"Americans for Gun Safety"

Status
Not open for further replies.

beerslurpy

member
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
4,438
Location
Spring Hill, Florida
Penn & Teller showed "Americans for Gun Safety" as the "middle of the road guy".

Arent they an anti-gun group? I seem to remember them being pro-AWB renewal and anti-gun-show-loophole and in general a group that tries to draw fence-sitters on to the anti side.

Yep. Their "moderate and sensible" is only "moderate and sensible" if you view the NRA as "extreme" which it definitely isnt. They are basically just a group to advocate anti-gun policies from the standpoint of a gun owner.

How did Penn & Teller get suckered into portraying them as fence-sitters?

Also, what was with the stupid revolutionary war reenactors. That was like 10 minutes of stupid filler.
 
Here's their website:
http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/

I just perused it, and they certainly seem more Anti- than Pro- or Middle.

They are for the AW ban, talk about the fictitious "gun show loophole", talk about making background checks mandatory, etc.

Here are a few choice quotes:

"A more comprehensive analysis completed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence also found that the number of banned assault weapons traced in crimes declined by more than 65% and the that the number of assault weapons, including those not banned, has declined by 45% since passage of the assault weapons ban.[7]"

"Federal law requires background checks for all firearms sales at gun stores. But a loophole allows criminals, illegal aliens and even terrorists to walk into a gun show and purchase a gun without ever undergoing a background check. That means no ID, no questions asked. A bill sponsored by Senators McCain, Reed, DeWine and Lieberman would close this dangerous loophole. "

"• States should institute a "don't know/don't sell" policy to extend the period to complete a background check to reflect the actual time it takes for law enforcement to ensure illegal buyers do not purchase guns. In other words, if the check is not complete (don't know), the sale should not go through (don't sell).

• Gun dealers should voluntarily adopt "don't know, don't sell" sell policies - they should deny all firearms purchases until a final disposition record is obtained, even if the check exceeds the three-day period allowed by law. "



hmmmm..... So they can shut down NICS at random times (say whenever there is a big gun show) and nobody will be able to buy guns. :barf:
 
Moderate and sensible gun ownership is one term all gun owners should flat reject out of hand. It's the first step in the back door to losing them completely. There is no middle of the road. How anyone can buy into the ideas of Americans For Gun Safety is beyond me.
 
AGS is anti-gun, but compared to the screeching weasels at the VPC and The Brady Group In Collusion With Some Other People to Have a Really Long Name For Instituting Anti-Gun Initiatives or whatever they call themselves these days, AGS looks centrist.

Still, P&T pretty much made the AGS guy look like a wishy-washy nitwit.
 
The AGS is banking on a 10 year plan where in their "Common Sense" meme gets picked up as a marching call for more legislation.

The founder of AGS, Andrew McKelvey, used his Monster.com bucks to bank roll the first MMM rally
 
Fortunately straightforward activism and strength of numbers appears to be winning the day.

Not that you would know it if you watch CBS. Or wait for the republicans to take action on our behalf.
 
Hi All-

Harry Tuttle, you don't mind if I refresh your post made a bit earlier, do you?

McKelvey is the founder of AGS. He used the bucks earned at Monster.com (Chairman & CEO) to finance the first MMM​
.​

andrew_j_mckelvey.jpg

Don't be fooled by their sneaky "gentle" approach to firearms ownership. They are a vile group of extremists who will stop at nothing to strip decent and lawful Americans of their right to keep and bear arms. Search his site(s) high and low and you'll find they don't list a single benefit associated with owning a gun. They have recognized where HCI and MMM have "struck out" with honorable citizens of this country, so they're trying to take another approach to see how well it works. They are shameless and should never be supported.

~ Blue Jays ~
 
When the term "common sense" is used in that context, it's an implication that by disagreeing you have no common sense.

When the term "moderate" is used in that context, it's an implication that by disagreeing, your position is radical (in the negative way).

When the term "sensible" is used in that context, it implies that your position is senseless.

It's just an attempt to reframe the debate. Rather than present a plan that would stand on its own merits, the anti camp would rather make personal attacks on you in order to further its agenda.
 
They have recognized where HCI and MMM have "struck out" with honorable citizens of this country, so they're trying to take another approach to see how well it works. They are shameless and should never be supported.

