NRA Carry Guard Training - No 1911s or revolvers as primary - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: NRA Carry Guard Training - No 1911s or revolvers as primary

  1. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Seems the NRA has a natural inclination towards favoring some guns over others, even though they apparently can be convinced to act like they like 'em all the same with membership pressure applied.

    It's kinda like gun control with them - sometimes they like it, and sometimes they pretend they don't. LOL
    The NRA has gotten a lot of attention lately and not in a good way. I actually heard them talked about in derogatory terms by members at my club today and I don't recall that happening much before.
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    They did not say why no 1911s or revolvers as a primary, but it is likely that the training was developed for modern hammer- and striker-fired handguns. It is quite common to request students not to use compact 1911s chambered in .45 ACP and revolvers in training classes to make their life easier, but it is usually up to the student to bring what they have. A good firearms school teaches train as you fight, i.e., don't use any equipment that you wouldn't use on the street (except for eye and ear protection).

    I personally have nothing against students bringing whatever gun they would like to train with, as long it is drop safe. It certainly adds entertainment value to see students struggle with their prized handguns that simply don't work well. With 1,500 rounds and a 5-shot revolver, the close-to 300 repetitions would certainly make sure one can efficiently reload that revolver.

    I don't think that training is a requirement for the insurance. Just like with the USCCA, it is optional and a separate product. I am a USCCA member and have never taken any of their training classes. The NRA Carry Guard insurance product is inferior, by the way.

    The Place To Be

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,308
    Quote Originally Posted by niceshootintex View Post
    The NRA has gotten a lot of attention lately and not in a good way. I actually heard them talked about in derogatory terms by members at my club today and I don't recall that happening much before.
    NRA is generally thought of as serving the interests of gun owners through lobby and legal departments working within the legislative branches of federal and state governments, or within courts of the same entities.

    Now consider that no one can know or claims to know just how many guns are privately owned by Americans, but estimates average in the ~80 million to ~120 million who have at least one gun in the home.

    Juxtapose even the lowest estimates of gun owners against the membership estimates of the NRA, and you find that, at best, only about 5.5% (4.5M members / 80M gun owners) of gun owners buy into the notion that NRA serves their interests enough to pay for them to do it.

    I am a purist Second Amendment advocate. Believe me, if I thought that the NRA served anything close to my interests in promoting that as national policy and/or law, my membership would be the very last thing to go if/when I was forced by circumstance to cut all extraneous costs of living, which by the way, I have never been anywhere near that broke that I couldn't afford membership if I wanted to keep it.

    I tend to believe that a large percentage of the, at worst, 84.5% of gun-owning Americans are more or less like me when it comes to sending money to the NRA - they/we don't believe the NRA serves our best interests.

    Large majorities don't necessarily automatically assume the imprimatur of being "right" or "correct" or "accurate" just by virtue of them being a large majority, but nonetheless, for whatever varied reasons, only 5.5% of gun owners under the lowest reliable (+/-) estimates of the total gun owners in America believe the NRA serves their interests to the point of being willing to financially support them. The higher that one believes estimates are closest to being accurate, the lower that 5.5% rating goes.

    I have literally been cussed out before for evaluating how and by whom my best interests are served, and stating out loud that it decidedly ain't the NRA serving them. It's really easy to dismiss those kinds of folks when I put them where they belong in my mind - as, at best, 5.5% elitists telling the, at worst, 84.5% majority that they are too stupid to make up their own minds for themselves. I think most thinking people share my incredulity over such arrogant and/or elitist thinking.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast