Confessions of a Former MAIG Supporter An Interview with Mr. Peter Vogt, Chairman of The American Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. (R+P) The following enhanced interrogation was conducted on July 3, 2013 with one Peter Vogt, who purports to be one of the co-founders and Chairman of the Board of Directors of R+P.

1. Confessions of a Former MAIG Supporter
An Interview withMr. Peter Vogt, Chairman of The American Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. (R+P)
The following enhanced interrogation was conducted on July 3, 2013 with one Peter Vogt, who purports
to be one of the co-founders and Chairman of the Board of Directors of R+P.
Q: All right, let’s get started here, Mr. Vogt—
PV: Please. Call me Peter.
Q: Okay, Peter… if that’s your real name.
PV: It is. It’s right here on my Long Form Birth Certificate.
Q: Ah, I see. Okay. Well then, tell me, Peter, how exactly did you get to be the Chairman of the Board
of Directors of this newly launched American Rifle and Pistol Association thingy?
PV: Pretty simple. A group of co-founders and I got together and decided to found a new national gun-
owners organization, and so we came up with a general concept plan of what it would be like. We then
had our lawyers fileall the appropriate incorporation paperwork in the state of Texas. We paid all the
required fees. Opened a business bank account.Registered and trademarked the name. Decided on
who was going to do which role and take on what responsibilities. Purchased the associated website
domains, and went to work bringing it all to life with a lot of information technology resources.
Q: You mean you weren’t elected to this position?
PV: Uh, no. That’s not how it works in business. For member-based non-profits,member-elected
leadership may be applicable, but we are a fully tax-paying privately ownedcorporation. Now, we have
a subsidiary non-profit organization that we also formed called The American Rifle and Pistol Association
Education Foundation, but we’re just in the process of seeking IRS approval on thatpiece of the
organizational structureand getting it off the ground. Our vision for it is that it will be funded by the
parent company, and it won’t be a member-based organization itself. Rather, its outreach mission will
be to assist in funding educational projects dealing with gun Safety, Advocacy, Networking and
Education – or what we refer to as SANE™ gun ownership. Nevertheless, all senior executive leadership
responsibilities in the parent organization are as determined by official motion and vote of the Board of
Directors.
Q: So tell me—and remember, you are under oath, sir—who really funds R+P, is it George Soros or The
Koch brothers?
PV: Neither. We’re self-funded by the organization’s founders, as a true bootstrap startup, and in time
will eventually be revenue-funded by our membership fees.
Q: So your members don’t get to vote on the top executives or board members?

2. PV: Of course not. No more than as a member of COSTCO or AAA you get to decide who their CEO
should be. Should we ever go public, then naturally, all shareholders would have a stake in such
matters. But we’re a long way away from that ever being a consideration.
Q: So do I understand you correctly in saying that you want people to actually believe that you are a
legitimate Texas-based company, and not some Astroturf, anti-gun lobbying group? And don’t try and
deny it. I read that in an online blog somewhere, so it must be true.
PV: Not even close. We are absolutely a legitimate, legal corporation, as can be easily verified with the
office of the Secretary of State of Texas. We’re not an Astroturf group either, which you might surmise
when you realize thatour focus isn’t politics and legislation. It’s social networking and education. Now
in the future, should the cumulative voice of our members carry sufficient weight to help shape public
policy, that will be great. But if that ever did happen, it would happen very publicly and not behind
closed doors, via our publicly published polls, surveys, trending topics, and open forum.
Q: Wait. Go back. So you’re saying that just anyone off the street can just haul off and start a brand
new company from scratch to do anything they want to?
PV: Believe it or not, that’s one of the best things about America. The land of opportunity. Start a
business, pursue a dream. Enjoy free speech, freedom of association, and lots more. You ought to give
it a try sometime. It used to be known as “Achieving the American Dream.”
Q: All right. But this organization that you’re calling R+P, according to you, it’s allegedly a pro-gun
organization. Is that correct, sir?
PV: Yes, it’s pro-gun.
Q: Ah, ha! Gotcha! Liar, liar, pants on fire! You lie, Mr. Vogt—
PV: Peter.
Q: Okay fine, Peter! But isn’t it true that you are secretly a member of the infamous anti-gun
organization called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, or MAIG, headed up by the chief anti-gun proponent in
the world, one Mayor Michael Bloomberg?
PV: I might have one or two secrets, but sorry, that’s not one of them. Actually, I was never a member,
but Iam most definitely against illegal guns though, is that a bad thing?
Q: What? But I’ve got a picture of you right here, a screenshot I scraped from your Facebook page that
proves you are one of those anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, gun-grabbing, anti-Americans!Ha!
PV: Wow. Take a breath. It’ll be okay. Better? Okay, good. Look, if you really want to know the
context of those posts, I happened to be back in Connecticut in a nearby town to Sandy Hook on that
horrible day. My family members happen to have an active business in Sandy Hook and were very close
to one of the children who lost her life on that day. I recognized then, as a citizen, and one who by-the-
way carries a firearm at all times, where legal, that more constructive dialog needs to occur, what I call
root cause analysis, this really needs to take place. I think everyone realizes we can do a better job
managing our firearms—society that is. Is this a bad position?Is this even debatable? Oh, and just for
the record, I am against illegal guns. There, I said it, the secret is out.