Bingo.
 
It's just marketing.

Slick, but phony.

It has spawned state-run groups such as "Arizonan's for Gun Safety." Our local chapter is run by the same human weeble (Gerry Anderson) who helped to organize the Million Mom March demonstration in Phoenix which we successfully counter-demoed.

And guess what Gerry is up to now?

Taser International has put her up in charge (Executive Director) of The Taser Foundation for fallen officers.
Please contact Gerry Anderson regarding gifts to the TASER Foundation.
Ms Anderson has used the story of her late brother, who was killed with an SKS (she still calls it an AK47) some ten years ago, as grist for the gun-ban mill. For years she often intimated (or at least didn't dispell inferences) that Adam Hill was killed in the line of duty, until I did some research by calling the Rochester, Michigan PD and asking some questions. He was killed during a hunting trip when he unfortunately got in the middle of a squabble between hunting guides over territory. She had to admit during her last press conference (I was there with my trusty signage) that he was not on duty, nor in uniform.

Rick
 
How anyone can buy into the ideas of Americans For Gun Safety is beyond me.


Well, for one thing, they don't offer a single goddamned program for "gun safety" apart from, "Don't own guns, and you'll be safe." :fire:

How the hell can they use a name like that and not have any gun safety programs whatsoever. It'd be like me starting a group called "Pilots for Flight Safety," and then you find out we're all about advocating rail travel. :banghead:


-Jeffrey
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14377-2001Apr27.html

[BLOCKQUOTE]

Billionaire's Gun Control Role Is Debated
Middle-of-the-Road Advocacy and Infusion of Cash Stir Controversy on All Sides

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 29, 2001; Page A10

Last summer, Andrew McKelvey decided he knew how to break the impasse that has dogged the gun control debate: Acknowledge Americans' right to own guns, but say that these rights come with responsibilities.

If he had been an ordinary gadfly, McKelvey might have gone unnoticed. But as the owner of Monster.com, the job search Web site, the billionaire New York businessman used his wealth to position himself at the center of the gun control movement -- and to emerge as its dominant force.

The ascension of his advocacy group, Americans for Gun Safety, has altered the national debate over guns. At a moment when the steam has seemingly gone out of congressional efforts to enact tougher gun control laws, McKelvey's supporters hail him as a potential savior who can attract a broader constituency to their cause.

Many longtime advocates of tougher gun control laws, however, charge that his endorsement of gun ownership is dooming the gun control movement by watering down its message.

No one questions McKelvey's influence. His group's $3 million advertising campaign in Colorado and Oregon helped propel to victory in November ballot initiatives seeking background checks at gun shows. His staff is now helping craft a new gun show proposal on the federal level that Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) plan to unveil within a matter of weeks.

A political novice, McKelvey, 66, used his personal fortune to assemble a formidable political network that gave him access to policymakers and made his organization a critical contributor to state gun control groups. He hired top officials from the Clinton administration and Republican congressional aides, picking Jonathan Cowan, who was Andrew M. Cuomo's chief of staff at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as his group's president. He commissioned polls from Democrats Mark Mellman and Mark Penn as well as from Republican John Zogby, and also hired GOP image-maker Greg Stevens to film issue advertisements on the group's behalf.

McKelvey, who marvels at his sudden access to national leaders -- "I'm about as apolitical as it comes. I don't know anybody" -- says his group is simply being pragmatic. "I try to work on things in which we can have some results," he says.

A plainspoken man, he dismisses the notion some hold that a searing personal experience drew him into the debate over gun violence. "They want to know, 'Did you have a brother shot?' The answer is 'no,' " he says. "All these kids just kept getting shot in schools."

His group's drive to pass measures requiring gun show background checks in Colorado and Oregon bore all the hallmarks of a traditional campaign. In Oregon, the group paid for a half-million phone calls and a quarter-million pieces of direct mail to voters, in addition to running television advertisements featuring McCain's support for the initiative.

McKelvey compared the McCain ads his group ran in Colorado and Oregon to the catchy television commercials his Web site pioneered. "Advertising, particularly television advertising, is certainly an effective vehicle," he says.

