Keep Brandon Webb off the NRA Board of Directors

What is it with anti-gunners infesting the NRA Board of Directors?

The NRA has a long history of supporting gun control and even went so far as to help author some of the most offensive laws currently on the books. Until a coup took place in the late 1970’s, the NRA was one of the nations foremost proponents of gun control. I know, it’s hard to believe, but it’s true.

During the 1920’s and 1930’s the NRA lobbied for the passage of our nations first national gun control laws. The National Revolver Association, an early marksmanship training group within the NRA, pushed for legislation that included requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm. They also proposed gun dealers be forced to turn over all records to police, and they sought to institute a 1 day waiting period on firearm purchases. Sound familiar? Where do you think the Brady Campaign got their ideas for many of their proposed gun control measures? Yup, the early work of the NRA.Karl Fredrick NRA President Quote

The NRA worked diligently to help write and pass one of the most unconstitutional laws currently on the books, the 1934 “National Firearms Act”. The NFA placed a Jim Crow era like tax on buying machine guns, short barreled rifles, suppressors, short barreled shotguns and “any other weapons”.

In 1938 they once again supported gun controls, this time it was the 1938 Federal Firearms Act that they threw their support behind and helped to pass.

After the shooting of President Kennedy in 1963, the President of the NRA called for additional gun controls. In 1968 the NRA got its wish with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

With the coup in 1977 came new leadership that took a more pragmatic view of the 2nd Amendment and the NRA’s role in helping to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights. They formed the ILA (Institute of Legislative Action) and began to fight against gun control efforts in Washington. They were finally on our side, for the most part.

Despite the shift towards preserving our rights vs. helping to decimate them, the NRA still struggled with anti-gun forces occupying seats on their Board of Directors. Take Joaquin Jackson as an example. This long time NRA board member, and former Texas lawman, is one of the most rabidly anti-gun people within the NRA. As evidence of this, please watch the following video.

After taking a public flogging for these statements, Joaquin did what most honorable men do — he lied. He tried to say he wasn’t talking about civilian semi-auto rifles (which the NRA calls “assault rifles” on their website), he claimed he was talking about machine guns. He wants us to believe he was saying we should only have 5 rounds in the magazine of our machine gun while hunting deer. Uh, yeah… right. Sorry, Joaquin, anyone with an IQ larger than their own shoe size isn’t going to buy that one.

It would be hard to walk in Joaquin’s shoes, but we have a contender who wants a shot at it. Brandon Webb, a Navy SEAL, Sniper and NRA member, has decided to throw his hat in the ring and run for a seat on the NRA’s board. Because he’s a SEAL, many will give Mr. Webb a pass for writing anti-gun tripe like this on his personal blog earlier this year.

I don’t have all the solutions on this issue but I do know that I’m personally ready to compromise to limit mass shootings, and I’m ready to have an intelligent conversation on this issue.  If leading gun organizations like the NRA don’t take a leadership role in proposing realistic solutions, then they will have failed to truly represent gun owners. — Brandon Webb, Jan 9th 2013

Webb caught a ton of flak from gun owners for this post, as he should have. However, that wasn’t about to discourage him from making a run for a seat on the NRA board. To address the angry public, he made a post on to address his detractors. In this address he accomplished quite a bit, namely convincing me he is not the right man for the job.

Here are a few of his bullet points detailing his stance on gun rights which I think you’ll find interesting.

  • I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a firearms safety qualifications course, and this should be standardized across the country. Too many people I’ve seen on the range are unsafe.
  • Yes, owning a gun is a right; driving is similar to this but you have to have pass a drivers test to prove competency.
  • The NRA should be like PADI or NAUI and encourage gun ranges to only accept NRA basic qualified shooters on the range.
  • Background checks are a good idea but should take minutes, not days.
  • Legislation on increasing the prevention of mentally ill folks from gaining access to firearms seems logical.
  • Dogs/handlers at schools and colleges are better than armed guards, in my opinion.
  • I believe we should be able to concealed-carry and open-carry where practical (e.g., not on an elementary school campus or an airplane).
  • Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified.

If you read carefully, you can see far too many similarities between his stances on the issues and anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign who attempt to fein concern over preserving our rights while actively “compromising” them away.

It’s also worth noting that Mr. Webb strongly believes the NRA must compromise with anti-gun forces. Let’s be clear, gun control is never a compromise. To compromise both sides must cede something, which is never the case. When gun control laws pass, gun owners lose their rights and we get nothing in return — EVER.

Mr. Webb wants to force registration, maintain “gun free zones”, put dogs in schools vs. armed citizens, keep students and faculty at the nations colleges disarmed, require everyone to be NRA trained before being allowed to shoot on public ranges, and he likens gun ownership to driving a car.

I’m sure Webb believes he can use his military service, and the fact he rates to wear a Trident on his uniform, to skate into a NRA board seat. He’s clearly not the right man for the job and we must do everything we can as NRA members to keep him from joining Joaquin Jackson on the board. We can not allow the NRA to slip back into the hands of the gun-grabbers. It is up to us, the members, to make sure we have leadership that continues to take a hard-line “no compromise” stance on defending our 2nd Amendment rights.

Please share this post with your NRA member friends.


Brandon Webb issues a threat

Brandon Webb posted this threat in response to a private message he received on his Facebook page criticizing his political views.

Update 7/72013

A person sent Mr. Webb a private message on Facebook that criticized his political views which in turn he posted publicly. After sharing the private message, Mr. Webb issued a threat of violence to the sender.  Since Brandon posted the senders private message publicly, I’ll share it here so you can see what prompted the threat to be issued.

Are you a socialist raised Canadian born usurping infiltrator? Now, maybe that needs more clarification by you but, it’s what I see. I wouldn’t trust you as far as I could throw my house. You’re just a plant coming off like your for and all about the 2nd Amendment! You believe in permitting and compromise on the 2nd Amendment. My 2md Amendment right shouldn’t involve permitting or compromise to own a firearm. Permitting, universal registration and background checks inevitably lead to firearm confiscation later.

I could careless about your credentials and qualifications you boast about on the SOFREP website. You are not some special unique snowflake and in no way gain any credibility with me in regards to your past in the military. It does not make you the all knowing and all seeing arbiter of reason or defender of American freedom. Your thought on “compromise” and “licensing” absolutely turns me off.

Turn your quote from Winston Churchill in on yourself and the obvious fact that you’re using the INTERNET to opine your opinions while you criticize others for doing exactly the same thing you’re doing here, just to try and get elected. And, yes, it’s true, you can’t have a conversation with a fanatic, take a look in the mirror.

The reason you see hate and name calling, it is because only those who are doing it see you for what and who you really are. They see you as just another stab or chip at our God given right to self defense, whether personal or against tyranny thru the 2nd Amendment to own firearms and, it’s to be untampered with!

You should be tough enough to take the name calling and the so-called hate and not cry like a big baby when it does happen, you put yourself here, now take it. If you can’t stand the heat then, get out of the kitchen. These people as myself are impassioned for their country and the Republic for it stands, freedom (which is dwindling away with infiltrating usurpers like you, you remind me of John McCain!), it is unlike any in the rest of the world.

There shall be NO compromise on the 2nd Amendment, period! We are not socialized Europe. And, if that’s what you want then, leave and go to a place more suitable to your liking, see above.

If you want to do something then go after the people who are and have been destroying and eroding the moral fabric of America. This is the problem, not the firearm. This country has been raising amoral, libtardic, entitlement minded animals for the past 30 plus years! See below!

By the way, for your information up until the mid 60’s high schools in America had rifle ranges and practice as part of their school curriculum and were TAUGHT FIREARM SAFETY THERE! So, you might want to get your facts and your head screwed on straight. The 2nd Amendment is not a car, it is part of our Constitution, part of our inalienable rights!


MAC is an avid shooter, former MCSF Marine, NRA member, Oath Keeper and is commissioned as a Colonel by the Governor of Kentucky. Known for his videos on the Military Arms Channel, he also writes for The Bang Switch, for Shotgun News (Be Ready!) and freelances for Guns & Ammo. MAC has been a life long shooter who has an interest in all things that go "bang" but gravitates towards military type firearms.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookGoogle PlusYouTube

  • Kyle

    Hey MAC, what are some other good organizations to support for our gun rights? I have been toying with the idea of supporting the NRA but I keep hearing things like this, they seem to be dropping the ball more and more

    • kk

      Gun owners of America

    • Mike

      The NRA is primarily a lobbying organization, though they do of course help with legislative action. Organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have arguably accomplished more significant things than the NRA has as far as our rights go, through fighting and winning the Heller case. Legislators pass laws, if those laws are fought and deemed unconstitutional through LITIGATION, than future laws restricting our rights in the same manner cannot be passed or will be struck down if passed.

      Look to local organizations as well. Local organizations are especially helpful in winning the battles in various states. The NRA has been largely absent in my home state of Massachusetts. However, organizations like GOAL, and especially recently Comm2A have made great progress for the rights of Massachusetts residents. Look into what your home state has too offer.

      • quantum fiat

        The statement that the NRA is primary a lobby organization is completely false. Most of the firearm training in the US is delivered through NRA approved course materials and NRA instructors. It is more a training organization then it is a lobbying organization. More liberal lies.

      • Jesse

        SAF was for the recent Background Check Extension legislation, while the NRA was smart enough to lobby against it. They then changed their tune when they realized at the last minute that the tide was against them.

    • MAC

      GOA, NAGR, SAF and Armed Citizens United (I sit on the board).

      • nnjj

        SAF? Are you kidding? Alan Gottlieb helped WRITE the Manchin-Toomey universal gun registration bill:

        He, SAF, and CCRKBA are as bad as Webb and Jackson – maybe even worse, since neither of them is likely to write a gun control bill for the Senate.

        • Mike

          SAF is largely responsible for the biggest SCOTS gun rights win ever. Period.

          If a bill is getting written that has a chance of passing you want someone on your side doing ad much as they can to help your cause.

          • nnjj

            Manchin-Toomey is exactly the kind of bill we DON’T want passing, because it was a universal gun registration scheme. And it was none other than SAF working secretly behind the scenes to help *write* it. Perhaps you missed the numerous complaints in the OP and comments about the dangers of gun registration? But I guess we should be lucky to have SAF on our side to fight against dangerous anti-gun legislation that they write. Or something.

            Hey, with friends like these..

        • thebronze

          That was Alan Gottleib on his own, not on behalf of SAF. Which is why Gottleib should be booted. He’s a traitor.

    • ShortTimer

      JPFO as well.

      There are also state-level organizations – Texas State Rifle Association, Kansas State Rifle Association, Illinois State Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Virginia Citizen’s Defense League, etc. – just look up your state and see who’s there.

      And you may as well become an NRA member just to add to the numbers, get some of their benefits, and have the weight of being able to call them up and say “hey, I’m a member and ______ is getting me mad – so you need to do ______”. How much they listen may vary, but it gives you a stake in what’s still the largest organization (even if it is flawed).

      • Cecil B Demented (@CB_Demented)

        They do listen, surprisingly. I don’t know how many it takes to get them to listen, but I made a big stink a few years ago about them not following their own rules for grading candidates who had no legislative record. They were giving F grades to candidates who no legislative record at all, based solely on the candidate questionnaire they send out (something more than likely filled out by some staffer). During the next election cycle, they conformed to the rules.

        I don’t know if it was a hiccup or they actually payed attention to member(s) complaints…but it made me give them a second shot.

    • sh68137

    • Karina

      Armed Citizens United :)

  • Andrew

    So just sharing this post is sufficient to prevent Webb from taking a seat on the NRA Board?

    • Joeyyyyyyyyyyyyy

      I love how all of the nations problems are solved on boards like these!!!!

  • Boris

    Unfortunately many from the SF community have gone Hollywood. And Webb seems to be one of them.

  • Junk762

    Post like these are exactly the reason no one on the other side of this argument listens to anything gun owners say. Take a look at the Tea Party, who use this same no compromise stance on issues, their star is fading fast. They are primarying from the right Republicans in good standing. Guess whats going to happen, the Democrat is going to win. People with common sense know the Tea Party is what it is if the American version of the Taliban. Putting up a Tea Party candidate loses you the middle were most people are just like post like these.

    Mac, I value your opinion on firearms but I am going to have to unsubscribe from this site and your YouTube channel. I continue to see posts like these every time I come here. I am sure many after this comment will say who cares but here is the issue gunowners are already in the minority. Every person you have is valuable. While I will continue to own firearms I will never join the NRA or any other organization who take a my way of the highway stance. We live in a civilized community and civilized communities require compromise to function.

