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

[Bartholomew Roberts]

http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/07/03/...pro-gun-group/

Yet another example of a 4 member astroturf group pretending to support gun ownership while advocating against concealed carry, supporting background checks and gun bans and generally trying to work a split between different groups of shooters. Just thought I would get the word out there as they are trying to sell a little more subtly - they use the traditional bitch about the NRA approach and are out of Austin, TX. They are also real vague about the policies they do support on their website. However, our friend Bitter has done the research to show how their self-appointed CEO supports Obama, background checks, MAIG, and congratulated Connecticut on their new gun laws. He even had the foresight to capture screenshots of these items.

Apparently, they had a ton of press releases/friendly press stories announcing them this July 4 as an "alternative to the NRA." So let's spread the word about this organization.

Also see this AR15.com thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/150...4579#i41374579

[Machineguntony]

In all fairness, the NRA is a fake gun rights group, too.

The NRA is really just a front group/lobby for the firearms manufacturing industry. The NRA historically and legislatively has more than been willing to give up second amendment rights of the consumer for the sake of the firearms manufacturing industry.

Here's an article that kind of sums it up.

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/3...nra-seriously/

And while we're on this topic, let's not forget Bill Ruger, who sold us all out. I refuse to buy Ruger.

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html

[wayneinFL]

You're citing an article from Cracked, which cites VPC? That's not exactly an unbiased source. According to one of the VPC "facts", firearms manufacturers gave $38 million to the NRA from 2005 to whenever the study was done.

Sounds like a lot of money. It is a lot of money. But if the NRA has 4 millions members paying $30 a year, that's $120 million just in dues, EACH YEAR. $38 million is a lot of money, but individuals probably contributed half a billion over that same time frame.

[Tom Servo]

The subject at hand is ARPA, not the NRA or Bill Ruger.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Actually, the argument Machineguntony tried to suggest is the EXACT same argument that this group is trying to make - along with trying to argue that the NRA is "too partisan."

Which is an interesting argument to make considering that R&P wants to advance universal background checks while the NRA opposed them. However, the reason I called R&P a "fake" gun rights group is because it hasn't actually done anything to protect or advance gun rights. Right out of the gate, it is supporting horrendous laws in Connecticut, expanded licensing of gun owners, mandatory training, universal background checks, MAIG, the White House, etc.

For a "gun rights" organization, it can't seem to find anything that it considers beyond legislation or the discretionary power of the state.

[Skans]

I just tried to find out any information about this group. I couldn't find any. Do they have a legitimate website?

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

I wouldn't doubt that ARPA has a few from the Obama administration and the BATFE behind the scenes actually pushing it along, and using the guy with the money as a front. Then, they'll use their supposed membership to try to counter what the NRA-ILA and SAF do in the news. We've already seen this in some of the supposed "scientific" polls quoted by them that were done by contacting "selected people", and not the entirety of the US populace, along with trying to use Bloomberg's few mayors, and other lopsided numbers like the ridiculous 90% figure, that was proven to be bogus, and not really related to the agenda at hand. Fear tactics and downright lies are what the gun-grabbers will continue to use, since they've already been found guilty of it beforehand.

[g.willikers]

That's an old technique.
Setting up a fake opposition to lull people into thinking someone is doing the heavy lifting for the cause.
When it's actually a diversion.
Good thing they are so obvious.
Wonder, though, how many gun owners have fallen for this and other groups like them.
Wonder, also, who exactly is sponsoring them.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I just tried to find out any information about this group. I couldn't find any. Do they have a legitimate website?

They do (http://amriflepistol.com/). The website appears relatively recent and thrown together; but they have been running a Facebook page since March 25 (http://www.facebook.com/TheAmericanRifleAssociation).

Interesting note, I accidentally made my first visit to the page logged in to my Facebook account and received a ton of pro-RKBA videos and arguments from their main page. I would have never guessed the Chairman of that group was a big gun control supporter if I had not read the individual comments. Not one word about supporting background checks - in fact, they had videos arguing against them.

I then logged out, cleared my cookies and revisited the page to make sure there wasn't a unique identifier in the link that was generated and surprisingly, whole new selection of articles to read that were decidedly more ambiguous. Plus a lot of complaining and attacks on the "Firearms Policy Coalition" group.

Maybe some of the techies can explain why the difference in the two pages and whether that is random or the use of some marketing tool to try and direct a particular message based on other websites visited, etc.?

[SIGSHR]

On a par with "Gun Guys", "American Rifle Association", etc. The Commies would set up front organizations with reasonable-and non-Communist/Socialist sounding names to advocate more "reasonably" worded goals.

[Skans]

I visited their website. Poorly done. Doesn't say anything. I can't imagine any gun owner being interested in anything they are about. First of all, their website has absolutely noting on it about pistols, rifles, shotguns, competitions, training, etc. Second, it's a bunch of gobbly gook about nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I think the group needs to be attacked as not being legitimate because they have no membership. The reason I say "attacked" is because they purport to represent a significant number of gun owners who want more gun laws. This isn't true, and the only thing that is really relevant is how many gun-owning members does it have. I'd speculate that they have none, except for (maybe) the founders. They can falsely claim that the NRA represents manufacturers. But the one think I know for sure is that NRA has millions of gun owning members. That would be about 1,000,000 more than this bogus gun group.

[Tom Servo]

On a par with "Gun Guys", "American Rifle Association", etc.

Yep. In case anyone's late to the party, these false-flag operations are nothing new. They've been going on since the 1990's.