Now, the group has expanded nationwide, running ads in favor of closing the gun show "loophole" -- which allows people in 32 states to buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing background checks -- and providing tens of thousands of dollars in funding for state groups.

Despite the shot in the arm Americans for Gun Safety has given to the gun show issue, many advocates of stricter gun laws are critical of McKelvey's efforts.

Violence Policy Center public policy director Joe Sudbay notes that the group's focus on gun shows addresses just a small part of a much larger problem. He says McKelvey is using his money to try to get cash-strapped state gun control advocacy groups to support his middle-of-the-road approach -- at the risk of undermining the broader gun control effort.

McKelvey offered $60,000 to any state group willing to become a "chapter" of his organization. Although many of these affiliates balked once they discovered that the organization's mission statement endorses gun ownership, McKelvey allowed them to keep the one-year grants.

"I think he was trying to do a hostile takeover of the gun control movement," Sudbay says.

Sudbay is equally critical of McCain and Lieberman's gun show proposal, which would allow private gun show dealers to move to a 24-hour background check in three years if the attorney general certifies they are able to access files on 95 percent of buyers.

Lieberman, who says he and McCain became convinced that the gun issue had become too polarized after they both campaigned for national office last year, defends McKelvey's efforts, saying he may have identified the kind of balanced approach that has eluded lawmakers so far. "There's a logic to this," Lieberman says.

At the moment, however, gun rights advocates aren't rushing to embrace McKelvey's approach. His overtures to some of Capitol Hill's most staunch conservatives have been rebuffed. The May issue of the National Rifle Association's magazine features a caricature of McKelvey with the caption, "The New Gun Haters Have Arrived . . . With the Same Old Scheme."

While Americans for Gun Safety has yet to engage in direct electioneering, its critics and allies predict that it may become even more powerful if the changes to campaign finance laws passed by the Senate are enacted. The proposal, sponsored by McCain and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), would end the raising of unlimited "soft money" donations to political parties from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. It could give new power to independently funded groups such as McKelvey's, which would not be subject to the new restrictions.

Cowan says the group is still evaluating its political strategy for the next election. Without question, he adds, "McCain-Feingold actually helps groups like us. . . . The right of a democracy is people can organize themselves to effectively advocate for a point of view."

For McCain, McKelvey's willingness to devote millions of dollars to influence lawmakers on issues such as gun control is something to be lauded rather than criticized. "I'm glad a guy with a billion dollars, or two billion dollars, wants to spend his money on an issue he feels strongly about," McCain says.
[/BLOCKQUOTE]
 
Well from a THR viewpoint some may not consider them to be moderate but I would say that they are. I think that "pro-gun" describes people who believe in the fundamental right and reject all notions of gun control and registration, including NFA and GCA. I think that "anti-gun" describes people who reject the notion that individuals have any rights to guns and would like to see Britain-style laws here where they are pretty much banned. I think that "moderate" describes people who believe that the right to guns exists for law-abiding citizens and support efforts to make sure guns are not being sold to criminals. Also they seem to believe that if it isn't a gun you "need" it isn't a gun you should have (AWB, .50BMG, etc). The "moderate" viewpoint is of course a stepping stone towards the "anti-gun" by demonizing guns in the arena of public opinion.
 
No, dolanp, I'd say AZRickD nailed it. It's a language and marketing thing. It's no different than the socialists calling themselves "Progressives" or talking about progressive programs or viewpoints. The goal is unchanged, but the methods are different...

Anytime you see somebody seriously involved in any sort of gun control argument and the phrase "assault weapons" pops up, you are either dealing with an anti-gunner or an ignoramus. Why would somebody who claims to be serious about the pro/con gun-control discussions, wilfully remain ignorant of the realities of firearms in general? After all, the realities of "assault weapons" and the facts pertaining to their misuse have long been publiczed.

From the standpoint, longterm, of the skeet shooter or the target shooter or the hunter--and heaven help those interested in their own self defense--these are not Nice People in AGS.

Art
 
There are people out there who genuinely believe that AWBs will stop crime and .50 cal bans will stop terrorists. They are misguided and misinformed, of course, but their intentions are not quite as sinister as the full-fledged 'anti-gun' socio-fascist. What brings them down on one side of the issue or another is whether they are driven by logic or emotion.
 
