AHSA Pro-Gun Pro-Obama


PDA






RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 10:47 AM
Get them while they are hot!

American Hunters and Shooters Obama Sticker (http://www.huntersandshooters.org/action/obamasticker)

I have also made a suggestion to the office that the AHSA present a Shiloh Sharps rifle to Obama - I don't expect that other gun organization to do so. :)

Shiloh Rifle Company (http://www.shilohrifle.com/)



Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "AHSA Pro-Gun Pro-Obama" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bailey Guns
January 12, 2009, 10:58 AM
Ahh, yes... An anti-gun group masquerading as pro-gun. What a novel idea.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 11:09 AM
Ahh, yes... An anti-gun group masquerading as pro-gun. What a novel idea.

Yeah.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

These 27 words protect the rights of Americans to own and use guns. The American Hunters and Shooters Association is committed to these words and the ideas and principals behind them.

Mike

TimRB
January 12, 2009, 11:30 AM
You can't be serious. You actually really think the AHSA is a pro-gun group?

TIm

Deanimator
January 12, 2009, 11:34 AM
AHSA is no more "pro-gun" than the German-American Bund was "pro-America". All of the sniveling, despicable lies in the world won't change that.

Robert
January 12, 2009, 11:34 AM
How can one be pro-gun and pro-Obama? How can anyone support firearms and the man that would like nothing better than to ban them outright? I mean really? Giving money to a firearms group that supports the person that wants to ban concealed carry, and just about all firearms seems to me to be driving another nail in the coffin.

AllAmerican
January 12, 2009, 11:35 AM
Mike has been bamboozled...

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 11:38 AM
AHSA has been well debunked as an anti-gun front many times for many years.

That people keep falling for this amazes me.

Nickotym
January 12, 2009, 11:41 AM
I hope Mike is just jerkin' our chains here.

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 11:43 AM
Handgun Control Inc = Americans for Gun Safety = AHSA

Just name changes.

Kingcreek
January 12, 2009, 11:44 AM
AHSA is well-known as a gun-banning group scamming as hunters and shooters, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they send out a million or so free bumper stickers (at thier expense) as long as I never see one proudly displayed on a sportsman's bumper.;)

mike101
January 12, 2009, 11:45 AM
:what:

Oh, you poor fellow.

Ray Schoenke is a regular blogger on Huffington Post, and is in bed with the Brady Campaign. That should be enough for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/searchG/?cx=partner-pub-3264687723376607%3Atlvacw-gkue&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Ray+Schoenke#993

"I have also made a suggestion to the office that the AHSA present a Shiloh Sharps rifle to Obama - I don't expect that other gun organization to do so."

Why waste a perfectly good Sharps? You couldn't honestly think that Obama would accept a firearm from anyone could you? I can't even imagine the grief that would be heaped on him, from both sides.

Enough said (or should be).

PS- The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. Never was.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 11:52 AM
AHSA has been well debunked as an anti-gun front many times for many years.

Who exactly has been doing the debunking?

It wouldn't be another gun organization that feels its turf to be threatened, would it? I mean, I am sure that such an organization - were it to exist - would feel compelled to be honest and truthful, right?

Mike

hso
January 12, 2009, 11:55 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association

This may pose a challenge for some members to keep within the forum rules on civility. Please craft your responses in the best example of THR's dedication to rational and civil discussion of controversial topics like this.

benEzra
January 12, 2009, 12:10 PM
Considering that John Rosenthal was one of the founders, most of the founders have made sizeable donations to the Brady Campaign, and their primary legislative goals until recently were the outlawing of the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes, I am still a bit skeptical of them as a pro-gun group.

They have taken down their pro-AWB verbage recently, and Mr. Schoenke has stated that he personally is now against an AWB (in ONE dailykos post), but I see absolutely NO official repudiation of their previous position, nor do I yet see ANY indication that the AHSA would stand up against a new AWB proposal.

Can you find ANY repudiation of an AWB on their website, or ANY indication that they have reversed their pro-bans position, other than Mr. Schoenke's dailykos post?

Until that time, they are still more anti than pro in my estimation, though I would very much like to believe otherwise.

They also support summarily revoking the RKBA of anyone placed on the administrations secret blacklists (one of Herr Gonzales' pet projects), they support efforts to allow the AG to ban ammunition that can penetrate kevlar and can be used in a handgun if he/she deems said ammo "nonsporting"; etc.

In Schoenke's own words (on why he hates the NRA):

I can remember when I got my first gun as a kid growing up in Texas. The NRA was a respected hunting and gun safety institution. Over the last twenty years however, the organization has changed dramatically. Their leaders call our first responders "jack booted thugs"; they fight efforts to restrict armor piercing handgun ammunition that threaten cops; they oppose background checks on all sales at gun shows; they opposed voluntary industry efforts to provide free child safety locks with all new guns sold; they oppose efforts to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists (sic); they want to repeal restrictions on keeping guns out of bars and restaurants when liquor is served; they want to force employers to allow guns in the work place; they oppose efforts of our nation's big city mayor's to stop illegal gun traffickers; and, incredibly, they want to criminalize efforts by law enforcement to share crime gun trace information. This is just a short list that more than justifies labels like "right wing whackos."

Look up the actual legislation he is referencing, and tell me again that's a "pro-gun" position. Those talking points are straight from the Brady Campaign/VPC agitprop.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 12:13 PM
And here's the "neutrality discussion" on Wikipedia about the AHSA posting hso references.

Originality, the Wikepedia page was a copy of some NRA anti-AHSA propaganda, not a statement by the AHSA itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association

Mike

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 12:14 PM
AHSA Pro-Gun
:barf:

The AHSA is not pro-gun. I believe they supported an AWB.

The AHSA is an organization of fudds and a few people they can fool.(Like you)

Can anyone give the NRA's statement on them? I can't find it on their website.

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 12:18 PM
From the wikipedia article, with the Washington post as the source.
Paul Helmke, the President of the Brady Campaign, says of the AHSA, "I see our issues as complementary to theirs

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 12:20 PM
Who exactly has been doing the debunking?
The National Rifle Association.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=1702

Sunday, August 14, 2005

You might have recently heard of a new organization claiming to represent hunters and gun owners. The new group calls itself the American Hunters and Shooters Association, a friendly sounding name designed to earn the trust of gun owners and hunters. The reality is that AHSA is nothing more than the enemy in camouflage.

At first glance, everything about AHSA sounds just fine. They even have one useful tool on the website, a history of wildlife conservation laws in America--strange thing is it was lifted nearly word for word from www.NRAILA.org.

In their "Firearms Safety and Training" section we begin to see some curious remarks. For instance in the "Range Safety" section they never once mention that firearms should always be pointed downrange, the first rule in range safety. Another section recommends that shooters use steel wool to clean the barrels of their guns, an idea that makes most gunsmiths cringe. The rest of their safety tips appear to be written by someone who has never hunted. Never once do they mention the three basic rules of safe gun handling by which all shooters know and abide.

A look deeper into the AHSA website quickly reveals that this is no hunters' rights group. You quickly realize that they want to allow the FBI to keep records on law-abiding citizens who buy guns and put an end to gun shows as we know them. Not to mention the fact that they want to regulate .50 caliber rifles in the same way that machine guns are regulated.

The most telling thing about AHSA is its leadership. A quick look at their website shows that Bob Ricker is listed as AHSA Executive Director. Readers will remember that Ricker is a former NRA employee who switched sides and has actively worked for gun control groups for many years now. A few years ago, Ricker was part of an attempt to sell out your rights by brokering a deal with the most anti-gun administration in history. He then appeared with Bill Clinton in a White House photo-op. Most recently Ricker was paid by a Virginia based anti-gun group, where he lobbied to shut down gun shows and put further restrictions on gun owners.

A little further down in the leadership section John Rosenthal is listed as President of the AHSA Foundation. Rosenthal is one of the founders of the Massachusetts based group Stop Handgun Violence, a group that has been a major force in passing some of the most Draconian state gun laws in the nation. Gun laws that Rosenthal would like to see exported to other states.

rbernie
January 12, 2009, 12:20 PM
Didn't we just have RPCVYemen do this thread a couple of months ago?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=406162

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 12:22 PM
Who exactly has been doing the debunking?

It wouldn't be another gun organization that feels its turf to be threatened, would it? I mean, I am sure that such an organization - were it to exist - would feel compelled to be honest and truthful, right?

There exists a court deposition (taken September 27, 2005) in which the AHSA Executive Director Bob Ricker (who testifies against gun companies for a living by the way) explains the membership and funding of the AHSA.

