Is anyone as PO'ed at the NRA as I am?


Here in WV the training requirement is not all that demanding. Those of us who try to offer better training than some others by teaching the NRA Basic Pistol Course have been completely screwed by the NRA. For over a month the NRA has been out of stock for packets. The new blended training has sort of launched but I'm not certain how a student can find an instructor for phase II since you cannot post a phase II class on the web site. I'm not certain why anyone would do that to begin with since they will have to pay the NRA $60 for the on-line portion and then the instructor for the live portion. A little tidbit that the website does not disclose to the student. Currently the going rate for classes here is $75 give or take. So if the instructor is not stupid enough to do his part for $15 most people will go to one of the 3 or 4 hour classes and save time and money. However, they will not learn much of anything. As far as I'm concerned this is just a ploy by the NRA to bring in more money at our expense. It has certainly made a mess of things here.
 

DavidWhite

Banned
America's largest gun control organization

Archived from Citizen Review On Line

NOTE: — Be sure to read other articles on NRA "Lapses in Principle"

By Vin Suprynowicz

On Jan. 16, 1968, in an address to the New York State University law school in Buffalo, Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., stated: "I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."

NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth took great umbrage at this remark in the October 1968 issue of the NRA’s magazine, The American Rifleman, terming Sen. Kennedy’s accusation "a great smear of a great American organization." Mr. Orth then went on to point out, "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

Really? But the NRA has always been portrayed in the mainstream press as a radical anti-gun-control organization. Is it? Has it ever been?

In that 1968 issue of The American Rifleman, associate editor Alan C. Webber picked up the defense of the NRA’s gun-control credentials. I quote again from the NRA’s own, official organ:

"Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame the Uniform Firearms Act of 1930. ... Salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to the local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery."

Remember, I’m not asking whether you think these are good ideas. I’m asking whether the NRA is the pack of wild-eyed, take-no-prisoners, "pure language of the Second Amendment, take my gun from my cold dead fingers" radical extremists which the national press corps would have us believe. In fact, can the NRA rightly be said to be a "gun rights" organization, at all?

"Item," Editor Webber of The American Rifleman continued back in 1968: "The NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ...

"NRA currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. ... "

Nor is there much room to believe the NRA has changed its stripes in the past 23 years.

In Utah this year, Utah Gun Owners Alliance lobbyist and M.D. Sarah Thompson had worked to get through "a good bill that would have honored concealed-carry permits from any other state without restriction," notes Dennis Fusaro, who himself was let go from GOA in March for not being cooperative enough with the gun-grabbers at the NRA.

In the final days of the session, however, NRA lobbyist Brian Judy arrived in Salt Lake City and made a deal to accept an amendment that the out-of-state permits would only be honored for 60 days.

"Sarah had the senators pretty well under control and was pushing them with grass-roots pressure, and then Brian Judy goes in the back room and accepts this bad amendment," Fusaro reports.

Says Thompson: "Read their magazine. The NRA helped write the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. ... Here in Utah they backed our Olympic gun ban" (restricting the right of Utah citizens to carry permitted weapons at Olympic venues while the winter Olympics are in town, so as not to offend the hoplophobic foreigners).

"In the 2000 (Utah) Legislature the NRA backed a midnight gun control bill that vastly expanded the list of people prohibited from owning guns in the state, a retroactive ban on people who were adjudicated years ago. As a result of this I get calls from people who have been hunters for years who now have to go through a background check, who did something wrong as a juvenile 30 or 40 years ago, and they’ve lost their gun rights."

The test case for whether GOA or the NRA remains a true "gun-rights organization" will be "what’s going on with (President) Bush’s proposal for Project Safe Neighborhoods," Thompson warns.

Project Safe Neighborhoods is designed to prove the Bush administration is not against "sensible" gun control, she explains, "and the tagline on it is, ‘If you use a gun illegally you will do hard time.’

