NRA: Protecting your right to protect yourself

TFred · Mar 27, 2012

ManInBlack said:
Why offer instructor certification? Most of the market for instructors is the result of unconstitutional requirements to get government-approved training to get a government permission slip to exercise the 2A.

I see this as part of the problem: the NRA has a vested interest in the "mother may I?" system.

There are plenty of businesses that offer training to citizens who desire to pay for it, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, offering certification to those who participate in an unconstitutional permit system is not something I want my 2A advocacy organization involved in.

Who said anything about permits?

As long as there are guns, there will be the need for instruction in how to safely operate them. A certification of curriculum (a "label", if you will) is needed to ensure that the curriculum is adequate, consistent, and rigorous enough so that when you have completed some particular course of instruction, everyone will know exactly what that means.

That is the point of my question. To the best of my knowledge, the NRA is the only organization who has developed a broad curriculum of gun related courses. If there is indeed nobody else doing that, it would take some effort, but it's not exactly rocket science either, to develop a competing curriculum. Why should the NRA have a monopoly? We have all seen what that means, the NRA is referenced throughout the Code of Virginia, and I would venture to guess many other states as well. This only reinforces their monopoly, and ensures that they will never be replaced as the "go to" organization for gun rights, in the perception of the general public.

A competing curriculum would be the first step. Having states recognize it as equal to the NRA's curriculum would be a HUGE step. Can you even imagine the lobbying effort the NRA would throw up against an effort to have a state legislature recognize another source for gun safety instruction?

Maybe you don't like the permit system, I don't really care. The fact is, that is where the NRA gains much of their credibility, through government endorsement of their "tried and true" curriculum. If you can't equal that with a competing curriculum, you would never get off the ground.

TFred

ManInBlack · Mar 27, 2012

TFred said:
Maybe you don't like the permit system, I don't really care. The fact is, that is where the NRA gains much of their credibility, through government endorsement of their "tried and true" curriculum. If you can't equal that with a competing curriculum, you would never get off the ground.

I disagree. Having a government endorsement gives it no credibility from people who understand the concepts of the constitutional role of government or individual rights protected by law. As for antis, they could care less and will blame "gun-crazy legislators."

The point is that firearm instruction is not the province of government, and it is not necessary for a successful advocacy organization. It is a good endeavor for private, for-profit businesses to get involved in, but as I said, most of the market would go away if constitutional carry were enacted everywhere, which should be our ultimate goal.

Why participate in the same permit system that you are trying to do away with? Seems like a conflict of interest, no?

TFred · Mar 27, 2012

ManInBlack said:
I disagree. Having a government endorsement gives it no credibility from people who understand the concepts of the constitutional role of government or individual rights protected by law. As for antis, they could care less and will blame "gun-crazy legislators."

The point is that firearm instruction is not the province of government, and it is not necessary for a successful advocacy organization. It is a good endeavor for private, for-profit businesses to get involved in, but as I said, most of the market would go away if constitutional carry were enacted everywhere, which should be our ultimate goal.

Why participate in the same permit system that you are trying to do away with? Seems like a conflict of interest, no?

The flaw in your thinking is that not enough of the general population that would be required for you to succeed think this way (the bold part in your quote). Sure, we do, but the general population, no.

The fact remains that the government has endorsed the NRA curriculum. If you aren't willing to equal that, you will never have a chance to equal them, much less replace them in that role.

If you can't understand the significance of that role, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I won't be investing in your new training company.

And I'm not inclined to start one myself either.

TFred

peter nap · Mar 27, 2012

TFred said:
Does anyone besides the NRA offer any instructor certification?

As much dissent as there is to the NRA, if they have no competitor in that area of the business, there would seem to be an opportunity.

TFred

That is an extremely GOOD idea TFred!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 27, 2012

TFred said:
As long as there are guns, there will be the need for instruction in how to safely operate them. ... TFred

Sure, as long as his premise is stipulated. I don't. The US went for a long time without gun control and without notable difficulties. That was at the heart of Bellesiles' lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America:_The_Origins_of_a_National_Gun_Culture

ManInBlack · Mar 27, 2012

TFred said:
If you can't understand the significance of that role, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I won't be investing in your new training company. And I'm not inclined to start one myself either.