This is easily obtained and it's in his own words.

Also, the board of directors is made up of many people with long anti gun agendas and histories. Again, all public information.

More than one Board Member was also a Board memeber of Handgun Control Inc for God's sake. You have to be stupid to believe they have had a miraculous "change of heart".

You can hate the NRA all you want, it doesn't change the fact that AHSA is not what they claim to be, and it's foolish to believe otherwise simply because you don't like NRA.

There are plenty of publicly available sources for this info, you just refuse to look, or you are an anti shill/troll, which I am personally leaning towards.

Didn't we just have RPCVYemen do this thread a couple of months ago?

Oh yeah, this comes up pretty regularly.

It's a shame that the NRA hate leads people to this kind of thing. Hate NRA, that's fine, but join GOA or JPFO instead. Not this AHSA garbage.


This may pose a challenge for some members to keep within the forum rules on civility. Please craft your responses in the best example of THR's dedication to rational and civil discussion of controversial topics like this.

Well the truth is it really isn't controversial to anyone except the anti shills involved with AHSA and I am not sure why their continued postings to this board are tolerated.

Alternative viewpoints of HOW to protect the Second Amendment should certainly be welcomed here, but this one is an obvious affront to the Second and all it stands for and allowing their participation on THR benefits gun owners in no way, in my opinion.

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 12:23 PM
That leads me to believe he didn't actually believe them, but is willingly spreading lies.

HiTech78
January 12, 2009, 12:28 PM
So why is the NRA "shooting blanks" these days? Because they donít get it. The landscape has changed. With the Supreme Court overturning the D.C. gun ban, our gun rights are secure and government confiscation is off the table. Now, we can actually talk about responsible gun laws, conservation, public access, global warming Ė and even the economy.



"Now, we can actually talk about responsible gun laws"


A pro-gun organization that are FOR gun laws?? I think not, wolf in sheep's clothing.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 12:33 PM
Considering that John Rosenthal was one of the founders, most of the founders have made sizeable donations to the Brady Campaign,


Is Mr. Rosenthal in fact still with group? Was he in fact asked to leave because his beliefs did not not in fact match those of the AHSA?

Which founders made those contributions? What is their explanation?


They have taken down their pro-AWB verbage recently, and Mr. Schoenke has stated that he personally is now against an AWB ...

So the fact that Mr. Schoenke has public posted his opposition to the AWB is in fact evidence that he supports it?

Does the following prove that he's in favor of gun confiscation during natural emergency?

Clinton's true feelings about our 2nd amendment rights became clear to all Americans on July 13, 2006. That's when the Senate took a vote on an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations offered by Senator David Vitter, which reads: "To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law."

Look at the roll call: 84 Senators, including Barack Obama, defended gun owners. 16 Senators, including Hillary Clinton, voted against us. That vote says all anyone needs to know about where the candidates really stand on guns.

The contrasting votes of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton on the confiscation issue are definitive for most gun owners like me. That's one reason I endorsed Obama on behalf of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA).

For folks who want to read what Mr. Schoenke actually says and believes, here are some articles.

American Hunters and Shooters Association Responds to Its Critics (http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/american_hunters_and_shooters_association_responds_to_its_critics/C41/L41/)

NRA Nemesis Alive and Well and Supporting Obama/C41/L41/ (http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/nra_nemesis_alive_and_well_and_supporting_obama/C41/L41/)

Mike

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 12:35 PM
The AHSA is not pro-gun. I believe they supported an AWB.

Please provide a citation.

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 12:35 PM
For folks who want to read what Mr. Schoenke actually says and believes, here are some articles.

So when people post writings from NRA you want them discounted as "untrustworthy" yet the only writings supporing AHSA you can find come from the group itself?

It's pretty funny actually......

So the fact that Mr. Schoenke has public posted his opposition to the AWB is in fact evidence that he supports it?

What about the evidence that he donated to the campaigns of: Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry
Again, public record since campaign contributions must be reported.

He also has made contributions to Handgun Control Inc. Again, public information.

benEzra
January 12, 2009, 12:41 PM
They have taken down their pro-AWB verbage recently, and Mr. Schoenke has stated that he personally is now against an AWB ...
So the fact that Mr. Schoenke has public posted his opposition to the AWB is in fact evidence that he supports it?
Mr. Schoenke, speaking for himself and himself only, posted in the COMMENTS SECTION of an obscure blog that he thinks the AWB was a mistake. But what evidence is there that the rest of the once-rabidly-pro-AWB AHSA leadership has changed their minds? Mr. Schoenke does not run AHSA by himself.

The AHSA has let their prior statements stand uncorrected. They have just taken the inflammatory material off their website, presumably because it made such a mockery of them representing "hunters and shooters" while simulaneously fighting to ban the most popular centerfire rifles in the United States. If they want a shred of credibility as a pro-gun organization, they need to stop agitating for new gun bans, new ammo bans, restrictions on licensed carry, RKBA revocation of blacklisted individuals who have committed no crime, and so on.

I'm open to the idea that the AHSA has changed its mind. But SHOW ME. Show me where the AHSA, as opposed to Mr. Schoenke, indicate they would stand up for gun owners and actually fight an AWB. I'm listening.

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 12:42 PM
I'm open to the idea that the AHSA has changed its mind. But SHOW ME. Show me where the AHSA, as opposed to Mr. Schoenke, indicate they would stand up for gun owners and actually fight an AWB. I'm listening.

With a membership of less than 200 people by the way, according to their own director.

taprackbang
January 12, 2009, 12:46 PM
Ahh, yes... An anti-gun group masquerading as pro-gun. What a novel idea.

About sums it up for me too!

Join GOA

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 12:49 PM
So when people post writings from NRA you want them discounted as "untrustworthy" yet the only writings supporting AHSA you can find come from the group itself?

The writings I accept as an accurate representation of the AHSA come directly from the AHSA itself.

How odd of me - I think the primary evidence of what an organization's policies is organization's stated public policies. I must be mistaken - it's well known that the primary evidence of an organization's policies is what a competitor says about those policies.

Which does it make more sense to trust? An organization's own published statements about itself, or a competing organization's statements?

Do you blindly believe what Democrats say about Republicans and what Republicans say about Democrats? Or do you investigate for yourself?

Mike

BHP FAN
January 12, 2009, 12:51 PM
from Wiki
Current and Past Leadership
The leaders of the AHSA are[citation needed]:

Ray Schoenke, Founding President. A former football player for the Washington Redskins, Schoenke ran for Governor of Maryland as a Democrat and has given "millions" to Democratic politicians and causes according to a January 19, 1998 Washington Post article.[9] Among the groups that Schoenke has donated to are two that actively lobby to ban firearms: Handgun Control, Inc.[10] and America Coming Together[citation needed]. Schoenke was on the Governor's Commission on Gun Violence in 1996[citation needed].
Bob Ricker, Executive Director.
Jon Rosenthal, a real estate mogul and founder of Stop Handgun Violence. Stop Handgun Violence is credited with lobbying and subsequently helping to pass the licensing and registration system in place in the state of Massachusetts. Jon Rosenthal was a founding member of AHSA, however he has subsequently left the organization.[11]
Joseph J. Vince, Jr., a member of the Board of Directors is the former chief of the BATF's crime guns analysis branch. Currently, he is a principal of Crime Gun Solutions. Crime Gun Solutions has worked for the Brady Center, providing data analysis supportive of the Federal Assault Weapons Act,[12] and has provided ballistics evidence and analysis in lawsuits against firearm dealers.[13] He was a signer on a letter submitted to Congress opposing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act[14]
Jody Powell, co-chairman of the AHSA Advisory Board
A. Austin Dorr, co-chairman of the AHSA Advisory Board

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 12:52 PM
Which does it make more sense to trust? An organization's own published statements about itself, or a competing organization's statements?

I have read the court deposition from the Director of AHSA.

It tells me all I need to know.

Given under oath, it's an eye opening look into the group, and for me no further research is needed.

You have not, not does anyone ever, address the financial contributions made to anti gun organizations by nearly all the board members of AHSA.

That also tells plenty.

It's not what people say, it's what they DO.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2009, 12:53 PM
...''Schoenke has donated to are two that actively lobby to ban firearms: Handgun Control, Inc,and America Coming Together''
somebody has some 'splainin' to do...

BHP FAN
January 12, 2009, 12:57 PM
Yeman,you shouldn't feel bad for being taken in,that's what the group was exquisitely crafted to do...

benEzra
January 12, 2009, 12:57 PM
The AHSA is not pro-gun. I believe they supported an AWB.
Please provide a citation.

