NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: JimP on January 11, 2013, 05:59:19 PM
-
I was just walking thru the kitchen and the radio was on and there was somebody on there from 88 Tactical (IIRC) with Crash Davis talking about Ashford's new gun control ideas ..... and it soundedlike the guy on there said something to the effect that he "was not opposed to a liscence to own a firearm" :o
Did I hear that right?
-
I was listening to it as well. He was their head legal beagle.
Crash asked him if he wanted to register firearms and I think he misinterpreted the question. He was just going on about advocating mandatory training for gun purchasing like a drivers license. He basically is suggesting to mandate gun training and give people a "license" to buy/own a gun.
It's a dumb idea, but he was up front stating that as a training organization he is advocating for more training.
I heard the same thing you did and my eyebrows went up, but I'm pretty sure he heard the question wrong.
**edit, just read your question again. Thought you asked about a gun registry. Never mind. Yes you heard it right, he's advocating a license to own a firearm that requires training.
-
A training organization advocating mandatory training is as as bad as a Lawyer (Brad Ashford) advocating gun owners assume civil liability for something someone does with their stolen gun or an insurance organization advocating for mandatory liability insurance for gun owners...... BAD BAD BAD!
-
Let's give that a test run for voting rights first...mmmkay?
-
What station is it you guys are referring to?
I think mandatory training has its pro's and con's. If you think about it like an intro to weapons class, it wouldn't be that bad of a deal to require a new handgun owner to at least be able to operate his weapon before he can purchase one. Think of it like a hunters education course, and actually it could even be rolled into that course...
But I don't agree with ANYTHING mandatory by virtue alone. That is the reason I am against it. I think if a person wants to be trained in something, they will get training. If you want to own SCUBA gear without knowing how to dive, that is your prerogative. Murphy will sort things out...
-
Let's give that a test run for voting rights first...mmmkay?
That's just it: Felons get to vote now....... they just can't own guns.
Gun ownership is the only right that the Establishment fears now, as they have 50+% of the voters dependent upon the Welfare State. They have control of them.
Remember: Gun Control ain't about guns..... it's about control.
Murphy will sort things out...
The Progressives seem to think that Mr. Murphy should be, and actually can be, thwarted, if only the right people are put in charge and given enough power.
"..... they always come back to the idea that they can make people ....... "better". Well, I don't hold to that....... "
-
Being disqualified by the due process of law (felony conviction) is hardly equivalent to putting a competency test on a fundamental human right like self defense or freedom of speech
-
A training organization advocating mandatory training is as as bad as a Lawyer (Brad Ashford) advocating gun owners assume civil liability for something someone does with their stolen gun or an insurance organization advocating for mandatory liability insurance for gun owners...... BAD BAD BAD!
100% agree. I would consider this a violation of professional ethics, with a fundamental human and constitutional right as the potential matyr... just to make a buck.
-
A training organization advocating mandatory training is as as bad as a Lawyer (Brad Ashford) advocating gun owners assume civil liability for something someone does with their stolen gun or an insurance organization advocating for mandatory liability insurance for gun owners...... BAD BAD BAD!
I agree......
As a Trainer....... I wish everyone would get some training (actually lots of training) and much beyond what I offer....... However I don't support "requiring training" to own a gun.
-
What station is it you guys are referring to?
Crash Davis show on 1110 KFAB in Omaha. Interview was approximately 5:15-5:30 time.
-
Anybody know the guys at Signal 88? If so, ask if we can get a clarification.......
-
Anybody know the guys at Signal 88? If so, ask if we can get a clarification.......
Grumble...
-
Grumble...
?
-
Here's what 88 Tactical said on their Facebook page, regarding a debate that just got filmed between Senator Ashford and Degan from 88 Tactical:
"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. I suggested they argue about their ties ... solid vs striped. Ha"
You can see their comments about all of this on their Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/88.tactical (http://www.facebook.com/88.tactical)
My comment was that I was surprised that Ashford agreed with them---I thought that meant he had changed his position. Apparently---it meant something else.
I agree with Chris: "As a Trainer....... I wish everyone would get some training (actually lots of training) and much beyond what I offer....... However I don't support "requiring training" to own a gun. "
If you create a requirement necessary to be met before doing something---then it means you control who can do that "something."
Tools for self-defense, and the free exercise of your rights, should not be subject to such controls.
Yes, I CERTAINLY wish that more people got training. (That's why I started doing it in the first place.) But requiring training----no.
Just: No.
Hopefully there has been a miscommunication here.