TFred

There are many already in operation...in fact, some have advertised on this site...

TFred · Mar 27, 2012

ManInBlack said:
There are many already in operation...in fact, some have advertised on this site...

Solely without NRA affiliation? I'm not aware of them. I haven't looked until now.

TFred

ManInBlack · Mar 27, 2012

TFred said:
Solely without NRA affiliation? I'm not aware of them. I haven't looked until now.

TFred

Seriously?

http://www.frontsight.com/

Just to name one of the most well-known...

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 27, 2012

ManInBlack said:
Seriously? http://www.frontsight.com/ Just to name one of the most well-known...

Memberships not available. No courses less than $1000 listed. Please, don't give the gun controllers any more good ideas.

ManInBlack · Mar 27, 2012

Herr Heckler Koch said:
Memberships not available. No courses less than $1000 listed. Please, don't give the gun controllers any more good ideas.

Are you kidding me? It's a private business, offering top-notch training to private citizens who desire it at prices the market will bear.

Perhaps you'd prefer federally-mandated courses, designed by Obama and paid for with my tax dollars.

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 27, 2012

Herr Heckler Koch said:
Sure, as long as his premise is stipulated. I don't. The US went for a long time without gun control and without notable difficulties. That was at the heart of Bellesiles' lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America:_The_Origins_of_a_National_Gun_Culture

Only if the premise that any and all training as an infringement on the RKABA is stipulated. You have only pointed out the left and right extremes of the training-price distribution.

The culture and tradition in historical America is to teach safety in the home, at mother's knee. From the WAVE-left or the NRA-right, gun control is only control.

mk4 · Mar 27, 2012

ManInBlack said:
Are you kidding me? It's a private business, offering top-notch training to private citizens who desire it at prices the market will bear.

Perhaps you'd prefer federally-mandated courses, designed by Obama and paid for with my tax dollars.

how about none of the above.

this: ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
i don't see any language about any "mandated" courses.

if a private citizen desires to purchase training, fine, but the gu'mint needs to back off rather than mandate courses and decide which of them meet some arbitrary standard.

Marco · Mar 27, 2012

the gu'mint needs to back off rather than mandate courses

Does anyone besides the NRA offer any instructor certification?

As much dissent as there is to the NRA, if they have no competitor in that area of the business, there would seem to be an opportunity.

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/howto/certifications/instructor.cfm

mk4 said:
how about none of the above.

this: ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
i don't see any language about any "mandated" courses.

if a private citizen desires to purchase training, fine, but the gu'mint needs to back off rather than mandate courses and decide which of them meet some arbitrary standard.

1+

ManInBlack · Mar 27, 2012

mk4 said:
how about none of the above.

this: ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
i don't see any language about any "mandated" courses.

if a private citizen desires to purchase training, fine, but the gu'mint needs to back off rather than mandate courses and decide which of them meet some arbitrary standard.

I totally agree with this, which is why I argue that if our advocacy organizations are truly 2A, they won't participate in, or worse, profit from, the current unconstitutional permit regime.

TFred · Mar 27, 2012

ManInBlack said:
Seriously?

http://www.frontsight.com/

Just to name one of the most well-known...

And they make my point. Text from their home web page:

Front Sight firearms training is the highest standard in the industry
Front Sight's gun training surpasses the gun training levels found through the NRA, law enforcement and military communities.

Even though they are not affiliated with the NRA, the NRA is still the ruler against which they compare themselves.

That is the gist of my point. Until you can come up with another standard by which everyone measures gun training, the NRA will always rule the roost.

TFred

ManInBlack · Mar 27, 2012

Herr Heckler Koch said:
Only if the premise that any and all training as an infringement on the RKABA is stipulated. You have only pointed out the left and right extremes of the training-price distribution.

