AHSA Makes Their Stance Known
- Thread starter Phil DeGraves
- Start date
- Status
We already a thread about AHSA conspiracy theories, secret agendas, and fronts.
My feelings about AHSA conspiracy theories (and conspiracy theories about "secret" public agendas) are in that thread. I don't want to relive that fun.
But if you're correct, shouldn't the title of this thread be "AHSA Hides Their Stance"? They can't both have a secret agenda and make it known, right?
Mike
Simple solution, Yemen.
LINK US TO THEIR PUBLISHED STANCE.
If we're all crazy and paranoid, them show us how crazy and paranoid we are.
Provide a direct link to something AHSA is doing to SUPPORT gun ownership.
This, children, is called "Put up or shut up" time.
Can you say "Put up or shut up"?
LINK US TO THEIR PUBLISHED STANCE.
If we're all crazy and paranoid, them show us how crazy and paranoid we are.
Provide a direct link to something AHSA is doing to SUPPORT gun ownership.
This, children, is called "Put up or shut up" time.
Can you say "Put up or shut up"?
Dain Bramage
Member
This sentence jumped out at me on the AHSA site too. English is my second language, but it sure sounds like AHSA is saying that their policies can at times be inconsistent with those of a pro-gun hunting and shooting organization.
Could be one of those da Vinci Code conspiracies where the evildoers say what they're going to do in plain sight, but nobody, except Tom Hanks, notices?
mljdeckard
Member
Did Barrett make rifles that went to the Mujahiddeen in Afghanistan? I don't think he was in wide production until the Soviets pulled out.
RKBABob
Member
Whoa, you're right Dain Bramage. I didn't even notice that until you pointed it out.
I thought most people knew the url - folks seem to (claim to) know a lot about the AHSA, I though folks would know their website. Here is the AHSA web site:
http://www.huntersandshooters.org/
Here are their published policy positions. I strongly support 2, weakly support 2, and disagree with one. I will let you guess which one.
http://www.huntersandshooters.org/issues/gunrights
Mike
And you uncovered it! The AHSA is a tool of the Priory of Sion! To tell the truth, I sort of like that - I may make it my new sig.
Actually, if you go to the website and read the whole press release, it the antecendent of the "that" is Mr. Rosenthal's involvement with anti-gun orgs. It is expressed with strange corporate legalese ...
Mike
30 cal slob
Member
AHSA = Brady Campaign, re-labeled.
Dain Bramage
Member
RPC, I'm not seeing any policy statements at that second link, except for a vague acknowledgement of the 2nd Amendment.
So they agree with the overturn of the DC gun ban, but think all manner of restrictions can be put in place of it. It's vague, but the rkba looks more like the rka. You can only have a gun in your home or business, but nowhere else? And that is only if it's consistent with the "purposes" of the 1968 GCA. Does that mean sporting use only?
The second one, they want to reduce the protection of manufacturers of guns from litigation.
The third one, they want to remove the privacy protections (whatever they are) of law abiding people buying guns. Instead of keeping databases of criminals and terrorists and comparing a buyer to see if there is a match, they want a database of buyers in case they need the information later.
The fourth one they want to essentially outlaw private sales of guns. They quote some wistful remarks by dealers who want a monopoly on the ability to sell guns. I wouldn't much oppose a deal where a gun show had a desk where a private seller and buyer could go over and conduct a NICS check FOR FREE if that would shut up the crying about gunshow loopholes. But that's not what they're angling for. And how in the heck do they label this "support legal gun use?"
The regulation of 50 cal "sniper" rifles will go a long way to remedy the myriad problems we've been suffering from due to these. Same red tape as machine guns under '34 NFA. We have been having problems with them, haven't we? I'm sure there must have been something somewhere.
OK, Yemen, which of these do you disagree with? And which are you in favor of? I'm keeping my position on these gun control measures secret.
The second one, they want to reduce the protection of manufacturers of guns from litigation.
The third one, they want to remove the privacy protections (whatever they are) of law abiding people buying guns. Instead of keeping databases of criminals and terrorists and comparing a buyer to see if there is a match, they want a database of buyers in case they need the information later.
The fourth one they want to essentially outlaw private sales of guns. They quote some wistful remarks by dealers who want a monopoly on the ability to sell guns. I wouldn't much oppose a deal where a gun show had a desk where a private seller and buyer could go over and conduct a NICS check FOR FREE if that would shut up the crying about gunshow loopholes. But that's not what they're angling for. And how in the heck do they label this "support legal gun use?"
The regulation of 50 cal "sniper" rifles will go a long way to remedy the myriad problems we've been suffering from due to these. Same red tape as machine guns under '34 NFA. We have been having problems with them, haven't we? I'm sure there must have been something somewhere.
OK, Yemen, which of these do you disagree with? And which are you in favor of? I'm keeping my position on these gun control measures secret.
threehorse
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 17
AHSA is a leftist anti-gun organization designed to lure stupid and uninformed gun owners into thinking that AHSA is on their side.
Ray Schoenke, the "founding president" (according to Wikipedia) is a regular diarist at dailyKos.com.
Read the Wikipedia information about Ray Schoenke and AHSA.
Read the diaries that Ray Schoenke has posted at dKos.
These people are not on our side.
Ray Schoenke, the "founding president" (according to Wikipedia) is a regular diarist at dailyKos.com.
Read the Wikipedia information about Ray Schoenke and AHSA.
Read the diaries that Ray Schoenke has posted at dKos.
These people are not on our side.
On their policies:
I am strongly in favor of the following on:
- AHSA believes the Washington DC Firearms Control Regulations Act should be amended to allow law-abiding citizens the opportunity to acquire and possess handguns, rifles and shotguns in their homes or place of business consistent with the purposes of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
- AHSA believes manufacturers of lawful products should not be held responsible for the criminal acts of third parties unless it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the manufacturer, authorized distributor or dealer aided or participated in the unlawful act, or through negligence or other willful conduct, contributed to the unlawful act.
I support the following:
- AHSA believes the FBI should be given reasonable access to National Instant Check System (NICS) purchase records to insure terrorists and other prohibited individuals do not have access to firearms.
- AHSA supports requiring all transfers of firearms at gun shows to be subject to all federal, state and local laws and regulations currently applicable to federally licensed firearm dealers including the conducting of the instant background check on purchasers.
I am opposed to:
- AHSA believes the .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles should be regulated in the same manner as the federal government regulates machine guns under the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
I am opposed to the policy you describe.
- to essentially outlaw private sales of guns.
I almost agree with you on this:
I don't know that a NICS access has to be free - only because I hesitate to ask other taxpayers to bear the financial burden of verifying my private transaction. As long as the cost is truly the cost of running the check, i.e., it is not punitive in nature, and is relatively quick, I don't object.
Mike
rbernie
Contributing Member
I have never heard any cogent argument that explains how allowing the FBI to access NICS data will catch folk that are not prohibited from buying firearms but who are otherwise known terrorists. It further remains unclear to me how giving FBI access to this data will "insure [that]... other prohibited individuals do not have access to firearms". If they are prohibited, they're in the system as prohibited. If they're not in the system as prohibited - how can they be prohibited? The logic of this escapes me.
I do believe that allowing the FBI to access this data will result in the stockpiling of purchase data in direct conflict with the Brady Bill. The Delaware State Police recently proved this fear out, by being caught with more than five years worth of purchase data, in direct violation of the law, and using that data to adjudicate pending purchase requests.
Having the Federal Government retain firearm purchase data is one of the most dangerous increments towards firearm registration that can be imagined, and supporting any legislation that allows for that is anti-RKBA in the extreme.
Since all licensed dealers at gun shows are already required to perform background checks, this provision essentially increments our society to prohibiting any private transfer of firearms. Is that your intent? If so - why?
