Did I hear that right?

[FarmerRick]

Did you vote in the last state election?

Though I was referring to the US Constitution, I did vote for that amendment to the Nebraska Constitution.

However, I still have to get a permit from the NE government agency and pay a fee to hunt(other than p-dogs, coyotes, and other vermin... none of which put food on my table).  Kinda diminishes that "right" in my book.



I tried to get a clear-cut answer from 88Tactical on their statement about this "test" for gun ownership. It seems there will be no clear-cut answer.  Insulting the members of the NFOA seems rather unprofessional and unwarranted.  I have the feeling that they just don't see any impending legislation as a threat. After all, nobody's going to be banning or coming after any of their service weapons, now are they?

Everyone is free to have their own feelings on this subject and the NFOA organization can do what ever it wants to do.

  This is my last post on this topic.

[AAllen]

Mudinyeri with the post of this evening I agree with what you are saying.  We need to put this behind us and move forward, we are in a fight and we need to figure out how to stand together.

[Mudinyeri]

We'll, I had hoped to have a continuing discussion with you (and others), Rick.  It seems that won't be happening.  Unfortunately, that only serves to widen the gap between what, I believe, to be parties who are, in large part, in agreement about pending legislation and/or executive orders.

Walking  away from potentially enlightening discussions and knee jerk reactions amongst ourselves will lead to the loss of our rights just as quickly and surely as attempts by the gun grabbers to take them away overtly.

[JTH]

So, principle #1 doesn't answer the question?  It says every law abiding, able bodied citizen should be able to own a gun.  There's  nothing there about taking a class or passing a test. 

No.  But the wording of the second and third points uses the same "should" that the first does--in the same manner and method.  And those do imply requirements.  They don't say it, but they imply it because they use the EXACT same wording for your ability to have a firearm as they do for when they talk about your training.

They say that "Every law abiding, able bodied, citizen should be able to own a gun. "

Being somewhat personally picky about precision in language, I would have said "Every law abiding citizen has the right to own a gun."  (Wasn't aware that non-able-bodied people shouldn't have one, by the way---and that "should" in their version doesn't mean "can".)  Then after saying people have the right, saying that people "should" get training makes perfect sense.  (Because they really should!)

But they used the exact same phrasing for all three parts.  "Should." And that (in my mind) gives it a different meaning---it also implies that all three parts are equal in importance of principle.

When I first read it, my initial response was:  what if safety and handling isn't taught in public education?  (Which it currently obviously isn't.)  What does that mean "should" happen for our training when the previous part was that we "should" be able to have guns?

I too wanted a clear, simple, unequivocal answer to Rick's question, and I  wondered what was so hard about answering it---because it really was the point to the whole issue---are there requirements or not.  A simple yes or no answer would suffice.

And yet, they wouldn't answer it.

For those who watch TV, it will be interesting to see the "debate" between Dugan and Ashford this Sunday at 10AM on KETV's "Chronicle" (Omaha - Channel 7).   (I have "debate" in quotes because they said on their Facebook page that "It wasn't really a debate because Senator Ashford was pretty much in line with what we were pitching. They had a tough time trying to find something to debate about.")

What were they pitching?   What new law needed to be "pitched"?

---------------------

Why am I still posting when people are trying to move past this?  Don't we have enough problems at the moment?

We certainly do, and it is certainly time for everyone to pull together and work together to defeat the combined forces of the people who are trying to deny us our right of self-defense. 

However, to do that---I find it important to make sure that we understand who is for rights, and who is arguing for privileges.   

We have enough fights on our hands---we don't need people "on our side" who start by conceding that "well, certain requirements are all right".

The NFOA is part of a coalition, and here are two of the main guiding principles behind that coalition:

• The objective of the coalition is to kill the proposals. Period. It is not to “compromise” by saddling gun owners with restrictions and whining “It was the best we could get.” Nothing less than the complete defeat of the Obama/Biden/Feinstein proposals will suffice
• All coalition members have agreed that “compromise” is not an option

As people fighting to retain our rights against people who are trying to take them away, and failing that, limit them as much as possible---if someone can't answer a simple question of: 

"Does 88 Tactical feel that there should be a test OF ANY KIND in order for a person to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?"