Mike
Here's what the AHSA's "Who We Are" page said until relatively recently:

http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=22&Itemid=43

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.

In recent years, extreme political positions purporting to support gun rights have jeopardized our sport and have hurt the image of responsible gun owners. Unless the sporting community can become unified behind an organization that fights for safe and responsible hunting and shooting practices and sensible gun ownership, future generations may be unable to participate in and enjoy the shooting sports.

I found the archived language here (http://www.gunlawnews.org/asha.html), and can vouch for the wording because I looked at it many times while it was up on AHSA's site (and sent them many emails about it).

Again, I am open to evidence that they have changed their minds and would advocate as vigorously against a new AWB as they used to advocate for one. So show me, because I haven't found any, and believe me, I've looked.

Deanimator
January 12, 2009, 01:08 PM
Which does it make more sense to trust? An organization's own published statements about itself, or a competing organization's statements?
So then, when the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) calls itself a "civil rights organization", we should take them at their word?

auschip
January 12, 2009, 01:09 PM
The writings I accept as an accurate representation of the AHSA come directly from the AHSA itself.

Fair enough, how about a response to their actions? Specifically giving money to each of the politicians who actively seek to ban firearms? How about looking to restrict private sales? What about looking to ban .50 caliber rifles?

What about when he said:

"AHSA speaks for gun owners who care about gun rights but understand that itís not worth having a gun if thereís no place to shoot or no game to hunt."

Doesn't sound like he is advocating support for the 2nd Amendment as much as he wants to start a hunting rights group.

Deanimator
January 12, 2009, 01:10 PM
The long and the short of it is that AHSA is to gun owners today what the Judenrat was to Jews in the 1940s... a way to get us onto the "boxcars" without a fight.

NO, I REFUSE.

CentralTexas
January 12, 2009, 01:11 PM
-any group that presents the President elect with a rifle and says he is a 2A supporter is obviously not legit.

Art Eatman
January 12, 2009, 01:12 PM
One advantage for us Olde Pharts who have been around all during the Cold War from the beginning is that we recognize AHSA's style for what it is: A replication of the "dizinformation" techniques of the KGB. It's right in there with our own "Madison Avenue Techniques" in advertising. A skillful use of psychology in wording a message that's total BS, to disguise and obfuscate and make people believe what ain't so.

An argument of the NRA's--and of many other people--in the late 1960s was that gun-control laws only impact honest people, and only in a negative way. Then came "Under The Gun" by Wright/Rossi/Daly in 1985, with a very-deep statistical survey of violent crime in Florida: Gun control laws don't affect rates of violent crime. After that we see the work of such as Prof. Kleck and Prof. Lott. These latter three efforts merely substantiate what the NRA was saying forty years ago.

Summary: The AHSA folks are full of it. "He's a lyin' dog, and his feet don't match." My own opinion is the usual scorn for a bunch of lying SOBs.

Art

tkaction
January 12, 2009, 01:13 PM
It is obvious that "Mike" is not going to change his mind. What he doesn"t realize is that we are not stupid and uneducated. (30 years as a public school teacher, myself)
I have approached the gun control issue like I would a research paper and I am 100% convinced that Obama
is 100% anti gun. "Mike" you have failed to offer any credible evidence in this forum that change anybodys view other than your dogged clinging to a hope that AHSA
is pro gun. The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting by the way. We would welcome the AHSA to be pro-gun
but reaserch proves it to be a mask over Sarah Bradys face. (thats not so bad, I guess)
Tim

jahwarrior
January 12, 2009, 01:14 PM
i fail to see why this thread is still open. anyone with one good eye knows that the AHSA is just another Brady type group, masquerading as a ro gun organization. if the NRA supported Obama, i'd be supsicious of them, as well. anyone who supports "common sense" gun laws is nothing but a gun grabber who's to cowardly to admit it. RPCVYemen, either you've been seriously misled, or you're secretly a gun grabber. i hope you've just been fooled, and come to your senses soon.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2009, 01:15 PM
Like I said,he shouldn't feel bad,I joined them for about six months in 2004.I still have the sticker on one of my gun safes.The group is designed to leach away moderates from the NRA,and it does it's job well.Slick advertising and clever wording,weighted for psychological impact,the works.I finally woke up and quit after noticing the rabid Zumboism.

Vern Humphrey
January 12, 2009, 01:24 PM
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

These 27 words protect the rights of Americans to own and use guns. The American Hunters and Shooters Association is committed to these words and the ideas and principals behind them.

Both Barrak Obama and Bill Clinton have claimed to support the 2nd Amendment. They lied, too.

youngda9
January 12, 2009, 01:27 PM
This group is a front. Is this some sort of drive-by gimmic or something?

Just check the guy's signature...that tells me a lot:
Member: AHSA, NRA, ACLU, HRC, National Peace Corps Association

He is advocating a "pro-gun" group that isn't "pro-gun", they have been shown to be made up of a bunch of anti's.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f399/myfask/258Troll_spray.jpg

BHP FAN
January 12, 2009, 01:31 PM
I think he just hasn't figured it out yet.The group was designed to fool people.It does what it was meant to do.

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 01:33 PM
I think he just hasn't figured it out yet.

The repeated posts are too vocal for him to be a "victim".

He has an agenda.

SuperNaut
January 12, 2009, 01:35 PM
I'm not doing this again Mike.

Justin
January 12, 2009, 01:35 PM
AHSA Executive Director steps up and says he won't put up with NRA! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GBAiVpNeo0)

Link goes to video.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2009, 01:36 PM
Boy the guy in the video comes across as a jerk,doesn't he?

Bailey Guns
January 12, 2009, 01:36 PM
RPCVYemen wrote:
Which does it make more sense to trust? An organization's own published statements about itself, or a competing organization's statements?

Neither. Look at what they've done, not what they've said.

Here we have a classic example of someone, who is allegedly pro-gun rights, actively promoting and supporting a known anti-gun rights organization.

And many people still scratching their heads and thinking to themselves, "What on earth happened to the 2nd Amendment?"

velojym
January 12, 2009, 01:39 PM
In 1st amendment cases where 'equal time' is demanded for pro-gun speech, I can see these guys weaseling in with a weak-sister "counterpoint" to the Brady Bunch, pushing honest gunnies out of the discussion entirely.
Once communications are completely nationalized, they could hog the entire range of dispute with their best 'against' the pro-gun AHSA weasel.

Knotthead
January 12, 2009, 01:40 PM
I have, several times, visited AHSA's website to see what they actually did to support and promote the hunting and shooting sports. I have yet to see any efforts on their part to do anything substantial beyond issuing politically oriented press releases. I haven't seen anything from them to convince me that they are anything but an organization dedicated to siphoning off support of gunowners to candidates unfriendly to the RKBA.

Bailey Guns
January 12, 2009, 01:43 PM
I swear I'm in the "Twilight Zone" lately on THR. Why, all of a sudden, do we have so many people, on a pro-gun rights website of all places, spouting support for so many obviously anti-2nd Amendment issues.

I'm gonna check the Brady site just to see if there's a lot of pro-gun discussion going on over there. I must've slipped into an alternate universe of some sort while I wasn't looking.

mljdeckard
January 12, 2009, 01:48 PM
Yemen comes in every few months to espouse and inform us about the Great Pumpkin.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2009, 01:50 PM
''The long and the short of it is that AHSA is to gun owners today what the Judenrat was to Jews in the 1940s... a way to get us onto the "boxcars" without a fight.

NO, I REFUSE ''
well said, Deanimater!

SuperNaut
January 12, 2009, 01:51 PM
I swear I'm in the "Twilight Zone" lately on THR. Why, all of a sudden, do we have so many people, on a pro-gun rights website of all places, spouting support for so many obviously anti-2nd Amendment issues.

I'm gonna check the Brady site just to see if there's a lot of pro-gun discussion going on over there. I must've slipped into an alternate universe of some sort while I wasn't looking.

I've been chalking it up to three things:

1. Lot of new shooters, as is evidenced by the insane run on everything that resembles or is associated with firearms. These new shooters have varying degrees of indoctrination to shed.

2. Lot of media hype about the latest run on guns, that in turn leads people to the gun boards. Some of them good, some not so good.

3. Since Heller the antis realize that a new tack is needed. On another board I declared the age of The Barking Moonbat over - we are now entering the age of The Forked Tongue.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2009, 01:51 PM
It's Bizarro World,isn't it?

