Fake "Gun Rights" Group Supports Gun Control - American Rifle & Pistol Assn

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Send me $5 and you can be a member of the American Rifle, Pistol & Shotgun Association. You heard about it here first. No web site, no magazine, no hat, no decal, no e-mails, no nothing. All for $5.

That is actually a better deal - JohnBT not only has 10 years of posts to tell you his views and experience. He actually can discuss firearms personally and has credentials.

This group is basically saying they have no connections with either the firearms industry or lobbying; but that they are going to teach you how to use your gun safely and tell you how to keep the "wrong" people from getting guns. If you buy a membership, you get special access to their "firearms safety" info (as compiled by IT, energy, and healthcare guys).

Their Chairman is now arguing that he didn't know MAIG was anti-gun, yet they want you to give them your money to represent you.

 

[JSH1]

I sent a message to them on their facebook page asking their stance on conceal carry, high cap magazines and assualt weapons. Not expecting a response, but I read over their webpage and could not find anything addressing these issues. Do you really want to support a organization that either:

A) Is againsr conceal carry, standard mag capacity, and sporting rifles
or
B) Doesn't have the guts to address these issues.

In this day and age you cannot start a "pro gun" organizatioin and act like these issues do not exist.

Smells fishy to me

I would be curious to see their response. This thread is the first I've heard of them and like I said, I'll look into them. Your issues are ones that are in the news lately and I would like to see their views. I'll tell you my views:

Concealed Carry: I don't carry and don't ever see myself doing so in the future. I may get my concealed carry permit though because it would make it easier to transport my guns to the range. In my state and county all it takes is $20. I don't have any problem with other people carrying. I would like to see a mandatory training requirement with a focus on firearm safety and actual range time.

Assault Rifle Ban: I'm not a fan and believe it is a waste of time to try to ban firearms based on cosmetic features. Such bans will not reduce the occurrence of mass shooting like Sandy Hook. If we really want to address the issue of mass shootings we would have to do something similar to what Australia did and ban and confiscate semi-auto firearms and weapons with interchangeable magazines. That will not happen in the US nor do I see it as beneficial considering the tiny fraction of total firearm related deaths that are related to mass shootings.

Magazine Restrictions: I see these as a more practical way to achieve the same goal as assault rifle bans. I see them as completely constitutionally valid. To achieve the goal all magazines would need to be effected with no grandfathering. All existing magazines would need to be replaced or modified to reduce capacity. While I have no problem with magazine restrictions, I also don't see them as being highly effective. Again it comes down to the very low number of total deaths that involve mass shootings.

Background Checks: If you have read any of my posts you know I am highly in favor of universal backgrounds checks. They should be required for every transfer and the records need to be kept. In my opinion this is the most effective option that is currently being discussed and has the best chance of reducing gun violence.

I'm a proudly liberal THR member, and even I can see these guys are a bunch of gun grabbing sheep in wolves clothing. No thanks. I'll keep my SCI membership and keep hoping Bloomberg gets a boil on his ass.

Who / What is SCI? I am looking for a credible moderate lobbying alternative to the NRA-ILA. I was happy to learn here on THR the NRA educational effort is separate from the NRA-ILA lobbying effort. I do recognize that the NRA does a lot for firearm training and ranges, it is their lobbying effort that I disagree with.

 

[TennJed]

I would be curious to see their response. This thread is the first I've heard of them and like I said, I'll look into them. Your issues are ones that are in the news lately and I would like to see their views. I'll tell you my views:

Concealed Carry: I don't carry and don't ever see myself doing so in the future. I may get my concealed carry permit though because it would make it easier to transport my guns to the range. In my state and county all it takes is $20. I don't have any problem with other people carrying. I would like to see a mandatory training requirement with a focus on firearm safety and actual range time.

Assault Rifle Ban: I'm not a fan and believe it is a waste of time to try to ban firearms based on cosmetic features. Such bans will not reduce the occurrence of mass shooting like Sandy Hook. If we really want to address the issue of mass shootings we would have to do something similar to what Australia did and ban and confiscate semi-auto firearms and weapons with interchangeable magazines. That will not happen in the US nor do I see it as beneficial considering the tiny fraction of total firearm related deaths that are related to mass shootings.

