AHSA - Change 50 BMG Policy?

[RPCVYemen]

I did that for him, he says the things I bring up "are not relevant to the thread"

I was responding to your assertions about AHSA.

May I am not doing your "refutations" justice, but they didn't seem very strong to me. Each as a gambit has serious pitfalls, and I wouldn't use them.

Introducing a new round I have never heard of, the .50 DTC, - though I do believe you that it exists - does not appear to accomplish much. I didn't see the point you were trying to make. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the the 50 BMG couldn't be regulated without regulating the ballistically equivalent .50 DTC. Wouldn't an opponent just agree with you?

In addition, the argument "but these other weapons aren't regulated either" doesn't seem very strong to me. That might be a big point on a playground, but if you claim that 9mm are also found with drug dealers, can't the opponent respond, "We aren't talking about classifying 9mm weapons, what does that have to do with it?"

Creeping incrementalism also strikes me as an argument that only persuades people who already agree with you. Incrementalism means that you are arguing against a proposal is not being made - which makes it very easy to refute. The opponent merely has to assert that they are not making a proposal that they are not making, and your argument evaporates.

My understanding of the rationale for their policy is that the modern 50 BMG rifle is analogous to the Tommy Gun in the 1920's. I chose to attempt to refute their assertion directly - without casting any aspersions on the motivation of the opponent, which is almost always the weakest imaginable argument.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

This is dangerous ground to stand on. What happens if criminals start to use such a weapon?

Agreed. If criminals start using 50 BMG weapons in significant numbers, then the AHSA analogy to 1920s Tommy Guns will be harder to reject.

Unfortunately, the language Heller that I cited earlier makes it appear extremely unlikely that the SCOTUS will overturn the NFA, which suggests that the classification of a Tommy Gun as a NFA Title 2 weapon will remain the law of the land.

That makes the analogy to the Tommy Gun powerful. If I can demonstrate that 50 BMG rifles are not analogous to Tommy Guns, my strategy may succeed. If I cannot demonstrate that, my strategy will likely not succeed.

That's why I'd like to see a new study before asserting that 50 BMG rifles are not associated with crime. I would hate to make that claim, and read the next day in the paper that a GAO study found that they were - that would really cook my goose.

Mike

 

[rbernie]

It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the the 50 BMG couldn't be regulated without regulating the ballistically equivalent .50 DTC. Wouldn't an opponent just agree with you?

Yes, they absolutely would. And they should.

And then you use that lesson to point out that this is what happens when you restrict a specific type of firearm instead of addressing some actual problem.

That makes the analogy to the Tommy Gun powerful. If I can demonstrate that 50 BMG rifles are not analogous to Tommy Guns, my strategy may succeed. If I cannot demonstrate that, my strategy will likely not succeed.

Why wouldn't it be better to simply force them to TELL YOU why they think that the two are analagous, instead of you trying to make that case in the dark?

I do not grasp why you ignore that avenue.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Before you get too wrapped up in Tommy Gun analogies, you have to remember that Tommy guns weren't the real motivation for the NFA, they were the political fig leaf used to get public buy in.

The NFA was entirely about congress setting their pants to condition brown after the 1932 bonus march, after using the army to route the veterans who came unarmed, and who might not be so peacable next time around.


Buying into that is just like buying into the false BS spewed in the early 90's about "gang members easily converting semi to full autos" that were allegedly filling the evidence rooms to bursting. (Meanwhile, back in reality, very few weapons met that description...)

Arguing by analogy over a bit that is at best a chunk of smoke and mirrors isn't a promising venue.

 

[RPCVYemen]

And then you use that lesson to point out that this is what happens when you restrict a specific type of firearm instead of addressing some actual problem.

Be careful of "teaching lessons" when you are trying to persuades someone - unless you are their teacher or parent. I (almost) never seen it work. "I taught him a lesson!" may be a good brag to your buddies afterward, but it usually fails as a persuasive tactic.

Why wouldn't it be better to simply force them to TELL YOU why they think that the two are analogous, instead of you trying to make that case in the dark?

They make the analogy on the Policy page - no need to "force" anything.

In general, I find trying to "force" someone to say something a weak argumentative style - they can either say whatever they want to say in such a way that it's inconvenient for you, or not say anything at all - and you end up in a silly "Say it!" "No I won't" "Say it!" "No I won't" argument.

In general, it seems like you want to make them say something and then you'll "trap" them - I find that a weak tactic. It may work if your opponent is an idiot, but if they are not, you are hosed.

If you adopt a superior attitude, ie, "You must answer the questions I ask!", unless you can in fact force people to answer the questions you ask, you look like an idiot, and persuade no one.

In my experience, reasoning about what someone has already said is more powerful than trying to get them to say something that you, in your superior wisdom, will handily defeat.

YMMV, just my thoughts.

Mike

 

[Zoogster]

The NFA was entirely about congress setting their pants to condition brown after the 1932 bonus march, after using the army to route the veterans who came unarmed, and who might not be so peacable next time around.

