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

[Mitlov]

Mitlov: Are you really as foolish as you sound? There are hundreds of laws on the books already - and every one of your scenarios are already covered. Felons? Can't legally buy a gun. Mentally unstable? Can't legally buy a gun. Fully automatic rifle? What planet are you on? Been heavily restricted since the 1930's. Wifebeater? Domestic violence = can't legally buy a gun. Of course the law didn't keep him from beating his wife, did it?

I know there are already laws against felons possessing guns on the books. But if people are arguing that ANY restriction on gun ownership is unconstitutional, ANY at all, then the person must think that these laws are unconstitutional. Anyone here advocating for the repeal of the no-felons laws for firearms? Anyone? Unless you're advocating setting aside that law, you admit some degree of restriction is constitutional. Then it's just a matter of where you draw the line, and it should be self-evident that all firearms enthusiasts may not all draw the line in exactly the same place.

Are Mitlov and JSH1 the same people? Joined about the same time, about the same number of posts, subscribe to the same "rational, sensible," and ineffectual gun restrictions.

No, we're not *facepalm* If you're really going to take that tinfoil hat approach, google "Mitlov." It's an online handle I've used for at least a decade. You'll find accounts under that name on video game forums, martial arts forums, fencing forums, car forums, technology forums, and yes, other firearms forums (shotgunworld, for example).

 

[zxcvbob]

Anyone here advocating for the repeal of the no-felons laws for firearms? Anyone?

Since you asked, me. It wasn't a problem in 1967 or the almost 200 years before that. It's only a problem now because it was a manufactured problem.

 

[HOOfan_1]

"Constitutional" != "right"

not always....but I think you proved more that "Supreme Court != Right"

I've always disliked judicial review and the fact that 9 unelected judges have the final say of interpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court is hardly impartial and the members are so obviously partisan

 

[dark.zero.x]

So you literally believe in no restrictions whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms?

Yeah, I do.

 

[TennJed]

I know there are already laws against felons possessing guns on the books. But if people are arguing that ANY restriction on gun ownership is unconstitutional, ANY at all, then the person must think that these laws are unconstitutional. Anyone here advocating for the repeal of the no-felons laws for firearms? Anyone? Unless you're advocating setting aside that law, you admit some degree of restriction is constitutional. Then it's just a matter of where you draw the line, and it should be self-evident that all firearms enthusiasts may not all draw the line in exactly the same place..

Here is the thing. We have enough restrictions already. We need less not more. We need to be arguing how much less, not how much more. Simply put, you want to argue how much more we need, while most people who actually know the facts, want to argue how much less.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Here is the thing. We have enough restrictions already. We need less not more. We need to be arguing how much less, not how much more. Simply put, you want to argue how much more we need, while most people who actually know the facts, want to argue how much less.

We got people arguing that magazine restrictions are fine, universal background checks are fine, and the NRA is too radical because they don't want gun registration. :banghead:

Reminds me of Bill Clinton and Obama getting their photo ops with their shotguns. "see I have used guns too....but in the spirit of compromise, you need to give up your rights like a good subject"

 

[danez71]

They need to be pointed out, and their seemingly innocuous points brought into the light for all to see.

All day every day.... but in a way that doesn't cast a bad shadow on those that value their rights more than them.

 

[Trent]

So you literally believe in no restrictions whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms?

That's an easy one to answer.

[YOUTUBE]Li5EcyksD2I[/YOUTUBE]

Damn right I do.

 

[Agsalaska]

Some of the posting here just goes to show how far the antis reach is and how they like to pretend to be pro gun while preaching anti gun points. Which is the point of this thread of course.

Yep. I was wondering how far I would get before I got to a post like this. There are at least two of them here. Another outdoors web site I visit a lot has had them coming and going for the last couple of months. They are pretty easy to spot. On the other site they will hang around for about two weeks, post a couple of hundred times, then leave. Right after they disappear two more will show up and do the same thing. They take turns.

I am glad this thread was left up. I just hope everyone realizes what is going on.