Magazine Restrictions: I see these as a more practical way to achieve the same goal as assault rifle bans. I see them as completely constitutionally valid. To achieve the goal all magazines would need to be effected with no grandfathering. All existing magazines would need to be replaced or modified to reduce capacity. While I have no problem with magazine restrictions, I also don't see them as being highly effective. Again it comes down to the very low number of total deaths that involve mass shootings.

Background Checks: If you have read any of my posts you know I am highly in favor of universal backgrounds checks. They should be required for every transfer and the records need to be kept. In my opinion this is the most effective option that is currently being discussed and has the best chance of reducing gun violence.


.

JSH1 it sounds like you are in favor of magazine limits, but you seem to be rational enough to understand that it will have very little effect on reducing crime. Sorry but I want 15 in the mag in case of multiple intruders, and a 30 rd rifle in case of a disaster and civil unrest.

With all due respect, taking away my options for protection to do something that will have little to no benefit to society is wrong on many levels.

As far as background checks go, where do you draw the line on mental illness? Are the millions of law abiding people that take prescription anti-depressants mentally stable enough to be protected by the constitution? Do you have enough faith in lawmakers to decide who should be able to protect themselves? Are you ok with the fallout from people that do not seek medical help for fear of losing rights?

A gun owner loses his or her spouse and has a hard time adjusting. A battered wife leaves abusive husband and is a little stressed out. should she get a firearm for protection or seek medical help? she may not be able to do both under your logic. They avoid seeking help because they fear the what could happen. Are you ok with being part of the reason they do not seek help? You ok with having that on you?

 

[jstein650]

JSH: "I don't carry and don't ever see myself doing so in the future..." So, we know where you are on that.
JSH1: "I would like to see a mandatory training requirement with a focus on firearm safety and actual range time..." The structure, scope, and cost of which will be at the whim of someone somewhere in the legislature? $100, $1000?, 'training' offered once a year, somewhere 500 miles from me?
As I've responded before, the devil is in the details. And the folks that write laws are more than well aware of that. This scenario has already played out in D.C. with regard to gun ownership; now that they've decided to actually recognize the 2nd amendment, well, check out what one has to do to actually acquire a gun!

JSH1:"If we really want to address the issue of mass shootings we would have to do something similar to what Australia did and ban and confiscate semi-auto firearms and weapons with interchangeable magazines... " Now I'm starting to laugh... Exactly what effect did that have in Australia?? Zero, in fact there's been an uptick in homicides since the ban. What effect did the 'assault weapons ban' have here? Yes, you guessed it, an INCREASE (slight as it was) in violent crime and homicides by firearm.

JSH1: " If you have read any of my posts you know I am highly in favor of universal backgrounds checks..." If you read and understood ANY of the opposing reasoning, you would understand and admit such a thing is impossible to enforce, would have NO effect on criminal activity, and would necessarily encroach on protected privacy.

 

[AlexanderA]

The gun issue is too polarized to be wasting time looking for "reasonable compromises." The antigunners have made it quite clear that their ultimate goal is complete confiscation. In theory, universal background checks might be reasonable -- but not in this climate. Politically, you can't give the antigunners an inch, because they will never be satisfied with that one inch.

In a compromise, both sides have to give up something (and both sides have to gain something). I don't see the antigunners being willing to give up anything. Let's see them open the NFA MG registry and allow nationwide CCW reciprocity, and then maybe we can talk. Until then, the NRA's "hard line" seems to be the best strategy.

(BTW, I don't consider so-called "assault weapon" bans and magazine bans to be at all reasonable. Those cross the existential red line for me.)

 

[jstein650]

AlexanderA: "Until then, the NRA's "hard line" seems to be the best strategy... "

To have a 'hard line', there must be a comparative. The admitted goal from the left, in the last 10 years or so at least, has been pretty naked, and pretty hardcore: the elimination of private firearm ownership. Period.