RP88
January 12, 2009, 01:52 PM
Paul Helmke said that AHSA and the Brady Bunch both have 'complimentary views on issues'

thats more than enough for me to know better.

mike101
January 12, 2009, 02:13 PM
"Neither. Look at what they've done, not what they've said."- Bailey Guns

Wise words.

As mentiioned, the AHSA is in bed with the Brady Campaign. Paul Helmke even confirmed it, as was posted earlier.

The Brady Campaign is also always going on about how they are not out to ban guns. Funny, because they have supported every gun ban that ever existed. They filed an amicus brief supporting the DC ban with the Supreme Court, and solicited contributions to put toward fighting Heller. They are currently soliciting contributions to put toward the upcoming legal battle to uphold Chicago's gun ban. I get the emails.

"I'm gonna check the Brady site just to see if there's a lot of pro-gun discussion going on over there."- Bailey Guns

You'll have to go to Paul Helmke's blog on Huffpo. About a year and a half ago, the Brady Blog was "temporarily" closed to comments, because they were having their heads handed to them every single day, by pro-gunners. He's not doing any better on Huffpo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke

We pretty much own the place. :D

Hawk
January 12, 2009, 02:19 PM
I found the archived language here, and can vouch for the wording because I looked at it many times while it was up on AHSA's site (and sent them many emails about it).

If it helps, the Wayback Machine is an archive that might "sell" better to those that question any source they're not in accord with.

Jul 01, 06 / About Us will dredge up AHSA's pro-AWB language.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.huntersandshooters.org

The current AHSA site already is aligned against the .50, the archive exposes the pro-AWB position.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 02:40 PM
Here's what the AHSA's "Who We Are" page said until relatively recently:

When I click on the link, I don't see anything like what you are quoting. It's sort of a rambling recap of the election year.

May here's another way to get at the nugget of why the theory that the AHSA has different public and private policies is so fundamentally wacky.

For purposes of argument, I will assume that you and the NRA are 100% right, and the AHSA, though publicly pro-RKBA, is secretly and deeply anti-RKBA. Tell me if there is anything unfair about this assumption.

Let's look at the implications of that assumption:


The AHSA is secretly an anti-RKBA organization with a publicly pro-RKBA policy.
Let's assume that the AHSA is wildy successful - it deludes millions of people by appearing to be pro-RKBA, even though it's secretly anti-RKBA.
So now, it's an secretly anti-RKBA organization with millions of members who are pro-RKBA.
What does the AHSA do now?
If they advocate for anti-RKBA legislation, then they will blow their "cover" and lose their millions of pro-RKAB members, so they will have no money and no influence.
Their only reasonable choice is to continue taking pro-RKBA public stances in order to maintain membership and influence.
This hypothetical wildly successful AHSA - because its members are pro-RKBA - can never actually advocate for its secret inner sanctum deeply held anti-RKAB policy.
So for all time, the AHSA will have to be a secretly anti-RKBA organization that publicly advocates pro-RKBA policies.


And that makes perfect sense to you?

Doesn't it make a lot more sense to accept that the AHSA is exactly what it appears to be - a mostly Democratic pro-RKBA alternative to the mostly Republican NRA? Do the vast conspiracy theories even make any sense at all?

The fundamental flaw in all of the "secret cabal" theories about the AHSA is that it's actions will be public - if they endorse an AWB ban, it's members will know that, and will leave. I know I will.

I know that a lot of people like in tone Cold War terminology about "front organizations" and let paranoia have free play. To me those arguments miss a critical point - "front" organizations are necessary when what is being hidden is illegal or oppressed.

Communist "front" organizations never had diddly squat influence in the US precisely because we have an open political process. If you want to advocate for Communism, you can from a Communist Party and work yourself to death to advocate Joe Stalin. There is nothing illegal about it.

"Front" organizations only make sense when there is political oppression. If being a member of the Communist party means that I will go to jail, then I will form a "Cinnamon Bun Tasting Society" that is a front, and skulk around the back of bakeries pretending to taste patries when in fact I am reading Trotsky. But I can just join the Communist Part and pick up a copy of Trotsky at Barnes and Noble, why would I skulk around?

"Front" organizations don't make any sense in a free and open society. Even if you manage to get one started, the very freedom and open-ness will transform the organization so that it is exactly what it claims to be.

As an example, in the beginning of the union movement in this country, there was a lot of socialist/communist influence. That all happened when the union movement was heavily oppressed - when being a union organizer could get you killed. As soon as the unions could openly and transparently advocate and unionize, what happened? The communist/socialist influence died out. As an example, the common icon of conservative opposition to anti-war protesters was a union construction worker in a hard hat.

The ACLU has pretty much the same history - the open American political process drove the socialist/communist influence out of the ACLU a half century ago.

It made sense to form Communist "front" organizations when membership in the Communist policy was illegal, or would get you dragged in front of Joe McCarthy, or you'd lose your job for being a Communist.

Is there anyone who seriously contends that supporting an AWB is illegal, or that it will get you dragged in front of Joe McCarthy, or that you will lose your job if you advocate for an AWB?

Mike

Justin
January 12, 2009, 02:49 PM
The fundamental flaw in all of the "secret cabal" theories about the AHSA is that it's actions will be public - if they endorse an AWB ban, it's members will know that, and will leave. I know I will.

Evidently not, as you have been shown the proof of AHSA's anti-gun policies and board of directors on more than one thread, yet still cling to your membership card.

SuperNaut
January 12, 2009, 02:52 PM
I won't get into the meat of your post Mike, since I've already been down that unproductive road with you.

I will say this; donating money and support to the AHSA, whose membership and clout is on par with a neighborhood knitting circle, is simply a waste of money and time. Donate to the NRA and you join, quite literally, millions of members and an organization that doesn't just sit at the table, often they own the table.

mike101
January 12, 2009, 02:52 PM
"So now, it's an secretly anti-RKBA organization with millions of members who are pro-RKBA"

Why don't we embrace reality, in the here and now. The AHSA has 200 members, give or take. BTW, the BC won't disclose how many members they have. It's akin to an atomic secret. I seriously doubt that they have the "thousands" of supporters they claim. The NRA has about 3,000,000 members. Also, there are 80,000,000+ gun owners in this country, the majority of whom do not hunt.

I would also like to point out that the RKBA is not a Republican vs Democrat, or conservative vs liberal issue. There are plenty of liberal-leaning 2nd Amendment supporters, including myself, and I'll bet nearly half of THR members.

The 2nd Amendment is largely a matter of individual liberty. Individual liberty has always been a liberal concept.

And you, my friend, are starting to sound an awful lot like a wolf in sheep's clothing. :scrutiny:

Wait. Better make that a sheep in wolf's clothing.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 02:58 PM
Evidently not, as you have been shown the proof of AHSA's anti-gun policies and board of directors on more than one thread, yet still cling to your membership card.

OK, I will take your point. Assume that I, and every other pro-RKBA member of AHSA is deluded.

Does my delusional state change anything about the logic of my previous post?

Doesn't assuming you are correct logically lead to the conclusion that the AHSA must remain a secretly anti-RKBA organization publicly advocating pro-RKBA policies for all time?

And that makes perfect sense to you?

Mike

TimRB
January 12, 2009, 03:04 PM
"...the AHSA, though publicly pro-RKBA, is secretly and deeply anti-RKBA. Tell me if there is anything unfair about this assumption."

Unfair, no--wrong, yes. The AHSA is *plainly* anti-RKBA. It's no secret. And its members are not "pro-RKBA"--they're "clueless". I doubt that there are even a thousand of them.

Tim

rbernie
January 12, 2009, 03:08 PM
Let's look at the implications of that assumption:

The AHSA is secretly an anti-RKBA organization with a publicly pro-RKBA policy.
Let's assume that the AHSA is wildy successful - it deludes millions of people by appearing to be pro-RKBA, even though it's secretly anti-RKBA.
So now, it's an secretly anti-RKBA organization with millions of members who are pro-RKBA.
What does the AHSA do now?
If they advocate for anti-RKBA legislation, then they will blow their "cover" and lose their millions of pro-RKAB members, so they will have no money and no influence.
Their only reasonable choice is to continue taking pro-RKBA public stances in order to maintain membership and influence.
This hypothetical wildly successful AHSA - because its members are pro-RKBA - can never actually advocate for its secret inner sanctum deeply held anti-RKAB policy.
So for all time, the AHSA will have to be a secretly anti-RKBA organization that publicly advocates pro-RKBA policiesYou miss the obvious.