    • Nate

      You aren’t alone in your ideas. Although it seems that having a stance closer to the middle of the rope in this Tug of War with gun rights seems to be a small group. The fear, i believe, is that if gun owners compromise and give in a little then the anti-gunners will pull the rope to their side and we’ll lose our rights to gun ownership.

      • gunsafetypro

        @Nate That’s what happened to the Australian and UK gun owners. They thought if they were nice and “reasonable” they could stay relevant.

      • Cecil B Demented (@CB_Demented)

        You can find things to compromise on without giving away rights…especially when you make symbolic gestures like most of the President’s executive orders. To be honest, for most congressmen as long as you let them Look like they’re doing something, they don’t really Be doing something.

    • Boris

      Intolerance and the “I’m going home and taking all my toys with me” mentality is not constructive.
      In case you’re unaware of current events, the second amendment is under attack (not unlike many institutions that have made America a great country).
      The NRA doesn’t need progressive, weak-kneed people serving on it’s BODs. That’s equivalent to appointing Kermit Gosnell to run a pro-life organization.
      And regarding compromise, well then you must be a fan boy of Neville Chamberlain.

      • MAC

        As for who’s at fault for our ever fading liberties, I believe that rests at the feet of people like Junk762 who think one sided “compromises” and appeasement of the gun-grabbers is the way to secure our liberties for future generations.

        • Rich Guy

          I think “shall not be infringed” speaks for itself. Or I thought so. *Sigh, and so the Republic will die, with compromises followed by thunderous applause.

          I for one will not back down and “compromise” my rights away (insert appeasement of Hitler reference here).

          BTW MAC, how is it going with repealing stupid NFA things like SBR and SBS?

        • Boris

          People like Junk762 and Webb, based on their ad nauseam writings, represent a pusillanimity second to none.
          Their position on the 2a is diametrically opposed to the principles and values held by tens of thousands of young American soldiers who sacrificed life and limb defending our great country and everything American.
          Even worse, it’s disgusting how someone can ride a Hollywood driven wave of popularity past the graves of men like Woods, Doherty, and Kyle to name only a few, and fuel an ego while generating a profit. I’m talking to you Brandon Webb.

          • Andrew

            You don’t know what you are talking about. Doherty and Kyle were friends of his and he has talked with Chris and about Glen many times. Perhaps you should learn a thing or two before shooting your mouth off about the position of someone you know nothing about. Perhaps you should also be careful when claiming you speak for veterans. Your comments are wrong and distasteful. I really hope you don’t actually represent thousands of veterans like you claim.

            • Boris

              Easy for you to say Andy. Trust me, you most certainly would not be popping off to me face to face. And everything I said is true. Do a little research and read some history. You need to grow up son.

        • Moose (@sleeper362)

          They keep speaking of gun owners as being fanatical and uncompromising, I say we are just literal.

    • Thomas M.

      When it comes to the Natural Right of Free People to defend themselves and their families there is no compromise, there is not other way.

      Anyone who would choose compromise for the myth of safety versus the responsibility to protect oneself does not rate consideration for the NRA Board.

    • Primo Victoria

      The time for compromise is over.

      • Rational Skeptic

        I must have missed the time BEFORE compromising was over… Feel like I’ve rarely ever seen it in reality.

    • CharlieKilo

      Since you seem to not understand what compromise means:

      an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
      “an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both”
      synonyms: agreement, understanding, settlement, terms, deal, trade-off, bargain; More
      give and take, concession, cooperation
      antonyms: intransigence
      a middle state between conflicting opinions or actions reached by mutual concession or modification.
      “a compromise between commercial appeal and historical interest”
      the acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable.
      “sexism should be tackled without compromise”
      verb: compromise; 3rd person present: compromises; past tense: compromised; past participle: compromised; gerund or present participle: compromising
      settle a dispute by mutual concession.
      “in the end we compromised and deferred the issue”
      synonyms: meet each other halfway, come to an understanding, make a deal, make concessions, find a happy medium, strike a balance; More
      settle (a dispute) by mutual concession.
      “I should compromise the matter with my father”
      weaken (a reputation or principle) by accepting standards that are lower than is desirable.
      “commercial pressures could compromise safety”
      synonyms: undermine, weaken, damage, harm; More

    • CharlieKilo

      Additionally, since you fail to understand the word “compromise”, it means we get something in return. Are you suggesting getting to keep some of our right/liberty/freedom is adequate in return for a loss of some of it? Clearly, you don’t understand the right nor do you understand the Constitution or how/why it was written. I suggest you read the Federalist papers. I suggest you learn how to apply some critical thinking. Frankly, I’m done compromising, we’ve gotten nothing in return except a continual erosion of our rights and our liberty/freedom. I’m done with it.

    • David T

      How is it a compromise if the Anti-gun side does not give anything up? If we give rights up, and receive nothing in return then IT IS NOT A COMPROMISE.

      • ShortTimer

        It’s the “just the tip, baby” theory of compromise.

        They’ll give up on doing something you don’t want all at once, and you’ll give them some of what they want. It’s a compromise between what they want and what you don’t.

        Of course, everyone who’s honest knows what it leads to.

      • Sean

        It is, in the sense of compromising a foundation or wall.
        See definition 2 above.

        When you say a structure has been compromised, it’s rarely a good thing.

    • Wally

      You’re part of the problem. We compromise and compromise and compromise and it gets us nowhere except more restrictions on the 2A.No more compromise. Come and get them.

      • Rational Skeptic

        What were the last 3 compromises you’re referring to (and apparently regretting)?

        • S. Solly

          1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 GCA (Hughes Amendment), 1993 Brady Bill, 1994 AWB.

    • codifier

      The “other side” of the argument doesn’t listen because they don’t agree with anyone having the right to bear arms. Naturally we’re not going to cave in and just agree with them so they need people like you to apologize for them and tell the rest of us we’re being unreasonable when objecting to surrendering our rights.

      In a way people like you are more dangerous because you pretend to be a believer in our rights as free people, but you collaborate with the gun grabbers to take away enumerated rights to satisfy their irrational fears. I can at least respect the anti-gun crowd for their open stance on their beliefs and willingness to suffer in order to achieve their goals. You on the other hand are detestable; you act like you’re with us but the whole time are willing to sell us out like Judas.

      Take off your mask and have enough balls to take your side instead of this neither fish nor fowl crap.

    • Thomas

      The Bill of Rights are non negotiable. The RIGHT to arms is not given to us by Congress but reserved by us for ourselves. Just read history and the Federalist papers for guidance on this issue. Take it from those who oppressed, who fought for these freedoms, why we should not bargain them away.

    • Phil Asophical (@BarryMaicock1)

      Junk762, I have a compromise, your not allowed to say anything else on the internet just in person. I want you to compromise your First Amendment right.

    • KPDRetired

      Junk..the Definition of “Compromise” means that BOTH SIDES have to give something up. Thus far We, the Firearms Community have been the ONLY Ones to do any giving. FOPA was a “Compromise” We gained Protection for traveling, we gained, the ability to buy Ammunition via mail order, and we LOST vis the ban on New Machineguns added to the registry. Since then there hasnt been a SINGLE “Compromise” Bill or law passed..every single one has been a removal of freedoms and rights. Please tell me what the “Compromise” was in the NJ Assault Weapon Ban, or more recently NY State’s “SAFE” Act?? You’re just another statist…you just dont have the guts to admit it openly.

    • thereals0beit

      What “compromise”? They’ve never given us anything. This is a hard line stance against relentless attack, not a partnership, not on either side of the aisle and it never has been.

      There’s a lot of rude statements I could slap into this post but I’m trying to remain civil.

    • Snuffy

      Junk762: It’s unfortunate that you fail to see the actual attack the 2nd Amendment is under. Electing spineless jellyfish to represent the NRA only hurts the law-abiding citizen. How is it that you fail to see that? What Utopia do you come from where compromise with the 2nd Amendment/guns makes crime drop? It is a well established fact that more guns, here in the United States, means lower crime rates. Why would you want to reverse that? Are you just as adamant against baseball bats and hammers (I bet not)? We, the NRA, need board members who will stand behind facts, and not make hypocritical, emotion-based decisions.

    • Ethan

      First of all, I would like to say that I sympathize with your statement about having to unsubscribe from videos. I have had occasion to do that regarding other firearm based youtube channels before due in part to my frustration over the constant vitriol and name calling about their political opponents. However while I believe that his post on facebook stating that Mr. Webb is anti-gun may be a little strong he does have a point, and I must also say that MAC has separated himself from that crowd by being more thoughtful about his arguments and focusing on the issues at hand instead of distracting from those arguments by saying things like “the American version of the Taliban”.

      I can also sympathize with your not joining the NRA because I am not a member either. However, my reasons are mostly covered in the article above in that they have a history of supporting anti-gun legislation on the one hand and being weak kneed about anti-gun legislation on the other hand. In fact, before the discussions I have been privy to dealing with the qualifications of Mr. Webb to lead in the NRA I was in the process of considering a change of my stance concerning the organization due to their more recent achievements of reconstructing our second amendment rights and the fact that due to its size the organization has substantially more power than other organizations with the same mission.

      As for Mr. Webb’s qualifications, I have no doubt that his ability to lead is excellent but you must ask yourself if his stance matches the mission of the organization that he wishes to lead. In respect to that question I would have to say no. This is primarily because of his stances concerning the background checks and the requirement for training before being allowed to own a firearm. I myself have thought that requiring training would be nice, but it is not the government’s prerogative to do that.

      One doubt that I have in Mr. Webb’s ability to think logically, however this may simply be a case of his lack of understanding on the subject, is his belief that K9’s should be used at every school across the country. I brought up this point in another discussion, even if a bit clumsily, that these dogs don’t just grow on trees. These dogs are specially bred for the task, and, to my knowledge, there are only two breeders in this country that do this. Furthermore, the people that train these dogs will only select maybe one or two puppies out of an entire litter to train. this is why it costs around $40,000 for a dog that already has several years of service on it, at the current demand. Once you add in a demand for dogs at every school in America, $100,000 for a K9 trained in police work might actually be considered a good deal. Therefore this plan is completely impracticable. Not to mention that, when estimating a projected price, I assumed that there will be enough well trained animals to fill the demand, and according to the figures listed in this paragraph that’s not guaranteed and is in fact highly unlikely to the extent that quality will indisputably be compromised for the sake of filling orders.

      I was going to say something about compromising our rights, but considering the fact that this post has gone on for quite some time and the fact that that topic has been pretty well covered, I think I’ll leave it alone. Either way, I think I made my point that even though he may not exactly be anti-gun, Mr. Webb does not have the qualifications to lead the NRA in the fulfillment of its understood mission, and that MAC is not exactly in the wrong on this.

    • Ken

      If you can tell me how any restriction up to a ban can prevent a determined evil person from killing people in mass I would be all ears.Until then I will continue to support the 2A with money and blood if necessary.

    • B.A. Baracus

      Please enlighten me on all the compromises the anti-gun crowd or anyone on the left has made on anything? Last time I checked gun related crimes have been falling over the past decade, but despite that the gun control crowd continues to push to expand gun control. The left knows no compromise. They won’t be satisfied until private ownership of firearms is completely outlawed. They’re pretty open about that, if you paid attention to what they say when they think we’re not watching them.

    • B. E. Smith

      Just curious. If you think it’s alright to compromise on your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, do you also think it’s okay to compromise on your 1st amendment right to free speech – or your right to worship (or not) as you please – or your right to be free from unreasonable search-and-seizure? Do you see where I’m going with this? If we compromise or qualify the exercise of one constitutional right, we have begun sliding down the proverbial “slippery slope” to compromising all our rights.

    • shawndrake

      “Shall Not Be Infringed.”

      Pretty clear. Compromises infringe on our rights.

    • Aviator22

      Comparing the Tea Party to the Taliban totally destroys your own argument. How many Tea Party-sanctioned public executions and terrorist attacks have you witnessed? People with common sense DO NOT see the Tea Party as the “American version of the Taliban.” If you hold to that belief, explain yourself coherently.

    • gunsafetypro

      Compromise for the sake of compromise is what got the Australian and UK gun owners groups f****d.

