expend more verbage attacking the NRA than speaking up in favor of advancing the Second Amendment rights of all US citizens says much, as well.

I guess you haven't read the whole thread - on this policy, I disagree with them. I have stated that a number of times in this thread.

I think it's a silly policy.


And this is evidence that we should support them...why? Perhaps you'd care to report to us regarding your attempts to get them to rescind such a plainly idiotic stance.

And while you're at it, perhaps you'd care to explain why AHSA wants to make a criminal out of every person who wants to sell a firearm to a friend/family member without jumping through a federally-mandated NICS check?


"Unfortunately for Schoenke, the Brady Campaign basically agrees with the NRA. "I see our issues as complementary to theirs," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, says about Schoenke's association. "They're a positive group."

-The Washington Post, Tuesday, March 18, 2008

stevelyn
November 18, 2008, 04:13 AM
AHSA IS NOT pro-gun.

They are the propaganda/psyops/disinformation arm of the Brady/VPC pukes.

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 09:47 AM
I must have misunderstood your earlier post:

Even in the New West article that was linked earlier, it's patently clear their board would happily throw me under the bus.

Even in the New West article that was linked earlier, it's patently clear their board would happily throw me under the bus.

So there was nothing in the New West article that suggests that they want to throw you under the path.

Evil

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 09:56 AM
And you chose not to answer.


It was so full of unfounded (and incorrect) assumptions that I figured it was rhetorical. The following assumptions are incorrect:


We want to cede the responsibility for our safety to the .gov
In exchange for .gov approval for even the most basic of human actions (namely, the transfer of durable property)
in the face of tens of thousands of years of history proving that The State cannot keep the bargain that we make with it?


If you can form your question without all of these assumptions, I can answer it.

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 09:58 AM
The point is not how broadly the DC gun ban was applied - it is how ineffective prohibiting the acquisition of guns is with regard to actually eliminating guns in the hands of criminals, much less reducing crime.

What made the DC law unconstitutional was precisely the breadth of application - it denied the right to keep and bear arms to law abiding citizens.

Mike

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 10:35 AM
OK.

Let's tally up the AHSA's pro-gun positions on key issues:

1. Gun show "loophole":

NICS required for all gun stransfers.

2. .50 Caliber weapons:

No .50 BMGs without onerous restrictions.

3. Renewing the federal AWB:

??? *crickets* *crickets*

OK, so...what would lead anyone to believe that the AHSA is a pro gun organization, beyond the fact that they claim they are? What positions have they taken to oppose gun control legislation? How have they acted upon that opposition?

Mike

ETA: And, their endorsed presidential candidate is on record as opposing gun rights in general (don't try to say he isn't) and supporting the renewal of the AWB in particular. But, they do have pictures of shotguns and hunting dogs on their site.

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 10:48 AM
3. Renewing the federal AWB:

I keep running across this one. Can anyone cite an official AHSA call for this?

I searched the web site for "AWB" and "assault weapon", and didn't find anything.

Mike

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 10:52 AM
You are aware that this is the most contentious issue likely to come up in the near future, with the (AHSA-endorsed) president-elect on record as supporting a new AWB, the (AHSA-endorsed) vice-president-elect the author of the last AWB, right? And you, an AHSA member, cannot find the AHSA's "pro-gun" postition on this anywhere? Really?

Really?

A pro gun organization, eh?

Really?

Mike :rolleyes:

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 10:56 AM
You are aware that this is the most contentious issue likely to come up in the near future, with the (AHSA-endorsed) president-elect on record as supporting a new AWB, ...

I don't expect any contention - because I don't expect Obama to do anything about an AWB.

You are assuming that a pro-fun organization like AHSA support the AWB unless they have have explicit statements otherwise.

I can play, too: Really? Really? Really? :)

Mike

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 11:05 AM
You are aware that this is the most contentious issue likely to come up in the near future, with the (AHSA-endorsed) president-elect on record as supporting a new AWB, ...I don't expect any contention - because I don't expect Obama to do anything about an AWB.I hope you're right. I see no reason to believe that you are, but we'll see. He certainly has done nothing to support the idea that he won't, besides studiously avoiding comment in public.You are assuming that a pro-fun organization like AHSA support the AWB unless they have have explicit statements otherwise.I am. A pro-gun organization that supports RKBA will take up positions on likely legislation. There has been an AWB bill in every session of congress since the last AWB expired. The NRA, GOA, etc has taken up an issue position on all of them. Where's the AHSA's position on any of them?

Your best-case position is that the AHSA is completely inept as a political organization. Given that they have already taken up an anti-gun position on a more obscure issue (the 50 BMG ban), I don't find the ineptitude argument to be compelling. I am even more convinced that they are not opposed to the AWB when their endorsed candidates obviously support it.

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 11:13 AM
I am. A pro-gun organization that supports RKBA will take up positions on likely legislation. There has been an AWB bill in every session of congress since the last AWB expired. The NRA, GOA, etc has taken up an issue position on all of them. Where's the AHSA's position on any of them?

So you are really not arguing against anything the AHSA has said - you are arguing against what you assume the AHSA should have said and didn't, right?