 

[JSH1]

JSH1 it sounds like you are in favor of magazine limits, but you seem to be rational enough to understand that it will have very little effect on reducing crime. Sorry but I want 15 in the mag in case of multiple intruders, and a 30 rd rifle in case of a disaster and civil unrest.

I would say I am neutral. Magazine limits are completely constitutional, that legal battle has already been fought and the limits stand. You are correct that I think they would be marginally effective and therefore I don't see much reason to pursue them.

As far as background checks go, where do you draw the line on mental illness? Are the millions of law abiding people that take prescription anti-depressants mentally stable enough to be protected by the constitution? Do you have enough faith in lawmakers to decide who should be able to protect themselves? Are you ok with the fallout from people that do not seek medical help for fear of losing rights?

I would say I draw the line where is stands on the 4473 form. "Have you been adjudicated to be mental defective." If you have been committed to a mental health facility you should not have access to firearms. Once released, that right should be returned to an individual after some reasonable period of time. That is also something I support for felons as well.

Exactly what effect did that have in Australia?? Zero, in fact there's been an uptick in homicides since the ban. What effect did the 'assault weapons ban' have here? Yes, you guessed it, an INCREASE (slight as it was) in violent crime and homicides by firearm.

Australia has not had a mass shooting since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. The gun restrictions passed as a direct result of that incident and have been successful in preventing other mass shootings. As I stated before, mass shootings are a tiny fraction of total gun violence. Violent crime does not happen in a vacuum and is effected my more variables than gun ownership. If you recall, I also stated that I am not in favor of such measure in the USA but simply stated that something similar would be necessary to prevent future mass shootings.

If you read and understood ANY of the opposing reasoning, you would understand and admit such a thing is impossible to enforce, would have NO effect on criminal activity, and would necessarily encroach on protected privacy.

I have read the opposing reasoning and respectfully disagree on the effectiveness of background checks. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

The admitted goal from the left, in the last 10 years or so at least, has been pretty naked, and pretty hardcore: the elimination of private firearm ownership. Period.

You can believe that if you like. I see no evidence of any widespread support for the elimination of private firearm ownership. Yes, there is a small minority on the left who would like to see that happen but they are about as large as the faction on the right that would like to see unrestricted access to machine guns. The majority and the battle is to define the middle ground.

 

[Thermactor]

JSH1,

You're not right. You're a plant. I see straight through your florid, effusive words - you are a part of the Bloomberg Schutzstaffel.

 

[Archaic]

SCI = Safari Club International

I could maybe think about rejoining the NRA if they would let Wayne ride off into the sunset. The scare tactics are only working on the converted, they need to smile more.

 

[General Geoff]

Yes, there is a small minority on the left who would like to see that happen but they are about as large as the faction on the right that would like to see unrestricted access to machine guns.

I disagree with your insinuation that unrestricted access to machine guns is as radical as a total ban on private ownership of firearms.

 

[JSH1]

JSH1,

You're not right. You're a plant. I see straight through your florid, effusive words - you are a part of the Bloomberg Schutzstaffel.

Dang it, you caught me. Here I though my mind control techniques would work on you. Good thing you remembered to wear your tinfoil hat.

Either that or I'm a gun owner that happens to disagree with you. Shocking I know.

SCI = Safari Club International

I could maybe think about rejoining the NRA if they would let Wayne ride off into the sunset. The scare tactics are only working on the converted, they need to smile more.

Thanks Archaic, I'll look into Safari Club International. I agree with you on the NRA tactics. Everything is a crisis and proof that evil forces are working to completely ban and confiscate all guns. At least that is the message that used to come in the special fundraising news letters. Send money or they will come and take your guns!!!! At least that has been the message since LaPierre has been in charge. It is also when I parted ways with the NRA.

 

[Thermactor]

I don't care what you say you are. I know that you're pursuing someone else's agenda. You don't have a truth-telling style.

 

[TennJed]

Dang it, you caught me. Here I though my mind control techniques would work on you. Good thing you remembered to wear your tinfoil hat.

Either that or I'm a gun owner that happens to disagree with you. Shocking I know..