  • Nate

    I agree with quite a few of his ideas.. So if I don’t say anyone should be able to buy any kind of firearm they want without training and a criminal history check, does that make me anti-gun? Many of his ideas are practical, the biggest problem I see is that true anti-gunners can and probably will take advantage of the more middle ground ideas and try to make them more extreme towards their wants.
    To be clear, I don’t agree with the gun free zones and dogs at the schools parts. However the safety training, instant background checks, and mentally ill parts are all very practical and reasonable.

    • MAC

      Who should do this training as a requirement to exercising your rights? Should we also require people pass a college level English course before being able to own a blog or before posting on Facebook?

      Who will keep the list of gun owners? You do realize there must be a list otherwise how do we know who has passed training or not? As of right now it’s illegal to keep a database of gun owners, so I assume you’re also for changing this law.

      We already have laws against the mentally ill buying firearms, do you want to expand that? He does. Are you in favor of expanding the background checks? Tell me, how many people have been prosecuted for being a convicted felon and trying to buy a firearm at a gun store?

      You don’t think we have enough laws on the books, you want to pass more? You think that’s reasonable?

      • Nate

        Just because a viewpoint isn’t on the no compromose far wall of gun rights doen’t mean that it wrong or isn’t to the benefit of gun owners and future gun owners. It also doen’t mean that it is solid as is and doesn’t need some tweeking. And no, you shouldn’t need to pass an english course in order to make a blog, my opinions aren’t that farfetched.

        The NRA already has basic safety courses and gun stores can bring in extra profit by offering their own courses that follow certain guidelines set by the NRA. I do realize a list of gun owners or at least those who have attended a safety course would be kept. Webb referenced PADI, which is actually a good basis for that part of his argument. Why can’t the NRA be somewhat like PADI and be the ones to keep records of who has been trained? This would keep it from being government based and as far as I know then a freedom of information act request would do nothing to release the list. I have seen videos from both you and IV8888 on gun store edequet that are soley based on the fact that gun stores constantly have people coming in that don’t know how to handle firearms and theres nothing stopping those people from buying guns, taking them home and jokingly pointing them at people with rounds in the chamber. The NRA could easily adopt qualification cards or a database of certificates like PADI. Standardize the course so it doen’t cost much, make it quick so people don’t have to miss work, and throw in a little range time for practical application and it isn’t unreasonable.

        What I do know is that there are A LOT of people buying firearms who have no idea what they are doing with them and they have more potential to hurt themselves or others on the range. Sadly some of my civilian friends are amung them and the things I see at the range are swiftly corrected. This is also because I am a Marine and a marksmanship coach so I have been trained to be very cautious of range safety.

        People also argue that the argument about vehicle licenses can’t compare to 2nd amendment rights because the right to drive isn’t in the constitution. If cars were around when the constitution was written don’t you think they would have included it though? One thing I would love to see is a state to state universal acceptance of gun ownership. If I can drive from one state to another with a licence that has different rules on how to obtain it from where I started why can I not buy a firearm in another state? Also if you have ever lived in a country that doesn’t require drivers training you would think driving on any number of “bad” highways in the US was amazing. Standardized training works.

        As far as background checks go I would love to see an instant background check in all states. It must be nice to live in a state where they have it or have no background check because in my state of residency I can’t even buy most firearms because I’m in the military and I can’t be home long enough to wait out the background check system. In MD it is a 7 day minimum, but when I was home in june for 12 days the system was so backed up that it took my friend over 3 months to buy a stripped lower. You also have to pick it up in 30 days from when it is approved. I’m stationed overseas, I can’t take leave for that.

        Living in a state with more relaxed gun laws is a dream of mine. Many of my neighbors moved when MD passed their new gun laws last year. I can’t wait to get back to the US and go through all the hoops in claiming another state for residency just so I can buy the firearms I want.

        • CharlieKilo

          You mean like in Maryland? The law required having a course before buying, so stores are charging $500-$1000 for the Basic NRA Course, which is typically a $50 class. Yeah, that makes sense. You don’t seem to understand the law of unintended consequences.

        • Steven Lo Vullo

          Yes, a lot of people are buying firearms. Where is your proof of any widespread increase in accidental shootings or firearm owners harming others intentionally? Hint: There is no proof, since the numbers show that these types of incidents are DECREASING. It seems you are looking for a problem to your solution.

        • MAC

          So you want the NRA to be the gate keeper of deciding if you get to own a firearm or not? That seems to be your position since you want to entrust them with coming up with the training, profiting from it, and then keeping the list of who has passed their tests and who hasn’t. I assume they will also be responsible for passing along this information to the gun shops so they know who can buy a gun and who can’t… the same organization that gave us the GCA’s of 1934, 1938 and 1968? You really want to empower an organization with that much power, the same organization that has Joaquin Jackson on its board of directors?

          Who’s going to keep watch over the watch keepers in this scenario?

          We have instant background checks here in Indiana. Every single time I purchase a firearm I get delayed 3 days (which is actually 4). I am a former Marine who held a top secret security clearance and was trusted to stand guard over our nations nuclear assets… but I need additional screening to for EVERY gun purchase I make? You don’t see a problem with that? Do you know that many Vets such as myself find themselves being delayed when buying a gun? Why is that? You support that or at the very least have no issue with it and think the flawed system is a good idea?

          How many people have been prosecuted for being felons and attempting to buy a firearm at a gun shop when they were denied by the NICS system? I think you may be shocked by the answer… yet you don’t see that as a problem?

          Just curious…

          • Nate

            As I said my idea isn’t solid as is, but that doesnt mean it shouldn’t be on the table. There are obviously things that would need to be worked out. Maybe it doesn’t have to be NRA, but you reference them so much it seems they are above everyone else as the authority on what the gun control stance should be.

            I too am a Marine with TS and I’m trusted with guarding our nation’s embassies. I’ve also done my time in Afghanistan and that 4 day waiting period that is such a pain for you would be a luxury for me in my state of residency. What I would like to see is a national standard on purchasing firearms and something making the process easier for military service members with weapons training would be a great start. In states like MD they won’t give up what they have to go to no checks and no waiting periods so having some kind of check would at least make the anti-gunners a little happy and it would be a huge benifit to gun buyers in that state. If this was a national standard it would make things slightly worse in states where these conditions aren’t in place, but if that compromise means that anti-gunners will back off isn’t it worth it? To sweeten that deal for us, something could be written in to make sure that anti-gunners don’t take that inch and try to turn it into a mile.

            Like I said, just because an idea isn’t extreme to one side doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be on the table.

            So now this old argument of no one is being prosecuted for attempting to buy firearms as a fellon. What I do see is a system that works in preventing people who shouldn’t be buying firearms working. Just because you don’t have data of something not happening doesn’t mean that it is working. Just because a car with run flat tires hasn’t had a puncture doesn’t mean that they had potential punctures or no potential punctures.

            • S. Solly

              So the Military should be a protected class when buying firearms and have special privileges because of their training? The same training that an army medic I once met underwent and he still couldn’t tell the difference between a belt of 5.56mm and 7.62mm?

              I should sacrifice my rights to own firearms and submit to even more background checks just to make it easier for you to buy a firearm in your state of residency that you don’t even reside in? Have you not heard of something called “states rights”? You know, states being able to determine the laws within their own borders. Have you never heard to phrase “A right delayed is a right denied.”? Your proposals are bad and you should feel bad.

            • S. Solly

              Perhaps you would like our laws to mimic Sweden’s where you have to undergo 6 months of firearms training before you can apply for a permit to buy a handgun? Because that is what your’s and Mr. Webb’s scheme will lead to.

            • SD

              You are delusional. Being a member (current or former) of the military does not make you better than any other citizen of the United States. You chose to serve. You gave up your time and talents of your own free will and volition. But in your view, that somehow translates to becoming a class above the citizenry? Having had training in an ROE different in the civilian world does not make you a better shooter or friend of the 2A.

          • Jim Tobey

            Anything, or any one, who is “officially” sanctioned as the arbiter of “permission” to participate in anything, transforms that “thing (ie. Right)” into a privledge. Privledges can be revoked. Rights have to be surrendered. No surrender!

        • KPDRetired

          You should move to NJ Nate, then you can Apply to your local PD and wait anywhere from 1-6 MONTHS for your “Firearms Purchase ID” (Longer if you live in a town that has no PD and is served by NJSP) Then have to Reapply for another permission slip for EACH handgun you buy, plus you have to wait 30 days between purchases. You CANNOT get a carry permit unless you are either A: Retired LE like myself, or B: Famous/Rich/Politically connected. Oh, and if you possess ONE SINGLE Round of Hollowpoint Ammunition in ANY Caliber outside of your home unless you are traveling to or from the place of purchase, or Shooting range you are committing a Felony. Those are the laws that “Compromise” with the Antis leads to.

        • B.A. Baracus

          Let’s remember why the 2nd Amendment exists. It’s not so that we can all enjoy the shooting sports. It exist so that if the need ever arises the citizenry has the means to forcefully oppose a tyrannical government. If you want to be assured that the guy next to you at the range is competent with a firearm, then join a range that requires members be trained or be able to demonstrate competency with a firearm. But a requirement to go through “training” in order to purchase a firearm is just one more step down the slippery slope we’re already on. The radical left does not stop. Incrementalism is their game. If you live in Maryland, then you are at ground zero for the type of authoritarian government that the left is marching us towards. You complain about a 7 day wait, but that’s what you get when you fall for the disingenuous argument for “reasonable” restrictions on gun ownership…like a training requirement.

      • Cecil B Demented (@CB_Demented)

        You have to “pass an examination” to use facebook. If you can’t read, you can’t sign up. The signup itself is an examination that proves you can do what it is you need to be able to do in order to use the service, which they can terminate or change at any time.

        There’s a list now of every new purchase made. It’s just not centrally held. Do you never buy a new firearm? Because that FFL has you on a list of purchasers. Having no record that you’re a legal gun owner is a fantasy unless you never buy a new weapon, and live in a state that allows you to carry without a permit…which just isn’t the case for the majority of us.

        How do they know if you passed training? The same way the gun store knows who bought every weapon since they opened. They keep a list. The issue isn’t that there are lists…it’s that it’s not a central database that any chucklehead can get access to. I have a list of every gun I’ve ever sold to someone, as a private citizen, which the DL of the person I sold it to…because I won’t sell to someone who doesn’t have one.

        And as of right now, it’s illegal in SOME states to keep a database of gun owners. That’s not the case in other states. And quite frankly, there is NOTHING in the 2nd amendment that says, or even implies that you have the right to own a firearm without anyone knowing about it. That dog won’t hunt in court.

        How many felons have been tried for trying to buy a gun at a gun store? Last year there were 44, only 21 of which were convicted for trying to buy the firearm alone. That’s out of 56k felons, fugitives and otherwise prohibited individuals by states (usually someone with a protective order) out of the 72k failed bg checks.

        Do I think we have enough laws? Yes and no. I think we have too many laws that serve no purpose and do no good (silencers? Really? How many silencers have EVER been used in a crime?), or more importantly aren’t enforced when it would do some good. 44 out of 56k slam dunk illegal purchase cases is pathetic.

        But just because there are numerous bad laws that need to be removed doesn’t mean that new laws couldn’t do some good. The argument shouldn’t be that you can never make another law, but what can we do to get rid of the ones that never should have passed in the first place.

    • codifier

      It doesn’t make you anti-gun but that doesn’t mean it’s not an anti-gun stance. I am not sure where we branched off the road where the government is now allowed to permanently revoke your right to bear arms as a free man when your debt to society is paid. Also who gets to decide when I or my family is “properly trained” to your arbitrary standards ? Do you really want a group of bureaucrats deciding what you need to do to exercise a natural right recognized by the highest law in the land?

      You’ve fallen for the siren song of “reasonable measures” and “common sense laws” by the anti-gun crowd who want nothing more than that right to be constantly eroded until they’re gone. Rights aren’t about being practical or reasonable. That’s why they’re RIGHTS. Some people will abuse those rights and if you’re wanting arbitrary restrictions on those rights because you’re afraid of people abusing them then you’re no better than the anti-gun crowd.

      • John Dye

        This mat have escaped your notice but the criminals that have done the worst shootings in recent history bought their guns at a gun shop and passed the background check. Those that did not pass didn’t try. They simply stole the guns they used. Talking about background checks to keep guns out of criminal hands is just plain ignorant. It doesn’t work. If it did we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Facts are facts. It is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of those you think should not have them. They will have them no matter what laws are passed.

        • codifier

          I think you meant to post this in reply to Nate instead of mine :)

          • John Dye

            Ah yeah, I thought I had done that. Sorry, but my message hopefully got through. I hate it when somebody tries to tell those that have followed the gun debate how ineffective laws work so well even in the face of evidence that they do not.

