Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AHSA sez it opposes an AWB (?)

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by 30 cal slob, Mar 4, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 30 cal slob

    30 cal slob Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,092
    Location:
    Location, Location!
    sorry if this is a dupe.

    it's in writing. don't know if the letter to the AG has actually been sent. lol.

    p.s. I'm not a member, I'm just passing this info on.

    http://www.huntersandshooters.com/

     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2009
  2. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,622
    AHSA is a hand puppet for the Democratic party; if they say that, it only means the administration is trying to build AHSA's credibility.

    The fact is that the Obama administration is in power now, and plans to stay in power; they don't give a tinker's dam what anyone thinks or says. (Obama's expression of admiration for Hugo Chavez should tell us something about his own plans.)

    Jim
     
  3. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Well I applaud Mr. Schoenke for taking the time to write Mr. Holder, but I'd like to tell Mr. Schoenke he's a ******** for inviting the Wolves into the henhouse - full well knowing their intention and history of eating hens - and then pleading with them to not eat the hens.

    Mark my works, the MOMENT the Dems have a viable chance at an AWB they will enact it. Why wouldn't they? It's in their blood. They hate guns. They want them all banned, and this is the logical easy sell on the American public, and it's a logical incremental step.

    So, Mr. Schoenke, I guess we have your organization among others to thank for the impending AWB. Good job! Way to unite gun owners on a common goal of protecting the 2A. :banghead::fire:
     
  4. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,559
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    Ray is not stupid - they know that the last AWB did not achieve the social re-engineering goals that they wanted and that the Heller decision made weapon bans much more legally problematic.

    To properly effect long-term reduction in the availability of firearms, they (AHSA and others) are focusing their efforts on supporting the complete regulation of the point of sale rather than trying to ban specific classes of weapons. If they can control the point of sale via mandatory .gov background checks for all purchases (which effectively place the .gov in the position to approve/disapprove any firearm transfer) then they can better achieve their desired end goal (reduction in active firearms ownership) than they would have had they supported a ban on specific classes of weapons. This is why the ASHA does not publicly support an AWB but does strongly support 'closing the gun show loophole', as they term private face-to-face gun sales.

    They also know that 'the gun show loophole' is a softer target than an AWB. After all, we should all support 'keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people', shouldn't we? :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that the .gov gets to define who is the 'right' type...

    Remember - by the DoJ's own statistics, the majority of conviced felons who used a gun in the commission of their crime obtained that firearm legally, by today's standards of what is legal. The only place for the gun banners to go to reduce the number of guns, when addressing this from a crime reduction angle, is to either ban the objects themselves or redefine 'legal' in an increasingly restrictive manner.

    This is classic gun-banner logic, and the signature by which we should recognize those that stand against the RKBA.

    "If we only regulate the object more fully, then social ills will be reduced."

    "Criminals, terrorists and people who can harm themselves and others" will always get guns or whatever alternate means they need to effect their agenda. You cannot stop this. Working to stop this is a fools errand - it would probably be far more effective to work towards mitigating the impact of their actions rather than trying to PREVENT them.
     
  5. TimRB

    TimRB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    922
    Location:
    CA
    I blundered onto the Democratic Underground site today, searching for info on AHSA. Schoenke is actually being discussed there, and even *they* have come to a semi-consensus that gun control, or at least "assault weapons", as a political issue, is a loser for the Democrats, citing the Dem bloodbath that followed the Clinton AWB.

    Rbernie's theory seems quite plausible to me, so we should not lose sight of the fact that AHSA is, and always has been, an anti-gun organization.

    Tim
     
  6. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,093
    They are not stupid, they want guns restricted and banned, fewer guns in fewer hands but they will do it incrementaly.

    They saw the unified backlash from just publicity about a potential new AWB, and realize as a group pretending to be pro gun they need to seem more attractive to appear a credible voice speaking on behalf of gun owners.

    They operate by claiming a position they feel is mainstream enough to seem credible. They then work to slowly convince everyone more controls is better from there.
    Since the AWB is not even an acceptable tactic right now they are backing off from that.

    They go through stages. They pretend to be mainstream between elections. The pretend to represent gun owners and try to actualy get gun owners believing they speak for them.
    Then when it comes time for actual legislation they can claim to speak for gun owners, steer gun owners towards directions of failure, and otherwise be a tool to reduce the effectiveness of gun owners.

    It is not an accident most of the sponsors and founders of the AHSA were anti-gun, like previous members of the Brady bunch.. That is not even subtle, and sneaky. You would have at least thought they could hire some random people not previously associated with anti gun efforts.

    They act as a trojan horse, behind enemy lines, and they wait until the time is right to steer people that think they are credible into disaster. Encourage people to compromise on legislation they think has a chance.

    Right now is a recruiting cycle. They will try to be attractive and "mainstream" for now.
    It is a strategic game, and thier prize is reduction of firearms held by US citizens. There is many branches of gun control some well connected like the VPC/Bradys and the AHSA. The branch pretending to be the voice of gun owners will always be a little softer in rhetoric than thier other branches. Until the legislation is on the table, there is a chance of it passing, and they need to reduce gun owner opposition. Then the fake pro-gun branch will briefly favor "compromise", destroy united opposition, and then pretend once more to be pro-gun and against other legislation until the next time legislation or elections matter.
    Strategic multi-layered warfare against the 2nd Amendment, by only a small total number of people speaking through many different groups.