History is modified by those who determine the curriculum. After enough time goes past the new version of history becomes the official "correct" one.

The Bonus Army started because a lot of war veterans from the biggest war in history (at that point) The Great War (World war 1) were screwed over at the end. Many things promised were not delivered and they were essentialy told to get lost.
These Veterans, representing numerous veterans across the nation, many maimed or permanently disabled wanted what was promised at sign up.

The government screwed them over for a long time, but eventualy paid them years later. The trick of course was that the payment was in the form of bonds that wouldn't be redeemable until 1945, 20 years later and almost 30 years after they enlisted!

They marched on Washington peacefully, and camped some distance away. After some time they were attacked by the Army. The police had tried to evacuate them earlier, and shot and killed two of them, but there were no shots from the protestors.

Knowing these were veterans of of war in a time period when trench warfare was still the name of the game not far from Washington D.C. scared many. After being crushed by the military in essentialy an American Tiananmen Square incident they feared the danger those men could pose of they took up arms.
Effective arms had to be outlawed immediately to insure the military could crush anyone at will and prevail.

The veteran soldiers actualy cheered the arrival of the military, thinking the troops had come to support them in a parade. Imagine thier surprise when the tanks turned on them.

 

[ohgrady]

email response I received from AHSA

Below is the email response I received from the AHSA. I wonder why they didn't answer all my questions?

We do not support the assault weapons ban.

---------- Forwarded message ----------


First Name : ******

Last Name : ******

Email Address : ********@***.***

Phone : ***-***-****
Comment or Question : Is it this associations intention to oppose another Assault Weapons ban. Do you intend to oppose legislation for the proposed micro-stamping/registration of ammunition. Do you intend to oppose legislation regarding the restriction on the capacity of magazines?

 

[rbernie]

In general, I find trying to "force" someone to say something a weak argumentative style - they can either say whatever they want to say in such a way that it's inconvenient for you, or not say anything at all - and you end up in a silly "Say it!" "No I won't" "Say it!" "No I won't" argument.

You focused on my inappropriate use of the word 'force' instead of 'ask', and bypassed the meat of my suggestion.

Good wicket, and about par for form.

 

[7.62X25mm]

His argument was that there wasn't a legitimate hunting use for a 50 BMG weapon, unless you are hunting elephants.

First of all, the 50 BMG is NOT an "elephant gun" -- It's too big and heavy for the hunt.

Second, the criteria is "sporting purposes" not "hunting."

 

[BHP FAN]

''The NFA was entirely about congress setting their pants to condition brown...''
LOL!

 

[TexasRifleman]

Introducing a new round I have never heard of, the .50 DTC, - though I do believe you that it exists - does not appear to accomplish much. I didn't see the point you were trying to make. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the the 50 BMG couldn't be regulated without regulating the ballistically equivalent .50 DTC. Wouldn't an opponent just agree with you?

Yes, they would likely agree that both should be banned. That you don't get the point is why you should not be "negotiating" with AHSA.

In 7 pages here you've hearrd arguments from very many folks, most of us have been in the pro gun movement for many years, several of us for decades.
Now you come with the AHSA and tell us we don't know how this works, we don't understand, we just don't get it.

If you had been doing this a while you would know what the rest of us already know, that the AHSA is nothing but a front for Handgun Control Inc and a clear anti gun organization.

If creeping incrementalism does not bother THEM, it should bother YOU. That it doesn't bother YOU either tells plenty as well.

It is a waste of YOUR time and possibly dangerous to the pro gun movement to attempt "negotiations" with these anti gun people.

My arguments against their .50BMG position paper is written to an audience made of people who are pro gun but don't see the big picture.
Your insistence that you have an IRREFUTABLE argument to present to a "pro gun" group about why they should not call for a ban of certain classes of firearms confirms tall of this.

But you keep saying what we have all been telling you all along, that AHSA is NOT a pro gun group so any argument to them has to be written in the same way you'd try to persuade Brady Campaign. You specifically state above that AHSA would likely be on board with creeping incrementalism in gun laws by advocating the .50DTC be banned as well, if they just knew about it.

Their argument, and yours, that NFA was about guns and crime is also the standard anti-gun argument.

Crime reduction has NEVER been the reason for any anti gun legislation, and crime statistics show that anti gun laws have never had any impact.

Yemen, you are wasting our time and I am going to ask the other folks in this thread to join me in requesting the mods to close this thread.

I am asking this thread be closed since it is a clear attempt by an anti-gun group to achieve it's goal as a wedge organization by confusing unknowing gun owners with these fanciful claims of "terrorist weapons", "armor piercing incendiary combo ammo" and how this class of firearm serves no purpose since it's not used often in hunting, as though hunting matters at all here. Even if the group was dedicated to hunters, the .50BMG poses no THREAT to hunters so why call for more regulation? That's as anti gun as you can get.

We're told that they do not favor an "assault weapon" ban because they took it down from their website. The same line of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt fear mongering that they are currently using against the .50BMG has been used by other groups to advocate "AWBs" in the past. Same words, different target. Today anyway. If they are successful in their march against the .50BMG where will they stop next? Their advocate here has said that creeping incrementalism of gun control is not their, or his, concern and not seen as a valid argument.