The culture and tradition in historical America is to teach safety in the home, at mother's knee. From the WAVE-left or the NRA-right, gun control is only control.

I don't think anyone is arguing that any training is an infringement of the RKBA...only that training mandated by the government as part of its so-called requirements to carry a weapon is an infringement. Groups which claim to be pro-2A shouldn't participate in unconstitutional infringements of the right they say they aim to protect.

By the way, if you think that the NRA represents the extreme right of the gun-control debate...Thomas Jefferson, and many, many others, would disagree.

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 27, 2012

TFred said:
And they make my point. Text from their home web page "Front Sight firearms training is the highest standard in the industry Front Sight's gun training surpasses the gun training levels found through the NRA, law enforcement and military communities.

Even though they are not affiliated with the NRA, the NRA is still the ruler against which they compare themselves.

That is the gist of my point. Until you can come up with another standard by which everyone measures gun training, the NRA will always rule the roost. TFred

Please, the whole sentence describing the measure includes private, LEA and military (presumably including such as SEAL) communities - SURPASSED. Hyperbole much?

ManInBlack · Mar 27, 2012

TFred said:
That is the gist of my point. Until you can come up with another standard by which everyone measures gun training, the NRA will always rule the roost.

TFred

And my point is that any advocacy group (different than a for-profit business) worth its salt won't want to compete for the position of most-favored provider of government-mandated training. The advocacy group will work to remove such mandates. Once that is done, the free market can provide training to those who want it.

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 27, 2012

ManInBlack said:
By the way, if you think that the NRA represents the extreme right of the gun-control debate...Thomas Jefferson, and many, many others, would disagree.

No, just the right wing of Angelo Codevilla's Ruling Class.

Please let Jefferson speak for himself. I am moderately familiar with his oeuvre and do not recall mention of the NRA.

Grapeshot · Mar 27, 2012

Originally Posted by ManInBlack

--snip--

There are plenty of businesses that offer training to citizens who desire to pay for it, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, offering certification to those who participate in an unconstitutional permit system is not something I want my 2A advocacy organization involved in.

How many of those businesses, or more correctly the instructors, are not associated with the NRA? I suspect most, maybe even all in VA, are NRA certified.

TFred said:
Who said anything about permits?

As long as there are guns, there will be the need for instruction in how to safely operate them. A certification of curriculum (a "label", if you will) is needed to ensure that the curriculum is adequate, consistent, and rigorous enough so that when you have completed some particular course of instruction, everyone will know exactly what that means.

That is the point of my question. To the best of my knowledge, the NRA is the only organization who has developed a broad curriculum of gun related courses. If there is indeed nobody else doing that, it would take some effort, but it's not exactly rocket science either, to develop a competing curriculum. Why should the NRA have a monopoly? We have all seen what that means, the NRA is referenced throughout the Code of Virginia, and I would venture to guess many other states as well. This only reinforces their monopoly, and ensures that they will never be replaced as the "go to" organization for gun rights, in the perception of the general public.

A competing curriculum would be the first step. Having states recognize it as equal to the NRA's curriculum would be a HUGE step. Can you even imagine the lobbying effort the NRA would throw up against an effort to have a state legislature recognize another source for gun safety instruction?

Maybe you don't like the permit system, I don't really care. The fact is, that is where the NRA gains much of their credibility, through government endorsement of their "tried and true" curriculum. If you can't equal that with a competing curriculum, you would never get off the ground.

TFred

There are other sources of trained instructors - both the military and Va. Dept. of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). The latter is a more expensive but more intense route to follow for certification and not available to non LE, DOC, or security guard.

The GA does already "recognize another source for gun safety instruction" - most notably the DGIF hunter safety course (free) and the military (DD214). Now do I think the military would cooperate by allowing their small arms instructors to actively teach the public - don't think so.

Should DCJS firearms instructor courses be made available to non-LEOs, perhaps a more limited course, then we have a built-in system in place. Of course that gives more control to the state, so is a two edged sword.

NRA: Protecting your right to protect yourself

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Legendary Warrior