Again, with all due respect are you surprised that your motives may be questioned? You just joined a few weeks ago and (as you even stated yourself) you have posted a lot of comments that are political and pro gun control in nature. When most people join forums like this it is usually to ask questions or maybe talk about their favorite firearm, not to promote political stances. Also you posted that you just recently bought your first handgun. Since handguns are used in the vast majority of gun crimes, you would think someone with little actual handgun knowledge would be more concerned with learning facts rather than pushing ideals. Why would a new member be very vocal for certain gun control laws? Why would someone new to handguns be so passionate about certain handgun laws?

I hope I do not offend and I only say this to offer a suggestion. Stay a while and talk about guns. Learn from the knowledgeable people here and enjoy yourself.

 

[Mitlov]

There are plenty of gun owners in America that would like representation from a group more moderate than the NRA-ILA. Not everyone fears background checks as a slippery slope to confiscation. I for one welcome a group that represents my beliefs. I may have to look into this group.

This is how I feel as well. I don't expect everyone here to agree with me, but I've looked through their policy stances on their webpage and I like their overall policy platform better than I like the NRA's. I particularly disagree with the NRA on the background check issue--it doesn't matter for hardened criminals with black-market connections, but it does matter for some. One example are people subject to restraining orders who aren't hardened criminals with black-market contacts (read: generally-law-abiding citizens in the midst of an ultra-nasty divorce). Another example are people adjudicated to be mentally ill who aren't hardened criminals with black-market contacts. Background checks would catch these people without impairing my ability to buy what I want. On the other hand, I like that they're hostile to hardware bans and negatively stereotyping firearms owners (as opposed to the left-wing anti-gun Bloomberg crowd). ARPA's stance better matches my stance on this than the NRA's stance.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The ACLU has always been very "hard line" defending freedom of expression, the NRA has always ben very "hard line" defending the RKBA. If someone broke intoyour house or threatenedyour family you would take a very "hard line".
Another "front" organization. I recall one called "Gun Guys",it seems to have vanished.

 

[Mitlov]

The ACLU has always been very "hard line" defending freedom of expression, the NRA has always ben very "hard line" defending the RKBA. If someone broke intoyour house or threatenedyour family you would take a very "hard line".
Another "front" organization. I recall one called "Gun Guys",it seems to have vanished.

On the other hand, I think someone can support the First Amendment without supporting the ACLU's extreme stance (which in their eyes includes the right of Neo-Nazis to harass Holocaust survivors and probably the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to harass people attending soldiers' funerals). I think you can support the Second Amendment without agreeing with the NRA's equally-extreme stance.

 

[SuperNaut]

On the other hand, I think someone can support the First Amendment without supporting the ACLU's extreme stance (which in their eyes includes the right of Neo-Nazis to harass Holocaust survivors and probably the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to harass people attending soldiers' funerals). I think you can support the Second Amendment without agreeing with the NRA's equally-extreme stance.

No. No more compromises.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Magazine Restrictions: I see these as a more practical way to achieve the same goal as assault rifle bans. I see them as completely constitutionally valid. To achieve the goal all magazines would need to be effected with no grandfathering. All existing magazines would need to be replaced or modified to reduce capacity. While I have no problem with magazine restrictions, I also don't see them as being highly effective. Again it comes down to the very low number of total deaths that involve mass shootings.

Background Checks: If you have read any of my posts you know I am highly in favor of universal backgrounds checks. They should be required for every transfer and the records need to be kept. In my opinion this is the most

I am looking for a credible moderate lobbying alternative to the NRA-ILA. .

No CREDIBLE RBKA lobbying group is going to endorse most of your ideas. I don't see much of what you posted as being moderate....more toward the liberal side....

 

[JSH1]

Again, with all due respect are you surprised that your motives may be questioned? You just joined a few weeks ago and (as you even stated yourself) you have posted a lot of comments that are political and pro gun control in nature. When most people join forums like this it is usually to ask questions or maybe talk about their favorite firearm, not to promote political stances. Also you posted that you just recently bought your first handgun. Since handguns are used in the vast majority of gun crimes, you would think someone with little actual handgun knowledge would be more concerned with learning facts rather than pushing ideals. Why would a new member be very vocal for certain gun control laws? Why would someone new to handguns be so passionate about certain handgun laws?