3. Q: You sound annoyed?
PV: Oh not at all. I don’t happen to belong to MAIG. My family knows the Governor of Connecticut,
Dan Malloy, and as I mentioned we were deeply saddened and directly affected by this event. I was
seeking to do whatever I could to comfort and support my dear friends in Connecticut. That’s pretty
much the extent of my involvement.
Q: But weren’t you aware at the time of what an anti-gun zealot Mayor Bloomberg is?
PV: This may surprise you, but not really. What I understood was that this was a group trying to get
illegal guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. By my understanding, opposing illegal
guns had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with legal gunsbeing in the hands of law-abiding gun
owners like myself. I have quite a collection, by the way. However, in recent months, much like Mayor
Larry Morrissey in Illinois and Mayor DonnaleeLozeau in New Hampshire, I’ve become much more aware
of what that organization has really come to stand for, which I can’t support any longer.
Q: So you’ve had a change of heart?
PV: Not against illegal guns. I still think they’re bad, and should be kept out of the hands of people that
shouldn’t have them.
Q: What about Moms Against Guns? Your Facebook page said you’ve supported them in the past as
well.
PV: Pretty much the same story. But just to be clear—I would lend my personal support to any
organization that can find constructive ways to legitimately help reduce gun violence and gun-related
personal tragedy. But, obviously, there are effective ways and also ineffective ways of doing that. And
when any group, like MAIG, starts only focusing on the ineffective ways, like with imposing onerous
restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, then they lose my support.Which they did.
Q: So you’re really going to sit there and try to convince me that neither MAIG nor MAG is funding you?
PV: Sorry, no. As I said, we’re self-funded.
Q: But R+P must secretly support them since clearly you guys are anti-NRA. You have to be one or the
other. Right?
PV: Wrong again. R+P doesn’t officially support or endorse any other group or organization. Nor are
we “anti” any other organization. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that we rather appreciate
much of what our friends at the National Rifle Association (NRA) do for us all at the national level. But
since their membership represents less than 10% of gun owners in America, we’re really trying to
primarily appeal to that other 90%. If there are NRA members who want to associate with us as well,
they’re welcome to. There’s no rule that says a person can’t belong to more than one organization.
Q: So an actual MAIG member could join R+P and would be welcomed? Or an R+P member could join
MAIG and they wouldn’t get kicked out of R+P?
PV: Exactly. Just like if a MAIG member sent in his $35 to the NRA, they’d happily take his money and
send him a hat and an ID card. There really isn’t a qualification test or a background check for

