JImbothefiveth
Member
More gems from their website:
AHSA Pro-Gun Pro-Obama
- Thread starter RPCVYemen
- Start date
- Status
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
Member
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.
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
What do you think his cause is? Hint: It ain't the same as ours
Vern Humphrey said:
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
Member
Which they do by falsely presenting themselves as a "reasonable" gun owner organization.
All 200 hundred of them?
No, they say, "Whoopie! We succeeded in fooling people.
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 381
Now THAT's funny!
JImbothefiveth
Member
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.
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?
TexasRifeman said:
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
Moderator Emeritus
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
Member
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
Member
More anti-gun stuff, from their current website:
JImbothefiveth
Member
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
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
Jimbothefiveth said:
So let's agree that they are an anti-RKBA organization, recruiting members with misleading statements like:
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
Moderator Emeritus
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
Member
Yes, let's.
They don't "vigorously defend the second amendment", here's their agenda:
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.
20 posts and about 45 minutes without answering so far.
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
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, AGS and HCI
Care to address those?
JImbothefiveth
Member
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.
.
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.
Last edited:
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
Member
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.
Btw, the 2A is not about hunting, trolls.
Robocop
Member
"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?
Judging from their website, they are not truly pro-gun. What do I win?
and there's your red herring. In a logical argument, you can't assume something that all logic says would never happen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