As has been mentioned, the guy from 88 Tactical was on the Crash Davis show (KFAB)--and someone asked on their Facebook page: "Did he just say that 88 tactical is backing a federal Registration and licensed program To obtain any Type of firearm? And obtain a federal mandated training class to obtain that weapon?"
-
it wouldn't be that bad of a deal to require a new handgun owner to at least be able to operate his weapon before he can purchase one
I agree with Chris: "As a Trainer....... I wish everyone would get some training (actually lots of training) and much beyond what I offer....... However I don't support "requiring training" to own a gun. "
If you create a requirement necessary to be met before doing something---then it means you control who can do that "something."
Well said and put.
-
I'd support universal background checks before I'd agree with mandatory training.
-
I just e-mailed one of the owners of 88 Tactical to see what his response is.
-
IIRC, when Business gets together with Labor and Government to tell you what you have to buy and do and get permission for before you can excercise your God given rights ..... that's Fascism, is it not? All that is missing is a mandatory membership in a Firearms Owners Union ......
..... "they keep coming back to the idea that they can make people .... "better" ....... well I don't hold to that ......"
-
Mandated training can lead to abuse. We need look no further than what we see in "may issue" CCW states like CA. Only the politically well connected, the rich, celebrity types and anti-gun mayors can get permits. (How much training does Sean Penn or Diane Feinstein have anyway?)
Hell yes EVERYONE, particularly those of us toting firearms for SD purposes, should get training. But there's no training that can instill a conscientious, responsible and safe attitude. You have to bring that to class with you.
-
From Facebook:
Tom Kennedy
If we change our fundamental right into a privilege by requiring those who want to obtain protection to take a class or pass a test , that would just be wrong and open the flood gates to have government regulate the amount of training that is enough. I do understand your company prospers by training in the use of firearms and so do I but to force your or my training by rule of law to grow and prosper is not right. I do encourage training voluntarily but not to be able to secure protection. Last I would not have the government tell a Private company to administer a test or training free of charge. Now to offer training is a lot different than making it a requirement.
Trevor Thrasher
I should be more cautious with my use of the word training. I think the training could come from anywhere including public schools and parents, but I personally would like to see a test. Making a profit from it is not involved with my opinion. 88 tactical offers free training in an introductory pistol class. 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 Asplin
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.
-
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."
-
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/8373411043/#)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthhapkido/8373410997/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthhapkido/8373410997/#)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthhapkido/8373410947/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthhapkido/8373410947/#)
-
Thanks, Thomas!
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Arbitrary decisions usually not well received
I, for one, support Dan's decision.
-
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
-
Thank you Dan. They showed their colors, and you're showing ours. Good job!
Ghost
Couldn't have said it better!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I support your decision Dan.
Fly
-
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$$!
-
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
-
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
Shawn, First I would like to thank you for your post as an 88 Tactical instructor, and for the clarification you have given as such. There have been several people who since last Friday have been seeking clarification from the management of 88 Tactical and the only responses we have received if the facebook postings of Mr. Thrasher. It seemed as though he was speaking for 88 Tactical not himself, if that is incorrect he just compounded the problem that was created by your representative.
If people here and else where are misinterpreting the official position of 88 Tactical I would encourage the management to try to get ahead of this issue. I know several of the instructors and have met with the management in the past, they are all good people. In fact I encouraged the creation of the free intro/firearms safety instruction that 88 Tactical does. We may disagree about some small things but in general we are not very far apart. The unfortunate matter in this is now Senator Ashford has ammunition to use to try and push unreasonable bills, and that hurts all of us no matter where we fall in the spectrum of firearms owners.
I understand that much of 88 Tactical's Management is at Shot show, but if there is a way to get in touch with them to ask them to get in front of this issue I would encourage it. As several posters here have said, people have been very happy with the quality of instruction 88 Tactical has delivered, they have also taken a strong position of supporting our community and I applaud that. I am hopefull that this small misstep can be cleared up and the support that we as an organization and the public as a whole can be restored.
-
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.
The first clause of the Second Amendment doesn't place any restrictions on the right enunciated in the operative clause, about training or anything else. It is a prefatory clause that simply explains a reason for the operative clause. It is similar to if I said in a will, "because I want little Johnny to go to college, I hereby leave $100,000 to him." This is not a restriction or condition on the gift; it is just a statement of the purpose of the gift and an insight into the thoughts of the testator.
-
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.
[snip]
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
I think one of the main problems that occurred showed up on Facebook. As you mentioned, Trevor said a number of things that go directly against what the NFOA stands for when he talked about requiring training, and the use of a test. However, that was of course his personal opinion--and as you said, not necessarily the opinion of the other 88 Tactical instructors, nor necessarily of 88 Tactical as an entity.