That is and has always been the purpose of AHSA and one more thread here, 7 pages long, has proven it to be true.

 

[Fburgtx]

I second the nomination for a lock.

An effective pro-gun organization should be fighting on our behalf to prevent more anti-gun laws.

What does it tell you about an organization (AHSA) when someone comes on this forum requesting us to ask/demand they do just that. If they were truly a pro-gun organization, they would not require this sort of "activism".

The NRA has 4 million members. AHSA has 76 "Facebook friends", a former member of Handgun Control as president, and a website with a blog that does nothing but proclaim its' support for the most anti-gun president (based on voting record), ever.

You do the math..........

 

[JImbothefiveth]

What happens if criminals start to use such a weapon?

I think the risk of that is very miniscule. Remember, these rifles weigh about 20 pounds at the lightest if I'm not mistaken, and some weigh over 40 pounds.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Crime reduction has NEVER been the reason for any anti gun legislation, and crime statistics show that anti gun laws have never had any impact.

Not true, it sometimes increases crime!

I am asking this thread be closed

I'm not sure that's a good idea, this thread is rather entertaining.

 

[bensdad]

this thread is rather entertaining.

I'm sorry, but no, it's not. The OP knows perfectly well what the organization in question stands for. You guys keep giving his threads BTT attention, assuring that many hunters see the thread title. I think he's here to skim support off the top of the gun crowd. The longer this silliness goes on, the more reads it gets. His arguments are circular and nonsensical. He doesn't want resolution - he wants air-time. You give it to him. His wedge group is loving this.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The Astroturf Hoodwinking Shooters Association was founded in Apr 2005 mostly as a website operation and press release generating "Association" of people noted for supporting restrictions on firearms. John E. Rosenthal, first President of AHSA worked with Handgun Control to lobby Congress for Massachusett-style gun laws for the USA as a whole.

Although Hunters and Shooters is in the early stages of a soft launch, they're drawing all kinds of heat from the Commie-hating gun show crowd; they've already been labeled gun-grabbers in camouflage and a front for the Democratic Leadership Council.

"They're very, very concerned," Rosenthal says. "Our policies are so reasonable to the average gun owner, that they're threatened; until now, it's been a one-sided debate. The NRA is the terrorist's best friend. They're the criminal's best friend. They're the total enemy to common sense and safe parenting, frankly--yet they control Congress."

I am NRA. How many shooting ranges has AHSA helped set up? Hunter safety courses? Gun Safety courses? Law enforcement courses? What has AHSA done except pretend for four years to be a Hunter and Shooter association while mainly just generating press releases and steering Google searches on gun subjects to AHSA before NRA? AHSA is a Potemkin gun club.

Should I waste my time dreaming up an argument for my gun rights that would be acceptable to AHSA? I'll answer that with a question: do you think I would waste my time trying to convince Aryan Nations that a quad-racial mongrel like me has a soul and a right to exist?

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I'm sorry, but no, it's not. The OP knows perfectly well what the organization in question stands for. You guys keep giving his threads BTT attention, assuring that many hunters see the thread title. I think he's here to skim support off the top of the gun crowd. The longer this silliness goes on, the more reads it gets. His arguments are circular and nonsensical. He doesn't want resolution - he wants air-time. You give it to him. His wedge group is loving this.

Well, I've been trying to make sure more people see what this organization is up to, such as trying to ban private sales, ban .50 calibers, and in 2006(read: before election campaigning started) they wanted to ban hollowpoints, and they wanted another "assault weapon" ban. (Actual asault rifles, per the ATF's definition, are already illegal to manufacture for civilian sale.)

However, I think your argument has convinced me, it's time to close this thread. AHSA is an anti-gun group who will not change their mind about this matter, ever. The best way to get them to change their mind would be to threaten to drop your membership and donate the money to an actual pro-gun organization if they don't chagne their mind. (I bet you they still won't.)

They're very, very concerned," Rosenthal says. "Our policies are so reasonable to the average gun owner, that they're threatened; until now, it's been a one-sided debate. The NRA is the terrorist's best friend. They're the criminal's best friend. They're the total enemy to common sense and safe parenting, frankly--yet they control Congress."

The NRA is not a friend to terrorists or an enemy to good parenting. They teach proper gun safety(good parenting) and want people to be able to own guns(bad for terrorists). They are perhaps the criminal's worst foe after law enforcement, because the NRA arms their victims. The AHSA's policies are not reasonable at all, they want to ban something because it could be dangerous in theory. I believe RPCVYemen would be just fine with them banning (firearm type here) so long as more gun owners vote for gun-grabbing liberals, like he does.

If the prison systems release drug dealers after a year's probation and then prevent people from defending themselves, you can thank AHSA!

 

[hso]

Ok, this thing has whipsawed back and forth enough AND there's a course of action that can be followed for anyone that wants to try to change AHSA's policies. No point in keeping it open.