"But you don’t have prosecutors saying ‘We're not going to prosecute rapists because they're really good people.’ That’s not the problem. Those laws are already enforced. So the people they’re really going after are people who are violating one of the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws, people who put a flash suppressor on their rifle, or have a high capacity magazine on their firearm, or who drive by the school with a hunting rifle in the back of their truck; it’s all the unconstitutional, politically correct gun control laws they’re going to be enforcing."

from http://www.lvrj.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2001/Jun-03-Sun-2001/opinion/16231491.html

Vin Suprynowicz, the Review-Journal’s assistant editorial page editor, is author of "Send in the Waco Killers." His column appears Sunday.

smalline

Back to Top
 

SR9

New member
My guess is that they are backed up with request for this material. Remember, the vast increase in gun sales is associated with the increase in CC training and permits. They have to get material printed and distributed as soon as they can, I agree. But, nobody else spends as much time and money with as many lawyers to fight for your gun rights in the SCOTUS or lower courts. It is expensive and takes a lot of time. I have spoken with the former NRA National President, who happen to live not far from me, and he said they get lots of people mad at them for things political that they are not involved in. That's because they are only a one item of concern organization, and that's protecting your right to own guns. They are not involved with other political issues, none.
 

crankyyankee

New member
training requirements

Here in WV the training requirement is not all that demanding. Those of us who try to offer better training than some others by teaching the NRA Basic Pistol Course have been completely screwed by the NRA. For over a month the NRA has been out of stock for packets. The new blended training has sort of launched but I'm not certain how a student can find an instructor for phase II since you cannot post a phase II class on the web site. I'm not certain why anyone would do that to begin with since they will have to pay the NRA $60 for the on-line portion and then the instructor for the live portion. A little tidbit that the website does not disclose to the student. Currently the going rate for classes here is $75 give or take. So if the instructor is not stupid enough to do his part for $15 most people will go to one of the 3 or 4 hour classes and save time and money. However, they will not learn much of anything. As far as I'm concerned this is just a ploy by the NRA to bring in more money at our expense. It has certainly made a mess of things here.
In Florida, all I had to do was shoot one round out of a .22 revolver. Since then I have taken a few courses at FrontSight in Nevada and joined the local Well-Armed Woman Shooting Club. The only NRA course I have taken was the Range Safety Officer, and I have qualified as Pro-Marksman and Marksman on their Pistol Qualification. At FrontSight you have to pass one of the basic courses with a 90% or better score (speed and accuracy) to get into their tactical courses, but the basic courses teach grip, stance, sight picture and trigger control, with presentation from the holster with and without concealment. All this gives you an edge over someone who has only trained on a range that doesn't allow drawing from the holster.
 

Blueshell

Banned
Here in WV the training requirement is not all that demanding. Those of us who try to offer better training than some others by teaching the NRA Basic Pistol Course have been completely screwed by the NRA. For over a month the NRA has been out of stock for packets. The new blended training has sort of launched but I'm not certain how a student can find an instructor for phase II since you cannot post a phase II class on the web site. I'm not certain why anyone would do that to begin with since they will have to pay the NRA $60 for the on-line portion and then the instructor for the live portion. A little tidbit that the website does not disclose to the student. Currently the going rate for classes here is $75 give or take. So if the instructor is not stupid enough to do his part for $15 most people will go to one of the 3 or 4 hour classes and save time and money. However, they will not learn much of anything. As far as I'm concerned this is just a ploy by the NRA to bring in more money at our expense. It has certainly made a mess of things here.
Freedom isn't free.

In context, the class costs the same as a new holster and a couple boxes of ammo.
 

Blueshell

Banned
America's largest gun control organization

Archived from Citizen Review On Line

NOTE: — Be sure to read other articles on NRA "Lapses in Principle"

By Vin Suprynowicz

On Jan. 16, 1968, in an address to the New York State University law school in Buffalo, Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., stated: "I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."

NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth took great umbrage at this remark in the October 1968 issue of the NRA’s magazine, The American Rifleman, terming Sen. Kennedy’s accusation "a great smear of a great American organization." Mr. Orth then went on to point out, "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

Really? But the NRA has always been portrayed in the mainstream press as a radical anti-gun-control organization. Is it? Has it ever been?

In that 1968 issue of The American Rifleman, associate editor Alan C. Webber picked up the defense of the NRA’s gun-control credentials. I quote again from the NRA’s own, official organ:

"Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame the Uniform Firearms Act of 1930. ... Salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to the local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery."

Remember, I’m not asking whether you think these are good ideas. I’m asking whether the NRA is the pack of wild-eyed, take-no-prisoners, "pure language of the Second Amendment, take my gun from my cold dead fingers" radical extremists which the national press corps would have us believe. In fact, can the NRA rightly be said to be a "gun rights" organization, at all?

"Item," Editor Webber of The American Rifleman continued back in 1968: "The NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ...

"NRA currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. ... "

Nor is there much room to believe the NRA has changed its stripes in the past 23 years.

In Utah this year, Utah Gun Owners Alliance lobbyist and M.D. Sarah Thompson had worked to get through "a good bill that would have honored concealed-carry permits from any other state without restriction," notes Dennis Fusaro, who himself was let go from GOA in March for not being cooperative enough with the gun-grabbers at the NRA.

In the final days of the session, however, NRA lobbyist Brian Judy arrived in Salt Lake City and made a deal to accept an amendment that the out-of-state permits would only be honored for 60 days.

"Sarah had the senators pretty well under control and was pushing them with grass-roots pressure, and then Brian Judy goes in the back room and accepts this bad amendment," Fusaro reports.

Says Thompson: "Read their magazine. The NRA helped write the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. ... Here in Utah they backed our Olympic gun ban" (restricting the right of Utah citizens to carry permitted weapons at Olympic venues while the winter Olympics are in town, so as not to offend the hoplophobic foreigners).

"In the 2000 (Utah) Legislature the NRA backed a midnight gun control bill that vastly expanded the list of people prohibited from owning guns in the state, a retroactive ban on people who were adjudicated years ago. As a result of this I get calls from people who have been hunters for years who now have to go through a background check, who did something wrong as a juvenile 30 or 40 years ago, and they’ve lost their gun rights."

The test case for whether GOA or the NRA remains a true "gun-rights organization" will be "what’s going on with (President) Bush’s proposal for Project Safe Neighborhoods," Thompson warns.

Project Safe Neighborhoods is designed to prove the Bush administration is not against "sensible" gun control, she explains, "and the tagline on it is, ‘If you use a gun illegally you will do hard time.’

"But you don’t have prosecutors saying ‘We're not going to prosecute rapists because they're really good people.’ That’s not the problem. Those laws are already enforced. So the people they’re really going after are people who are violating one of the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws, people who put a flash suppressor on their rifle, or have a high capacity magazine on their firearm, or who drive by the school with a hunting rifle in the back of their truck; it’s all the unconstitutional, politically correct gun control laws they’re going to be enforcing."

from http://www.lvrj.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2001/Jun-03-Sun-2001/opinion/16231491.html

Vin Suprynowicz, the Review-Journal’s assistant editorial page editor, is author of "Send in the Waco Killers." His column appears Sunday.

smalline

Back to Top
Oh, you really do believe the NRA is a gun control organization.

It takes all kinds, I guess...
 

DavidWhite

Banned
Oh, you really do believe the NRA is a gun control organization.

It takes all kinds, I guess...
And YOU really believe they are on your side? Tool.

I provide the proof, with links to prove just what the NRA is and you STILL believe otherwise?

It really does take all kinds....you should know..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

DavidWhite

Banned
The NRA isn't on anyone's side but the NRA. They're a business and do what is needed to grow.

Idiot.
The NRA is involved in gun control. It's right there, in black and white. What's worse is that you can follow the link and more if you choose to ascertain the validity of the posted claim.