The real problem came with the 88 Tactical response (from its Facebook page), after all of Trevor's comments, in answer to what Toby Aspin asked: "So, is this the official 88 Tactical position?" which included the comments about training and registration from the radio show, and Trevor's comments about training and testing.
88 Tactical said: "We're pretty comfortable with this stance, Toby. You know us pretty well."
In addition, 88 Tactical said that they and Ashford didn't have much to argue regarding gun control---and Ashford is known to be one of the most active (and vocal) proponents for gun control in our current state government. (As someone else pointed out, he has already submitted several gun control bills this year.)
I agree with Andy---it would be helpful if the people who speak officially for 88 Tactical could weigh in on this and make their position clear.
In the past, when people asked me about classes, if I thought they were a good fit for 88 Tactical, I'd send them over. When people asked me about carbine classes and such, I'd send them over.
If the official position of 88 Tactical (or even a majority of its instructors, because no matter what the company says, if a majority of its instructors believe something, that's the attitude that is going to prevail) is that the government should be able to have control of access to firearms via any sort of testing, training requirement, or any other such thing---not only will I never send people to them again, but I'll be sure to tell folks exactly why.
Note to readers: I also teach shooting classes. Technically, 88 Tactical is one of my competitors. So, take my comments as you will.
As I said earlier, while I REALLY wish every shooter would get training (in safety, if nothing else), I do not in any way support government regulation (read: control) of it. And I won't support anyone who does.
Hopefully, 88 Tactical will officially let us know their position on this, and clarify everything.
-
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.
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.
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
I am posting this as my personal opinion, not that of an NFOA representative.
I understand that the representative did not have the collective interest of your business in mind when he spoke. However, anyone representing your business should know what the business interest is, and whether or not their personal opinion is in line with that, they speak with the business in mind - or they shouldn't be representing the business.
I have not responded to many of your posts in the past due to my position on the NFOA board, but since I'm making a personal post here, I'm responding to your post. Your analogy of reasoning with a premenstrual teenage girl is ludicrous and idiotic. I realize you probably meant it in jest, but it is a stupid statement. Females need to be encouraged into the firearms and self-defense world, and I would not encourage one to take your classes because of this attitude.
You have also made several pretty inflammatory comments elsewhere on this forum that have been somewhat detrimental and simply rude. Just because you have a differing opinion about different types of training and/or practice, does not mean that your way is the only way.
As a supporter of the 2A and gun rights, I do hope your business comes through this issue and does not suffer due to the interview, facebook posts, etc. However, as a business owner, I'd suggest you have a long discussion with anyone who could possibly represent your business and make sure you are all on the same page.
-
Your analogy of reasoning with a premenstrual teenage girl is ludicrous and idiotic.
Fear the wrath of the peri-menstrual female.....especially one who can shoot the lights out.....
-
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.
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.
I would also agree having the lawyer speak on the radio show and tv show was a horrible idea and what was posted on FB by Trevor was like drinking a gallon of gasoline and pissing on the fire at that point in time.
With that said I will be back to 88 Tactical for training. What was said doesn't change the level and quality of training I will receive.
-
I posted on that Facebook thread asking for an official clarification from someone, anyone(preferably Shea) who wants to make an official statement on this subject.
We'll see what happens.
-
It seems to me that if you can't trust your attorney to speak for you then you probably need a new attorney.
I was withholding judgement until I heard an official response from 88's management, but after reading their Facebook posts it seems like they have no issue with the statement that was made. That's unfortunate and I hope they will disavow it.
I do not need permission to exercise my rights, whether that right is to bear arms or free speech. No government may deny me that right without due process of law. If Signal 88 does not disavow this statement then they have no more business being in the firearms training industry than a journalist who advocates for government censorship does working at a newspaper.
-
It seems to me that if you can't trust your attorney to speak for you then you probably need a new attorney.
If Signal 88 does not disavow this statement then they have no more business being in the firearms training industry than a journalist who advocates for government censorship does working at a newspaper.
Well said!
-
I don't think any of the views expressed in this thread were overboard, though some of the rhetoric was a bit strong. I withdraw my comment about finding another place to train, for now. I'll be interested to see what Shea's response is.
-
I think I am with Shawn on this. Once things go wrong in the social media they can get out of hand pretty quickly. I will give 88 a chance to confirm their company ideals and either way I understand that a corporate view point is not always the viewpoint of the majority of employees. I will personally still support them. All views should be heard, even the lawyer who I think was a bad pick for this.
-
I'll let Shea (owner of 88 Tactical) speak for himself, but I've corresponded with him and I know he does not personally support the intrusion of the government into individuals' rights. I suspect 88 Tactical, as an organization, is closely aligned with Shea's personal views.