I hope I do not offend and I only say this to offer a suggestion. Stay a while and talk about guns. Learn from the knowledgeable people here and enjoy yourself.

Honestly, I don't doubt that some here might think that anyone that disagrees with them is a plant from some gun-control group. I also believe that the majority of people are adult enough to listen to people that may have a different opinion. The biggest period of growth in my life came when I started travelling internationally for my job and got out into the world and interacted with people from cultures and backgrounds different than my own. It was also when I realized that some things I had been taught and believed didn't match reality.

I joined THR to ask a question about a 410 bore shotgun I purchased. Once I was here I started looking around and noticed the Social Situation section and that section is pretty much exclusively dedicated to political discussion. I am active in politics and have an opinion just like anyone else. I also think it is a good idea for the two sides to interact with each other. It seems we like to compartmentalize ourselves today so that we only interact with people, listen to radio, watch TV, read internet blogs that agree with and reinforce our own opinion. I may lean towards the progressive side but despite popular opinion that doesn't mean that I hate America or want to confiscate all guns. Democrats own guns too.

Yes, I am new to handguns, but not to guns in general. I have been around guns and shot guns from an early age. I started participating in deer drives when I was 8 and started hunting at 12. I have also shot handguns though I didn't own one myself. I wouldn't consider myself very passionate about handgun laws. It's not like I'm calling for a ban on handguns or a ban on concealed carry. I do find it troubling that someone can go out a buy a gun, pay $20 for a concealed carry license and then carry that gun in public. I believe there is some middle ground available and a requiring little bit of training isn't an unreasonable requirement. I also agree with others that the devil is in the details.

I don't take offence to your comment. I am enjoying myself and learning every day.

 

[jstein650]

Mitlov: "..you can support the Second Amendment without agreeing with the NRA's equally-extreme stance."

Could you explain the 'extreme' part of the NRA's stance?

 

[Mitlov]

Could you explain the 'extreme' part of the NRA's stance?

We've already got laws making it illegal for felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill to purchase firearms. But laws that would have sellers verify that you're not one of those three categories? The NRA is fighting tooth and nail against them. Imagine arguing that it's permissible for the government to say "no alcohol to minors" but not permissible for alcohol sellers to card buyers. They're gutting any enforcement mechanism for laws that pretty much all of us agree are good ideas.

And to add insult to injury, they portray background checks (an effective enforcement mechanism for domestic violence offender and mental illness firearms laws we already have on the books) as part of a government conspiracy to build a registry of firearms owners and then confiscate all firearms. It's not a conspiracy. It's not part of a Communist/Fascist disarmament plan. It's just an enforcement mechanism for laws we already have. And it annoys the heck out of me when the NRA argues that it's part of some secret grand plan for civilian disarmament.

I think law-abiding citizens owning firearms is a good thing. I'm no Bloomberg fanboy. He's a grade-A tool. But I also support laws banning people with domestic violence histories or mental illness from owning guns, and I think that laws requiring you do a quick, cheap background check (mine took ten minutes and cost $10) when you buy a firearm are a necessary part of enforcing those laws.

 

[HOOfan_1]

We've already got laws making it illegal for felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill to purchase firearms. But laws that would have sellers verify that you're not one of those three categories? The NRA is fighting tooth and nail against them. Imagine arguing that it's permissible for the government to say "no alcohol to minors" but not permissible for alcohol sellers to card buyers.

That analogy is flawed. The NRA has said nothing about forbidding background checks. They simply have said private sellers should not be FORCED to do them.

Furthermore, there is no protection for the purchase of alcohol in the Constitution. There is no paperwork to be filled out in order to buy alcohol. There is not phone call or electronic communication required in order to buy alcohol.

They're gutting any enforcement mechanism for laws that pretty much all of us agree are good ideas.

NO...no they are not, they are simply fighting to keep it from applying to private sales which it has never applied to before. Obviously not all of us agree it is a good idea. I'd say the majority of people on this site are against universal background checks.