    • Harrison Jones

      So if I am legally blind but wish to own (insert favorite classic car), should I not be allowed to own it because I can’t drive it on public road ways?
      I agree that at this point in time background check at the retail level are a good idea. It is already illegal to sell a firearms to someone that you believe is a criminal. Are you suggesting requiring background checks for private transactions?

    • TexTopCat

      The issue of background check is not nearly as simple as most people talk about it. There are two parts, 1) When should it be required? 2) Who has control of the denial list and what are the requirements to loose the right of self-defense.
      In Delaware, a shopkeeper was given 10 year sentence for having a gun as an ex-felon. He shot two criminals robbing his store. There is no claim that the shooting was not justified, but he is going to jail for having the ability for self defense. A perfect example of the law being enforced but justice not being done.

  • Jonathan

    How’d this guy get so disconnected from reality?

    • SD

      He’s created, exploited, and monetized a mythos surrounding his service as a SEAL. Classic Hollywood Syndrome.

  • Kuda

    Since when is driving a constitutional right or even a basic state right? Last I checked it is a privilege. I hate when people compare the two for they neglect to take the argument full circle. My driver’s license respected in every state. Not all states have the same training requirements. The states’ rules are obvious for they are listed all over the place. More people get killed in vehicle “accidents” than by guns in the US. Are people considered mass murderers for causing a crash killing a busload of people? If the speed limit is 65 why can my car go 120? Why are municipalities getting sued and losing to people complaining about speed cameras? The last I checked those things only issue tickets to speeders. And this gun free zone farce. Why can’t a law abiding citizen carry a gun at his kid’s school play? I cannot find the factual statistics, but I have yet to find an incident where a law abiding person shot up a place. Preaching to the choir… Sorry.

    • Joe

      Kuda: This notion is a “constitutional right” is a created fiction by those who wish to deny us of our Rights.

      Rights are ENUMERATED in the Constitution, they aren’t given by it. Also the Rights enumerated in the BOR are NOT exhaustive.

      The Right to travel is a long held Right in this country. Trying to claim that the Founders had a Right to travel in a horse and buggy but horse-less carriages are privilege would mean that semi-automatic rifles and type writers don’t qualify because they are modern.

      Does a corrupt set of lawyers in black dresses that pretend to honor their Oaths to the Constitution agree with me all the time? No but it doesn’t change the fact it’s true.

      I’d point you to the Ninth Amendment as proof:
      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    • sootsme

      Actually, Drivers’ Licenses are unconstitutional, as they create a “privileged class”, which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. “Driving” legally refers to operating a vehicle for pay. When you’re using your vehicle for personal business, you’re “traveling”, which is your unrestricted Constitutional Right. Numerous state and federal courts have held this to be true, and ruled that Driver Licenses are not required of Citizens in the conduct of their personal affairs.

    • Harrison Jones

      You may not be allowed to drive a car on public roadways but you are still allowed to own it and drive it on private property. You can import a vehicle that will never meet DOT importation guidelines and drive it all you want on private property. Yet I still can’t buy a newly manufactured (insert favorite MG) and shoot it on my private property.

      • Mic rolling (@Microlling)

        Thanks to Ronald Reagen no less

  • ben

    thank you MAC!!! Do not forget that Brandon Webb likened our 2nd Amendment rights to slavery…

    “Sometimes change, and healthy debate, as difficult as it can be at first, is a good thing. After all it was once within our constitutional rights to own and enslave other human beings. I believe in the 2nd Amendment and our right to bear arms but, if we continue to do nothing on the issue (mainly a mental health one) of mass shootings then we can expect more of them in the near future. Remember that when you kiss your kids goodbye on their way to school.” – Brandon Webb

  • Harrison Jones

    He strikes me as that typical old guy who becomes involved with local politics because he has nothing else to do with his time. The guy that has nothing constructive to add to the conversation yet always speaks longer than anyone else. He honestly does strike me as a “gun guy” and I think that is the biggest problem.

    • Harrison Jones

      He honestly doesn’t strike me as a “gun guy” and I think that is the biggest problem.

    • CharlieKilo

      He fancies himself a “gun guy” because he was a “sniper” and a SEAL. Those qualifications do not a gun guy make. Nor do those qualifications mean he’s qualified to espouse on the merits of Constitutional law or what should or should not be compromised. Frankly, it’s not qualified to talk about anything in the 2A arena.

      • Harrison Jones

        I agree completely. I am sure his proficiency with firearms far exceeds mine and I thank him for his service, but those alone don’t qualify him to participate on the pro gun team.

      • B.A. Baracus

        I agree. He strikes me like all the other Progressives on the left and right who believe that because they hold office, served in the military, or are part of some other “elite” group that they are superior to you and I. I’m sure that he’s got quite a bit of narcissism under the surface. He believes that since he’s been a SEAL he is smarter, more qualified, and just better than the rest of us. He trusts himself with firearms but not the rest of us who are just part of the great unwashed masses that need an authoritarian government to dictate their lives for them. His proposal for dogs in the schools rather than armed citizens illustrates this. He trusts animals over armed human beings. You see, we’re too stupid and not to be trusted with something so dangerous as a gun in a school.

      • SD

        Agreed. To many, firing and carrying a weapon is just a job. Many service men and women espouse neutral to antagonistic views of gun ownership and the 2A. Some go so far as to think they are better than civilians due to having fired a weapon professionally. Mr. Webb obviously falls in this category.

  • John Dye

    Hell, I should run for a seat on the board. Gun owners should love me since I support the 2nd amendment as it is written word for word. I don’t insert phrases in it like “unless the government says you aren’t their kind of people and say you cannot bear arms.” You might not like it, but it is what it is. It has nothing in it that says “if you have a felony you will not handle any arms.” It also does not say “But you must get permission of the government to have this right.”

    • Thomas

      In the old days when a man was released from prison, they would give his saddle and gun back. They ate the horse.
      Lol, I don’t know if that’s factual, but I do agree if a person has paid their debt to society they should be able to resume their rights.

  • Warhead

    It just came to me: Gun safety subsidies or gun safety grants. If you want to take a firearm safety, hunter safety, CC class, buy a tax stamp, etc… the government should pay some or all of the cost. Or you could write if off on your taxes. Our tax dollars go to every other damn thing, why not? We could take the money from food stamps.

  • Nic

    “I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a firearms safety qualifications course, and this should be standardized across the country. Too many people I’ve seen on the range are unsafe.”

    While mandatory anything invokes a knee-jerk reaction of opposition every responsible gun owner I know hates seeing unsafe and untrained shooters on a firing range. My buddies and I complain constantly about violations of safety when handling, shooting and storing firearms. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to say someone should have to attend a course. How would this be implemented? I don’t know, it would have to be easily accessible and cheap. The first piece of advice I give or any of my fellow shooters give to someone wanting to begin ownership and shooting of firearms is to attend a course.

    “Yes, owning a gun is a right; driving is similar to this but you have to have pass a drivers test to prove competency.”

    See last point.

    “The NRA should be like PADI or NAUI and encourage gun ranges to only accept NRA basic qualified shooters on the range.”

    Maybe this should be the solution to the above point in lue of mandatory classes. If you have public land or open land that you can shoot on then go ahead and I can’t force you to be safe but I don’t think it’s ridiculous to say that if you’re at a public range with other people the range should be responsible and ensure that everyone is being safe and is qualified on the range.

    “Background checks are a good idea but should take minutes, not days.”

    That just seems like common sense

    “Legislation on increasing the prevention of mentally ill folks from gaining access to firearms seems logical.”

    The gun community almost unanimously agrees that mental illness is to blame for these mass shootings, not the firearms. What is wrong with making it more difficult for those who shouldn’t be handling firearms to get them?

    “Dogs/handlers at schools and colleges are better than armed guards, in my opinion.
    I believe we should be able to concealed-carry and open-carry where practical (e.g., not on an elementary school campus or an airplane).”

    While I disagree with this point I don’t think it necessarily disqualifies him.

    “Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified.”

    You’re mad that he wants everyone to have access to machine guns, SBRs, SBSs, suppressors and any other type of firearm? Seriously?

    • Ethan

      “‘Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified.’

      You’re mad that he wants everyone to have access to machine guns, SBRs, SBSs, suppressors and any other type of firearm? Seriously?”

      It appears to me that the disagreement with this statement stems from the word permit. In other words, Mr. Webb believes that you must “obtain a permit” to be able to own these weapons. It has nothing to do with the ownership of these weapons and everything to do with having to “obtain a permit” in order to own them.

  • Sgt_P

    You may not know it, due to our democrat run schooling system, but you are a classic socialist. You believe that democracy and compromise are somehow civilized. And you have also been led (like a sheep) to the notion that you are “in the middle”, as if that is a good thing.
    The entire point on MAC’s article is about how the NRA can be eroded from positions. Not taking a stand, and not having principles is as caustic as rust on metal. To simplify it for you, how do you compromise on abortion if you are against it? Do you find middle ground where half of the baby can live?
    Figure out where you stand and fight for that. NRA Board members are setting the agenda for our future. That is a deep sentence, so read it again if it didn’t stir you to your core.

    I choose to stand and fight, not compromise on my God-given right to defend myself.

  • fixento

    Anyone that advocates gun owners should compromise their right to bear arm under the 2nd Amendment are no more than wolfs in sheep’s clothing for gun control fanatics. These are the same people that were advocates of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 which has result have cause Americans to lose more freedom and privacy both legally and illegally from a paranoid government than any terrorist organization will ever accomplish. We have a Supreme Court setting that’s more tyrannical then Henry VIII. This country is fast becoming a nation of narcissists that do nothing but live their little lives, in their little sub divisions that don’t care about freedom as long as it does not effect their boring lives and constant blabber on cell phones..

    • Thomas

      Well said fixento

  • Chris

    He can compromise.
    I’m not!

    • Ross

      If the other side wants expanded background checks then I want ALL items removed from the NFA and the NFA done away with forever, so yes I’m open to talks on compromise.

  • OEFVet06

    How, precisely, are we suppose to keep him off the board? Write letters/email to the NRA? Can we vote as NRA members?

    • S. Solly

      Yes, if you are a member of the NRA you can vote for board members.

    • Jimmy CZechSix

      NRA members(after 5 years membership, IIRC) vote for BOD members. Other than direct voting, passing around the information to other members who are eligible to vote is the only tactic.

  • Robert Rinaldi

    Compromise yesterday. Compromise today. Compromise tomorrow. Compromise the next day. By the. End of the week their will be nothing left to compromise on. Because everything will have been given away in compromises.

  • Derek Mirza
  • Mike

    Here is an idea, if they want us to compromise we will, but every time they want us to do something for them, we expect them to return the favor. You want expanded background checks? fine, give us Constitutional carry, in all 50 states. You want to restrict magazine capacity? Fine, but throw out the NFA laws while your in there.

    Obviously I’m kidding about what I’m willing to give up, because I’m not willing to give another inch, another round, another anything.

  • C.j. Singleton

    Im done “compromising” and I want my damn cake back because all im left with is a pile of crumbs and now they want to take that away

  • Peter Wittgens

    Normally I am on your side, MAC. But what is wrong with a safety course? Nothing at all! It would definitely help reducing the victims of missing gun safety and it would not hurt anybody, because you have to do it once in your life. No gun legislations at all are as utopian as banning guns at all will work.

    Of course, such a law has to be waterproof and should not be abused for further regulations. Here are my personal gun laws that make sense in my opinion. These laws should be THE ONLY GUN LAWS in every country of the world:

    1. The citizen has to be at least 21 years to own the maturity for firearms.
    2. Every gun owner has to pass a gun safety course.
    3. You are not allowed to buy a weapon when you commited a strong violent crime in the last 5 years.
    4. Proof (bill for example) for owning a safe for your weapons.
    5. For carrying a weapon in public (concealed and open) you have to pass a special safety course.

    They all make sense in my opinion. Number 3 will not prevent all violent criminals from getting an illegal gun, but it will prevent a lot of people who are normally law abiding citizens, which once made a big mistake. Furthermore, it is not punishing law abiding citizens…

    But saying “there should be no gun laws” is really childish in my opinion, because some restrictions do work and every normal person with my 5 laws is allowed to own a gun when he is not a complete idiot (the courses are not rocket science).

    “Criminals dont care about gun laws” is ignorant, because there is not only black and white, there are also law abiding citizens which would do shit like accidents because they know nothing about gun safety or good people who did once a mistake, but who are no full time hardccore criminal.