...with an answer of "No", then I forsee a conflict between our coalition principles, and that group's "help".

I hope I'm wrong.  I hope that when Shea Dugan of 88 Tactical gets back from the SHOT show, they'll read all of the discussions, look at what Trevor has said and how he phrased it, and how he acted.  And I hope they'll be able to answer that simple question with a simple "No."

We need all the help we can get.




Again full disclosure, note that I also train people to shoot, so if you want to think I'm just trying to throw mud at the competition, I can't stop you.  (Feel free to ask people who know me and who have trained with me if I would do that.)

[00BUCK]

How about the other trainers amongst us who support the requirement for training before one can carry a concealed weapon?

Unfortunately we have a law that says you HAVE to have this training to get the CCW permit, when in reality we shouldn't even NEED a permit. I have mine because I can't afford the legal fees involved with carrying under Affirmative Defense. How many trainers here would have bothered becoming a trainer if we didn't have this law? I'm betting not very many.

[Husker_Fan]

You know, I don't have a problem with 88 Tactical's position, as they have most recently stated it. It is basically that they are a group of people with varying opinions so the organization won't take a position. That's fair.

What bugs me, beyond the earlier stated position, is that they took the opportunity to appear on a TV program and debate the issue that, apparently, they have no opinion on. In my view that's just angling for free advertising (in and of itself not a bad thing) at the expense of other people on this side of the argument. Maybe they should just decline future media requests on the topic or refer them to the NFOA.

[Mudinyeri]

Tom, as one who appreciates precise language, I imagine that you also appreciate that one can be precise without being accurate and vice versa. 

With that said, use of the word "should" indicates an opinion, advice or recommendation about some future state.  In this case, since the right to keep and bear arms already exists, 88 Tactical's points are their opinion on the future state of gun ownership and training.  Yes, they could have said, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  However, they do not have control over that future state.  They only have the ability to express their opinion.  Hence, use of the word "should" is perfectly appropriate.

My point ... we can get hung up over the accuracy and precision of a convoluted language like English or we can, as 88 Tactical suggested, find common ground and work from there.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

[JTH]

With that said, use of the word "should" indicates an opinion, advice or recommendation about some future state.  In this case, since the right to keep and bear arms already exists, 88 Tactical's points are their opinion on the future state of gun ownership and training.  Yes, they could have said, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  However, they do not have control over that future state.  They only have the ability to express their opinion.  Hence, use of the word "should" is perfectly appropriate.

All true.  (I disagree with your belief in what they mean by what they said, but that's merely a personal opinion.)  And yet it doesn't really answer the fundamental question that Rick asked them---and that they wouldn't answer. 

Here's the thing:  their lawyer (and lawyers are often called "mouthpieces," yes?) representing their company, went on TV (to be shown this Sunday) and on radio (which we have already heard).  And in that, their representative said he (and by extension, they) are fine with mandatory training requirements prior to firearms ownership.  And that is certainly going to be used by Ashford's people when they work on adding more laws to limit law-abiding gun owners.

We then heard Trevor's comments, and 88 Tactical's comments on their Facebook page, saying that wasn't exactly what they meant, and listing their principles, which are framed in an interesting fashion.

When asked by directly by Rick---they wouldn't answer.  ("Does 88 Tactical feel that there should be a test OF ANY KIND in order for a person to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?")

Are they for mandated requirements (training or a test, or something) prior to exercising a constitutional right or not? 

This shouldn't be a difficult question to answer. 

Yes, their instructors may have differing opinions.  However, they decided to send their representative to talk to radio show hosts and have debates with senators known to be highly hostile to self-defense rights.  They set up a situation in which, as a company providing firearms training, their opinion is going to be something that either side may use in further discussions.

Given that---they'd BETTER have a policy in place on this topic. 

So what is it?

[bullit]

JT, he was on this past Sunday with Ashford.  Are the replaying this Sunday?

[JTH]

JT, he was on this past Sunday with Ashford.  Are the replaying this Sunday?