Mike

rbernie
November 18, 2008, 11:44 AM
They're a free phone call to a toll free number. About the closest thing to a cost burden in the NICS call is the labor time lost to making the call. The whole 'cost of doing business' angle is just plain silly.
RPCVYemen - you seem to have gone radio silent on this issue. Do you still maintain that dealers incur an economic penalty for using NICS that private individuals do not incur? If I recall, your support for extending NICS to all sales, effectively banning private sales, was based upon a lack of leveling of the economic impact of the NICS check - no? After all, you said:

RPCVYemen posted:
I do not think that it's fair to require dealers at gun show to perform NICS checks but a guy outside in the parking lot not to perform NICS checks. That places law abiding dealers at a competitive disadvantage.
And:

RPCVYemen posted:
If some folks selling guns at a gun show have to bear the cost of the government mandated economic burden, then all should. It is not fair to require some people to bear that burden, and others not. That's what I mean by an economic disadvantage.
Can you quantify the nature and cost of this economic burden?

But back to the current topic between us - the actual benefit of NICS checks (since this seems to be one of the areas in which you and AHSA are in strong accord).... RPCVYemen posted:
What made the DC law unconstitutional was precisely the breadth of application - it denied the right to keep and bear arms to law abiding citizens.
You're introducing a straw man. The legality of the law was not in question - the practical enforcability of gun prohibitions was. My question was, and remains:

rbernie posted:
how can you contend that the .gov is in a position to prevent The Bad People from arming themselves even in the face of mandatory NICS transactions for all gun sales? The .gov can't keep the guns from The Bad People when they don't even have to determine who's good or bad

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 11:46 AM
So you are really not arguing against anything the AHSA has said - you are arguing against what you assume the AHSA should have said and didn't, right?So far as I know, the AHSA has no position on the AWB. Do they? If so, they should publish it. Their silence on the matter is deafening- or, rather, would be, if anyone listened to them. Painting this ommission as merely "something that they should have said" is disengenuous. A pro-gun organization that exists to protect RKBA should take a position on an obvious, impending issue that could have a serious impact on the future of RKBA in this nation. They've cast themselves as an RKBA watchdog. Where's their bark, let alone their bite? At best, they're inept. At worst, they're an organization of quislings.

The AHSA is doing a very poor job of painting itself as a pro-gun organization by cherry-picking a few "no-brainer" pro-rkba positions (overturn the already-overturned DC Gun Ban! Do it so washingtonians can hunt, too!), and mixing them into a slew of anti-RKBA compromises. When one major pick-a-side issue presents itself, they stand silent, but endorse candidates that are on the wrong side of the issue. Their supporters then cite a lack of position on the issue as a lack of evidence for their opposition for RKBA. :rolleyes:

I can create a wonderful, pro-gun organization, too. Here's Coronach's Pro-Gun Organization's position on everything:



















See? We are very pro-gun. Why? Because we're pro gun. It even says so in our name. And, we'll have pictures of hunters and trap shooters on our website.

I return to my original question. You assume the AHSA is a pro-gun organization, why? Because they say they are?

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 12:05 PM
RPCVYemen - you seem to have gone radio silent on this issue. Do you still maintain that dealers incur an economic penalty for using NICS that private individuals do not incur?

I didn't feel like going into a long discussion about the distinction between monetary and non-monetary costs. Most of the economic disadvantage or requiring one group to do an additional check is in the extra hassle, or perceived hassle of getting the check.

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 12:10 PM
You assume the AHSA is a pro-gun organization, why? Because they say they are?


I judge most organizations buy their stated official policies. I don't buy much into conspiracy theories ...

With the exception of the .50 BMG policy, which is silly, nothing in their official policies contradicts their claim to support the 2nd Amendment.

Mike

Justin
November 18, 2008, 12:14 PM
So you are really not arguing against anything the AHSA has said - you are arguing against what you assume the AHSA should have said and didn't, right?

If an organization claiming to be "pro-gun" does not publicly take a stance against something like the ban on so-called "assault weapons" then can you tell me what purpose they could possibly serve?

After all, they claim to speak on behalf of gun owners. If they aren't publicly taking a stand on one of the most contentious public policy debates in which I have a stake, why shouldn't I be suspicious of their motives?

I will also note that they seem extremely quiet on the issue of concealed carry.

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 12:17 PM
RPCVYemen - you seem to have gone radio silent on this issue. Do you still maintain that dealers incur an economic penalty for using NICS that private individuals do not incur?

I didn't feel like going into a long discussion about the distinction between monetary and non-monetary costs. Most of the economic disadvantage or requiring one group to do an additional check is in the extra hassle, or perceived hassle of getting the check.

MikeTHAT is your economic disadvantage? C'mon. That doesn't even hold water. So, in order to eliminate this vanishingly small "advantage" given to the non FFL-holder, you advocate a position that would make a federal felon of anyone who transfers a gun to a relative without informing the government? Ever been to a gun show? The FFL-holders are not exactly going out of business due to all of the private sales going on. This is absurd.