 

[Ignition Override]

Trent: Among the many excellent responses which carefully put certain gun issues into the correct context, your post #112 is one of those which is superb.

Even though the Crips, or other human sewage in Memphis who shot a few Domino's delivery guys would never Want an obsolescent Lee-Enfield (bolt-action) rifle, the ATF would like to know whether I own several of them. Those drive-by shootings with M-1 Garands!

A gun database accessible by the ATF-in a technical/legal sense-could turn somebody into a felon, merely because a certain imported semi-auto rifle no longer has its bayonet. (often no way to trace it), or doesn't quite have enough US-made parts. If I'm mistaken, correct me.

What do any of these insane technicalities have to do with preventing crime? The criminals' guns are bought by straw buyers, bartered, stolen and often change hands a few times. Certain posters on this topic believe that Any extra control and vast databases (which can be in error, i.e. your credit rating data) is better than nothing. Look at the problems inside the VA, which needs to help huge numbers of our wounded veterans.

Many people want More Control which Won't limit crime, for the sake of "But we must do Something (even if the results help nothing)!"

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Mitlov and JSH1

I do not agree with absolutism on any side, but what you see here is the result of decades of dealing with anti gun lynch mobs and bigotry. PTSD of a sort.

On top of that, leftists (NOT classic liberals) really seem to be involved in deception and dirty politics so we are constantly on guard.

While I agree with background checks to keep felons and mental cases from possessing firearms I cannot fault the NRA for fighting against this latest version until I learn all the facts of the proposed bill.

I am surprised they turned it down as it included some items that appeared very favorable to firearms owners, but it is very common for a bill which might seem good to be attached to poison pills or contain poison pills in the form of amendments so they must be voted down until something more pure comes along. Again I do not have facts, but some items I've read make me think that this was the case with the latest background check bill.

 

[happygeek]

The NY Firefighter ambush blew away any false notions that background checks, assault weapons bans, or any other conciliatory rubbish would do ANY good at all.

If a convicted murderer who bashed his mother's skull in with a hammer can get out of prison in New York, the state with the strongest gun laws in the country; talk a nice girl in to buying a rifle for him (not an assault rifle, a "limited" capacity one); set fire to a house, and ambush first responders..

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if they'd have kept him in prison for life on 1st degree murder he wouldn't have been able to commit arson and murder again, regardless of gun laws.

So you literally believe in no restrictions whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms? None? That ANY restriction in ANY way on ANY person is morally akin to supporting slavery? Do you believe that repeat violent felons and active members of the Crips/Surenos/etc should be allowed to walk into your local Sportsman's Warehouse and walk out with a half-dozen handguns?

If they're a repeat violent felon they shouldn't be on the outside of a prison to begin with.

These hypothetical Crips/Surenos/etc ... have they been duly convicted in a court of law? I believe the ACLU would have something to say about you restricting their rights based solely on association.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

If they're a repeat violent felon they shouldn't be on the outside of a prison to begin with.

^ this

But I'll go another step. If they are a repeat violent felon why are they still breathing?

 

[Hacker15E]

Soooooooo, how about that American Rifle and Pistol Association....

 

[Carl N. Brown]

.... the ban on the ATF having a searchable database of 4473 information ....

When the NRA warned that the 4473 could be used to create a defacto national gun registry, that was dismissed as crazy conspiracy theory talk: the only purpose of the 4473 was to assure that "prohibited persons" could not buy guns and there would be a record to aid specific investigation of an individual person and gun with probable cause. The ban on ATF establishing a searchable database of 4473 was supposed to demonstrate that the NRA lied by claiming to its membership that the anti-gunners wanted the 4473 and background check systems to become a national gun registry.

"NRA blocked ATF turning 4473s into a searchable database" is like the talking point "NRA banned researching causes of gun violence" when the NRA supported banning use of federal funding for research done to lobby Congress in apriori support of prejudged policy, when there has been a lot of empirical academic research on causes of gun violence since the so-called "ban". The "gun violence as disease, guns as the virus, gun control as immunization" movement has been thwarted from research designed to promote an apriori assumption.