What they are attempting to do is steer the debate towards a gradual increase in 'reasonable' restrictions. They're not trying to eat the elephant in one bite. They're trying to undermine the base of the RKBA movement, one incremental step at a time. The fact that they claim gun enthusiasts as members is what they believe will give them legitimacy and distance from The Brady Bunch, and gain them credibility with moderates and fence-sitters. Brady goes for the strongly anti-RKBA idealogues, and AHSA goes for the more middle-of-the-road folk who might be swayed into an anti-RKBA stance.

Put more succinctly - they're trying to engineer a 'good cop/bad cop' dynamics as regards the RKBA, with them trying to appear as moderate and reasonable vice the more dramatic positioning of the Brady crowd.

But by the words that their leadership shares, they have common end goals (increasing restriction upon and ultimate elimination of the right to keep and bear arms).

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 03:13 PM
Why don't we embrace reality, in the here and now. The AHSA has 200 members, give or take.

Heck, I was assuming - for purposes of argument - the strongest anti-AHSA position I could assume, that they were incredibly clever, deluded millions and millions of people, and became wildly successful in their nefarious enterprise.

But let me agree with your point - the AHSA is in fact minuscule compared to the size of the NRA.


The AHSA - a secretly anti-RKBA organization - wants to grow to be the size of the NRA, and to wield the influence that the NRA wields.
The AHSA adopts a publicly pro-RKBA policy to increase membership.
Suppose - due to their public pro-RKBA policy, they do in fact grow.
What do they do now?
If they advocate anti-RKBA policies, they will lose the members the gained in step 2.
But they don't want to lose members, we established that in #1.
Their only choice is to continue to advocate a pro-RKAB policy.


Have I distorted your position in any way? Is there some logical chicanery here?

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 03:15 PM
OK, I will take your point. Assume that I, and every other pro-RKBA member of AHSA is deluded.

Dude. There are less than 200 of you according to the Executive Director.

That's telling in and of itself.


1. The AHSA - a secretly anti-RKBA organization - wants to grow to be the size of the NRA, and to wield the influence that the NRA wields.
2. The AHSA adopts a publicly pro-RKBA policy to increase membership.
3. Suppose - due to their public pro-RKBA policy, they do in fact grow.
4. What do they do now?
5. If they advocate anti-RKBA policies, they will lose the members the gained in step 2.
6. But they don't want to lose members, we established that in #1.
7. Their only choice is to continue to advocate a pro-RKAB policy.


That is not the plan. It wasn't the plan for HCI either (same people). Americans for Gun Safety before that (same people).

The plan is to disrupt and confuse the argument by appearing to have some kind of pro-RKBA stance while appealing to the anti NRA people thereby weakening GOA, NRA, JPFO, SAF etc.

They don't really advocate any particular policy, they don't lobby very much either. That's not their role. They don't campaign for members heavily either, because they are funded by people that have deep pockets. They don't need a large member base to pay their bills.

Do the math (from their director again)

Membership: 200 or so
Yearly dues: $25

That's $5000 my friend. They pay their executive staff $3000 a month each (again admitted to by their director). So where's the money from ? It is from their board of directors, former members and donors of Handgun Control Inc.

Their role is to be a wedge organization, that's all. That they keep getting found out and changing names is also telling.

You have to understand that this isn't the first time this group of people has done this OK?

That you won't admit that this is the same group of people formerly known as Handgun Control Inc is also telling which is why I think you are not just some random pro gun guy that got duped but a shill for this organization.

The paper trail back to HCI is public record and widely known.

benEzra
January 12, 2009, 03:15 PM
When I click on the link, I don't see anything like what you are quoting. It's sort of a rambling recap of the election year.
That's why I posted a link to another page with the archived wording after the quote. They have deleted that wording from the page to avoid controversy, but they have not uttered an anti-AWB peep.

If they claim to represent shooters and be a pro-gun rights organization (as opposed to a pro-conservation organization, which may be laudable but has nothing to do with supporting gun rights), then they need to support gun rights and stand up against the AWB. So far, to my disappointment, they haven't.

For purposes of argument, I will assume that you and the NRA are 100% right, and the AHSA, though publicly pro-RKBA, is secretly and deeply anti-RKBA. Tell me if there is anything unfair about this assumption.
That's the thing---they aren't publicly pro-RKBA. They are publicly neutral to anti, based on their positions on new ammo bans, .50 bans, barring watchlisted individuals from owning guns, anti-CCW in restaurants, etc. The only thing remotely pro-gun they've done that I've seen is to criticize the D.C. absolute gun ban. Everything else is pro-hunting, not pro-RKBA.

And again, they have said not a word against the AWB, after publicly endorsing an AWB since their founding.

Their only choice is to continue to advocate a pro-RKAB policy.
Not if their goal was to get "reasonable gun legislation" passed, rather than simply to perpetuate themselves and brag about numbers.

But again, where are they opposing an AWB?

bthest86
January 12, 2009, 03:21 PM
:scrutiny:

"I see our issues as complementary to theirs[ASHA]," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign said.

:barf:

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 03:21 PM
The AHSA is secretly an anti-RKBA organization with a publicly pro-RKBA policy.
Oh really? HAve you read their page about the .50 caliber. here it is: http://www.huntersandshooters.org/issues/gunrights/50caliber

From another of their pages:AHSA is committed to supporting our nation’s law enforcement officers in their fight against easy access to guns by criminals, terrorists and others.
(emphasis mine)

If they are pro-gun, why would the NRA oppose them? I've never heard the NRA attack the GOA, JPFO, etc.

TimRB
January 12, 2009, 03:27 PM
"The plan is to disrupt and confuse the argument by appearing to have some kind of pro-RKBA stance while appealing to the anti NRA people thereby weakening GOA< NRA, JPFO, SAF etc."

Exactly. They're not looking to increase membership; they're trying to get people NOT to join the NRA. Almost every page of their web site has some sort of anti-NRA message.

Tim

Vern Humphrey
January 12, 2009, 03:27 PM
1. The AHSA is secretly an anti-RKBA organization with a publicly pro-RKBA policy.
That's true.
Let's assume that the AHSA is wildy successful - it deludes millions of people by appearing to be pro-RKBA, even though it's secretly anti-RKBA.
So now, it's an secretly anti-RKBA organization with millions of members who are pro-RKBA.
They don't seek to gain many members, they seek to act as a stalking horse, offering a "reasonable alternative."

What does the AHSA do now?
If they advocate for anti-RKBA legislation, then they will blow their "cover" and lose their millions of pro-RKAB members, so they will have no money and no influence.
They have already advocated anti-RKBA legislation. And they don't need membership, they only need financing.

Ask them to publish their financial data.:p

Their only reasonable choice is to continue taking pro-RKBA public stances in order to maintain membership and influence.

If they did that, their sugar daddies would cut off funding.
This hypothetical wildly successful AHSA - because its members are pro-RKBA - can never actually advocate for its secret inner sanctum deeply held anti-RKAB policy.
It can and does, because it doesn't rely on mass membership for finances.
So for all time, the AHSA will have to be a secretly anti-RKBA organization that publicly advocates pro-RKBA policies.
Nope -- it's an anti-RKBA organization, financed by anti-RKBA sources, which advocated anti-RKBA policies under the guise of "reasonableness."

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 03:29 PM
More gems from their website:
Owning a gun is a right - but not for everyone.
:barf:

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 03:30 PM
What they are attempting to do is steer the debate towards a gradual increase in 'reasonable' restrictions. They're not trying to eat the elephant in one bite. They're trying to undermine the base of the RKBA movement, one incremental step at a time. The fact that they claim gun enthusiasts as members is what they believe will give them legitimacy and distance from The Brady Bunch, and gain them credibility with moderates and fence-sitters. Brady goes for the strongly anti-RKBA idealogues, and AHSA goes for the more middle-of-the-road folk who might be swayed into an anti-RKBA stance.

Let's accept your theory as 100% correct. For purposes of argument, you have clearly identified the modus operandi of those dastardly geniuses at AHSA. I have heard this kind of theory as a "boiling the frog", not "eating the elephant", but I think it's the same theory.

Again, let's assume that you are correct, and they are successful:


Assume: the AHSA is 100% successful in their evil plot to secretly pass an AWB.
One day in the future, all those deluded members wake up and discover that what they thought was a box of Cheerios was in fact an AWB.
What happens next?
All those deluded people say, "Look at that. For a minute, it looked like an AWB, but it's really a box of Cheerios."
The people who voted for the AWB are tossed out on their butts, and the party that advocated the AWB loses the Presidency next time around.