No one wants to actually ban guns. But then again, after the Civil War, no state actually made it illegal for blacks to vote. But for some strange reason, the rules and regulations imposed -- e.g. poll taxes, literacy tests, and other forms of voter intimidation -- had the same result. Between its ratification in 1870 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 15th Amendment was as widely ignored as the 2nd Amendment is today.

Likewise, guns will not be outlawed. Instead, there will be so many draconian rules and regulations -- some vague, some contradictory -- that make gun ownership so costly and so burdensome that only the well-connected with high-priced lawyers will bother, or can even afford, to own a gun. This has already happened in some areas of the U.S.A.
 
Search the archives here or at TFL for Andrew McKelvey or Americans For Gun Safety - there is a wealth of information on this group to prove that they are in no way moderate.

Andrew McKelvey is a former director on the board of Handgun Control Inc. (now the Brady Campaign). He basically stated that he formed AGS because he wasn't satisfied with the progress being made by HCI. You can also see reams of AGS position papers sent to the Democrats spelling out exactly how they need to sell gun control (and the scary part is AGS is much more savvy than any of the resident idiots on the other side in this part). They explicitly embrace an approach of separating the "hunters" (the 90% of gun owners who own only one or two guns) from the "hardcore" (the 10% of gun owners who own most of the guns).

It isn't just McKelvey either - Jonathan Cowan was the brain behind the Smith & Wesson agreement where the Clinton Administration extorted S&W into signing a deal that was far worse than any gun control law Congress could have passed. He now works for AGS.

The rest of the AGS staff - Jennifer Palmieri (moved on from AGS), Matthew Bennett, etc. they are all Clinton White House refugees.

The main difference between AGS and the Brady Campaign is that AGS is smarter and AGS supports the Second Amendment as an individual right - not because they actually believe it is one but because their private polling showed 90% of Americans believe it is and they figured they wouldn't get too far by telling 90% of Americans they were wrong.

About the only good thing AGS does is document these thoughts in policy position papers to the Democrats. These are very helpful in showing people exactly what AGS thinks of gun owners in general.
 
People, please, remember this:

If you are EVER enjoined in a discussion or a debate with either a supporter of "Americans for Gun Safety," or a member of that group, or are writing a letter to a newspaper or magazine regarding that group,

MAKE SURE TO ASK THAT PERSON, OR ASK RHETORICALLY IN YOUR LETTER,
"WHAT 'GUN SAFETY' PROGRAMS DOES AGS SPONSOR, ORGANIZE, OR OFFER?"

This is paramount if you desire to expose them as anything BUT a "gun safety" organization.

It will help make clear that their name is a ludicrous front for yet another organization out to destroy the right to keep and bear arms -- this time through cynical camouflage and utter 180-degree-opposite misrepresentation of the nature of their true goals.

-Jeffrey
 
Excellent points, boys and girls.
McKelvey offered $60,000 to any state group willing to become a "chapter" of his organization.
That explains Gerry Anderson's swapping of her "CAP Gun Violence" group (Citizens of Arizona to Prevent Gun Violence) for Arizonans for Gun Safety. I always suspected her of going from grant to grant. Follow the money.

Ten years ago when she was shopping for a group to piggyback her views, she attended an "Arizona Gun Safety Coalition" meeting which I had been monitoring. AGSC (is it still operating?) was a group of gunnies and anti-gunnies "teaming" together to create pamphlets. A general waste of time, but I was able to intercept an attempt by Phoenix-area BATF Special Agent in Charge, Marvin Richardson (who was at Waco on 2/28/93) and another guy (US Attorney) who wanted us to do the marketing legwork for a Phoenix Project Exile. Fortunately it failed because the gunnies didn't trust the BATF and the anti-gunnies didn't trust the NRA.

Anywayz, Gerry showed up (we didn't know each other) and we later commensed to talking. I asked her what her gun control goals were. She said she was a gun owner and a Republican (big whoop) but that there was room for "sensible gun laws." Such as? She wanted to "ban Saturday Night Specials and assault weapons."

Three groups later, dozens of newspaper, TV and radio interviews (one debating me in-studio 620KTAR) and one MMM demonstration later, do you think she has changed her stripes now that she is "Arizonans for Gun Safety?"

I don't think so.

Rick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top