 

[Walkalong]

Mitlov posted

No, we're not *facepalm* If you're really going to take that tinfoil hat approach, google "Mitlov." It's an online handle I've used for at least a decade. You'll find accounts under that name on video game forums, martial arts forums, fencing forums, car forums, technology forums, and yes, other firearms forums (shotgunworld, for example).

It only means you have been selling this slush for a decade or so, nothing more. This approach is nothing new.

The hard liners on the gun rights side are merely tired of "compromising" with liars and cheats on the anti gun side who never come through on their end. We have plenty of gun laws, so many which are not enforced, that we do not need any more laws which only affect law abiding gun owners anyway.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And Carl Brown's point is yet one more example of the naivety in dealing with gun banners. Whatever you receive in today's "reasonable compromise on gun control" will immediately become tomorrow's dangerous gun violence loophole.

In 1968, the ability for private citizens to be able to get an FFL and follow the rules and have guns mailed direct to their door was in part a compromise for accepting the restrictions in the 1968 GCA. Then in 1992, these became "kitchen table gun dealers" who the ATF proceeded to run put of business. There were over 200,000 FFLs in 1994. The population has grown and guns are more popular than ever but today there are only 60,000 something FFLs (coincidentally, ATF complains that its budget hasn't grown fast enough to monitor 30% of the number it used to monitor).

The fact that previous laws ignored private sales is now the so-called "gun show loophole." Semi-automatic weapons - a concept from the 19th century - are now "assault rifles" and magazines that were designed prior to the invention of the airplane are now "high capacity magazines" that should be illegal. Any compromise you make with these people today only highlights what you'll be fighting about in the press tomorrow. If someone means to push you into the sea, compromising only gets your feet wetter.

 

[Trent]

If someone means to push you into the sea, compromising only gets your feet wetter.

Well said. VERY well said.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

For my 2 cents see posting 53.

 

[AlexanderA]

From the gun owners' point of view, there are two special cases in which "compromises" might make sense:

1. If there are real concessions from the other side -- such as opening the machine gun registry or mandating nationwide CCW reciprocity -- then something else might be given up as the price for making this kind of progress. But the pros and cons would have to be closely balanced.

2. If it looks like we're going to lose anyway, "compromise" might be a way to mitigate the damage. This would be a last-minute desperation ploy.

Neither one of these conditions applies today. The antis aren't willing to concede anything of substance, and we aren't close to losing. Hanging tough has proven to be a winning strategy for the pro-gun side.

The great advantage the pro-gun side is always going to have is intensity of commitment. After all, gun owners have a vested interest in keeping their guns. This debate is not an academic exercise for them. The antis have emotion (and even that is often lukewarm) ungrounded in facts and reality.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

If there are real concessions from the other side -- such as opening the machine gun registry or mandating nationwide CCW reciprocity -- then something else might be given up as the price for making this kind of progress. But the pros and cons would have to be closely balanced.

This is the exact problem that I have with a large majority of anti-gun folks. They seem to think that "compromise" means getting most of what they want instead of all of it.

Here's verbatim a conversation that I had not long ago with an anti-gun friend of mine.

Her: We should limit high-capacity magazines. No more than 10 rounds.

Me: So you mean that you want to take away the 15 round magazines that I have? (FTR I couldn't care any less about magazine capacity restrictions. Restrict capacity. Or don't. Whatever. It likely won't have any real negative effect on me. But it won't have any effect at all on gun crime, and when it doesn't there will be more calls for restrictions, as we all know.)

Her: We'll compromise and let you keep those.

Me: So the "compromise" that you offer is that I get to keep my own property?

Her: (starting to sound a bit confused) Um...yes.

Me: Do you realize that that makes no sense? I'm not getting in return anything that I don't already have.

Her: But you get to keep those magazines.

Me: I have them already. I can't "keep" them again. They are already mine. You're not offering me anything that I don't already have.