    Of course my 5 points are not as detailed and I could write pages about them, but I think that most of the gun community would agree.

    Just my 2 cents.

    • Joe

      Peter, I have no idea where to start with your thoughts but they are completely nonsensical. At best.

      21 years old? Do you realize that in many state you can already carry concealed or openly at 18 years of age? Some of those states don’t require any training or licenses either. The sky certainly isn’t falling in those states.

      Why would you want to deny a 18 year old lady her Right to defend herself?

      Considering you don’t think young ladies should be able to defend themselves, the rest of your ‘ideas’ are complete non starters.

      I’d suggest you learn what a Right is before trying to deny them to decent law abiding people.

      • John Dye

        Problem is, it’s like background checks. It wouldn’t stop anybody from going out and going on a shooting snit. It wouldn’t stop one crime. It wouldn’t have prevented one single crime. The responsibility of teaching gun safety should not fall to any organization or government entity. It should be taught parents to children as it always has been in the past. Your dependence on other people or organizations or government entity to do your job as a parent needs to end. That includes gun safety and training on how to use a gun.

      • MAC

        It’s also worth mentioning that we can send an 18 year old off to fight and die in a war, but back here at home in the land of the free he/she isn’t able to buy a beer or a handgun legally.

        • Harrison Jones

          At 19 years old I am treated as an adult when paying taxes forming a company and if I am charged with a crime. Yet my only viable legal means of defense outside of my home are my surefire and pocket knife. I am expected to bear all the responsibilities of an adult without the rights.

        • B. E. Smith

          Many years ago, the minimum age for police officers in Meridian, MS was 18. I knew a few of those guys who hired in at 18. They had to get their PARENTS to buy their ammo and firearms (or carry department issue)!!!

        • Cecil B Demented (@CB_Demented)

          And that is truly a crime. You can blame M.A.D.D. and the insurance industry for the first half of that statement. Both should be legal, at least for those who voluntarily put their lives in harms way for the service of their country.

      • Mic rolling (@Microlling)

        Sorry Joe Federal law prohibits sales of handguns to citizens 21 and over. Most states regulate handguns the same way. No state that i have ever heard of lets 18 year olds carry.

        • MAC

          You’ve never been to Indiana then. My brother in law is 18 and he has a concealed carry permit issued by the state. We’re not alone, there are other states as well. Growing up in Kansas I carried a handgun openly, and legally, long before they had a concealed carry law and before I was 21 years old.

        • CharlieKilo

          Actually, you can in VA, but there are restrictions.

    • MAC

      While I won’t go as far as you and call your comments “childish”, what I will say is that you’re horribly misguided.

      1. But we can send that less than 21 year old person off to fight and die in a war. Am I to understand an 18 year old is mature enough to fight and die for their country but they’re not mature enough to buy a handgun?
      2. So you would force people to take a government sanctioned “safety course”. And I suppose in your view the government would make these super easy to pass and would never use them to arbitrarily deny citizens their right to own firearms… like the local Police Chief or Sheriff can do when you to go ask their permission for a SBR. Further to that point, who gets to keep the list of registered gun owners that took these courses?
      3. Define a “strong violent crime” and why the arbitrary 5 years? If you commit a “strong violent crime” I assume that means you’re doing 10+ years in prison.
      4. You want to force people to buy a safe and present proof to the state, what, each time they buy a gun? Who gets to set the regulations on how big, heavy, fire retardant, breakin resistant, expensive the safe is? Forcing someone to buy a safe that costs more than the pistol they seek to own is ok in your book? What about a bachelor that lives alone, he’s to be forced to spend an unknown amount of money to buy a safe? Will the government get to track who has a gun safe and who doesn’t, so they can determine if you’re worthy of owning a firearm? Do we also need to force people to allow police into their homes for safe storage compliance checks?
      5. Where in the Constitution does it say you must pass a litmus test to exercise a right?

      The only thing your missing in your list of rights violations is a tax on the right to own a firearm. Well, I can only assume you are ok with the state charging you money every 2-4 years to renew your concealed carry license or to give you that mandatory training (refresher courses too?), which is a tax… so I guess it’s in there.

      • Peter

        Thank you for your detailed answer. I want to shortly explain my background: I come from Germany and own guns because I made a hunting license to be able to own guns without beeing forced in a shooting club (really expensive and time consuming here…). Here in Germany we have the toughest gun laws in Europe and I fight to change that. We do not have a 2nd amandment but I think every country should have that. When I had to choose between our gun laws and guns for everyone, I would choose second. But it is not the perfect form in my opinion. I will answer your comments to my points:

        1. You can argue about that point and I would accept 18 years, but then again you could say “So a 10 year old child is not allowed to defend himself?”. You have to make a decision and I personally think, that 21 years is perfect because the maturity is higher and more people would be aware of the responsibility owning and carrying a firearm. But okay, I am not close minded, lets say 18 years.

        2. Here in Germany we have something called “Waffensachkunde” which means “weapon competence”. That is one of the few things about our gun laws I really like. It is really easy and the main point is to be there and learn something, at the end of the course you have to demonstrate a bit of knowledge about guns, ammunition and self defense rights and weapon handling and thats it. Everybody who can listen and is not a maniac passes this test. But what we have is huuuuuge gun safety at the range and everywhere, because everybody had to pass the test and knows how to handle a gun. I do not see anything negative about this test. It is like the driving license, or would you dispose that test, too? When somebody would say I did not pass although I clearly passed he would break the law and we would meet in court. Every law can be abused, but we live in a constitutional state which will solve this problem…

        3. I am not clear about your opinion, so you want guns also for violent criminals or not? Like I said, the points are not detailed enough, of course you have to work them out. I just wanted to make clear that also criminals who did not do any crime in 5 years are able to resocialise and get their gun rights back.

        4. I think you said in one of your videos that every gun owner should own a safe, so that the guns are sefely deployed when he is away. Right? So what is the problem about that point. Here in Germany we have another dumb and complex law about this point. In my opinion any safe is okay, also the cheapest one, but a responsible gun owner should invest in a good one like I personally did.
        And NO, no checks, they would invade my privacy. Just a “proof” like a bill of the safe or a picture when you have no bill.

        5. I understand the american constitution. But in the end, the prohibition was also part of it and it is possible that it can be changed. But you have to adapt laws to modernity. I would not touch the constitution, but what is wrong with a safety course for a carry permit? You could combine it with point 2, same thing. I think we both share the same view on that topic: every person who carries a gun should get training. But lets be honest: a lot of people do not do that. And in my opinion that is irresponsible not only for him, but also for the other people. So, “forcing” a small, basic and simple safety course is a must have in my opinion and nothing negative.

        What often comes to mind with safety courses is “well, then it is only a small step to control the guns, create other laws etc.”. But that is ALWAYS the case.

        Like I said, I would not ADD my 5 points to the actual gun law. I would dispose ALL existing gun laws and take my 5 points. Suppressors should not be treated as a gun.

        I hope you will open your mind a little bit and think about my points. I am also open minded and when you can present me good arguments I will might change my opinion.

        It is really hard for me to write about this topic in english, sorry for the language.

        You make the best and most informative gun videos on youtube because you make them compact and put a lot of information in a short high quality video. Opposite of nutnfancy hehe

        • ShortTimer

          Not MAC, obviously, but I’ve seen some of these points before and debated many, and to give an American liberty enthusiast’s point of view:

          1. You can argue about that point and I would accept 18 years, but then again you could say “So a 10 year old child is not allowed to defend himself?”

          The 10 year old is under the protection of parents as they haven’t reached the age of majority yet. Inside the home, children can and do defend themselves with firearms. Entrusting them with firearms in public is something that’s limited to when they’re supervised by adults. The 10 year old also isn’t allowed to enter into contracts without parental consent. A child who hasn’t hit the age of majority is granted both protections (by parent and state recognition) and limitations.

          2. Here in Germany we have something called “Waffensachkunde” which means “weapon competence”. That is one of the few things about our gun laws I really like. It is like the driving license, or would you dispose that test, too? When somebody would say I did not pass although I clearly passed he would break the law and we would meet in court. Every law can be abused, but we live in a constitutional state which will solve this problem…

          Germany is not the best example to use for successful gun laws, for obvious reasons.

          But to apply driving, first off, driving is not a right. Driving is a privilege licensed by the state if you’re going to drive on state roads. If you’re going to drive on your own land, then it’s all on you – you neither have to license a car nor get insurance, nor a driver’s license. You impact other drivers by being on the road.

          If you own a firearm, you only impact other people by where you shoot – and we have a myriad of laws from noise ordinances to menacing to assault to murder to deal with irresponsible or violent gun use.

          Now, as a counterpoint – if you were to suggest a Waffensachkunde in public schools and other accredited institutions for education of children to run concurrent with government classes, you might find some support. If part of high school classes on the operation of government and understanding of the Constitution included a Second Amendment course that included weapon familiarity and range time, that could work.

          A few decades ago, it was far from unheard of for schools to have rifle teams, so it’s not that far-fetched. But it would be a very tough pitch today, culturally.

          3. I am not clear about your opinion, so you want guns also for violent criminals or not? Like I said, the points are not detailed enough, of course you have to work them out. I just wanted to make clear that also criminals who did not do any crime in 5 years are able to resocialise and get their gun rights back.

          This is a seperate question of how to treat criminals. If they’re free men when released, they’re free men.

          If they’re not, and they’re still subject to being treated like some kind of criminal, they’re not free men.

          If a violent criminal is a violent criminal for life, how does that impact recidivism? Can you “resocialise” if like Merle Haggard famously sang, you’re “branded with a number on your name”?

          Very different issue about how to deal with criminals. In an ideal world, someone who’s done their time should be free to go. In the current world, it doesn’t work that way, and that’s a whole other discussion about social policy rather than guns.

          4. I think you said in one of your videos that every gun owner should own a safe, so that the guns are sefely deployed when he is away. Right? So what is the problem about that point. Here in Germany we have another dumb and complex law about this point. In my opinion any safe is okay, also the cheapest one, but a responsible gun owner should invest in a good one like I personally did.
          And NO, no checks, they would invade my privacy. Just a “proof” like a bill of the safe or a picture when you have no bill.

          This becomes a game for gun banners to decide they need to make sure your safe is installed properly and if your firearms are inspected by the government. Such laws were pushed in WA and OR and CA in the last year or so.

          There is massive potential for abuse, and that kind of law must ignore a citizen’s 4th Amendment rights in order to work.

          You showing a receipt for a safe doesn’t mean there’s a safe if no one checks on it. So the police will have to go into your home and inspect, or it’s unenforceable.

          As a matter of personal responsibility, it’s wise to have a safe. But safes only buy time. Thieves with wrecking bars will get into a safe. Thieves with chains and a truck can rip a safe out of a wall.

          So the state forces you to buy a product you don’t want (the safe), puts you on a database (because they need to know to inspect your safe), and has to violate your rights and come into your home to inspect your safe (otherwise you could fake a receipt), and all so the state can turn your right to keep and bear arms into a regulated privilege.

          5. I understand the american constitution. But in the end, the prohibition was also part of it and it is possible that it can be changed. But you have to adapt laws to modernity. I would not touch the constitution, but what is wrong with a safety course for a carry permit? You could combine it with point 2, same thing. I think we both share the same view on that topic: every person who carries a gun should get training. But lets be honest: a lot of people do not do that. And in my opinion that is irresponsible not only for him, but also for the other people. So, “forcing” a small, basic and simple safety course is a must have in my opinion and nothing negative.

          You don’t quite understand the American Constitution, but kudos to you for taking the effort to learn as much as you have so far.

          Prohibition and its repeal was an amendment to the Constitution. That is the way in which you change the Constitution.

          Otherwise, it says what it says. Thomas Paine noted that a Constitution is a thing of itself, which governs government as government’s laws impact the citizen.

          You want a new amendment that says “safety course”, great. Add an amendment. If not, a “small, basic, simple course” is relative to who sets up the course, and is an infringement (as are many, many, many standing gun laws).

          It’s also always a “small, basic, simple” violation of rights. First it’s stop and frisk. Then it’s “hey, that guy looks suspicious”. A little Second Amendment violation or a little Fourth Amendment violation or a little Eighth Amendment violation, but it’s okay, it’s only “forcing” a basic, simple, small thing that’s really a must-have for safety.

          Then people are rounded them up and put in camps.

          And as a reminder, Peter, Americans did it, too:

          Und Peter, seine Englisch ist nicht schlecht.

