AHSA Makes Their Stance Known

[Phil DeGraves]

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]

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.

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".

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]

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".

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

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]

RCPVYemen, an argument from popularity is a fallacy.

 

[caseypj]

RCPVYemen, I looked, It clearly shows the Ray Schoenke in question making the donation.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...+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]

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]

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]

By itself it means nothing, in aggregate it means something.

 

[RPCVYemen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

#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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

gun show checks

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:

 

[Justin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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