I have news for you, I assure you that the FFL-holders at the gun show would suck up that "economic disadvantage" if it meant that they could give their WWII rifle collection to their grandchildren without making a record of the transaction with the ATF or being imprisoner in Club Fed. So, there, you can now drop the issue with a clean conscience. They don't want your "help".

Mike

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 12:24 PM
I judge most organizations buy their stated official policies. I don't buy much into conspiracy theories ...

With the exception of the .50 BMG policy, which is silly, nothing in their official policies contradicts their claim to support the 2nd Amendment.Again, please join my pro-gun organziation. We've stated nothing to contradict our support of the second amendment. I'll remind you what our positions are:













See? The mere fact that we've said nothing at all should not stop you from sending me money. ;)

Seriously, as Justin asks: what use is a pro-RKBA organization that takes anti-RKBA positions on 'minor, fringe issues', remains silent on major issues, supports anti-RKBA candidates, and only takes strong, pro-RKBA positions on decided caselaw? What's the point, besides doing and saying nothing of import but looking like a pro-RKBA group?

Mike

Kim
November 18, 2008, 12:24 PM
One of your problems is you seem to accept the background NICS checks prevent gun crime. There is no evidence that they do. This was investigated by the great Clinton order when he left office to have the National Academy of Science do a study. There is a whole boring book published (I bought it and read it) that says no gun control laws to date can clamin to have done anything to deter crime with firearms. Except one little Gun court for those below 18 I believe in MA. So there. I do not support NICS because it does no good. What it did was put small gun sellers out of business as designed. Another episode of collusion of BIG GUN business putting out of competiton the little guy with the help of the .gov. It did not take long for the general public and alot of gun owners to come to the false conculsion that NICS helps deter crime. It is a falsehood. Just another little cut in the long road in gun control.

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 12:28 PM
THAT is your economic disadvantage? C'mon. That doesn't even hold water.

I think that if you search for NICS on THR, you will find a lot of folks object strongly to the NICS check, and much prefer to buy weapons without a NICS check over buying the same weapon with a NICS check.

QED :)

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 12:29 PM
One of your problems is you seem to accept the background NICS checks prevent gun crime.

Where did I say that?

Mike

Justin
November 18, 2008, 12:31 PM
If they don't prevent crime, then what's the point of having them in the first place?

ArfinGreebly
November 18, 2008, 12:35 PM
I see a lot of argument about who should be obliged to use NICS and when it should be used and why or why not it should be compulsory.

The entire concept of NICS is flawed*. To the point where, since it doesn't achieve its stated aims, and yet is still enthusiastically enforced by the government, I have to believe that its actual purpose is not its stated purpose.

It is utterly ineffective at keeping arms out of the hands of criminals.

It increases cost and inconvenience for dealers and customers alike.

Arguing the nuance of a failed system validates the idea that if you do something wrong in just the right way, with enough funding and effort and with equal application, that it will somehow no longer be the wrong thing.

There were no problems solved by enacting NICS, other than providing "something substantial" for the guy who thought it up, so he could have it on his resume as an "accomplishment" so as to further his career.

There was no dramatic reduction in crime when firearms dealer licensing became mandatory.

What has been accomplished by ever more onerous licensing and paperwork and record keeping requirements is the creation of criminals by fiat.

Arresting and convicting someone of a clerical crime, that's a crime simply because you declared it so, is not being "tough on crime," it simply creates more traffic in the courts and feathers the nests of lawyers while the actual practitioners of mens rea are out there doing violence to individuals and communities.

So I propose that we quit bickering about the proper application of a wrong idea. NICS is a wrong idea. Its elimination will spur commerce and allow more people to be properly armed.

(*flawed: Given that the system assumes the guilt of anyone wishing to purchase firearm. In essence: "only criminals want to have guns, you want a gun, ergo you are -- by default -- a criminal, and we must therefore verify that you are not a criminal." Prior restraint is not consistent with liberty, no matter the excuse.)

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 12:35 PM
I think that if you search for NICS on THR, you will find a lot of folks object strongly to the NICS check, and much prefer to buy weapons without a NICS check over buying the same weapon with a NICS check.Which has nothing to do with inconvenience, and has more to do with the honest answer to why the government (and, incidentally, AHSA) wants NICS checks when they do nothing to prevent crime.

And, while you have addressed one issue in my post, you failed to address the fact that dealers at gun shows are doing just fine without your "help", and the fact (inferred, I will admit, but I'm quite confident that it would be borne out in actuality) that the supposed beneficiaries of your munificence would not want your "help".

Mike

Justin
November 18, 2008, 12:47 PM
"No one needs an assault weapon"
As quoted in the Columbus Dispatch December 24, 2006 (http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2006/12/24/20061224-G9-02.html)

Of course, Schoenke has recently flip-flopped on the issue, claiming he opposes reinstating the AWB. However, if you look for what actions the AHSA has undertaken to keep this from happening, to educate the public on the AWB and what effect it had on crime, all you see is a whole lot of nothing.

I mean, you'd think they'd at least post a clarification of their stance on the issue over on their official website or something. Failure to do so could certainly be indicative of a couple of things.

