Author Topic: Did I hear that right? (Read 9236 times)

JimP · « **Reply #20 on:** January 12, 2013, 02:50:13 PM »

Quote

That's why I wanted to make sure that I understood your position - testing would be REQUIRED before an individual could exercise their Second Amendment right.

He is with Ashford on this. Enough said.

"The the friend of my enemy is also my enemy."

JTH · « **Reply #21 on:** January 12, 2013, 02:55:10 PM »

Just to make sure that there is no miscommunication or accusations of people editing comments, here are screen caps of the discussion from 88 Tactical's public Facebook page as of 2:50pm on 01/12/13.

These are all from the same discussion, in order. It includes all posts without editing.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthhapkido/8373411043/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthhapkido/8373410997/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthhapkido/8373410947/#

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #22 on:** January 12, 2013, 03:20:00 PM »

Thanks, Thomas!

bullit · « **Reply #23 on:** January 12, 2013, 03:31:52 PM »

I've trained with Trevor and Signal 88 on a number of occasions. As a military brother-in-arms (GO NAVY..BEAT ARMY!!!) and someone who swore the same oath to Protect and Defend our Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, I respect his/their right to exercise the First Amendment without "training" no matter how ilLOGICal it may be.....

JimP · « **Reply #24 on:** January 12, 2013, 03:36:31 PM »

He is free to say whatever he wants ...... but words have consequenses.

I'll never spend a nickel with them and will recommend other gun owners do likewise.

Dan W · « **Reply #25 on:** January 12, 2013, 04:06:59 PM »

I made a decision in the past to make 88 Tactical an affiliate to NFOA at a time when they were offering use of their facilities for an NFOA meeting/range day.

I now regret that, and I am now rescinding that decision, and removing 88 Tactical from the NFOA affiliates list. I did this on my own, so if you are angry about that I can take the heat.

Their stated stance, that the Right to keep and bear arms and the fundamental human right to self defense require testing, relegates them to privileges.

I disagree vehemently, and I can not in good conscience be associated with 88 Tactical any further.

88 Tactical has never been a sponsor or advertiser on the NFOA websites

KGillen · « **Reply #26 on:** January 12, 2013, 04:33:22 PM »

Thank you Dan. Arbitrary decisions usually not well received, but this is clearly in our best interests. They aren't with us...therefore against us.

Phantom · « **Reply #27 on:** January 12, 2013, 04:41:56 PM »

Now I'm even more happy about not choosing them for the instruction that I'm about to take.

I wonder if their position on this would change any if said training could only be performed by a government certified and employed trainer?.

I'm not sure that this was a smart move on their part.
Seeing as they seem to aim a lot of their business at training and stuff for the prepper community.
Actions such as these have been known to put other business quickly out of business in the past.

XDHusker · « **Reply #28 on:** January 12, 2013, 04:53:03 PM »

Quote from: JimP on January 12, 2013, 03:36:31 PM

He is free to say whatever he wants ...... but words have consequenses.

I'll never spend a nickel with them and will recommend other gun owners do likewise.

Agree, it makes me seriously question doing business with them.

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #29 on:** January 12, 2013, 05:04:53 PM »

Quote from: KGillen on January 12, 2013, 04:33:22 PM

Arbitrary decisions usually not well received

I, for one, support Dan's decision.

Ghost · « **Reply #30 on:** January 12, 2013, 05:09:59 PM »

Quote from: Dan W on January 12, 2013, 04:06:59 PM

Their stated stance, that the Right to keep and bear arms and the fundamental human right to self defense require testing, relegates them to privileges.

Thank you Dan. They showed their colors, and you're showing ours. Good job!

Ghost

metaldoc · « **Reply #31 on:** January 12, 2013, 05:14:04 PM »

Quote from: Ghost of the Past on January 12, 2013, 05:09:59 PM

Thank you Dan. They showed their colors, and you're showing ours. Good job!

Ghost

Couldn't have said it better!

lneuke · « **Reply #32 on:** January 12, 2013, 07:01:05 PM »

I don't know the people at 88 Tactical, but I would not lump them all into the same company, even if you disagree with their "official" stance... I'm sure some of them dislike the notion of required training as much as the rest of us.

Husker_Fan · « **Reply #33 on:** January 12, 2013, 07:03:53 PM »

I'm really surprised they took that position. Shocked, frankly. I loved their carbine class and planed on taking their advanced pistol class. I'll be looking for another place to take the course.

unfy · « **Reply #34 on:** January 12, 2013, 08:48:11 PM »

First, I agree with Dan's decision.