Her: (after long period of crickets chirping, ants weeing on cotton balls, and pins dropping, changes the subject)

 

[danez71]

And Carl Brown's point is yet one more example of the naivety in dealing with gun banners. Whatever you receive in today's "reasonable compromise on gun control" will immediately become tomorrow's dangerous gun violence loophole.

In 1968, the ability for private citizens to be able to get an FFL and follow the rules and have guns mailed direct to their door was in part a compromise for accepting the restrictions in the 1968 GCA. Then in 1992, these became "kitchen table gun dealers" who the ATF proceeded to run put of business. There were over 200,000 FFLs in 1994. The population has grown and guns are more popular than ever but today there are only 60,000 something FFLs (coincidentally, ATF complains that its budget hasn't grown fast enough to monitor 30% of the number it used to monitor).

The fact that previous laws ignored private sales is now the so-called "gun show loophole." Semi-automatic weapons - a concept from the 19th century - are now "assault rifles" and magazines that were designed prior to the invention of the airplane are now "high capacity magazines" that should be illegal. Any compromise you make with these people today only highlights what you'll be fighting about in the press tomorrow. If someone means to push you into the sea, compromising only gets your feet wetter.

This ^^^^


There are so many examples of this that it either proves:

1) That they cant/don't understand their own bills and therefor shouldn't be introducing those types of bills.

OR

2) That they never intended for their bill to be the end of their intention.


The fact that data from Govt sources don't support the gun banning politicians claims should be a real eye opener for everyone.


(For the record, I don't think the 2 posters are plants. I just think they are naïve enough to not recognize the above and believe that more laws will make people safer despite all of the evidence that proves otherwise including data from Govt sources.)

 

[Sniderman]

Six pages of very good discussion, Looks like "The American Rifle And Pistol Association"
has been fairly well outed.
Here's a good piece on them from The Truth About Guns .com

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...can-rifle-and-pistol-association/#more-240041

 

[Mitlov]

Yep. I was wondering how far I would get before I got to a post like this. There are at least two of them here. Another outdoors web site I visit a lot has had them coming and going for the last couple of months. They are pretty easy to spot. On the other site they will hang around for about two weeks, post a couple of hundred times, then leave. Right after they disappear two more will show up and do the same thing. They take turns.

I am glad this thread was left up. I just hope everyone realizes what is going on.

It only means you have been selling this slush for a decade or so, nothing more. This approach is nothing new.

*facepalm*

Your conspiracy theory is completely bogus. You can't deal with the fact that someone who likes guns disagrees with you and so you paint everyone who doesn't have complete agreement as a shill that's part of a secret underground movement to corrupt an internet forum, or maybe even just one of many logins of the same person. Get over yourselves.

I don't know anyone else in this thread. This is my only login at THR. And I had never even heard of the American Rifle + Pistol Association until this thread. If you can't deal with those facts and you're going to continue calling me a liar, then do one of two things:

(1) If you think you have evidence that I'm lying about who I am, report me to the moderation and see if they want to ban me. I guarantee I'm not the other person in this thread, but go ahead and try. They can check whatever moderators check when they think they have multiple logins from the same person, and I guarantee you that's not the case here.

(2) Do what I asked before and google "Mitlov". Ten years of internet usage of that name on various forums and almost none of it dealing with gun control. "Selling this slush for a decade"? Take off the tin foil hat and realize that I'm just an average joe who doesn't agree with you on this particular issue, not some sinister conspirator out to poison the internet. I've spent a lot more time in the past year arguing with people about the Windows 8 user interface than arguing about firearms or firearms legislation. Does that sound like a "gun control shill" to you? *facepalm*

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Frankly, I'd prefer to believe you were a shill. It would give me more respect for you because then at least you'd know what you believe in and be willing to fight for it. I admit your actual explanation is probably closer to the truth though. Which saddens me since it makes you just one more gun owner who doesn't have a clue and isn't going to a damn thing to protect his rights.