At one point, we had Hunters for Gun Control. The idea was that nobody needed "assault weapons" to hunt deer, and that "normal" gun owners wanted a ban.

Hunters for Gun Control was folded into the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), which is staffed and run by Joyce foundation plants. In fact, they share a building with the Democrat Leadership Council and a PR firm known as DCS. DCS was originally run by John Rosenthal, founder of Stop Handgun Violence. Founder Ray Schoenke employs lawyers from the Brady Campaign. They're still hobbling along on a shoestring budget.

Somewhat recently, there was a group called the Independent Firearms Owners Association, which is run by Richard Feldman, a former NRA staffer who wrote a supposed "insider tell-all" book called Ricochet.

I've gotten pretty good at spotting them by the timing and rhetoric, and with the resources available online now, it's somewhat difficult for them to hide their sources of income.

[BarryLee]

I’m not sure why some gun owners have such a difficult time simply accepting the NRA as the best thing we have going. Yes, I know they engage in some hyperbole sometimes, but really what advocacy group doesn’t.

[ljnowell]

Originally Posted by machineguntony

n all fairness, the NRA is a fake gun rights group, too.

The NRA is really just a front group/lobby for the firearms manufacturing industry. The NRA historically and legislatively has more than been willing to give up second amendment rights of the consumer for the sake of the firearms manufacturing industry.

Here's an article that kind of sums it up.

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/3...nra-seriously/

And while we're on this topic, let's not forget Bill Ruger, who sold us all out. I refuse to buy Ruger.

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html
Machineguntony is offline Report Post

Absolute BullCrap! The NRA is not a lobby group for the firearms industry. If you knew anything about the firearm industry you would know that the NSSF is the lobbyist group for firearms and related industry. The NRA lobbies on behalf of its millions of gun owning members. Citing anti-gun links doesnt provide you with credibility either.

Bill Ruger? THE MAN IS DEAD! Ruger makes AR15s, tactical weapons and is on the leading edge of civilian CCW and personal protection firearms including "high capacity" firearms. Punishing ruger for the actions of a dead man is downright foolish. Continuing to repeat it makes a person look, well, you can figure that out.

[stevelyn]

More correctly it's a false flag group like the American Hunters and Shooters back in 2008.

Sorry Tom, I posted before reading through the thread.

[Mike Irwin]

I will reiterate what Tom said earlier:

"The subject at hand is ARPA, not the NRA or Bill Ruger."

Any subsequent posts debating NRA's status, or Bill Ruger's or anything other than ARPA will be deleted and possible sanctions meted out.

Clear?

[MLeake]

Mike and Tom, part of the OP was about this group offering itself as an alternative to the NRA, and making false claims about the NRA.

Clarifying the NRA position and tactics is absolutely on topic, unless you plan to hamstring debate of the OP.

I agree with you both about Bill Ruger.

[Mike Irwin]

I will again reiterate what both Tom and I said - this discussion is about ARPA.

Discussion diverging from that will not take place.

[g.willikers]

What would happen if thousands of us deluged their web site with comments and opinions contrary to their agenda.
Might cause anyone who is thinking of supporting them to see some light and think again.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

From what I've seen, they don't actually have a whole lot of people visiting their online presence - and I'd say 80% or more of those who are visiting are calling them out.

If it is typical of previous astroturf groups, it is basically a few people, probably less than are reading this forum right now, and their mind is pretty well made up on guns.

[Tom Servo]

I ran a check President Robert Gelinas, one of their spokesmen. In the late 1990's, he donated extensively to Joe Hoeffel's campaign. If you don't remember him, he was a Pennsylvania Representative who was very anti-NRA and anti-gun. He was very vocal about it, and he earned an F rating from the NRA.

He's also donated $500 to Bob Casey for Senate Inc. in 2012. Senator Casey jumped the fence after Newtown and started pushing for gun control. He was one of the ones spouting the guilt-and-shame rhetoric after the vote failed on S. 649.

He also donated $500 to Obama for America and another $500 to the Obama Victory Fund. Neither of those donations can really be said to help the 2nd Amendment either.

Sebastian at the PA Gun Blog did some digging into the causes Chairman Peter Vogt supports, and it's a who's-who of the new gun-control movement.

There's got to be a connection to AHSA. I just can't find it.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Yep. In case anyone's late to the party, these false-flag operations are nothing new. They've been going on since the 1990's.

Sad but true. Honesty and honor have no meaning to some of these groups who are blinded by ambitions to impose their thinking on people.

I see how they would like someone like me to appear paranoid and dangerous to someone who is on the fence or barely on this side of gun control.

[Webleymkv]

A good litmus test that I've found for new and/or lesser known 2A organizations is their attitude towards older and/or larger 2A organizations. When a group is openly critical of other organizations, usually the NRA since they are the largest, oldest, and most well-known, I become very skeptical. This is because, in my experience, groups which are openly critical of other 2A organizations are usually, at best, trying to siphon members away for their money or, at worst, false flags like AHSA or ARPA.

[Tom Servo]

One pattern I'm noticing with ARPA (and AHSA) is that they're getting smarter about social media and craftier about hiding their tracks.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Just happened to run across this today....
http://oldnfo.org/2013/07/04/another...nization-arpa/
and I thought to myself that the statement "SANE" is a huge hole of what the term sane means in which to flush my rights down if they get the chance to hook up the toilet!

So obvious what they mean by the term "Sane" . I remember when ASHA Started sending me emails after visiting a firearm vendor online.

That vendor discovered what they were doing and had all advertising and links removed from their site in no time flat.

Because they did the right thing quickly, I won't name them.
Anyone remember getting those?