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 12:47 PM
Here's another way to look at this:

Show me a position of the AHSA that is diametrically opposed to the position of the Brady Bunch, on an issue that is not decided law (read: DC gun ban).

Mike

yeti
November 18, 2008, 12:50 PM
I don't expect any contention - because I don't expect Obama to do anything about an AWB.

You are assuming that a pro-fun organization like AHSA support the AWB unless they have have explicit statements otherwise.

I can play, too: Really? Really? Really?

REALLY! Really! Really! They endorse candidates that have demonstrated rabid support for an AWB, and are silent on the issue themselves? With no clear position on an AWB, you are measured by the company you keep. The silence by AHSA is deafening!

Besides, being pro-fun shows no support for gun rights what so ever. The 2nd amendment isn't about fun!:evil: (I know it was a typo, but it was just to easy not to take advantage of it:neener:)

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Schoenke
"No one needs an assault weapon"

As quoted in the Columbus Dispatch December 24, 2006Oops. I don't understand how he could be at the helm of a pro gun organization. I really don't. :confused:

He's either highly conflicted, with himself as well as his wife, or the AHSA is not as pro-gun as they seem. Hmm. I wonder which it is?

That, or they're willing to throw certain types of gun owners under the bus (and, incidentally, allow their wives to drive the bus...)

Mike :)

PS I'm sure that his world-view is private and does not influence how the AHSA operates, though. I'm sure they're against an AWB. I'm sure of this because they've said nothing about the issue, despite it being the current RKBA issue. I mean, they say they're pro gun, so they must be opposed to this. Right? Right? We'll just assume that silence means that they are, because...uh...because there are pictures of sportsmen holding hunting guns on their website, fer cryinoutloud.

PPS I'll reiterate my previous question: Name one position on which the AHSA disagrees with the Brady Bunch, that has not been made moot by recent court action.

ServiceSoon
November 18, 2008, 01:14 PM
I read that the ATF doesn't follow up on denied NICS checks.

rbernie
November 18, 2008, 01:35 PM
I read that the ATF doesn't follow up on denied NICS checks.
Based upon their own statistics, the Feds follow up on virtually NONE of them. I have heard of local/state disqualifications that did earn an immediate response from the local gendarme.

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 01:48 PM
As quoted in the Columbus Dispatch December 24, 2006

Do you have an URL for that quote?

Mike

Justin
November 18, 2008, 01:53 PM
No, Mike. Plainly I don't.

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 02:06 PM
:rolleyes:

Denial: not just a river in Egypt.

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 02:08 PM
No, Mike. Plainly I don't.BTW, this might be in the running for Best Response Ever on THR. I don't care if it was made by a fellow moderator. That's just plain funny.

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 02:26 PM
As quoted in the Columbus Dispatch December 24, 2006

How odd - when Mr. Schoenke writes for himself, he asserts a different policy, one that I support:

On assault weapons ban (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
maxomai, Robobagpiper

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.

Ray Schoenke

by Schoenke on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:56:09 AM PST


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


Mike

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 02:30 PM
No, Mike. Plainly I don't.

I apologize deeply for seeing Coronach's quote of your before your post. How can I ever dig myself out of that hole. I was deeply, utterly, absolutely, and incorrigibly wrong.

Mike

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 02:41 PM
Well, this is excellent news. Ray is opposed to the AWB in the comments section of Daily Kos, despite being quoted as being in favor in the Chicago Tribune and Columbus Dispatch (looks like it was an AP or UPI story). OK, that's genuinely good news, assuming that it was not done as damage control to cover his previous quote. <--Not sarcasm (though I suspect it was damage control, but it doesn't matter). However, he's being mildly outspoken in little-trafficked areas, but is, at best, not addressing the issue in places where people actually go for information. Like AHSA's website.

So...where is the AHSA's position on this? Ray says "we" are opposed to the AWB. AHSA's website says







about it.

If they are honestly opposed to the AWB, let's hear it.

I'll repeat my previous question: cite me where the AHSA differs from the Brady Campaign on areas that are not moot, like the DC gun ban.

Mike

Justin
November 18, 2008, 02:47 PM
Mike, I addressed Schoenke's claim of a change of heart earlier.

If he well and truly opposes the ban on so-called "assault weapons" would you please care to explain why they not only endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket, but why all of the candidates they supported are Democrats with, at best, a lukewarm record on gun rights?

Heck, would you care to explain why there is no mention of their opposition to the ban on their official website?

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 02:50 PM
from the same thread on DailyKos:Before it got changed, the AHSA 'Who we are' page stated this:

"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."

So you've changed your organizations stance?See, this is where the concern is coming from. They were in favor of the AWB before, assuming the quote from DK is accurate (it dovetails with previous quotes I have heard re: AHSA). Someone asked him, oh, you've changed your stance? A fair question. Ben's response?



Which, of course, does not differ significantly from AHSA's stance on its website:



This is not some obscure issue that got drummed up recently. People have been asking for AHSA to take a stand on it for some time. Their response is somewhat lacking. It's almost like they're trying to get away without answering the question.

I'll repeat my previous question: cite me where the AHSA differs from the Brady Campaign on areas that are not moot, like the DC gun ban.