4. membership with any of these groups, not with the NRA, nor with R+P. Basically, any individual member
within R+P is free to associate with any other group they want to, that’s their right – and that right
includes me – but please note that any individual member’s other affiliations in no way reflects an
endorsement by the R+P organization as a whole.
Q: I don’t know, Peter. Being associated with any known anti-gun group, even a little bit, and even if
they started off with sincerely good intentions, is still heresy-bordering-on-treason in a lot of people’s
minds.
PV: I realize that. However, that’s exactly why I wanted to start The American Rifle and Pistol
Association in the first place. It was and is not intended to be yet another “me too” echo of every other
gun-rights organization out there. It is meant to be an online forum, a public square where true
deliberation and debate can take place in an atmosphere of civility and reason for people who care
about owning and using guns, regardless of whether they are for or against any aspect of doing so.
Q: With no name-calling, guilt-by-association, slanderous accusations, and unsubstantiated ad
hominem attacks?
PV: No.
Q: Well, where’s the fun in that?
PV: Excuse me?
Q: Oh, Peter, don’t be so naïve and such a Pollyanna. Without baseless accusations, malignant
cynicism, and malicious speculation, all garnished with a generous measure of cyber-bullying thrown in
from self-appointed all-wise bloggers camped out in their mothers’ basements typing away with
Cheetos-stained fingers, half of what’s posted on the Internet would disappear.
PV: Maybe so. But we don’t have to encourage it. As I said, R+P is all about building a member
community, actively participating in it to exchangefirearms-related knowledge and expertise, and
fostering an intelligent conversation about improving public safety among those we expect to act like
adults.
Q: On the Internet?!
PV: I hear ‘ya. But we can dare to dream, can’t we? Look, we’ve done the market research, and the
numbers don’t lie. There are an astounding number of gun owners who don’t belong to the NRA and are
not represented.
Q: That is true. But, you’re saying you would actually permit opposing viewpoints in the same place?
PV: Absolutely. In fact, let me tell you. My own fellow board members have given me grief about ever
having had anything to do with a group like MAIG. Although, even if I did still support them, at R+P my
voice is but one voice among many, not corporate policy, and it carries no more weight in the
conversation than any other R+P member’s voice.
Q: So you really are saying that anti-gun people are allowed to join R+P?

5. PV: Absolutely. As long as they can be civil. We encourage passionate debate, but civility is the
standard. Besides, a lot of anti-gun people have been observed to become pro-gun people after they
come to realize that other pro-gun people aren’t “nuts” or “Neanderthals” and are actually quite decent
people, and better yet, that safely owning and using a firearm can actually be a lot of fun.
Q: Sorry, you lost me. Hey, I went to college. And so I know firsthand that if you permit dissent, then
how in the world can you get all of your followers to believe exactly what you believe and slavishly walk
in lockstep with your ideology and political agenda?
PV: Well now, there’s the rub. You see, we don’t have followers. We have members, all of whom have
an equal voice to express their point of view, even if it differs from others.Even if it differs from mine.
Q: But that makes no sense. You said you’re pro-gun.
PV: Right.
Q: So how can you have anti-gun members in a pro-gunorganization? Isn’t that a contradiction?
PV: Perhaps your definitions of what “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” mean are a bit too narrow.
Q: What do you mean?
PV: I mean, that there simply aren’t that many Americans out there who are genuinely in favor of
absolute prohibition of all firearms and a full repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution,
creating a de facto police state. Plus, of those who mightactually be inclined, and feel that way to that
extreme, we’re not likely to attract many of them to join R+P, and nor would any of them probably want
to join us. That’s understood. Where the real disagreements tend to come into play is between those
who would like to see firearms heavily regulated and restricted versus those who do not believe any
restrictions whatsoever should ever apply to lawful ownership and use of guns. Clearly there’s a lot of
room for disagreementand debate between those views.
Q: So which side is R+P on?Lots of restrictions or no restrictions?
PV: Good question. That’s the beauty of it. R+P isn’t on either side of whether more or less regulations
and restrictions are a good thing or a bad thing. Any idea proposed about how to better protect each
citizen’s Second Amendment rights and liberties while at the same time improving public safety must
stand or fall on its own merits. There is no side to be on. There is only the issue of true effectiveness
versus ineffectiveness of a specific proposition. But no idea will ever see the light of day, even a really,
really good idea, if we don’t at first talk about it and thoughtfully consider it. Is that asking too much?
Q: Okay, fine. Theoretically, that all sounds good, but come on, Peter – R+P has to have some specific
positions on many of the hotly debated gun issues of the day.Right?
PV: As I already said, we all have our individual opinions that each of us is entitled to. Nevertheless, it’s
critical to understand that the official voice of R+P is the voice of its membership, not the voice of its
founders or executive leaders. Our function is to just keep the ship at sea and running smoothly; it’s the
passengers who are there to experience the journey.