I think the jump to remove 88 Tactical as an affiliate of the NFOA, and to publicly "broadcast" the removal, was a knee-jerk reaction. Without speaking to the owner(s) of the company and clarifying the corporation's stance (not employees of or attorneys for the corporation) we have rushed to judgment lacking all the facts.
I know Shea is very busy right now but I have suggested that he clarify his company's position - especially for the members of this forum who have not rushed to judgment in the absence of an official statement/clarification.
-
From 88Tactical's Facebook page as of a few minutes ago...
Trevor Thrasher88 Tactical
5 hours ago ·
I have talked to Shea and he has given me permission to speak for the company. Here are our key principles:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
As far as an official test requirement is concerned, we do not have a locked in official stance. Reference my below post: "88 tactical is a group of individuals with different opinions. If you are looking for some type of 'official position' beyond our core principles, I think you will be out of luck. It would only serve to upset one group or another. We would rather unite around our general principles then divide ourselves with more minor disagreement."
Like ·
3 people like this.
Jason Wright Can't agree more. It's a honor to work with you and to be able to call you my friend.-Jason
51 minutes ago · Like
Rick Mangold You have not addressed the question.
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?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
21 minutes ago · Edited · Like
88 Tactical Rick, our position is clear. Your mental state is not. You apparently didn't read anything we posted. Please go harass someone else.-! Trevor
5 minutes ago · Like
Rick Mangold WOW, glad to know you think so much of your customers(Yes, I've taken a class there). Your use of insults makes this all the more telling. I'm very disappointed in your response and I'm sure everyone else that sees it (including the nearly 6000 members of the NFOA) will feel the same way. Good day.
:o I'm done with them.
-
They pretty much skated around the question. I would have liked to see them state they do NOT agree with testing/licensing requirements. I will not patronize 88 Tactical.
-
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.
Are those of you who are upset at 88 Tactical also upset at hunter education instructors like me who support the requirement for education before one can hunt? How about the other trainers amongst us who support the requirement for training before one can carry a concealed weapon?
-
Gotta agree w/ bkoenig... I have been looking around for ccw training for the wife and myself, but will now cross Tac88 off that list. By their own admission having the "mouthpiece" speak for them was a bad idea and implies a fear on their part of giving a "wrong" answer. If you believe in your company then stand up and say how you feel...it's another of those guaranteed rights we're all trying to protect.
Earlier the question of ethics was brought up and I feel it is applicable here. A firearm training facility advocating for mandatory training requirements is not only self-serving but starts a slippery slope down the ethics question. Who decides what type and how much training is required? How much additional expense will be required for an individual to qualify for their 2nd amend. right to defend themselves? Be assured that lawmakers will look to those same facilities for that answer. Encouraging training is one thing, advocating compulsory limitations on your rights is quite another.
-
Still don't see any compulsory limitations on anyone's rights in the 88Tactical response. They're also not advocating for private organizations, like them, to do the training. They're advocating that it be done in the school system.
-
Fortunately we have many choices for training opportunities in Nebraska and elsewhere.
-
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.
Are those of you who are upset at 88 Tactical also upset at hunter education instructors like me who support the requirement for education before one can hunt? How about the other trainers amongst us who support the requirement for training before one can carry a concealed weapon?
Hunting isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Trevor decided to delete the comments I copied here and went on a rant against anyone who would dare argue with him(me, the NFOA, etc.).
All because he couldn't answer a simple yes or no question. ::)
-
Hunting isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Did you vote in the last state election?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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?
-
JT, he was on this past Sunday with Ashford. Are the replaying this Sunday?
-
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?
-
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....
-
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.)
-
You should have seen the smirk on Asshfords face though when he indicated he had many more bills to introduce.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Trolling (hopefully) won't get you far on this site.
and Like you've posted in a diffrent thread
Have you read everything that I've wrote in that post? It would appear that you've missed some fairly pertinent humor in it.
-
and Like you've posted in a diffrent thread
Have you read everything that I've wrote in that post? It would appear that you've missed some fairly pertinent humor in it.
I did read everything you posted in this thread. You've already taken a couple pot shots at 88 Tactical. I fail to find humor in a statement like yours, above, in an already touchy thread.
I know several of the Signal 88/88 Tactical folks personally so perhaps I'm just a little more sensitive to attempts at humor mixed in with attacks on character.
-
did read everything you posted in this thread. You've already taken a couple pot shots at 88 Tactical. I fail to find humor in a statement like yours, above, in an already touchy thread.
I know several of the Signal 88/88 Tactical folks personally so perhaps I'm just a little more sensitive to attempts at humor mixed in with attacks on character.