Mike

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 02:54 PM
If he well and truly opposes the ban on so-called "assault weapons" would you please care to explain why they not only endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket, but why all of the candidates they supported are Democrats with, at best, a lukewarm record on gun rights?

Here is quote from their web page on the Obama endorsement:

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment.

His support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007, is particularly telling. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency. Senator Obama's vote demonstrated a fundamental understanding of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment which means he recognizes the individual right of all citizens to keep and bear arms.

In addition, Senator Obama's commitment to conservation and protection of our natural resources and access to public lands demonstrates to us his commitment to America's hunting and shooting heritage.

Senator Obama will be a strong and authentic voice for America's hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy.

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/about/obamaendorsement

I imagine they endorsed the other Democrats because Ray is a pro-gun Democratic activist.

Mike

Justin
November 18, 2008, 02:55 PM
As a gun owner who is arguably looking for organizations to donate money to, why would I want to support an organization that claims to support my rights, but doesn't even see fit to address them on their own official website?

I mean, if I'm going to donate money to you, not only do I expect you to take a stand online via your website, Facebook page, YouTube account, etc, but I also expect you to actually go meet face-to-face with a few legislators and bend their ear on my behalf.

Would someone care to point out an instance when Ray Schoenke sat down with a legislator and articulated a position against reinstatment of the AWB on behalf of mainstream American gun owners?

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 02:55 PM
Mike, I addressed Schoenke's claim of a change of heart earlier.

I missed that. Do you have a post number? This thread is getting pretty long.

Mike

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 02:57 PM
#133. The same post as the url.

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 02:59 PM
I'll try again, BTW. Big, so you don't miss it.

I'll repeat my previous question: cite me where the AHSA differs from the Brady Campaign on areas that are not moot, like the DC gun ban.

I'm curious to hear your response. Official positions, please, since you cannot have to both ways.

I'm sure there are differences, btw. I'm just not convinced they're substantive.

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 03:02 PM
I'm curious to hear your response. Official positions, please, since you cannot have to both ways.


I don't consider opposition to the DC gun ban moot, just because we won!

Mike

Justin
November 18, 2008, 03:02 PM
His support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007, is particularly telling. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency. Senator Obama's vote demonstrated a fundamental understanding of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment which means he recognizes the individual right of all citizens to keep and bear arms.

Oh wow! So AHSA supported Obama because he believes that in the event of a crisis, you should be able to defend yourself!

I mean, wow, it doesn't get much more pro-gun than claiming you have a right to defend yourself with a gun against people who might be trying to victimize you!

In all seriousness, that's not a pro-gun stance. It's common sense. And Obama's support for one pro-gunnish bill that would only apply in occasional and extreme dire circumstances does nothing to alleviate his voiced support for renewing the AWB, for outlawing concealed carry nationwide, for refusing to cut a break to people who defend themselves with a gun in their own home, and any number of other obviously anti-gun stances he's taken in the past.

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 03:08 PM
In all seriousness, that's not a pro-gun stance.

So support for the Vitter amendment is not a pro gun stance?

Mike

Justin
November 18, 2008, 03:11 PM
I don't consider opposition to the DC gun ban moot, just because we won!

Dodge.

Anti-gun organizations are not going to waste resources attacking things that are settled law.

Coronach's question still stands.

So support for the Vitter amendment is not a pro gun stance?

Supporting one pro-gun bill doesn't suddenly transform you into a fearless defender of the Second Amendment, no matter what AHSA and Obama claim.

Especially when you're on the record supporting things like a nationwide ban on concealed carry, reinstating the ban on so-called "assault weapons," support for requiring ammunition be microstamped, universal registration of guns, refusing to support a state law that would have created an affirmative defense for those who use a gun to defend themselves in their own home, and on and on and on and on.

So, what you honestly expect me to believe is that Obama is pro-gun because he cast one vote, and that his one vote somehow outweighs the rest of his record which is entirely and obviously anti-gun?

Really?!

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 03:13 PM
I don't consider opposition to the DC gun ban moot, just because we won!:rolleyes:

Moot: adj a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.

Meaning, in this instance, SCOTUS has ruled the DC gun ban to be unconstitutional, so coming out in opposition to the DC gun ban is irrelevant. It's decided law. It's like waiting for the game to be over to place your bet. Obama, incidentally, has done the same thing. He was opposed all along to the DC gun ban, depite never saying much about it beforehand and abiding Chicago's nearly-identical ban for years and years without saying a word about it (but endorsing every other anti-gun proposition he could find).

So, I'll repeat the question again:

Cite me where the AHSA differs from the Brady Campaign on areas other than the DC gun ban.

Mike :rolleyes:

cigardad
November 18, 2008, 03:14 PM
During WWII these people would have been known as collaborators. They should be treated as such now.

AHSA is a group of libetard Fudds posing as gunowners. Please do us all a big favor and rip up your NRA cards.

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 03:20 PM
So support for the Vitter amendment is not a pro gun stance?The amendment in and of itself is. However, it is entirely unclear whether support by any given politician on the floor for the bill was because of the meat of the bill itself, the amendment itself, in spite of the meat of the bill itself, or in spite of the amendment itself, or some combination thereof.