Instead, you hide your head and wish it away....

Sucks to learn the truth don't it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Blueshell

Banned
The NRA is involved in gun control. It's right there, in black and white. What's worse is that you can follow the link and more if you choose to ascertain the validity of the posted claim.

Instead, you hide your head and wish it away....

Sucks to learn the truth don't it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You think you see a laps in NRA principles because you don't understand the NRA's principles. The NRA does what's good for the NRA. Everything else is just "branding".
 

DavidWhite

Banned
You think you see a laps in NRA principles because you don't understand the NRA's principles. The NRA does what's good for the NRA. Everything else is just "branding".
So YOU see that by doing "what's good for business", it has made things WORSE for us citizens?

Gun control must be very good for business then because they have the sheep lined up for blocks to join!
And I hope to god you blew wads of cash for your "gold card" membership.

Idiot.


N.R.A. = Not Relevant anymore.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Blueshell

Banned
So YOU see that by doing "what's good for business", it has made things WORSE for us citizens?

Gun control must be very good for business then because they have the sheep lined up for blocks to join!
And I hope to god you blew wads of cash for your "gold card" membership.

Idiot.


N.R.A. = Not Relevant anymore.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm not a member of the NRA. Never have been, never will be.

No NRA employee is going to sacrifice their child's dental plan for your gun rights.
 
I am not thrilled by the blended learning, therefore have released my own basic pistol curriculum I use for my students, similar to the NRA Basic Pistol but not quite. I believe the NRA did this because so very many instructors in my area alone were marketing their classes as NRA Basic Pistol, using the NRA basic Pistol curriculum, issuing photocopied NRA Basic Pistol certificates, but the NRA never got their NRA Basic Pistol cut via the student packet. Now they get their cut, and wow $60! They get their cut.

Once the dust settles, I will try a few blended Phase 2 classes and see how it goes. I am just playing wait and see.
 
Same here.

I am not thrilled by the blended learning, therefore have released my own basic pistol curriculum I use for my students, similar to the NRA Basic Pistol but not quite. I believe the NRA did this because so very many instructors in my area alone were marketing their classes as NRA Basic Pistol, using the NRA basic Pistol curriculum, issuing photocopied NRA Basic Pistol certificates, but the NRA never got their NRA Basic Pistol cut via the student packet. Now they get their cut, and wow $60! They get their cut.

Once the dust settles, I will try a few blended Phase 2 classes and see how it goes. I am just playing wait and see.
That is what I have done and most of the instructors I've talked with. It's not that big a deal, just very annoying and counter productive. We get most of our students through word of mouth anyway. The most frustrating part is that it plays into the hands of the people doing half-assed classes and screws the ones trying to do what is right. WV just passed a law where a law abiding citizen can carry concealed without a permit. The big debate was the training requirement. Most of the people we have taught will not carry without the training. They don't feel comfortable without it. Most people will do the right thing, but we always want to legislate for the minority that do not.
 
As a instructor myself it is hard to to get students who want to spend all this money to get there permit. It makes it harder on me my state is also a contutinal carry state.
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
As a instructor myself it is hard to to get students who want to spend all this money to get there permit. It makes it harder on me my state is also a contutinal [sic] carry state.
Well, if it would make it easier to conduct your business where the state government force-feeds you your clients, move.

Forgive me if I missed some nuance here, but it really sounds like you're complaining about living where constitutional carry is the law. Second Amendment advocates believe that is the absolutely optimal circumstance for a state to operate under. Big-government statists believe permission slips and heavily regulated restrictions on where one can carry is the ideal circumstance. Please don't be a big-government statist.

Blues
 
know I'm glad were contutinal carry I'm just saying most of the people ive talked to don't want to spend anymore money to get there permit when you don't need one in this state if you stay in this state.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,090
Messages
621,527
Members
74,091
Latest member
Eyeris87
Top