Last edited:
You have right to your belief, but you are objecting to what you claim the AHSA policy might lead to, not to the policy itself. The AHSA policy supports FBI access to existing NICS records. I don't object to that access.
I am also somewhat skeptical that any government information - once collected - ever goofs poof and disappears. I think the the notion that the informations is not currently being "stockpiled" is straight from Pollyanna. But that stockpiling is independent of any AHSA policy.
I do not think that it's fair to require dealers at gun show to perform NICS checks but a guy outside in the parking lot not to perform NICS checks. That places law abiding dealers at a competitive disadvantage. I am generally skeptical of government policies that disadvantage law abiding entities.
BTW, for anyone curious to hear both sides of the story about the AHSA, I was looking for articles of incorporation for the AHSA, and stumble across this article. It was pretty eye opening - the NRA-ILA wasn't exactly telling you the whole story:
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/american_hunters_and_shooters_association_responds_to_its_critics/C41/L41/
I don't understand why the NRA-ILA never tells the whole truth - it seems like they always prefer the dramatic incendiary half truth to the whole truth. Why? I don't get it. I guess they feel like half truths are more effective, but I find it a very annoying tactic. Why not tell us that Ray Schoenke was a major contributor to an NRA A+ rated Congressman - John Dingell. Why not tell us that Ray is involved with the Civilian Marksmanship Program? Would telling us the whole truth weaken their position somehow?
I looked up some of what that article says - just to do some quick verification. I have only had time to check out a couple of facts from that article, they appear to be substantially correct - and give a somewhat different impression than the NRA-ILA party line. I haven't had time to check anything else.
Ray Schoenke evidently was in fact appointed to the governing board of the Civilian Marksmanship Program by the Secretary of the Army.
I found and read Bob Ricker's actual statement. His statement seemed to focus on an internal argument about whether or not the shooting industry should try to police itself or not. From my read, it was a sworn statement of facts about what different organizations said and did in that policy dispute. I am not sure what he was supposed to do. Was he supposed to lie and say that people did not say things that they in fact said? Asking him to lie or requiring him to keep silent seems wrong to me.
Here's his statement - what facts are in dispute?
www.gunlawnews.org/images/ca4095_proceeding_3703.pdf
Mike
RPCVYemen, answer this to me truthfully. If Karl Rove co-founded an organization dedicated to protecting and preserving the 4th and 5th Amendments, and the BoD was comprised of die hard neo-conservatives, and then Karl Rove was published in the mainstream press directly attacking the 4th and 5th Amendments, even if the organization he co-founded weakly disavowed his comments, would you be the least bit suspicious of the group he founded? Especially if the majority of the money taken in by the group was donated by die hard neo-conservatives?
I'm not saying, by the way, that I think Karl Rove is anti 4th or 5th amendment, but I believe RPCVYEmen does, so I use that as an example. RPCVYemen seems to think that just because AHSA SAYS it supports gun rights that makes it so, and that they couldn't possibly have an ulterior motive in saying so, such as, oh I don't know, tricking a lot of people into believing their drivel and then quietly leading them down the primrose path.
RPCVYemen, we don't think that AHSA will have any effect on people who strongly believe in the RKBA. We think they are trying to pass themselves off as a gun organization so they can influence public opinion and marginalize the pro-RKBA community. If the press can point to a "pro-gun" organization that believes in "common sense" gun control they can report that the rest of us are just nuts! You are just a pawn who has fallen for the trick.
Again, to get to my example, if would be like Karl Rove and his little pro-4th and pro-5th organization saying "Hey, we fully support the 4th and the 5th, but the Patriot Act is a good idea, so all you ACLU types are just zealots." The press could pick this up, and those of us who don't follow these things all that closely then think, "oh, ok, I guess the ACLU are the nuts because we have this cool, well funded, pro-4th organization who has studied the issues and really believes the Patriot Act is ok. And their STATED policies totally support the 4th, so they must be legit. I think I'll send them some money."
Ever hear of the Trojan Horse?