Amending bills to put in sweeteners or poison pills is one of the things I despise about Washington, as it gives poitical cover to politicians of both sides and all stripes, and really makes it hard to discern who really supports what.

Mike

PS So, where does the AHSA differ from the Brady Campaign, on areas other than the DC gun ban?

Justin
November 18, 2008, 03:29 PM
Let me ask you this:

What has either AHSA or the Postmodern Messiah done to move gun rights forward? Where is the advocation for repealing the asinine restrictions on imported firearms that could inadvertently make you a felon if the US parts count in your gun is below some arbitrary number?

Where is the support for instituting nationwide recognition of concealed carry permits so they work the same way as drivers' licenses?

Where is the support for teaching basic gun safety in high school the same as driver's ed or sex ed?

Where is the support for actually forcing the city of Washington DC to abide by the Supreme Court's decision in Heller?

Where is the support to prohibit nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers?

Where is the support for the ODCMP?

Where is the support for Camp Perry? (Who here thinks the Postmodern Messiah will sign the certificates for the President's 100?)

Where is the support for protecting shooting ranges from being shut down by encroaching urban development?

Where is the support for repealing or rectifying the blatantly unjust ex post facto loss of gun rights forced on many under the Lautenberg amendment?

Where is the support for moving sound suppressors from NFA-regulated items to being no more heavily regulated than, say, handguns?

No one who is actually pro-gun would have a problem with many or even all of the above policies. So, if AHSA is so pro-gun, if the Postmodern Messiah is the second coming of Charlton Heston, where is the support for such things? Where is the repudiation of obviously and blatantly anti-gun voting records?

In short, much like the little old lady in the Wendy's commercial from years ago, where, I ask, is the beef?

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 03:59 PM
Coronach's question still stands.

Too silly to answer - no matter how big the font. I don't really know that - maybe if it's re-posted with a bigger font, I will suddenly be struck with the wisdom of that question.But I doubt it.

A stated position of support for the 2nd Amendment combined the policies specified (with the exception of the .50 BMG nonsense) is fine with me.

The quote from the Columbus Dispatch had me nervous - until I found that Schoenke doesn't support an AWB ban.

If in the future, there is a move to reinstate the AWB, I will expect AHSA to speak up. I don't expect Obama to introduce an AWB, or to permit an AWB to make it out of committee. I don't care whether or not the AHSA speaks about legislation that will not be introduced for the next 8 years.

Mike

yeti
November 18, 2008, 04:05 PM
I guess we all now have a good idea of what they haven't done, voiced a position against the AWB. Now exactly what HAVE they done to help support our gun rights?(I ask because I really do not know)

Justin
November 18, 2008, 04:30 PM
I don't expect Obama to introduce an AWB, or to permit an AWB to make it out of committee.

And on what basis do you take such a position?

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 04:34 PM
If in the future, there is a move to reinstate the AWB, I will expect AHSA to speak up.Me too. I won't hold my breath, but I'd be delighted to find them on my side. I'm 100% serious.I don't expect Obama to introduce an AWB, or to permit an AWB to make it out of committee.I hope you're right. You may well be, but it won't be because of anything the AHSA has done.I don't care whether or not the AHSA speaks about legislation that will not be introduced for the next 8 years.You should, because by speaking out it would make it clear that even moderate gun groups (stipulating that AHSA qualifies) do not support an AWB, and thereby it makes any future AWB less likely.

Your positioning seems to be predicated upon two ideas:

1. AHSA is a pro gun group, and yet you cannot cite relevant positions that it holds which are at variance with the major anti-gun group in the USA.

2. Obama will not push for more gun control, despite his extremely extensive anti-gun history.

#1 is inexplicable, and #2 is just pure optimism. I'm also curious why you think he will not push for more gun control. Is it because it is always a losing issue for the dems, or something about Obama's beliefs?[re: my question asking for AHSA's opposition to Brady's positions] Too silly to answer - no matter how big the font. I don't really know that - maybe if it's re-posted with a bigger font, I will suddenly be struck with the wisdom of that question. But I doubt it.LOL. Are you serious? You honestly think that an inability to articulate how a supposedly pro-rkba group substantively differs from the major anti-gun group is a silly question? This should be a very simple exercise. The fact that you cannot do it speaks volumes. To be fair, I'm not insulting you. I think you cannot do it because it cannot be done. Their positions are substantively identical.A stated position of support for the 2nd Amendment combined the policies specified (with the exception of the .50 BMG nonsense) is fine with me.What policies specified? Which ones? AHSA has already made one that you admit is anti and that you do not support. So, where are the pro positions? As to "a stated position of support for the 2nd Amendment", whatever. If that's your measure of a pro-gun group, this discussion is simply pointless.

Mike

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 04:53 PM
What policies specified? Which ones? AHSA has already made one that you admit is anti and that you do not support. So, where are the pro positions? As to "a stated position of support for the 2nd Amendment", whatever. If that's your measure of a pro-gun group, this discussion is simply pointless.