And to add insult to injury, they portray background checks (an effective enforcement mechanism for domestic violence offender and mental illness firearms laws we already have on the books) as part of a government conspiracy to build a registry of firearms owners and then confiscate all firearms. It's not a conspiracy. It's not part of a Communist/Fascist disarmament plan.

With what everyone now knows the NSA is doing....maybe they have a right to be a little pissed that all gun sales have some sort of electronic paper trail....

But I also support laws banning people with domestic violence histories or mental illness from owning guns

With our fly paper laws, there are certainly instances where this is not warranted

and I think that laws requiring you do a quick, cheap background check (mine took ten minutes and cost $10) when you buy a firearm are a necessary part of enforcing those laws.

It isn't always quick and easy. There have been plenty of threads posted in the last few months about delayed background checks.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I have a problem with fake groups...
astro turf...

as in you kick out the roll of astro turf and tell the media the NEXT DAY you are some sort of "grass roots" effort, this goes hand in hand with Bloomberg's "I'm a gun owner too" adds...

 

[Mitlov]

That analogy is flawed. The NRA has said nothing about forbidding background checks. They simply have said private sellers should not be FORCED to do them.

If they're not mandatory, they won't happen in many situations, which will allow people with mental illness or restraining orders (the classic examples of people who aren't allowed to have guns but don't have black market contacts) to obtain firearms.

Furthermore, there is no protection for the purchase of alcohol in the Constitution. There is no paperwork to be filled out in order to buy alcohol. There is not phone call or electronic communication required in order to buy alcohol.

How about this then: the Constitution protects our right to vote but I still support voter registration and an ID requirement at the time of voting in order to prevent voter fraud. These measures, in my opinion, don't infringe on your constitutional right to vote. Or how about showing ID to get on a plane even though you have a constitutional right to travel (Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823))? Once again, I don't see it as an improper restriction of constitutional rights.

It isn't always quick and easy. There have been plenty of threads posted in the last few months about delayed background checks.

I've sometimes had to wait to get a driver's license. The DMV isn't always quick. Yet a delay at the DMV doesn't make driver's licenses unconstitutional. It just is a pain in the butt that you get over with in a couple hours, or a couple days. You still get to drive. And if a background check is delayed, you still get the firearm you want. You just have to wait a little bit. It's not like a hardware ban that prevents you from getting what you want; it's just a little bump in the road on the way there. Mere temporary annoyance is not a constitutional infringement in my book.

I'm not asking you to agree. I realize this is a matter where firearms enthusiasts are not all going to agree and we'll both vote our conscience in electing congresspeople, etc. But I really think the position some are stating, where everyone who disagrees with even this one plank of the NRA platform is with Bloomberg or is anti-firearms or is a plant or mole on this site, has got to stop. You can disagree with the NRA on this one issue and still be a supporter of Second Amendment rights and a firearms enthusiast.

 

[TennJed]

Since someone else brought up alcohol I will ask this. If you are for background checks on all gun sales, why not for alcohol? Alcohol causes a LOT more deaths than guns. Alcohol cost society a lot more money. Most crime (including gun crime) and domestic violence involves alcohol.

Why do we allow felons and the mentally unstable to buy alcohol? If you are for background checks on guns you HAVE to be in favor if background checks on ALL alcohol purchases. Every single time you buy alcohol you go through a check. Every time..You also have to take safety courses and training on the dangers of alcohol abuse. Limits on the amount you can buy at one time. Limits on the "proof" and strength of what is sold. All alcohol must be locked up in homes. Zero alcohol consumption in public.

Now I am not for these measures, but I am also not for them on guns either. I know prohibition did not work and gun control will not work. My point is, if you are for these things with guns, you HAVE to be for them with alcohol. If it is really about saving lives you cant argue ond and not the other. Alcohol is by far and away more "dangerous" then guns. That is a statistical fact that cannot be argued. Alcohol really only has one benefit, recreation. Guns provide recreation, protection, and a means to eat.

I will assume everyone here that is in favor of background checks, will be even more passionate about trying to get the same measures passed for alcohol. After all it will save more lives.