Why don't you just admit that you really just hate the NRA and you are supporting AHSA as their "rival." If that's the case, join GOA instead. They hate the NRA almost as much as you, but at least they are TRULY pro-gun.
I'm not saying, by the way, that I think Karl Rove is anti 4th or 5th amendment, but I believe RPCVYEmen does, so I use that as an example. RPCVYemen seems to think that just because AHSA SAYS it supports gun rights that makes it so, and that they couldn't possibly have an ulterior motive in saying so, such as, oh I don't know, tricking a lot of people into believing their drivel and then quietly leading them down the primrose path.
RPCVYemen, we don't think that AHSA will have any effect on people who strongly believe in the RKBA. We think they are trying to pass themselves off as a gun organization so they can influence public opinion and marginalize the pro-RKBA community. If the press can point to a "pro-gun" organization that believes in "common sense" gun control they can report that the rest of us are just nuts! You are just a pawn who has fallen for the trick.
Again, to get to my example, if would be like Karl Rove and his little pro-4th and pro-5th organization saying "Hey, we fully support the 4th and the 5th, but the Patriot Act is a good idea, so all you ACLU types are just zealots." The press could pick this up, and those of us who don't follow these things all that closely then think, "oh, ok, I guess the ACLU are the nuts because we have this cool, well funded, pro-4th organization who has studied the issues and really believes the Patriot Act is ok. And their STATED policies totally support the 4th, so they must be legit. I think I'll send them some money."
Ever hear of the Trojan Horse?
Why don't you just admit that you really just hate the NRA and you are supporting AHSA as their "rival." If that's the case, join GOA instead. They hate the NRA almost as much as you, but at least they are TRULY pro-gun.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Both the private sale and dealer sale are law-abiding in the eyes of the Federales and in most free states. You are choosing deliberately perjorative words to paint the FTF deal as somehow tainted in the eyes of the law, when in fact that's the future state END RESULT you want and not the current situation.
Semantics aside - can you point to any demonstrable repeatable HARM that arises from FTF sales? No anecdotal "it'll keep people from selling Uzi's from the back of their Corrolla" stuff (since people that break the laws now will continue to do so even in the face of new laws), but something along the lines of "XXX percentage of firearms seized in Dramatic Nun Killings were bought via FTF transactions when the buyer was in fact a prohibited person".
I am not required to sell my car only through dealers (so they can verify the drivers license status, donchyaknow), even though the car is a far more dangerous weapon. Why would I impose such a measure on firearm owners? More to the point, if you cannot point to any statistiically documented harm - why do you feel the need to legislate things just to feel better?
If Dick Cheney founded and organization that whose stated policy was the preservation of the 4th Amendment rights of Americans citizens, I'd be surprised. If he was later thrown off the board because of his support for extensive use of National Security Letters, I would think that that organization would be taking a consistent position.
If the stated of the 4th Amendment organization was to protect 4th Amendment rights, and the only alternative organization dedicated to protect those rights gave boatloads of money to people who want to force all school children to recite the Apostle's Creed every morning, I would probably join the 4th Amendment organization which had been co-founded by Dick Cheney.
If the ACLU then told me that President of the 4th Amendment organization had supported the use of National Security Letters was a shill for 4th Amendment rights, and it turned out that he or she had in fact supported other 4th Amendment litigation, I'd be mad as heck at the ACLU.
Does that fully and completely answer your question?
Mike
rbernie
Contributing Member
The former, but not the latter. You completely failed to address the WHY of the issue.
My question was:
The Bush administration let the ban expire in 2004 even though the ban resulted in a dramatic 66% reduction in these weapons used in crime over the 10 year period.
Read that again. They just blasted their own theory. The ban kept those guns from being used in crime, but it made ZERO reduction whatsoever in the # of crimes committed. If it made an improvement, you can bet this line would read differently.
Read that again. They just blasted their own theory. The ban kept those guns from being used in crime, but it made ZERO reduction whatsoever in the # of crimes committed. If it made an improvement, you can bet this line would read differently.
- Status
Similar threads