The AHSA policies are posted on their web site - you can read them yourself.

You're determined that AHSA is anti because what you think they should say, but don't say on their web site - after declaring what they do say "moot". So you think they should have a stated policy about what's not going to happen for the next 8 years

That seems like a wacky way to reason to me. Since I don't accept the premise that AHSA needs to say anything about what's not going to happen for the next 8 years, I couldn't care less that they don't have a stated policy on what's not going to happen.

I think we're done here.

Mike

Coronach
November 18, 2008, 05:00 PM
Oh, I couldn't agree more. :)

Mike

ServiceSoon
November 18, 2008, 07:01 PM
On assault weapons ban (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
maxomai, Robobagpiper

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.

Ray Schoenke

by Schoenke on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:56:09 AM PSTThe NRA supported the assault weapon ban? HOw will sportsmen have a seat at the talbe when the Obama admin deals with guns? Deals with guns ... :rolleyes:

RPCVYemen
November 18, 2008, 07:20 PM
The NRA supported the assault weapon ban?

I read it that way at first. I think the antecedent is Bush and McCain.

Mike

ServiceSoon
November 18, 2008, 11:17 PM
Like any active RKBA spirited person I signed up for AHSA's news letter to see who they were and if they would be a group I would be interested in joining. Here are some facts:

Email titled, Where are the ducks? Synopsis: The AHSA was created because the NRA allowed Bush to build a highway through a national forest. The NRA didn’t preserve the outdoors.

Email title, Hunters and Shooters on the move. Synopsis: Gun owners are voting for Obama. Also various links to press releases telling people that McCain will vote the same as Obama on key gun right issues.

Email title, AHSA is making with Real Hunters Real Conservation! Synopsis: AHSA supports Obama over McCain for this election. (You know Obama's stance on the RKBA. Let me remind you; 1 gun per month, national anti-carry, assault weapon ban, regulate gun shows, ban semi-auto firearms for citizens). What was the reason the AHSA gave for supporting Obama over McCain? The only reason mentioned in this email was that Obama has a better conservation record than McCain. They told people that the NRA doesn't have the best interest of hunters and shooters in mind.

Email title, NRA brings out the scare tatics for Haloween. Synopsis: Dan Cooper was the founder of a firearm company in Montana that lost his job. The AHSA blamed the NRA for this. According to them a small business owner should have never been harmed to promote a political agenda. This letter demonizes the NRA and ask people to join the AHSA.

My opinion: Let’s say that 40% of Americans own firearms. The only effective organization to join to protect those rights is the NRA. What if another organization was able to take 10% of those members and convince their members that these “reasonable” regulations are beneficial for society and won’t infringe upon their RKBA? I would bet large amounts of money on the fact that the largest group of NRA supporters is hunters. That is why the AHSA is catered to this group. If I was a losing anti, this is the strategy I would use. It makes sense and can work if ignorance is allowed to exist.

The AHSA is the second version of gunguys dot com. Expect more organizations to spring up as they improve their strategy. The battle is on. The anti’s need more public support to pass their policies. I honestly think the AHSA is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

RPCVYemen
November 19, 2008, 02:52 PM
I would bet large amounts of money on the fact that the largest group of NRA supporters is hunters. That is why the AHSA is catered to this group.

I suspect this is correct - the AHSA was created to give folks an alternative to the right wing cash funnel that the NRA has become.

In flavor, the AHSA reminds me of the pre-"Cincinnati Revolt" NRA, which is the one I grew up with.

I did most of the shooting in my youth at an Izaak Walton League chapter outside of Rockville, Maryland. I think it was called the "Rockville Chapter", even though it was in Germantown. At any rate, it was a conservation organization. At any rate, they were very concerned about conservation and the environment as well as shooting. Fundamentally pro-gun, but also concerned about hunting and conservation - sort of like the AHSA. :)

Mike

Justin
November 19, 2008, 04:12 PM
I suspect this is correct - the AHSA was created to give folks an alternative to the right wing cash funnel that the NRA has become.

Yes, because the NRA, who regularly gives money to both Republican and the Democratic candidates is soooo much more partisan than the Brady Campaign and AHSA who give 100% of their contributions to Democrats.

Fundamentally pro-gun, but also concerned about hunting and conservation - sort of like the AHSA.

Wait, where's the proof that AHSA is fundamentally pro-gun again? Where have they come out in favor of liberalizing concealed carry laws, spoken out against or donated to candidates who oppose the renewal of the ban on so-called "assault weapons," spoken out against Ted Kennedy's proposed ban on "armor piercing" rifle ammunition, (including .30-30, the most ubiquitous centerfire rifle round used by hunters), conducted youth safety and marksmanship programs, or actually held a sanctioned shooting match?

Why is it that I've never run into any AHSA supporters at any High Power, Bullseye, Team Challenge, Multigun or Tactical Rifle matches? Why is it I never hear of them supporting or listing contact information for pistol, shotgun, carbine, or hunter safety classes?

If they're such huge supporters of the right to keep and bear arms, please explain to me why they spend more time attacking the NRA than they do actually trying to stand up and make a difference for gun owners in Washington, DC?

auschip
November 19, 2008, 04:47 PM
The quote from the Columbus Dispatch had me nervous - until I found that Schoenke doesn't support an AWB ban.