So you tell me, which of #4 or #5 is more likely?
Is there historical precedent for #4 or #5?

Mike

Vern Humphrey
January 12, 2009, 03:32 PM
When I hear people praising the AHSA as a pro-gun organization, a little ditty the kids use to sing comes to mind -- something about being veracity-challenged with one's nether garments ablaze.:p

cbrgator
January 12, 2009, 03:34 PM
I think the bumper sticker you provided a link to should be enough evidence in and of itself. Obama is wildly anti-gun, I don't think I need to provide proof here, its widely-known and widely-accessible. It doesn't strike you as odd that a "pro-gun" organization would boldly support an "anti-gun" candidate? I'd like to see ONE example of something Obama did that was pro-gun.

And going by what they publish on their website is foolish. I don't think you can stand there and say any organization isn't going to publish its own propaganda for its own benefit. I don't think Bernie Madoff was telling people he was ripping them off, quite contrary. Wake up man, you are hurting your own cause.

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 03:35 PM
Wake up man, you are hurting your own cause.

What do you think his cause is? Hint: It ain't the same as ours :)

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 03:35 PM
If they did that, their sugar daddies would cut off funding.

So we are in complete agreement - the is no secret cabal, evil geniuses, no devilishly clever dark schemes. If they do not advocate pretty much what they claim to advocate, then the will loses membership and/or financial backing.

Am I correct in understanding your post?

Mike

Vern Humphrey
January 12, 2009, 03:36 PM
Again, let's assume that you are correct, and they are successful:

Assume: the AHSA is 100% successful in their evil plot to secretly pass an AWB.

Which they do by falsely presenting themselves as a "reasonable" gun owner organization.
One day in the future, all those deluded members wake up and discover that what they thought was a box of Cheerios was in fact an AWB.
What happens next?
All 200 hundred of them?:p

All those deluded people say, "Look at that. For a minute, it looked like an AWB, but it's really a box of Cheerios."

No, they say, "Whoopie! We succeeded in fooling people.
The people who voted for the AWB are tossed out on their butts, and the party that advocated the AWB loses the Presidency next time around.
No, they change their name, and select another target for their stalking horse tactics.

Bottom line, AHSA is not a mass movement. It's 200 false faces, funded by antis to look like a gun owners movement.

Bailey Guns
January 12, 2009, 03:40 PM
When I hear people praising the AHSA as a pro-gun organization, a little ditty the kids use to sing comes to mind -- something about being veracity-challenged with one's nether garments ablaze.

Now THAT's funny!

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 03:41 PM
The fundamental flaw in all of the "secret cabal" theories about the AHSA is that it's actions will be public - if they endorse an AWB ban, it's members will know that, and will leave. I know I will.
No you won't. They advocate a .50 ban, and they did avvocate an AWB, as another poster already showed. They haven't spoken out against an AWB, and I believe they said they want to ban "cop-killer bullets."(Which means expanding ammo, like the kind used for hunting.) No, you'll stay there as long as they endorse liberals for president.

Assume: the AHSA is 100% successful in their evil plot to secretly pass an AWB.
They had PUBLICLY ADVOCATED ONE! What more do you need?

You still haven't answered my question: Why would the NRA attack them if they were pro-gun, but not the JPFO or GOA?

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 03:49 PM
That is not the plan. It wasn't the plan for HCI either (same people). Americans for Gun Safety before that (same people).

OK. Since you claim that they are in fact an anti-RKBA organization, right?

Assuming that the AHSA is an anti-RKBA organization, one of the following must be true:


The AHSA is an anti-RKBA organization that advocates anti-RKBA policy.
The AHSA is an anti-RKBA organization that pretends to advocate pro-RKBA policy.


There is no other choice, is there?

(Logically, there are four cases, but the other two assume that the AHSA is a pro-RKBA organization, which we are assuming is false).

Assuming they are an anti-RKBA org, then their public policy must match or not match their private policy. Isn't that correct?

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 03:52 PM
Assuming they are an anti-RKBA org, then their public policy must match or not match their private policy. Isn't that correct?

Certainly not if the intent is to be a wedge organization.

Again, this isn't new. HCI and AGS did the same thing, and this is the same people.

It's not complicated. This BS might work on people that are new to this, but many of us were around when HCI was in existence. Many of us remember Jody Powell's involvement during the Carter administration to outlaw hunting on privately owned lands by some bizarre OSHA safety rule (Powell is a board member of AHSA).

Again I will ask you. How do you reconcile the fact that all the board members of AHSA were associated both personally and financially with HCI and other anti-gun groups. They all have a change of heart?

Or are you going to now argue that HCI was not anti-gun?

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 03:53 PM
Assuming that the AHSA is an anti-RKBA organization, one of the following must be true:

The AHSA is an anti-RKBA organization that advocates anti-RKBA policy.
They are! They had publicly advocated an AWB, please read the link another person posted. The wayback machine he linked to shows old versions of websites. Please take the time to read it.

On their current website, they advocate a .50 caliber ban and letting the FBI have the NICS records (registration.) They say that gun ownership is a right but not for everybody. They say they want to make guns harder to access for "others" whatever that means.

please answer my question: why would the NRA attack them, but not the JPFO or GOA? Your inability to answer it leads me to believe you can't.

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 03:57 PM
More anti-gun stuff, from their current website:
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

the definition of "gun show" should be broadened to include flea markets, swap meets and similar venues where guns are sold;

SuperNaut
January 12, 2009, 03:59 PM
Mike, Occams' Razor is a logic device used to aid discovery of the most likely outcome from a set of unknowns.

Nothing here is unknown.

Frankly, perverting Occam's Razor in order to obfuscate is disgusting to me.

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 04:02 PM
Okay, just the events so far: The AHSA wants a .50 ban, and a requirement to have a FFL involved to be able to sell guns at gun shows, flea markets, or other private sales. I literally wouldn't be able to sell a gun to my own son without having to pay whatever the dealer wants to charge. They also want registration of some sort.

They used to advocate another "assault weapons" ban on their website, but took that down.

The OP still won't answer my question about why the NRA would attack them if they are truly pro-gun, but not JPFO, GOA, etc.

Sorry about the font, but I didn't want anyone to skip this post

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 04:03 PM
The AHSA is an anti-RKBA organization that advocates anti-RKBA policy.
They are!

So let's agree that they are an anti-RKBA organization, recruiting members with misleading statements like:

These 27 words protect the rights of Americans to own and use guns. The American Hunters and Shooters Association is committed to these words and the ideas and principals behind them. Protecting our homes, preserving our liberties, hunting, and sport shooting are American values that AHSA will vigorously defend.

Let's agrees that's a complete and utter lie. Haven't we shown pretty conclusively that if they are in fact lying, the must in the end keep lying - or they lose the game of influence and power?

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 04:05 PM
Haven't we shown pretty conclusively that if they are in fact lying, the must in the end keep lying - or they lose the game of influence and power?

Or close their doors and reopen under another name.

Which they have done twice already, and which you won't discuss in this thread I notice even though I've asked you about it in nearly every post I've made.

HCI=AGS=AHSA in case you missed it. Same people, same money, different tactics. Try one til it works I guess huh?

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 04:07 PM
So let's agree that they are an anti-RKBA organization, recruiting members with misleading statements like:
Yes, let's.

They don't "vigorously defend the second amendment", here's their agenda:
The AHSA wants a .50 ban, and a requirement to have a FFL involved to be able to sell guns at gun shows, flea markets, or other private sales. I literally wouldn't be able to sell a gun to my own son without having to pay whatever the dealer wants to charge. They also want registration of some sort.

They used to advocate another "assault weapons" ban on their website, but took that down.


All except the AWB is taken from their current website, the AWB part was from their old website.

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question. why would the NRA would attack them if they are truly pro-gun, but not JPFO, GOA, etc?

20 posts and about 45 minutes without answering so far.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 04:11 PM
please answer my question: why would the NRA attack them, but not the JPFO or GOA? Your inability to answer it leads me to believe you can't.

I am sorry, I missed your post. The reason is obvious - the NRA is largely a Republican organization, and the AHSA's roots are as a Democratic organization. The AHSA specifically attacks and disagrees with the NRA on many issues.

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

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2009, 04:12 PM
AHSA's roots are as a Democratic organization.

Yes, AGS and HCI :)

Care to address those?

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 04:13 PM
am sorry, I missed your post. The reason is obvious - the NRA is largely a Republican organization
Really? I believe they have endorsed several pro-gun democrats for congress and senate. They are not a republican organization, they are a pro-gun organization. It's just that the democratic presidential candidates are always anti-gun.

The AHSA specifically attacks and disagrees with the NRA on many issues.
On many issues? There is one issue total, and it's about mining in protected land. I don't expect the NRA to take a stance on mining in public land, health care, or the right-to-life. They are a gun rights organization, yet the AHSA attacks them not because they took the wrong stance on an issue, but because they didn't take a stance on an issue, which is BTW not gun-related. That's like saying the UAW is bad because they didn't take a stance on the bank bailout.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 04:16 PM
Mike, Occams' Razor is a logic device used to aid discovery of the most likely outcome from a set of unknowns.

Huh? Occam's Razor has to do with the assumption of simplicity. I didn't assume simplicity, I assumed the convoluted conspiracy theories to be true, and showed that that they lead to a silly conclusion - that an anti-RKBA organization would have to publicly advocate pro-RKBA for all time.

What does that have to do with Occam's razor?

Mike

12131
January 12, 2009, 04:16 PM
I don't frequent this subforum often enough, but my impression is that, lately, there have been more antis trolling on here. Just an impression.
Btw, the 2A is not about hunting, trolls.:rolleyes:

Robocop
January 12, 2009, 04:17 PM
"why would the NRA would attack them if they are truly pro-gun, but not JPFO, GOA, etc? "

Judging from their website, they are not truly pro-gun. What do I win?

Larry Ashcraft
January 12, 2009, 04:19 PM
Let's assume that the AHSA is wildy successful - it deludes millions of people by appearing to be pro-RKBA, even though it's secretly anti-RKBA.
and there's your red herring. In a logical argument, you can't assume something that all logic says would never happen.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 04:22 PM
Really? I believe they have endorsed several pro-gun democrats for congress and senate.

Did I mistakenly type "exclusively" when I meant to type "generally"?

My understanding is that AHSA was founded as a Democratic alternative to the NRA. If you disagree with that, then you and TexasRifleman need to tussle. He's very anti AHSA, and he agrees with me on that point:



AHSA's roots are as a Democratic organization.
Yes, AGS and HCI

Mike

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 04:23 PM
that an anti-RKBA organization would have to publicly advocate pro-RKBA for all time.
Is a message that says ban .50 calibers, ban private sales without having to pay a $30-$50 fee, and ban anything with a bayonet lug or 11 round magazine "pro-RKBA"? Please answer the question this time!

BTW "pro-gun pro-Obama" doesn't mean Obama is pro-gun. For instance, I'm anti death-penalty and pro-gun, that doesn't mean the pro-gun politician I support is anti-death-penalty.

My understanding is that AHSA was founded as a Democratic alternative to the NRA.
The NRA is not democrat or republican, they are pro-gun. It's just that the democrats are usually anti-gun, so the NRA usually endorses republicans, because they don't want anti-gun politicians to get elected.

Vern Humphrey
January 12, 2009, 04:28 PM
Let's agrees that's a complete and utter lie. Haven't we shown pretty conclusively that if they are in fact lying, the must in the end keep lying - or they lose the game of influence and power?
No, we have not.

You keep begging the question, asking us to accept at the outset that AHSA is a broad-based, popular organization that relies on its membership for financing and support.

We have shown again and again that is not the case. AHSA is a small organization, funded by fatcats, and pretending to be the voice of gun owners.

Lightninstrike
January 12, 2009, 04:33 PM
200 of 'em ain't going to influence any election.....Its the press they need.

# One day in the future, all those deluded members wake up and discover that what they thought was a box of Cheerios was in fact an AWB.

SuperNaut
January 12, 2009, 04:34 PM
What does that have to do with Occam's razor?

You've been laying out a series of quasi-logical propositions and asking us which choice makes sense. That essentially requires the use of Occam's Razor. Now the problem is that you are pretending that the quasi-logical propositions are illuminating in some way. When in fact we already know that the AHSA is an anti-2a org populated by anti-2a board members. Not to mention that you are leaving out all sorts of other possibilities:

1. Mr. Schoenke is a dupe

2. Mr. Schoenke is a useful idiot

3. The board is earnest but ignorant

4. The board has rejected their earlier efforts and associations with anti-2a orgs (LOL)

I could go on, but such a list is in the end pointless. The AHSA states their anti-2a stances right on their website for all to read and their past affiliation, donations, organizations are a matter of public record.

There are no unknowns to illuminate.

Vern Humphrey
January 12, 2009, 04:35 PM
200 of 'em ain't going to influence any election.....Its the press they need.
It's the press they're after. They present themselves as a "reasonable alternative to the NRA" and the press treats them that way.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 04:36 PM
BTW "pro-gun pro-Obama" doesn't mean Obama is pro-gun. For instance, I'm anti death-penalty and pro-gun, that doesn't mean the pro-gun politician I support is anti-death-penalty.

This is an extremely important point, and answers an earlier post I haven't gotten back to about why Ray Schoenke might support some Democratic candidates that are anti-gun.

The fact that you support a politician who is not anti-death penalty does not imply in any way that you are anti-death penalty. It implies that you live in a democracy where you have to pick on candidate or another. Since candidates endorse a plethora of issues, you will in all likelihood have to support or vote for a candidate with whom you disagree on at least one issue.

To my mind, the bumper sticker implies nothing about Obama, it implies that I am pro-gun, and I am pro-Obama. Which I am. :)

Mike

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 04:36 PM
The NRA doesn't endorse anti-gun republicans, but the AHSA endorses anti-gun democrats. Clearly, they are concerned about some things more than gun rights. If they are more concerned about those things, they should be honest and say what they are, and call themselves the "American liberal association" or "American gun control" association, but they should stop masquerading as a pro-gun group.

It implies that you live in a democracy where you have to pick on candidate or another. Since candidates endorse a plethora of issues, you will in all likelihood have to support or vote for a candidate with whom you disagree on at least one issue.
That's correct, but if I started an organization called "Americans against the death penalty", who's sole purpose was to fight the death penalty, they shouldn't endorse someone based on their stance on guns. If it did, it should be called "Americans against the death penalty and for guns" or "shooters against the death penalty"

samtron
January 12, 2009, 04:37 PM
He's a troll.

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 04:41 PM
Is a message that says ban .50 calibers, ban private sales without having to pay a $30-$50 fee, and ban anything with a bayonet lug or 11 round magazine "pro-RKBA"? 'Cause that's what the AHSA advocates.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 04:42 PM
You keep begging the question, asking us to accept at the outset that AHSA is a broad-based, popular organization that relies on its membership for financing and support.

I haven't asked you to accept anything like that. You are the one who argued that if the AHSA public and private policy did not they would lose membership and funding, right?

You said that if the publicly advocated pro-RKBA policies and were in fact anti-RKBA they would lose their "sugar daddies", right?

Mike

Mike

Vern Humphrey
January 12, 2009, 04:42 PM
We should thank him for coming here to enlighten us and taking time off from his real job -- which is hiding under a bridge and waiting for the Three Billy Goats Gruff.:rolleyes:

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 04:43 PM
You said that if the publicly advocated pro-RKBA policies

How is a message that says ban .50 calibers, ban private sales without having to pay a $30-$50 fee, and ban anything with a bayonet lug or 11 round magazine "pro-RKBA"?

Still don't want to answer, I guess.

Just accept the AHSA for what it is: the Brady campaign disguised as fudds.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 12, 2009, 04:47 PM
if they endorse an AWB ban, it's members will know that, and will leave. I know I will.

Well, good news - you'll have extra money in your pocket, because you won't be paying for for their dues. I'll guarantee you that they'll endorse any and every gun ban that comes down the pike, just as their website implied that it would, before they took the language down after succumbing to the heat. But I wish you luck and hope that you are right - I would be pleasantly surprised. The ONLY question is how long it will take for the issue to come up - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 years? Or more.

And I take exception to your characterization of the NRA being mostly Republicans. While that may be technically true, that's not at all what they're about. And certainly not true in my case. There's no cause and effect there. This happens simply because so many people of the D party choose to run on anti-freedom platforms. It's the chicken and the egg, except that in this case, we KNOW which came first - the D party members chose anti-freedom positions BEFORE the NRA took a stance against them, and favored their pro-gun opponents (who just happen to be - usually but not always- members of the R party).

The AHSA is not any more of a substitute for NRA than death is a substitute for life.