      • Mike13

        In certain counties of New York there already is a law for the requirement of the purchase of a safe and an in home inspection of that safe by an officer when reaching ownership of 5 handguns. This isn’t a hypothetical but already an infringement of people’s 2nd and 4th amendment rights

        • MAC

          But hey, it’s “reasonable” to people like Brandon and those that think like him. It’s a shame so many fail to see the folly of such things…

          • Peter

            It is a shame you did not reply to my comment with arguments. Like I already said: give me good points and I might change my opinion. You all criticize the anti-gunners for beeing close-minded and ignorant, but now you do not want to give any arguments against my points. The pro-gunners should not fight against each others, we should discuss. You treat people like me as idiots and you want to fight us, but in the end you fight against other pro-gunners.

            Come on, answer my previous comment. Try to convince me with good arguments.

    • Shake

      No Peter, most of the gun community would DISAGREE. With your five points.

    • Stoney


      1) Your first law would deny my children the right to defend themselves as they become adults. They may go to college or they may get a job. But because they wouldn’t be 21 they couldn’t defend themselves. Continuing down that road do you propose to press charges against minors who have recently been forced to defend themselves at home with a firearm? Heaven forbid they were trying to stay alive. I do suppose it’s too much for us as a community to encourage parents that take the initiative to raise our children with an alert understanding of firearms. Would anyone then be charged with having committed a strong violent crime if they used a firearm defending themselves under the age of 21? Should we just jump straight to a felony to simplify the matter?
      2) Are you going to ensure that courses are readily available and free of charge? Because it seems horrible and discriminatory to suggest that only those with the funds and means should be able to defend themselves.
      3) I could be wrong but aren’t laws like this already in place? Do you plan on expanding those laws? And, much like California has been doing, what is stopping law makers from expanding the definition of a “strong violent crime”?
      4) Really? This will help? I have safe. I fail to see how it will in anyway help. It is an inanimate object just the same as a firearm. It requires the user to make an effort to put it into effect. Do you plan on home inspections to ensure they are being used in accordance with your law?
      5) Some states already require this. Again, do you intend to expand upon this? Would this course have to be in addition to the first safety course you already require? I consider concealed carry a polite courtesy to those who chose not to carry a firearm. Being as I have the right to defend myself, what should it matter if I make it public or not? You want it to apply to concealed and open carry, which then restricts firearms to the home. Crippling the ability of individual to defend themselves as a result wouldn’t you agree?

      I might be childish for being under the opinion that the ability to defend myself and my family should be absolutely unrestricted. But then I much prefer breathing to such names and labels.

      I might be ignorant because almost every push I have seen from those wish to restrict my life has done so under the guise of fighting violent crime. If you’re truly worried about pushing a law that prevents accidental firearm related incidents how about one mandating all local municipalities must provide a free firearms safety course on a consistent and regular basis. I’m sure you will be willing to pick up the tab on that one. It’s a little crazy to consider that there is already a program in place that offers a great class similar to the one you suggest… Hunter Safety.

      To be honest, I almost wonder if your post is complete satire. If it is, then well played sir. If it isn’t. Consider giving up your own rights before you decide to lobby with mine.

  • Sgt_P

    @ Peter Wittgens
    Let’s talk about who makes the rules and what is “waterproof”. You mentioned having a requirement of a safe. When politicians get involved, they will tell you who can make your safe, and eventually they’ll be able to keep you from possessing firearms due to not having a proper safe as defined by them.
    In other words, as much as you think you’re solving problems, you’re just giving them the ability to control you.
    Next time you think you have a deep thought, think harder…

    • Ross

      Yep, it took six weeks for the NSW police to drive the 1/4 mile up the street from their sub-station and $100.00 for them to kick my safe once and give me a paper approving it for securing my duty handgun while living in Sydney Australia.

  • Mike O

    MAC, how are the board of directors selected? Is there a vote by the membership or are members selected by the current board?

  • Michael A. Albert

    As a member of the Special Forces community, a Life Member of the Special Forces Association and a member of the Association for Former Intelligence Officers, I adamantly OPPOSE Webb’s seat on the NRA Board. If these are the types of people who will be lobbying our gun rights, then we won’t have any! We should stand our ground and compromise NOTHING! My Green Beret and his Trident may garner us respect, but they should not give us cart blanch on anything, especially on Constitutional issues! Perhaps the time has come to replace the NRA with an organization which will be 100% supportive of our Constitution and our rights as gun owners! I shall NOT, at this time, renew my membership with the NRA!

  • harry

    Keep this liberal,obamaite away from anything that might give him a voice in throwing away what we fight so hard to keep ! ( our constitutional rights )

  • Pingback: Keep Brandon Webb off the NRA Board of Directors | The Gun Feed()

  • PeterK

    Yeah this guy sounds like kind of a moron. Sure he has good intentions, but I’m not about to give him a pass on that to enact poor policies.

  • Mike

    Andrew did a good piece on compromise on his blog recently (Vuurwapen blog).

    I do think the NRA could be more productive for gun owners if they compromised… Note that compromising does not mean trading our rights away for nothing.

    For example (and some of these are Andrews ideas), and I may catch flak for this. At any gun show, why not set up an ATF booth to run a NICS check and handle a 4473 for any private purchases which take place on the show floor. Personally, I would never sell a firearm to a stranger I didn’t know was clear in NICS anyway (for my own peace of mind). If we closed the “Gun show loophole” it would do 2 things. 1. The antis wouldn’t be able to say we are uncompromising, 2. We could GAIN From it.

    The second part of a compromise is what comes our way. Let’s say the NRA co-sponsored a “Bill to close the gun show loophole.” What are some provisions of the bill that could work for us?
    1. Making it an offense for any government agent or agency to store records on firearms transactions, punishable by XYZ
    2. Removing SBRs, SBSs, and Suppressors from the NFA registry
    3. Allowing interstate handgun purchases
    4. Concealed Carry reciprocity (this one can get complicated as some argue it may make states tighten up their existing regulations on where one can carry)
    5. Overturn the Hughes amendment (a lot of MG owners will lose a ton of money, too bad).
    6. Reducing the age to buy a handgun to 18

    If we were REALLY to compromise, this is what it would mean. We get some of our already stolen rights back, in exchange for something that may actually make us all a little (though admittedly not very) safer, and not infringe on any of our rights in the process.

    A compromise is not agreeing to restrict our rights further to no end for us.

    Gun owners can make net positive gains in compromising, both in public perception as to who we are, and in terms of trading severely curtailed rights for a minor inconvenience that most would not object to (NICS booth at gun shows).

    The problem is, you will never stop crazy, and there will be another Newtown someday, even if we were to ban “assault weapons,” “close the gun-show loophole” and do all other sorts of things… and then the antis would come after the next thing.


    • CharlieKilo

      While that all sounds great, the “gun show loophole” isn’t a loophole at all. It’s a private sale, it just so happens to occur at a gun show. The myth that there are dealers selling without background checks, is part of the problem. The government shouldn’t be getting into the business of mandating that every private sale require a background check. The problem with this is varied and multi-faceted, but let’s break it down to the most simplest concept. It’s intrastate commerce and the Federal government has no legal hold on regulating or legislating intrastate commerce. By giving the Federal government intrastate commerce control, it grants effectively unlimited police control at the Federal level, for seemingly innocuous things at the state level. In short, no, the Fed requiring all private sales go through the Federal system can’t and shouldn’t happen.

      • Mike

        I understand that. And I don’t propose that private sales should be regulated off the grounds of a gun show. What I am saying, is we “compromise” and have a NICS booth setup at a “gun show” and on the grounds of the gun show sellers are then able to take advantage of the NICS booth to run a free background check on a prospective buyer. This really isn’t giving up anything, because private sales off the premises are still free to go as they may, but as far as the antis are concerned, it closes the (in quotes) “gun show loophole.” Part of this COMPROMISE is we gain back some rights that have been taken from us. It’s not a concession if there is a net gain for gun owners, and everyone leaves happy.

        I would gladly have NICS booths on the grounds of organized gun shows in exchange for the NFA being greatly reduced or the hughes amendment lifted. That would be a net win for our rights. Furthermore, it would help our image and make the antis back off… at least for a little while. I’m not saying this is Webbs stance, but I think the NRA could do more for gun owners by being less absolutist and more “compromising” in ways that can actually help restore some of our lost rights.


        • CharlieKilo

          Dammit, I had a nice reply typed up and the website said I was commenting too fast, which is BS since it was my only reply in the last hour…. Whatever…

          Okay, so on to trying to recreate what was an outstanding response. Okay, who manages said booth? Who pays for it? Some of the idea sounds good, but where does it end? Does it end at the gun show? Do we then extend mandatory checks for all private sales, including outside gun shows? It’s a slippery slope, when talking about federally mandating a private transaction, at the state level. It’s a uncommon and unprecedented invasion on INTRAstate commerce. However, I do see where you are looking for a quid pro quo.

          As to the NFA, it’s weakly written. It’s an all or nothing legislation. Frankly, I’d love to see it and a couple other laws evaporate, but that’s me. Now, for my return point to the booth, as it relates to VA NICS are performed by Virginia State Police. That check costs $2.00. But, the forms are serialized and it’s a recorded transaction. So, would a FFL have to perform the transaction? Yes. That means it’s a log in the bound book and a disposition. That means a FFL transfer cost. Now, I loathe FFLs that charge more than $20, since I know what it takes (I work for one). I know some FFLs that charge $50-$75. Who runs that portion at the booth? Each state is different. Just some thoughts….

          • Mike

            I don’t have all the answers. My primary point was that we should look to areas of compromise that make the antis happy but end up as a net gain for gun owners. I believe those areas exist if the cards are played right.

            • S. Solly

              I like your idea to play the anti’s to regain some of our rights that have been taken. In Oregon you have to undergo a background check to buy at a gun show anyways so no loss there (private sales are still protected and don’t require a BC), but I can definitely understand opposition in states that don’t require background checks at GSs, like Washington State.

        • Mark Attanasio

          You don’t need a special booth setup. Many dealers will run a check if asked (in VA, the state charges the dealer $2 to conduct the check). One of the EOs issued earlier this year asked dealers to do it and many are (I was doing it for folks already, all they had to do was ask..$10 fee to recover my time). Each state has its own process, so you can’t just have a NICS booth. Virginia is handled by the VA State Police. Frankly, that is the industry “policing” itself. No need for government interference or “compromise”. There is never compromise with the government. Coercive and blackmail come to mine whenever mentions compromising with the government/antis.

          • Mike

            My point exactly… it would be mildly intrusive at worst, and could help us to gain back a lot of lost ground at the same time. It could be worked to be a net positive.

            Is there anyone here who things that mandatory background checks performed on gun-show GROUNDS ONLY, WOULDN’T be a fair trade for
            1. Universal carry reciprocity
            2. Getting rid of NFA regulation on supressors, SBRs, SBSs
            3. Getting rid of the hughes amendment

            As far as our rights go we would be in a much better place if we exchanged X for any of those options in my opinion.

        • Sean

          “I’m sorry, but all [1] NICS permits for this year have been issued. As we can not fulfill your request for a staffed NICS booth at your event, I must hereby inform you it will be illegal for the event staff to engage in any advertising, or knowingly permit any other person(s) to engage in advertising anything pertaining to (a) Rifles, (b) shotguns, (c) handguns, (d) firearms accessories (e) ammunition and components for same, (e) explosives and information on same, (f) any paraphernalia advertising or describing materials covered in points (a) through (e). Any violation by you or your staff will carry a penalty of not less than [10] years in federal prison. Thank you and remember, we at the NICS are here to serve you.”

          • Mike

            So you write in the law that if the government cannot fulfill their obligation to make NICS available for an event, than the requirement is not valid.

            As I said, I didn’t write the whole law… but potential situations like the above could easily be put to rest in the wording of the law…


            • DeltaOneSix

              Laws of any kind are open to interpretation, and from what we can see if given the opportunity the anti-gunners with a little imagination will twist every rule and regulation and tax to one end, the end of gun ownership in this nation. The only way to avoid this is to limit laws and the power of our Federal Government to limit that ability, that avenue. We have plenty of laws already. Just any law addressing something like that in itself substantiates the need for additional laws and regulation. We argue about what the law should say and try through words to box in a people for a certain response or action. See that is what the liberals want they want to argue the point, then by pretext by the sheer sake of arguement we validate that the issue is in need of regulation and law, I would point back to the US Constitution and state this is not something to debate, it is spelled out in the US Constitution. Makes them real mad too.

