The American Rifle and Pistol Association wants to be a nonpartisan alternative to the NRA, but critics are calling it a Democratic gun control group.
Posted on 07/12/2013 12:42:36 PM PDT by neverdem
The American Rifle and Pistol Association wants to be a nonpartisan alternative to the NRA, but critics are calling it a Democratic gun control group.
When the American Rifle and Pistol Association launched July 4, it hoped to attract gun owners across the political spectrum who were looking for a "sane" alternative to the NRA. So far, that effort doesn't appear to be going well.
[READ: New Gun Group Aims to Be Nonpartisan Alternative to the NRA]
On various gun forums and blogs, the reception has been anything but friendly. Instead of being depicted as the new and improved NRA, the group has been described alternately as a "false flag group," "astroturf phonies" and "frauds."
"Here we are again, not so far away from important 2014 elections, and we have another fraudulent pro-gun group for the people," wrote the gun blog Gunalizer. "If you disagree with us, fine. Stand up and be heard. But don't put on a mask and lie about your true intentions," wrote the site Ammoland.
To these gun owners, the American Rifle and Pistol Association (R+P) is a sheep in wolf's clothing, or more specifically, a Democratic gun control group parading as a right-wing and pro-gun organization.
R+P president Robert Gelinas laughs off that characterization. "I guess there's a few Democrats among us," he says. "But the whole idea behind this organization was to actually have a debate... The whole notion of firearms debate isn't a debate, though. The minute anyone tries to voice any ideas about public safety, it immediately gets shut down and they say: 'You guys are communist' and 'Go to Hell' and the whole nine yards."
[STUDY: Using Guns For Self Defense Leads to Fewer Injuries]
R+P has made public safety related to gun ownership one of its top priorities. The group plans to spend members' money in part on "helping to identify and get treatment for the mentally ill to prevent firearms abuse."
The Pennsylvania Gun blog asked in response: "So are they a mental health organization with professionals on staff to identify mentally ill people?"
Gun owners also thought they found their smoking gun in the group when they dug up months-old social media posts by the group's chairman, Peter Vogt, an IT business executive, in which he expressed support of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and other gun control campaigns.
Gelinas said Vogt, who didn't return a call to Whispers, supported Mayors Against Illegal Guns at first but no longer backs the group – comparing it to several mayors who joined the group but later dropped out when they felt it veered away from its original mission.
Vogt, until recently, also lived in Newtown, Conn., the site of the deadly mass school shooting in December that launched a national gun debate. Gelinas says Vogt knew a family there that lost a child. That experience has helped shape the group's attempt at a more "sane" approach to gun ownership, Gelinas says.
But that adjective hasn't sat well with some of the gun community, either. "Who determines what is or is not sane? Since when do we need to demonstrate anything to exercise a right?" wrote Ammoland.
In response, R+P added an FAQ section on its website that poses the question: "Is SANE gun ownership a euphemism for promoting more gun control?" and answers: "Absolutely not." What "sane" means, R+P writes, is learning to be a safer shooter and better marksman.
Gelinas also insists that while much of the response online appears negative, the group is getting lots of positive feedback. And he says R+P plans to keep doing what it's doing. "If it works, then the proof is in the pudding," he says. "We don't have a dog in this fight."
These things pop up all the time. Pro-gun names, no members and a board of directors all from the Brady Campaign. It’s way beyond pathetic that they need whole false organizations to force their fascist ideologies down the throats of theoretically free people.
There are a lot of communists out there these days trying to pass themselves off as gun owners, conservatives, Republicans, etc. They must think conservatives are morons who will believe anything you tell them. They’ve got us confused with the morons who support them.
“Can I get me a huntin’ license?”
Any list you get your name on is a door to letting them on you might have guns.
Any ‘gun organization’ which stays talking about ‘public safety’ is just a sham to excuse more gun control. Anyone who wants to discuss taking away my rights can go play in traffic.
Is that how people talk at their million dollar Nantucket mansion BBQ's....Can I git me a pair of Red shorts here?
Subversive. These idiots are just showing that they cannot win the argument of gun control on a fair playing field. So, they chose the dishonest route.
A “sane” alternative to the NRA? Sounds pro gun control to me.
A “non-partisan” gun organization?
That’s like “dry water” - it’s an oxymoron.
With like half a dozen major fake anti-Catholic “Catholic” organizations out there, I’m surprised they didn’t call themselves a “Catholic, Pro-Gun Organization”. Or maybe a “Pro-Life, Catholic, Pro-Gun Organization”. Wait, I’ve got it!
A “TEA PARTY, Pro-Life, Catholic, Pro-Gun Organization”!
With no Tea Party, Pro-Life, Catholic, or Pro-Gun people in their organization.
Fully funded by George Soros and the Tides Foundation, with a grant from the Ford Foundation.
Its hard to be a nonpartisan gun association when one political party is overwhelmingly anti-gun.
The NRA by the way has no position on abortion, spending, affirmative action, military spending, etc. They just push for the 2A, so how is the NRA being partisan, other than standing by the 2A?
If they start confiscation and you fight, they'll know you have guns. If you don't fight, what does it matter that you have guns?
WTF? I hope to chit! My only problem is that the NRA isn't quite "partisan" enough.
If I belong to a gun group, pay dues and support their efforts legislatively, it better dam well be partisan.
That's the problem everywhere you look. This "non-partisan" nonsense is for the birds. If you're going to be non-partisan why bother having democrats and Republicans? Is the Brady gun-grabber group "non-partisan"
I'm not ashamed or embarrassed to believe what I believe and to voice that belief.
Let the "libby weenies" non-partisan" their way around me.
What was the giveaway?
A ‘sane’ alternative to the NRA? They’re not crazy enough about liberty.
How could you say such a thing about a gun0U0ine Purple Heart earning war vet who seared his memory in Cambodia just to earn you the PRIVILEGE of bearing arms.
(Note that all your rights are privileges in the GOP unopposed Obamerika.)
I’ve never thought the NRA was partisan, other than partisan to, and about, the 2nd Amendment.
Let the NRA just be pro Second Amendment. They caught hell from the right by endorsing pro Second Amendment rats, but the rats didn't propose any gun grabbing from when they took over the Congress in January 2007 until December 2012 after they failed to retake the House in 2012.
Holder asked to renew the so called "assault weapons" ban in the spring of 2009. More than 60 rats in the House wrote Holder a letter telling him to pound sand. I posted a copy of that letter.
Being the “sane” alternative to the NRA implies that they think the NRA is insane. And “public safety” is a euphemism for gun control, plain and simple. Yes, they may be able to fool a few people into joining, but not many.
“Non-Partisan” almost always means “liberal”.
It’s always the word they use to describe themselves: be they outright Communists, environmental groups or people trying to raise taxes.
But any group that lobbies for change in government is “partisan” by definition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.