I'm sorry I didn't think it would be taken as other then Humorous or make people think about it
and As it was only my 2nd post about any thing to do with the Signal 88/88 Tactical folks I have to assume your problem isn't with me maybe taking shot at them
I had to reread the comments several times .....My humor was just trying to point out wondering what they would think if they were required to have the same sort of training mandated in order to be able to talk about it even.
My first post was just a statement of my initial feelings on the subject ....I didn't mean it as an attack per sey but my second post was to be just that humor and how they might not understand why the words .....at the end of the 2nd amendment apply.
as for Gun safety training I've already posted several months ago saying i think it should be taught in schools Like reading writing and other general subjects.
Just for the FYI our kids need ....Maybe that would reduce Gun violence More than new laws.
I do have to say that it doesn't seem to reflect on them very well that they have not responded to this issue here on the forum even once yet.
-
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.
-Gunscribe
This was the impression that I got.
Ashford wants mandatory training (among a great many other requirements - he seems to think that problems with people breaking laws can be fixed with more laws- he's tilting at windmills and running over us in the process, methinks).
Signal 88's guy seemed to be saying he was in agreement w/ Ashford....... when asked point blank, Yes or No, was that the case, he/they commenced to tap dancing.......
Either more Government requirements are OK, and needed (Ashford's position) and their answer is a YES, or .....
No additional Government requirements are OK (I think this is the position of the NFOA and the "coalition" of gun groups we signed on with- correct me if I'm wrong).....
It's one or the other, a Yes/No, Pass/Fail deal.
Training is a good thing, and I would like to get more when I can afford to do so ....... requiring further restrictions and further expenditures is just punishing the law abiding, and I won't have it.
Anybody in fundamental agreement with Brad Ashford's "Government is the Answer to Everything" is going to be in fundamental disagreement with me.
-
I have been in contact with Mr. Thrashor and we have agreed to work on fighting any new attacks on the 2nd Amendment together, instead of attacking each other.
He and I will be having a meeting in the near future to address each other's concerns and to find ways to move forward from this situation. I will of course report back the results of the meeting.
Rick
-
Rick thanks for the update, and I am happy you are working this out. Sometimes those with opinions that are close to ours just need to be educated I the reasons we hold ours so dear.
-
Here is my problem with 88Tactical's response, or lack thereof.
With the recent tragic events, emotions are high on both sides of the fence. The anti's have fodder for their cannon and are pulling at the heartstrings of the public. We are not a compassionless group. As such, there are many levels that some gun owners may be willing to compromise on. For example, a gun owner solely interested in trap/skeet or bird hunting may hear the threats of impending "Assault Weapon" or magazine capacity bans and think, "I'm okay with this because I will be allowed to keep my semi-automatic shotgun". These people have the flawed logic which assumes that if we just accept one little restriction on our rights, the anti-gunners will be satisfied and it will all stop there. Meanwhile, the restrictions which are put in place do nothing to solve the problem and another tragic event will happen. Then starts the cry for the next brick to be removed from the foundation of the Second Amendment.
88 Tactical has a substantial presence in our community, and their representative stated that they would be accepting of legislation which moves us in the wrong direction. After a request for clarification, it was followed by a refusal of another representative to answer a straightforward question. I stated in another thread that Bill O'Reilly's willingness to accept anti 2A legislation is possibly more of a threat to our rights than the misinformation from an anti-gunner. In the same manor, an established business who's success is strongly tied to firearms that makes a public statement accepting more restrictive legislation, is possibly more damaging to our cause than one that simply chooses not to voice their opinion. I would not go so far as to accuse 88 Tactical of supporting such legislation so that they can line their pockets. I do believe that Shawn and the others are passionate about what they do; however, you can start to lose perspective when you personally choose to immerse yourself so deeply into an activity. The baseline for what an individual thinks is acceptable for the average Joe starts to move as their experience grows.
Ultimately, the problem is that such a lack of commitment to our cause from a well known business is very harmful to our group. I agree that we need to band together, but how can the NFOA which has the sole purpose of protecting 2A rights fight a good fight when those who might be allies are already talking compromise?
Fly
-
I have been in contact with Mr. Thrashor and we have agreed to work on fighting any new attacks on the 2nd Amendment together, instead of attacking each other.
He and I will be having a meeting in the near future to address each other's concerns and to find ways to move forward from this situation. I will of course report back the results of the meeting.
Rick
Glad to hear it, Rick.
-
Have the guys at 88 Tactical do a little research on Trevor Baucom - and then see if they want to blurt out stupid $&!% like "able bodied".