            • Mike

              Again, I am not recommending we simply pass this law. I am saying it a small “compromise” on our behalf that could give us a much bigger win by reversing much more severe restrictions which are already in place.

  • Rob.G

    Guess it’s safe to say Mr. Webb isn’t an Oath Keeper.

    • Mic rolling (@Microlling)

      Or even an Oath Believer.

  • Pingback: Keep Brandon Webb off the NRA Board of Directors | S/V Danneskjöld()

  • Andrew

    I like Mr. Webb and I like MAC, but this division is just a little too ridiculous for my taste. Mr. Webb is at the level of thinking (or nonthinking) or the Brady Campaign? Seriously? Why is it that every time someone thinks that there should be even a little more than total freedom, they are a blatant tyrant? This language of non-compromise and total mockery of some legitimate ideas or criticisms of the current state of the 2nd Amendment (and its proponents) is unacceptable, cowardly, and misplaced. I am literally sickened by the paranoia and inability to examine other view points. I hate it when it is done on the left, but I hate it even more here. The circle jerk group think that is the gun community has lost its marbles and refuses to address anything rationally. This frothing at the mouth obsession with total freedom, no matter what the cost, is quite frankly bullshit. How about the tyranny of group think and mob mentality? Perhaps our founders had feelings about that too? Or is it just too damn inconvenient to actually think about what our rights mean and how to recover them?

    • MAC

      There’s no division as I see it, I simply don’t support Webb for the NRA board. Why does that make you so angry?

      I’m not sure I understand your position. You want to reclaim lost liberties, but you think the way to do that is through the “compromise” Webb is proposing? How many times have you seen a true compromise in gun legislation that’s passed? By that I mean, gun owners get something in return for the lost liberties?

      We know exactly what the Founders thought, they put those thoughts on paper. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you find ambiguous?

      You find a “no compromise” position to be cowardly? How so? I find fence sitting and calls for one sided “compromises” that infringe on our ever dwindling rights to be far more cowardly than drawing a line in the sand and standing your ground.

      I’m sure Mr. Webb is a fine man, however that doesn’t mean he’s the right choice for fighting for our rights. It doesn’t sound to me like he’s willing to fight at all, it sounds to me like he’s more for brokering one sided deals where we surrender more of our rights to keep the anti-gunners appeased. How well has that strategy worked for us in the past?

      • Andrew

        You are more than welcome to not support him, but comparing him and his ideas to the Brady Campaign goes a little too far in my book. Also I was responding to your post and the successive comments as a whole, so much of what I said wasn’t directed entirely at you.

        To your first question, my answer can only be one way due to the way you framed the question. Any amount of legislation towards any limits freedom so obviously any law that has been passed limits our freedom. The question is when are we okay with some sacrifice. When I say we, I mean we as society. We should not have to break down rights into their special interest groups, because society should inherently defend the rights of the individual. If I understand your position correctly, there shouldn’t be any sacrifice of any kind. The rights of gun owners is totally unassailable in any way, shape, or form. I disagree whole heartedly. There is a healthy balance between security and liberty that serves every citizens interest. I see Mr. Webb’s model as closer to the right answer than not. We can talk history all we want, but if we want to change the status quo of our rights, new thinking and new approaches are required. True compromise, not the BS back stabbing MAIG supports, is required.

        Your language draws a very clear “them and us”. I have to ask, when is it ever clear in politics who they are and who we are? If you think that their can only be 2 real sides and the cowards in the middle, then you really aren’t open for a rational debate on all possibilities. You want to stick people into boxes or put people on a proverbial naughty and nice list. That isn’t fair to anyone except yourself, no matter what their stance is. If this was such a cut and dry issue and your line in the sand is so totally unassailable, then why are we still having this discussion? This argument should have been over and won already. The facts, the rule of law, tradition, and the true voice of the people are on the right side yet we still can’t win. I am not suggesting pro 2nd Amendment is the wrong side to be on, but it also isn’t as clear cut as you make it out to be. I say no-compromise people are cowards because there is a refusal to think from this side of the argument that is unacceptable. If you refuse to consider other possibilities for fear of being wrong or perceived as weak, you are a coward. Anyone and everyone of any side that fits that description is a coward.

        Honestly, that strategy has sucked in the past. So the only possible solution under the sun must be the exact opposite with no exceptions? Why? Because clearly history and politics are so black and white?

        • Mick Rolling

          His calls for licensing and permits(registration) are far past both Brady and Gabby and Mark

          • Andrew

            I see that, but you have to admit the spirit is different. He thinks we can mint more responsible and effective gun owners if we do this. More, not fewer which is what Gabby’s thrust is. We can debate how much we trust the government to be barrier for entry and to remain unbiased and fair (not very likely, which likely paints Brandon as fairly naive on the issue) but Brandon believes we should have the same mechanism, implemented in a different way and for different reasons than Gabby or Mark. And the spirit isn’t even close to the Brady Campaign’s stance.

  • ChainMail

    Bull. You’re assuming the Left is arguing in good faith. They aren’t. They hate us and will settle for nothing less than total disarmament, whether now or 100 years from now. That will never change, no matter how many times we “sit down” with them.

    • Andrew

      Well I guess the only logical step after this is civil war which you virtually guarantee with the way you think. Compromise requires both sides to compromise. If the sides aren’t ready to compromise on the same terms then they must educate each other or be cleaved from the proverbial herd. I don’t see you doing much educating.

      • Shake

        Why are you so insistent on both sides compromising, when you know one side never will? What compromises have been offered by the anti-gunners? Have you even heard them actually mention a compromise?

        • Andrew

          Had you read my statement later on in the conversation you would know that I don’t think we can solve this today. It requires both sides to come from places that they aren’t in right now. I do not support the current status quo in America, why you do I do not know.

      • Boris

        Holy cow Andrew, of all of the intelligent, thoughtful comments on this thread, yours aren’t included. I question if people like you and our aspiring NRA board member possess basic critical thinking skills and have enough situational awareness to safely handle a firearm.

        • Andrew

          I am sorry that I interrupted your circle jerk group think with a dissenting opinion. You know nothing about me. Nice try though.

      • BTmax

        Yeah..I think the anti-slavery people should have compromised with the South…maybe something like only allowing people to be slaves until they reached an age of 30 then freeing them.

  • ChainMail

    You don’t see me doing much educating because you don’t know me, Andrew. And yes, the left is pushing us toward open conflict. Their MO is always the same, which is why they leave mass graves everywhere they go. I didn’t ask for any of this. I just wanted to be left alone to order my own affairs as I see fit, but that wasn’t good enough for them. Compromise with the left hasn’t satisfied them in the past (Hello? NFA?), and it won’t satisfy them now or in the future. There is nothing to be gained from further compromise. On the contrary, there is everything to lose.

    Respectfully, I don’t think you understand what we’re up against. More importantly, I don’t think you have an adequate understanding of natural rights. There is no freedom where natural rights are surrendered. Should Rosa Parks have compromised and sat in the middle of the bus? Would you accept that as a free American? Of course not.

    Natural rights are–according to our Founders–given to us by our Creator. As an inheritance from the Creator, you and I have no authority to surrender those rights on behalf of others, nor do we have the authority to forcibly take them from others. This is not just a question of policy, it’s a question of morality. Compromise on the matter of natural rights is immoral.

    Hope that helps, and best of luck to you.

    • Andrew

      Respectfully, this is more complicated than even the Civil Rights Movement. Your comparison is nice but denies the complexity of the situation. I think you assume that the left is more sinister than it is ignorant. No doubt there are sinister people that want to take away natural rights (which I do understand). However it is by and large an education gap and an attitude gap. I admire the steadfastness of the gun community, but I do not admire bull headedness.

      These are our countrymen we are talking about. I missed the meeting where it was moral and acceptable to tell my neighbor to pound sand without a rational debate or trial by peers. Compromise requires both sides to meet on equal footing. I am under no illusions about the left and gun grabbers. I understand that with the thinking of today, we could not solve this issue. If you think that I am for the status quo then you are plainly wrong. The citizens of these US must come together on all kinds of things, particularly against corruption, tyranny, and media manipulation. It is an open mind and a respectful tongue that is required at this point. Language of hate and separation do nothing to solve the issue or educate others.

      I hope you will consider these points, no matter what your stance.

      • Mick Rolling

        What part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not get?

        • Andrew

          Should we have no law at all about firearms ownership? If you can pony up the cash you can own anything without a check or balance? The sky is the only limit on what you can own? Is that really the spirit of the 2nd Amendment?

          • DeltaOneSix

            If it means signing my rights over to an nameless faceless government entity and to get caught up in an endless bueacracy with no end, because we know everything the government touches turns to gold (sarcasm intended). Unfortunately that will never happen, we have plenty of firearm ownership laws, and laws in general, more than we have the ability or the will to enforce equatibly.

            • Andrew

              2 things. If you don’t trust our government, change it. The people should always have a healthy distrust of those in power, simply because they have power. If they abuse their power and we don’t remove them when we have all the mechanisms to do so (and we do), we are complicit in that abuse. If you want to restore faith in the ability of the government to run effectively and to uphold the rights its sworn to protect then change it. It should by a government by and for us, and of us I might add, so if you find it faceless and nameless (most people do and we are justified in thinking that way) then we must then expel the corrupt, learn what our neighbors are about, and work to uphold a higher moral standard of honesty and integrity of all in society, especially those we elect. Simply claiming my idea won’t work because the government is corrupt isn’t right. If we fix the government then we have a lot more room for negotiation and debate on what policy should look like.

              Secondly, do you feel, ignoring the uber corrupt government of today, that we should not have any limitation or law in any way shape or form of how to purchase firearms, who can purchase firearms, and what standard must be upheld in order to own and carry firearms?

    • Lane


      I would like to make a few comments regarding the topic of natural rights, as discussed in your post. First, natural rights are not absolute. In fact, there are times that people “have the authority to forcibly take them from others,” or at least restrict them. For instance, the most basic natural right is that of life. Except for the most vehement pacifist (which is rare, in true form), every person acknowledges that there are times when ending someone’s life may be justifiable. Killing in war forcibly takes away someone’s right to life, and often for reasons short of self-defense. Capital punishment is another means of society taking life. We can find limitations to other natural rights as well – restrictions to speech, freedom of assembly, etc. In any case, we must acknowledge that even natural rights can be, and sometimes may be, limited in society. These restrictions are not always immoral.

      Next, does the Second Amendment protect a natural right? Self defense is a natural right, but firearms are not necessary to exercise that right. (One way to look at it is this: A gun is to the right of self defense what the bull horn is to free speech. Both may improve the effectiveness of the action, but neither is inherently or absolutely required to enjoy that right.) Perhaps there is a natural right of ownership, in a basic sense. But we cannot argue that firearm ownership is a natural right for firearms are man-made. People are not born possessing firearms (the fact that children are not allowed to have firearms further shows that the right is not natural or absolute). Thus, to fully exercise the right of firearm ownership, one must acquire the object.

      The Second Amendment protects a constitutional right. In other words, the right to keep and bear arms is recognized by our constitutional government, but it is not a natural right which exists for all people, of all ages. (The right to vote and the right of legal counsel are other examples of rights that are constitutional but not natural.)

      None of the points above justify further restrictions to the Second Amendment. I merely bring them up to clear up some misconceptions regarding natural rights and restrictions in society.

  • Rational Skeptic

    While MAC is busy judging others (ret. military, no less), he’s losing time he could be using to make massive and AWESOME changes through the ACLU!!!

    Sorry, I meant ACL… Keep confusing those two.

    Seriously, how does this help? HOW DOES THIS HELP?!?!!?

    • MAC

      It’s called an election. As an NRA member, I’m telling people not to vote for Mr. Webb and give my reasons why. How does this help? It can help to preserve your rights.

      I’m a veteran too, so does that mean I can be anti-gun and you’ll forgive me? Or do you only give SEAL’s and book authors a pass on their anti-gun views?

      • Rational Skeptic

        Thanks for letting me know Brandon Webb is set up outsid emy house in a ghillie suit aiming a supressed rifle at my head… I mean, at my “freedom”.

        Tone it down, quit with the rhetoric, and you might get something done instead of proving that you’re the smartest, toughest, shootin’-est clear-thinking blogger around.

        How about you try “protecting my rights” by quieting down and taking care of your own backyard: I’m betting there’s a whole lot of messy relationships in your life.

        • S. Solly

          I only rhetoric I’m reading is coming from you in the form of ad hominem and hyperbole.