Ah.  I thought from the posting on their Facebook page, it was THIS coming Sunday.

What did I miss?  How did it go?  What did they say?  Anyone see it?

[bullit]

Pretty generic and no reference to "required" training although the emphasis FOR training was stated (which I and I believe you agree on).  He did however counter Ashford pretty well in sticking to the idea of personal responsibility i.e. keeping guns and ammo secure vice the Nanny state regulation. Finally, he emphasized a criminal issue vice good guy problem....

[JTH]

Pretty generic and no reference to "required" training although the emphasis FOR training was stated (which I and I believe you agree on).  He did however counter Ashford pretty well in sticking to the idea of personal responsibility i.e. keeping guns and ammo secure vice the Nanny state regulation. Finally, he emphasized a criminal issue vice good guy problem....

Excellent! 

Odd for Ashford to not push things, though.  Especially considering the bills he has sponsored this year.  (That's a separate discussion, though.)

[RLMoeller]

You should have seen the smirk on Asshfords face though when he indicated he had many more bills to introduce.

[Mudinyeri]

All true.  (I disagree with your belief in what they mean by what they said, but that's merely a personal opinion.)  And yet it doesn't really answer the fundamental question that Rick asked them---and that they wouldn't answer. 

You're right.  We disagree.  I believe the fundamental question was answered.  88 Tactical, as an organization, believes that:

Every law abiding, able bodied, citizen should be able to own a gun. We think an armed citizen is a free citizen and that there is peace through strength. We are pro-2nd Amendment and believe that it is our final protection against tyranny, and the first protection against others who would threaten us.

No restrictions.  No required training or testing.  Asked and answered.

In addition, 88 Tactical also believes that:

Every person should be educated in basic gun safety, general rules of self-defense, the 2nd Amendment as well as the constitution as a whole. This should include limitations (actual, historical, theoretical) and responsibilities of good citizenship. We would like to see this as part of the public education system.

and

Every person who owns a weapon should be trained in how to carry, store, use that weapon for hunting and self-defense. Again we would like to see this done as part of the public education system which includes home schooling or other forms of private teaching.

These are in addition to "every law-abiding, able-bodied citizen" being able to own a gun - not precursors to gun ownership (being precise with the language).

Apparently, 88 Tactical also believes their employees should be free to express their own personal opinions.  While I might question the wisdom of allowing employees to do so in a manner that might suggest that their opinions reflect those of the organization as a whole, I have to respect 88 Tactical's willingness to allow such freedom of expression.  Many employers would fire an employee for doing anything even remotely similar.

With all that said, we can allow our sensibilities to be offended because of the way in which the message was delivered or we can get past that - realizing that humans make errors - and focus on the beliefs we share in common ... and on the strength that comes from joining together rather than tearing apart.

For my part, I would much rather find common ground with fellow supporters of the Second Amendment and focus on fighting those who would infringe upon it than finding differences between supporters of the Second Amendment and weakening our ability to protect it.

[JTH]

You're right.  We disagree.  I believe the fundamental question was answered.  88 Tactical, as an organization, believes that:

No restrictions.  No required training or testing.  Asked and answered.

Then why couldn't they simply answer Rick's question with a simple "No"?

Initially:

Trevor: "I don't see easy testing as an unreasonable infringement considering the firepower we allow people to possess. Obviously some disagree."

Toby Asplin: "So, is this the official 88 Tactical position?"

88 Tactical: "We're pretty comfortable with this stance, Toby. You know us pretty well."

Toby:  "I thought I did. 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."

...and they didn't disagree, they just talked about how everyone should be able to have a gun and should get training.   

Then Rick read their post about principles, and straightforwardly, asked them directly:  "Does 88 Tactical feel that there should be a test OF ANY KIND in order for a person to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?"

Did they say "yes" or "no"?  No, they said:  "Rick, our position is clear. Your mental state is not. You apparently didn't read anything we posted. Please go harass someone else." ---and then Trevor posted a long diatribe against the people on the NFOA forum who didn't like what had originally been said.

It is a basic, fundamental question, Mudinyeri.   Is it easier to make long commentary insulting Rick and the NFOA, as opposed to giving a one-word answer?