If you want an alternative to NRA which is actually supportive of the RKBA, and pretty a-political, here's your answer (not AHSA):

http://www.saf.org/

The NRA doesn't endorse anti-gun republicans, but the AHSA endorses anti-gun democrats.

EXACTLY; thank you. That one truism says all that you need to know about the situation, to debunk the idea that they are a "pro-Democrat yet pro-RKBA alternative to NRA".

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 04:49 PM
Well, good news - you'll have extra money in your pocket, because you won't be paying for for their dues.
He'll keep on paying. If what he said about leaving was true, he would have done it a while back.

SuperNaut
January 12, 2009, 04:52 PM
Besides with the inflated membership that the AHSA claims, Mike represents about 20 members. He probably feels a sense of obligation and responsibility... :)

seale
January 12, 2009, 04:54 PM
I just ordered that free sticker. It will go on the bottom inside of my trash can when it arrives ;)

benEzra
January 12, 2009, 04:58 PM
AHSA's roots are as a Democratic organization.
Actually, their roots are as a "Third Way" Democratic Leadership Council organization. Unless the AHSA has since moved, they are even in the same building as the DLC.

The DLC being, of course, the communitarian/corporatist group within the party that foisted the ban-nonhunting-guns jihad onto the party at large in the early 90's.

It was the DLC that rammed the AWB to the top of the legislative agenda, and they blamed the resulting backlash on a perceived failure to be seen as pro-hunting enough, as if most gun owners are hunters.

IMO, AHSA serves to provide cover for DLC types who want to have their AWB, .50 bans, ammo bans, etc. wile still calling thmselves "pro-2ndA".

Could the AHSA become pro-gun? Certainly. Are they now? I don't believe so, and I am NOT a repub.

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 05:00 PM
as if most gun owners are hunters.
Actually, according to polls somewhere between 2004 and 2008, a little over half of gun owners own guns for hunting. A little more than than own guns for target shooting, and the most common reason was for protection from crime. So most gun owners have guns for self-defense, hunting, and
target shooting.

caseypj
January 12, 2009, 05:01 PM
RPCVYemen, we had this discussion a few months ago with you. I'm convinced you're employed by the AHSA at this point, Ray's Wife gave $2500 to the brady campaign on 10/1/04 AND sat on their board of directors.

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 05:02 PM
I think he just wants to advance a liberal agenda, at the price of the RKBA.

cbsbyte
January 12, 2009, 05:03 PM
In before the lock.

Robocop
January 12, 2009, 05:04 PM
"Could the AHSA become pro-gun? Certainly. Are they now? I don't believe so, and I am NOT a repub."

The AHSA could become pro-gun if enough of them did a repeat of the Cincinnati reforms the NRA experienced.

Geneseo1911
January 12, 2009, 05:07 PM
I'm amazed how desperately a couple people on this board cling to AHSA and the idea that Obama is pro-gun, despite the mountain of evidence otherwise. Almost as desperately as I cling to my guns and religion.

If you support Obama, that's cool, that's your right, but don't be naive about it.

JoseM
January 12, 2009, 05:13 PM
After reading this I'm convinced that either...
1) You are an extremely prideful man that can't own up to the fact that you backed the wrong horse (i.e. made a huge mistake in judging an organization before you joined)
2) A troll that truly does have the ASHA's agenda in mind and trying to bring people over to the "dark side" with you.
or...
3) An extremely dense person

There has been numerous postings/links showing how ASHA are not pro-gun. Simply putting a pro-gun name onto this organization does not make it pro-gun. And having pro-gun sounding name will catch people's attention especially when Obama was running for president. The general public hears that some "gun group" backed Obama, therefore Obama was pro-2nd...mission accomplished. High membership not required, just the headlines (and bumperstickers).

benEzra
January 12, 2009, 05:16 PM
Actually, according to polls somewhere between 2004 and 2008, a little over half of gun owners own guns for hungting. A little more than than own guns for target shooting, and the most common reason was for protection from crime. So most gun owners have guns for self-defense, hunting, and
target shooting.
I'd like to see those polls. What was the selection bias (was the poll of NSSF members, for example?), was the data self-reported or was it independently verified via hunting license data or whatever, how were the questions worded, in what setting were they asked, who did the asking, etc.

I obtained a hunting license once (to give me the option of shooting a couple of coyotes on our property should that become necessary, which it didn't), and have been (frog) hunting once. I also own guns suitable for hunting, and plan to perhaps take up hunting someday. So, depending on how the question were asked, I could be counted as a hunter, even though I am a nonhunter.

The thing about the "58% of gun owners hunt" is that it is flatly contradicted by the the hard data we have on the number of people who actually hunt. The number of people who hunt in a given year can be obtained from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf (2006)
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html (prior years)

According to the data, 12.5 million people over age 16 and 1.6 million under age 16 hunted in 2006, for a total of 14.1 million active hunters. There is also a population of former hunters and once-every-few-years hunters that didn't hunt in 2006 but could be considered "latent" hunters. If you count those, you get a total of 18.6 million people over 16 as having hunted at least once between 2002 and 2006, although not all of those are active hunters anymore. And those numbers are in decline.

The number of gun owners in the United States is approximately 80 million. The number who hunt in a given year is roughly 1 in 5, and the number who have hunted at any time in the last five years is roughly 1 in 4.

Most gun owners do not hunt, and the number of "assault weapon" owners is probably comparable to the number of deer hunters, bird hunters, and skeet/clays shooters combined.

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 05:18 PM
) You are an extremely prideful man that can't own up to the fact that you backed the wrong horse (i.e. made a huge mistake in judging an organization before you joined)
I don't think that's the case.

2) A troll that truly does have the ASHA's agenda in mind and trying to bring people over to the "dark side" with you.
This is probably the closest to true.
Either that, or he's trying to get us to support Obama

.3) Extremely dense person
I think he's ignoring facts rather than not understanding, so that's not true regarding thiss matter.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 05:21 PM
Ray's Wife gave $2500 to the Brady Campaign on 10/1/04 AND sat on their board of directors.

Which proves exactly what about Ray's beliefs?

Mike

Robocop
January 12, 2009, 05:23 PM
That he is either anti-gun, or never "getting any" ever again.:evil:

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 05:23 PM
I'd like to see those polls. What was the selection bias (was the poll of NSSF members, for example?),

I don't think it had any selection bias, it was Gallup polling. It said 58% of gun owners owned for hunting, 66% for target shooting, and 67% for self-defense http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx

They are usually a bit off however, but unfortunantly I don't think Rasmussen polls on these issues.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 12, 2009, 05:24 PM
I like the fact that you're hangin in there, bro and fighting the good fight - keep it up! :) Though end the end, I'll think you'll discover we were correct - may take a few years, however.

Noone wants a conspiracy theory wimpy enough to be fought with a .22

Yeah, I guess being the hero of rebellion against the despotic Squirrel Regime is not too terribly fanciful. Besides, if the squirrels take over the government, all we gotta do is put peanut butter on some rat traps on Penn Ave. in DC.

RPCVYemen
January 12, 2009, 05:24 PM
Unless the AHSA has since moved, they are even in the same building as the DLC.

All clients in the same building share the same political views, so co-location is definitive proof of political policy.

Mike

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 05:25 PM
Hey, now that you're back online, do you want to answer my question?

How is a message that says ban .50 calibers, ban private sales without having to pay a $30-$50 fee, and ban anything with a bayonet lug or 11 round magazine "pro-RKBA"?

Then again, we all know that bayonets are the #1 weapon used in crimes. :rolleyes:

JImbothefiveth
January 12, 2009, 05:26 PM
I like the fact that you're hangin in there, bro and fighting the good fight - keep it up! Though end the end, I'll think you'll discover we were correct - may take a few years, however.
He already know we're right, just won't admit it or answer my question.

JoseM
January 12, 2009, 05:26 PM
This is probably the closest to true.
Either that, or he's trying to get us to support Obama

If that's the case, he can stop arguing now....I didn't vote for the man, but now he is MY president along with the rest of America and I'm putting my hope in him to help turn a lot of things around. I'll support him and give him the benefit of the doubt for most decisions unless I feel passionate against it (i.e. anti-gun measures).

Jeff White
January 12, 2009, 05:29 PM
Ok, we've wasted enough bandwidth on this topic. This is two long threads in the past couple months on this subject. As usual everyone is free to make up their own mind on this issue. But here at THR this topic is closed. We don't need any more threads on this subject. Any new threads will be closed with a link to the two previous threads.

If you enjoyed reading about "AHSA Pro-Gun Pro-Obama" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!