6. Q: Seriously? So your group of founders/Board of Directors doesn’t represent a single right-wing or left
wing agenda?
PV: Nope. We’re all unique individuals. I freely admit, as a Connecticut Yankee and transplant to Texas,
I’m probably the most left-of-center one of us in the bunch. On the other hand, our President, Bob
Gelinas, is probably the most conservative of us. And I can assure you, while he and I have been good
friends for well over ten years, we don’t see eye-to-eye on every single issue – just as it should be.
Q: Wait, wait, wait! What do you mean by a “conservative”?
PV: I mean the guy’s authored multiple articles for The American Thinker!He’s a pure capitalist serial
entrepreneur. A published novelist.Grew up in Texas.Decorated military veteran.Texas CHL holder.
Actually listens to Rush Limbaugh daily. Need I say more?
Q: No, I get the picture.
PV: One of our other board members is a Tar Heel from North Carolina, an art major no less; another
one is the successful CEO of a Texas oil company, and the other one is a retired business executive from
the manufacturing sector. So, in reality, it’s a pretty diverse-minded and multi-opinionated group. And
that’s how we like it.
Q: So they all don’t obey your every command?
PV: Um, in a word, no. But you know what we all do have in common?
Q: Tell me?
PV: Timber and Kimber. We all have homes, and we all protect our homes with Kimber 1911s.
Q: Cute, but you didn’t answer my question?
PV: Look, where we all come from politically, ideologically, professionally, educationally, whatever –
we’re all fellow gun owners. That’s our common bond. And we all care about our own individual rights
and liberties to keep and bear arms. We also care very deeply about public safety in our communities
for our families, our neighbors, and our fellow citizens. We were all deeply moved by what we witnessed
in Newtown at the end of last year. And in light of that horror, R+P was the idea we came up with to try
and do something positive for the benefit of what we all care about. That’s it really. And we chose to
share it with anyone else who wanted to join us.
Q: And you think people will believe all that?
PV: They don’t have to if they don’t want to. Associating with R+P is 100% voluntary. No blood oaths.
No animal sacrifices. No tattoos. Although, we are talking about instituting a secret handshake. Those
are kind of fun. Bob, as the former CEO of an encryption software company, wanted secret decoder
rings for everyone, but he got voted down by the board.
Q: Well then, Peter. Based on what I’ve read on a few blogs out there about R+P, I think I may have
misjudged you guys.

7. PV: No harm done. We all knew that in stepping into any public arena, there will always be the
detractors, the naysayers, and the gadflies. If anyone ever truly libeled or slandered us, as an
organization or personally, we have the very best lawyers our honestly-gotten gains can buy on speed-
dial, who understand actionable situations, and can expeditiously do what they do best. Beyond that,
we each didn’t get as far as we did in business with a thin skin. We’d rather expose misinformation,
willful distortions, and infantile gutter “trash talk” with humility, grace and perhaps a touch of wit and
humor, and then let real people make up their own minds as to what they think of us, and if they wish to
be part of what we’re doing.
Q: Thank you, sir, for your time. And…uh…there’s no hard feelings about the whole anti-gun, anti-
Second Amendment, gun-grabbing, anti-Americans crack?
PV: No offense taken whatsoever. I’m a SANE™ gun owner. If I wasn’t… well…have a nice day.