Wouldn't have saying "No" (provided that was their stance) simply ended everything?  Wouldn't that have been it?   Wouldn't that have been it in the first place, when Toby first said it?

Truthfully?  I think that their stance was originally just what their lawyer said, and just what Trevor said.  And then, once it got picked up and they realized how many people found that offensive (which would obviously affect the number of people going to them for training), they formed their principles which are phrased imprecisely enough to mean a number of things to different people in an attempt to solve the problem---and they still won't answer a simple question which will make their position unequivocally clear. 

The two people who have asked a question that has a solid yes or no as an answer---have not been answered.

Wouldn't that have been simpler to do, if the answer was what you think it is?

I don't have a problem with the way the message was delivered---I have a problem with the message.  And indeed, having employees speak for themselves is interesting, though not really that unique.

However, the lawyer spoke for the company, 88 Tactical spoke for itself on Facebook, and Trevor said that he was allowed to speak for the company. 

[sigh]  I hope Shea comes back and says something smart.  Like:  "In answer to Rick:  No."

Wouldn't that, by itself, make everything clear?

[JTH]

I will say that I've made my opinion probably pretty clear, and Mudinyeri and I can disagree and still get along.

Mud, if you want to continue to discuss this, that's fine, but why don't we take it to PM instead of posting here more on the same topic.

[Mudinyeri]

I will say that I've made my opinion probably pretty clear, and Mudinyeri and I can disagree and still get along.

Mud, if you want to continue to discuss this, that's fine, but why don't we take it to PM instead of posting here more on the same topic.

If we're just going to rehash the same stuff, there's no need to continue in public or private.  I think it's all been said.  This won't be the first time I've disagreed with NFOA leadership or other members.  Nevertheless, I'll still treat them with respect and expect the same. 

[Phantom]

Apparently, 88 Tactical also believes their employees should be free to express their own personal opinions.  While I might question the wisdom of allowing employees to do so in a manner that might suggest that their opinions reflect those of the organization as a whole, I have to respect 88 Tactical's willingness to allow such freedom of expression.  Many employers would fire an employee for doing anything even remotely similar.

But have all their employees and or agents had the mandated Safety training for use of the 1st Amendment?

If we are to allow them continued access to such a freedom of speech or having opinion's it needed to be closely monitored by government testing and by approved person's,
heaven forbid We can not allow anyone not properly trained, under 19 years of age or a mentally incompetent person to gain unrestricted access to such speech or opinion's with out proper suppervision safely training.

If any person found to be under 19 years of age, deemed mentally incompetent or not a properly trained and tested is allowed access to free speech or opinion's with out proper suppervision.
Then said persons parents and/or guardians shall then be taken (free of charge) for reeducation training at a government approved location until such time as they are deemed fit able to pass government approved testing and administered certified by their doctors approved trainers. 
And are now fit able to use their freedom of speech or opinion in a safe and correct manner.

This message was and is approved by #19

[Mudinyeri]

But have all their employees and or agents had the mandated Safety training for use of the 1st Amendment?

Trolling (hopefully) won't get you far on this site.

[Gunscribe]

It seems to me that 88 is trying to straddle a fence they mounted from the "training must be mandatory side". I have ready just about everything presented on this subject. Based on their own (88) statements and the refusal to issue a simple yes or no answer I believe 88 supports mandatory training to exercise a natural Right of Birth.

When someone "Tap Dances" around an issue like 88 seems to be doing it generally means they are trying to play both sides against the middle.

Any organization that is in agreement with a politicians "goal" can expect to be favorably rewarded when that "goal" is accomplished.

My personal feeling, unless the requirement for mandatory training is one of the NRA basic classes, is that 88 is expecting to be one of the few or the only organization that out of the gates meets the anticipated training requirements. I would not be surprised to learn that 88 may be helping to write those requirements.

I also have a burning question; Why was a lawyer of a for profit organization "debating" Ashford on this issue and not a well informed representitive of the NFOA. My guess is the whole thing was staged and scripted to further Ashford's agenda. I also suspect one of the conditions set by Ashford was that it NOT involve the NFOA.