    Thier ideal scenario would be if the media asked the opinion of the AHSA (instead of the NRA) and the Brady bunch as if they were two opposing sides of the story or any legislation on the table. Even just citing them as an equal "pro-gun" voice along with the NRA would be a dream come true for the antis.
    The AHSA could then pretend to reluctantly agree the type of legislation might help or be good, while the Brady side would be a much stronger rhetoric.
    The end result if the public bought it of course would be rapid reduction of 2nd Amendment rights.
    Fortunately the pro-gun public has not been so foolish.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2009
  7. john1911

    john1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    446
    Location:
    Southern IL
    Scary as h#ll to me. Sounds like they want the new ban to be much more restrictive. Want to make sure there's no way around any new ban.

    AHSA is not our friend nor do they support the 2A.
     
  8. dbarile

    dbarile Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    142
    AHSA

    A leopard does not change it's spots. If the local meth dealer started giving out ice cream I wouldn't want any. Until PROVEN otherwise they are not the friend of gun owners.

    Wonder what he is really up to?
     
  9. yokel

    yokel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,193
    Alas, laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” are expressly supported in the Heller decision.

    This will prove to be the Achilles' heel in the struggle to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms in an uninfringed manner.

    Heller affords our adversaries far too much wiggle room to maintain and expand all their Mickey Mouse regulations and restrictions that smell of contempt for the Second Amendment, and are enacted with a view to deter, dissuade, and inhibit ownership of anything deemed objectionable.
     
  10. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,093
    John1911 you are able to see they even word thier language in an anti-gun way for those intelligent antis reading without being blatant.

    They are saying:
    The previous ban was meaningless, not because we don't agree with the intent or the reduction in freedom, but because it was only cosmetic and did not restrict already owned "pre-ban" items.

    Without saying so they are saying they do agree with legislation such as HR1022 which reduced the features to 1. Having a detachable magazine and other other feature automaticly made it a restricted "assault weapon".

    They also aimed to ban conversion kits to make firearms comply with legislation, making the kits themselves assault weapons. You could not even make a gun comply with the law by removing the unlawful features:


    Additionaly even firearms without any of those features were automaticly assault weapons if ever adopted for use by the US government, or any federal LEO agency or the military or were similar or based on designs that were. That includes most reliable firearm designs. It also mean to ban a gun all they had to do was start issuing it in small amounts in any federal agency (like the ATF!):

    Have to appreciate the last part too. Essentialy saying even if it is "sporting" it still is not automaticly "sporting" because "sporting" to us is just a term to ban guns! Notice it also would have given the Attorney General, Eric Holder the ability to ban most guns at will.


    I think the AHSA would have been quite happy with HR1022 at the last moment if it had a chance of passing. At the last moment a "common sense compromise" would have been urged.
    Wolves in sheep's clothing.
     
  11. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    First it was short barreled shotguns and class III stuff. Next it'll be scary 'assault weapons' (mislabeled of course). After that, they'll come for the hunting rifles and shotguns.
     
  12. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    The Democrats realize that an attempt to renew the AWB is most likely untenable. My guess is that while they are currently backpedaling away from it that they're going to come up with a "compromise." Probably a federal regulation requiring all firearm transfers to go through an FFL/NICS check.
     
  13. JWarren

    JWarren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,632
    Location:
    MS and LA
    Doesn't AHSA only have like 200 members nationwide?

    Seems that the best thing we could do is just write them off as the irrelevent group that they are and not give them any more free publicity.

    Eventually, they will just go away...


    -- John
     
  14. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,940
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    I think this is BS. +1 on the Chicago boys probably requested this letter so that the publicity would legitimize the AHSA and set up the next "compromise".

    The Dems are currently backpedaling because many of them know and have heard from their constituents that talking about guns gets them voted out. Madame Pelosi heard from enough of them that she herself spoke publicly about no interest in gun legislation. They can't retain power by getting voted out, see. For some of these Dems, the retaining of their elected office is insured by the fact that guns stay out of the discussion. They'll definitely take their shot but only they know when it will happen.
     
  15. JWarren

    JWarren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,632
    Location:
    MS and LA

    Nah... They will take their shot only when they know it will happen AND they can still keep their jobs.


    In 1994, it did happen-- but a lot lost their jobs over it. Pelosi LOVES being SOTH. She loses that if her party loses the majority.

    If I understand politics and motive as well as I think I do, an AWB won't be called up for a vote if Pelosi thinks it may cost her the SOTH position in 2010.

    Post Mid-terms, I'll get REAL worried. Remember... she ALSO doesn't want to piss off her constituents either..




    -- John
     
  16. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,964
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    You could have knocked me over with a feather, until I read the whole "letter".

    I hope everyone who sees it, the antis and closet antis, will see "AHSA opposes AWB" and not the backhanded message hidden in the body.
     
  17. Hk91-762mm

    Hk91-762mm Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    415
    Location:
    western NY
    ITS a scam---If he really sent that letter -You can bet it was followed up by a phone call telling him to toss it in the trash when he gets it and carry on as usual.
    Now about that 50cal ban Ray !!!
     
  18. TX1911fan

    TX1911fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    He basically outlines the flaws in the law, rather than in the logic underlying the law. In essence, he told Obama that he opposes a crappy AWB like the last one. He didn't say they wouldn't support a better AWB should it come along. Guy is still a snake.
     
  19. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,940
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    JWarren...

    Thank you. Your correction is most accurate.
    They will not pass up the chance to seize another sizable amount of freedom from us that is for sure. I'm certain that the party as a whole would even consider losing a midterm election, due to a number of politicians that were necessary to sacrifice, just to accomplish this one power grab.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page