And I totally disagree with the notion that a firearm should require training. Skipping the political & moral obvious 'who certifies the trainers' and 'training to vote... such as requiring ppl to pass the INS immigrant tests' being fundamentally flawed....

I don't have to have a training cert to buy a nail gun. Or a battery powered chain saw. Or a baseball bat. Or a golf club. Or a weed eater. Or a pocket knife. Or an air compressor. Or a propane tank. Or a hand axe. Or a bow. Or a bb gun. Or a plumber's torch. Or a staple gun. Or a signal flare gun. Or fireworks. Or a sling shot.

SS_N_NE · « **Reply #35 on:** January 12, 2013, 11:31:52 PM »

Interestingly enough, many moons ago, I had a permit for operation of a nail gun that was a state requrement.

Just completed a CCW course through 88 Tactical today. Guys seem to have their heads in the right place...but it is run very much as a training business...and harping training would be in their general interest...classic shift to the dark side of government good ol' boy money moving.

dcjulie · « **Reply #36 on:** January 13, 2013, 01:06:23 AM »

I fully support your decision Dan.

We have plenty of qualified instructors who are supporters of our rights and the NFOA, we don't need them or their attitudes.

OnTheFly · « **Reply #37 on:** January 13, 2013, 01:10:35 AM »

I support your decision Dan.

Fly

SBarry · « **Reply #38 on:** January 13, 2013, 02:02:11 AM »

Good job Dan, I've got your back on this one.

Now is the time to hit them hard, use all the resourses we have. Just because someone claims to support us, while profiting off us, doesn't mean we have to kiss their a$$!

sjwsti · « **Reply #39 on:** January 14, 2013, 09:32:48 AM »

Ive been waiting to see how this played out before replying. Frankly this post is rhetorical, I'm not interested in a back and forth, this will be one and done. This is for the benefit of those who haven't posted or new members wondering what the heck this is about.

I did not hear the radio program or see the televised debate. After speaking to other Instructors at 88 tactical it seems that those who were listening issued a simultaneous groan at how we were represented. And once the ball started rolling it seemed impossible to get ahead of it.

Lessons learned; (1) It was a terrible idea to have our attorney represent us to the media, his personal opinions didn't represent us as a group, or a company, at all. (2) Once the SHTF you might as well be attempting to reason with a pre menstrual teenage girl. Nothing, and I mean nothing you say will be met with anything less than irrational anger.

Trevor Thrasher expressed his personal opinion about required training on our Facebook page, a subject that has been discussed civilly on this forum in the past. He isn't the first or only supporter of the 2nd Amendment who believes that the phrase "well regulated" means well trained. Many believe that the Forefathers knew that an untrained Citizen with a gun was dangerous and ineffective, so they added a training mandate. Whether you agree or not, nothing he said deserved the response it received.

88 Tactical was called an "enemy" by at least one poster. We do have enemies, real ones. They are sitting in DC as I type this conspiring to remove guns from our culture. To apply that label to 88 Tactical, and for the forum moderators to allow it, is disturbing. It seems the NFOA leadership were a little too quick to turn on one of their own, and that makes me question if they are the right people to carry us forward politically.

One poster stated, more or less, that we are "all about training, and no wonder we would try to mandate it" We aren't lobbying for mandated training. But we are a training business, and unless we make money, we wont be in business much longer. Every 88 Tactical Instructor teaches, number one, because we love it. Number two, because we can make a little money doing something we love. Show me an Instructor on here that instructs for free......wait for it..........it just so happens 88 Tactical gives free training. Free 3.5hr basic handgun courses (yesterday we went 4 hours cause everyone was having so much fun) I would bet that 88 Tactical has given away more free training this year than all of the other Instructors on this forum have done for profit, combined.

We screwed up, nobody's perfect. But to use that mistake to imply that we, as a group, don't support gun rights, that we are enemies to gun owners and that we are only in business for a quick buck, is flat out wrong.

Previously when recommending the NFOA, I would describe it as an excellent forum to go to for general firearms advice, reasonable, sometimes spirited discussion and a great way to become politically active. I'm not so sure now. This was an ugly, knee jerk reaction, fully supported by the moderators. If this is the direction the NFOA is headed I can no longer, in good conscience, endorse it.

- Shawn