He just provides monetary support to politicians who support the AWB?

So what did Ray mean we he said "No one needs an assault weapon."?

RPCVYemen
November 19, 2008, 04:53 PM
So what did Ray mean we he said "No one needs an assault weapon."?

See the post above that has Ray speaking for himself. Either he changed his mind in the last 2 years, or he was mis-quoted.

Evil

RPCVYemen
November 19, 2008, 05:02 PM
Wait, where's the proof that AHSA is fundamentally pro-gun again?

We already has this discussion - what is the point of repeating he exact same point again and again?

Evil

Justin
November 19, 2008, 05:02 PM
If he's changed his mind, please explain again why his organization publicly supported the anti-gun presidential and vice-presidential candidates again?

I mean, after all, Joe Biden was instrumental in the authorship of the previous AWB. You'd think that if ol' Ray Schoenke was against renewing the AWB he would have at least abstained from supporting candidates with such abysmal voting records on guns.

Even above and beyond that, how does Ray justify his support of sportsmen while giving money and support to Obama, who supported Ted Kennedy's ban on .30-30, the most ubiquitous hunting and sporting cartridge in the United States?

We already has this discussion - what is the point of repeating he exact same point again and again?

Dude, seriously, have you not even read this thread? You have absolutely failed to show in any way, shape, or form that AHSA is pro-gun, except in the most half-hearted fashion. You've absolutely failed to demonstrate where they have supported even one simple stance that would move gun rights forward. Your attempts to rationalize away the anti-gun activities of the AHSA board of directors absolutely strains the credulity of anyone who's even halfway cognizant of the issues at hand.

Coronach's challenge still stands- cite where the AHSA differs from the Brady Campaign in areas that are not already settled law. This is something that, if the AHSA were actually pro-gun in any demonstrably useful fashion would have been addressed satisfactorily several pages ago. Yet, in over 170 posts, seven pages, and with more than 3,000 thread views, you have absolutely been unable to do this at all.

Frankly, I'm well and truly embarrassed for you. Despite being utterly schooled from all quarters, despite refusing to acknowledge the evidence that stares you right in the face, despite all reason, logic, or common sense, despite documented proof of AHSA's support of some of the most virulently anti-gun politicians in the modern era, despite their financial and public support for instituting new gun control laws, you continue to cling to the utterly laughable notion that the AHSA has anything substantive to offer gun owners, especially those whose primary interests in firearms are defensive, or oriented to the practical shooting sports.

RPCVYemen
November 19, 2008, 05:09 PM
If he's changed his mind, please explain again why his organization publicly supported the anti-gun presidential and vice-presidential candidates again?

The entire text of the Obama endorsement is on the AHSA web site. I think you already knew that. :)

Mike

Justin
November 19, 2008, 05:25 PM
Oh, that's right. Obama voted in favor of a bill that would disallow the feds from disarming people from defending themselves in the event of a natural disaster.

Now, given Obama's stated stances and voting record with regard to wanting to ban handguns, ban all semi-automatic firearms, ban concealed carry, and ban practically all centerfire rifle cartridges, instituting microstamping requirements for what he doesn't ban, perhaps you'd care to explain just how citizens are to defend themselves in the event of a situation arising in which the Vitter amendment would actually need to be invoked.

Why would this make me want to consider joining their organization?

auschip
November 19, 2008, 06:06 PM
See the post above that has Ray speaking for himself. Either he changed his mind in the last 2 years, or he was mis-quoted.


How do we know he hasn't changed his mind again? How about the money he gave to those who supported the AWB? What about endorsing the Senator who tried to reintroduce the AWB?

A man can tell you everything he wants, but at some point you have to look at his actions.

evan price
November 20, 2008, 02:04 AM
With regard to outlawing private-party sales at gun shows: somehow the idea of a dealer requiring a NICS check, but a guy in the parking lot not requiring a NICS check, is a bad thing? What if the private-party transaction is taking place at the Denny's across the street?
How far away from a gun show should private party transactions be allowed and not need a NICS check?

Why is it I can walk out and plunk down cash for a bulldozer and take it right home, but if I want a .22 single-shot I need approval from the .gov? My property is mine to do with as I please, be it a car, a piece of firewood, a book, a gun, a ham sandwich... I sell it or buy it when and how I please and there is no need for anyone to ask permission.

benEzra
November 20, 2008, 02:12 PM
I would bet large amounts of money on the fact that the largest group of NRA supporters is hunters. That is why the AHSA is catered to this group.
Only ~1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts.

The reason the AHSA and the MSM cater to hunters so much, IIRC, is that they are either stuck in a 1950's paradigm of gun-ownership demographics, or they believe traditional-looking hunting/skeet style guns are the only ones appropriate for the "little people" to own.

I was glad to see Mr. Schoenke repudiate that position for himself, but I am still waiting for the AHSA to speak out against an AWB and magazine capacity limits.

If you enjoyed reading about "AHSA Makes Their Stance Known" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!