          • Rational Skeptic

            Look up “rhetoric”. You’ve got the hyperbole part down, but that’s my sense of humor.
            Also, I believe the photo topping this article falls into that “hyperbole” category: Brandon Is Comin’ To Keel Yew!

  • Mic rolling (@Microlling)

    I will copy and explain my reasons on while he is not anti gun he is not Pro 2A.
    #1I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a firearms safety qualifications course, and this should be standardized across the country. Too many people I’ve seen on the range are unsafe.
    I have seen the more irresponsible weapons handling from the Military. 10 years active Duty and the last 10 years contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    #2 Yes, owning a gun is a right; driving is similar to this but you have to have pass a drivers test to prove competency *this point was clarified from my earlier post.

    His concept of a “right” is preposterous. I can own a car and drive it on private land if i so wish , without a license or Test.

    #3 The NRA should be like PADI or NAUI and encourage gun ranges to only accept NRA basic qualified shooters on the range.

    Comparing Organizations like PADI And NAUI to the NRA shows a clear lack of the reasons the NRA was formed in the first place. PADI And NAUI certs protect the liability of the Dive shops that rent equipment, not the rights of divers to freely use their equipment. PADI And NADI certs do not stop someone from diving. Only shops and tour providers from providing equipment to untrained people. Most private ranges have at a minimum a Safety briefing statement you have read, agree to, and sign before you go onto the range.

    #4 Mass shootings have to be dealt with head-on or America will face more gun restrictions and erosion of 2nd Amendment rights

    mass shootings are micro gram in the kilo of gun crimes. His stance on this point shows no understanding about real problems with gun violence, And none of his suggestions would stop any crime.

    #5 NRA training needs to be brought up to date.

    Says a guy that was trained in the Navy by the NRA…….

    #6 Legislation on increasing the prevention of mentally ill folks from gaining access to firearms seems logical

    This would most likely include him being diagnosed with PTSD. The Government will ban the whole and not cherry pick people and ailments. As far as turning it to the opinion of a physician, do you know your doctors political alignment? You might just find out the hard way.

    #7 I believe we should be able to concealed-carry and open-carry where practical (e.g., not on an elementary school campus or an airplane)

    A further erosion of our rights is what is needed?

    #8 Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified

    Calls for Licensing and registration , (this is where he goes Brady bunch)

    #9 The NRA should take a strong leadership position when it comes to legislation affecting ownership pro and con, not just a “supporter” of legislation. The perception from the left is that the NRA is an uncompromising organization

    The NRA is that organization and should not cater to the uneducated public’s opinion. What they do is try and educate them every day however.

    # 10 I think the current NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre, a career lobbyist, is unfit to lead the NRA into the 21st Century. I wouldn’t let him lead my kids camping trip, let alone the NRA. This may make some angry, but I would be dishonest if I didn’t make my opinion on LaPeirre perfectly clear, see you in 2015 Wayne

    A clear and ignorant admission that he has no Idea what Wayne LaPierre’s job is, but he wants his job? K Street and the Left would welcome him with open arms then bury him when the laws are written.

    # 11. I believe the 2nd Amendment is a right we should keep and hold dear

    But he wants to further limit your rights? This is the Same thing Obama says, but like Obama nothing he says or does back this statement up.

    Sorry for the long winded post but this shit makes my blood boil.


  • B. E. Smith

    For those “reasonable gun owners” who think licensing, government authorization, capacity/caliber limitation, and proficiency qualification are reasonable restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights, I would ask:
    Would you also think it reasonable for the government to require you to prove yourself intellectually capable and proficient in the English language, before you were allowed to speak your mind? Would you think is acceptable for the government to limit the amount of “free speech” you are allowed to post on a blog, editorial, or other media?
    What about the freedom to practice your religion (or refrain from such practice)? Do you think it reasonable to “license” specific religions (or ban others)? Should the priest/pastor/leader be “licensed” by the government to espouse religious doctrine?
    My point is that many of our constitutional freedoms have been eroded by what seemed to be “reasonable” infringements. Case in point, the unconstitutional “snooping” of the NSA and other agencies into the private communications of American citizens. Some would argue that this is a reasonable infringement to catch terrorists and prevent catastrophic lose of life. But these seemingly “reasonable” infringements always grow into greater loss of freedom – makes me think of the saying that the Grand Canyon was caused by tiny drops of rainwater – LOTS OF THEM!

    • Mic rolling (@Microlling)

      Well you know the internet didn’t exist when the Freedom of speech was written so it surly cant apply to the internet. The right toprivacy cannot apply to cars, computers or data because those didn’t exist as well. And you very well know you cant yell fire in the movies. And should be muzzled before going into a theater just because you might.

      This is the lefts version of the second Amendment and sadly Brandon’s as well.

  • David

    People like him are reason why I’m leaving the NRA!!!! First, I’m LEO & Vet of the Army and USMC, and nothing make me more sick than when people use their past military service in order run for any office. Yes, be proud of your service, but don’t just throw into the mix to gain anything!!! The fact that you served should be more than enough, whether you drove a truck, flew a jet, or were a sniper it makes no difference!!!

    As far as compromise, there should be NONE!!! If the Founding Fathers would have compromised we would still be a British colony, if Roosevelt would have compromised we would would speaking German!!! What ever happened to real men?? Comparing the right to bear arms to the “privilege” of driving a car is just ridiculous and shows how little this guy really knows about our Constitution!!!

    Too young to learn about firearms??? “I’ll wait till is too late!!” mentality that has got us to where we are today!!! “The goverment will provide,” “police will make me safe,” “why work hard when I’m entitled!!!” We/gun owners continue to loose the war because of people like this guy. The public will say, “look a Navy SEAL thinks this way about the 2nd Amendment!!! Maybe he is right.” Well, he is not and doesn’t represent most of us!!!

  • Mic rolling (@Microlling)

    They have a man crush on the guy that’s for sure. being a “Former” SEAL does not make him an expert on anything but what it was once like to be a SEAL

  • Chaotic Good

    Wow! This is one of the best, and most frank discussions on this forum in a long time. I don’t think there is anything I can add that others have not already said better than I could.
    To each and every one of you that have made clear your views that you will not take one step back, never retreat, and never surrender in the defense of our constitution help to bolster my hope and courage that if we stand firm, we can prevail.

  • ChainMail

    The Constitution and Natural Law both tell them to pound sand. If that doesn’t solve it for the left, then no, they’re not my countrymen. They’re not bound by the same laws and philosophical commitments. They’re just another bunch of foreign hostiles who happen to have legal status to be here. I didn’t make them what they are. They willingly decided to follow the path of Marx and Engels, not me. I am in no way morally obligated to compromise with them, and on the contrary, as I said before, it would actually be immoral to compromise with them.

    You seem to think there’s some benefit to be gained from the mere act of sitting down and talking with them. Fine, how does that conversation go?

    Leftists: We want you to submit to magazine capacity limits, a renewed assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and home inspections performed by armed police officers.

    Us: No thanks. We’re good.

    Leftists: Agree with us or we’ll call you terrorists.

    Us: Well that escalated quickly.

    What I think you’re missing is there is no inherent value in negotiation for the sake of negotiation. The left has made it clear their goal is total civilian disarmament. I believe them. You should too, instead of getting upset at people who point out their goals to you.

    • Andrew

      You are immoral for denying your countrymen and denying your duty to uphold a mature level of civil discourse. This is an education and an attitude issue that you seem wholly incapable of addressing. I said it before and I will say it again, there needs to be true compromise, not their idea of compromise. Both sides need to meet on an equal field. By denying them an audience, they win. By refusing to educate them and yourself, they win. You are hell bent on tearing this country apart through violence instead of improving it through civil discourse which is totally unacceptable.

      You also make great misjudgment about my position and what you think I know. I am against anyone that makes bullheaded, ill conceived statements and forwards a broken way of thinking no matter what their politics are. I am not oblivious to anything in the Constitution or any rhetoric of the left. You are oblivious to the fact that your stance is tearing the country apart, or worse yet, you don’t care that your stance tears the country apart. The fact that you can only see the world in black and white makes you incapable of making any rational decision on the matter.

      • Charlie Kilo

        Do you hold a respectable discourse with treasonous vermin? I don’t. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, against enemies both foreign and domestic. The 2A is the 2A, period. Federalist Papers and other literary works explained what it meant and it’s scope. There is no more room for capitulating anything else on the 2A, short of another Civil War, which I do not want to see. I’m not going to budge an inch, neither are others. You want compromise? How about enforcing the existing laws, that should resolve se of the perceived shortcomings and failures.

      • Boris

        Andrew, Andrew, Andrew, one of the many things your dithering rants prove is that you have absolutely no credibility to claim what is moral or immoral.

        • Andrew

          And your personal attacks render you incapable too. I don’t care what you think.

          • Boris

            Sure you care Andy, you respond to my comments. And I certainly know enough about you and yours based on your irrational, immature, half cocked,AD, FTF, and FTE diatribes to have a pretty accurate assessment of your (lacking) character.
            Since you seem to have some sort of obsession with circle jerks, which you seem to be a subject matter expert on topic, too bad you’re not as passionate about the 2a and our great country as you likely were about ending DADT. Maybe you can find a way to convert your rage into something more productive.

    • Lane


      I see little difference in the behavior of some of the extreme “no compromise” gun rights people here and how you portray the “leftists.” Your hypothetical conversation regarding gun control portrays the “leftists” as accusing anyone who does not accept their rigid demands as “terrorists.” Yet, some of the people posting on this website and criticizing Mr. Webb take the same attitude of “Agree with us or you are a terrorist.” Within your own post above, you write: “They’re just another bunch of foreign hostiles who happen to have legal status to be here. …They willingly decided to follow the path of Marx and Engels, not me.” In short, if they don’t agree with you, they are socialists, communists, foreign enemies, etc.

      So, what we have here are two extreme sides demanding total submission to respective positions or total dismissal and name calling.

      I have no interest in accepting further restrictions to appease proponents of stricter gun control. I do have an interest in making sure that gun owning rights are best represented and protected within the legislative process. I do not believe that works when gun rights advocates try to bully people who do not fully embrace some absolutist interpretation of the topic. I also do not believe that rejecting the legislative activities, and thus making the gun rights body a non-player in discussions that are on-going, will help us in the long run. That does not mean we need to compromise anything away; but we do need to be present to make our case. We need persuasive, level-headed, and confident defenders of gun rights to respond to the extreme anti-gun arguments in the public realm. In short, you can win if you do not play.

  • ChainMail

    Unfortunately, it seems Andrew is one of those people who thinks we can negotiate with the left to the extent that they will (finally) leave us alone. What he neglects to incorporate into his strategy of negotiation is the fact that, as a utopianist movement whose utopia is literally unattainable, the left will never be satisfied with the current terms of compromise. That’s why they keep coming back for more Gun Control Acts, more National Firearms Acts, more magazine capacity restrictions, more “safety” inspections by armed police officers. The left being the left, they will continue to push us toward greater restriction in order to bring about their utopia. There is no negotiation with such people. They’re implacable, and we must be implacable right back. That’s the only thing they respect, a firm NO.

    • Andrew

      Yay! You have succeeded in mischaracterizing me and my position. Yet again, compromise can not happen today. They have their opinion (largely fueled by failed logic, emotional arguments, and disregard for facts) and we have ours (fueled by exactly the opposite). So there is a gap. Not all on the left are sinister. Not all people after our guns are sinister. Their goal is plainly wrong but there are a long list of motives (most of them ill informed) that fuel that side of the argument. But what all of them are, are our countrymen. Denying that is nothing more than destructive hate. If you don’t like the direction the country is going, change it, instead of sticking your head in the sand.

  • ChainMail

    Andrew, what lost liberties would you like to reclaim, and how would further limiting 2nd Amendment liberties accomplish that? Please be specific.

    • Andrew

      Remove suppressors from the NFA, have 50 state CCW reciprocity, end importation limits on firearms, burn the ATF to the ground, open up the gun control states like California (my home state) and New York to actually allow practical gun ownership and use, reinforce stand your ground laws and castle doctrine laws, and cause general proliferation of knowledge about what guns truly are, how to use them properly, and what the culture that surrounds them is about. That is what I would change if I were king. Perhaps I missed something but I fairly happy with my model. And perhaps you noticed, it isn’t very fitting with the models of MAIG or the Brady Campaign. But of course I am such a shill of Marx for wanting to sit down and talk this through instead of flipping the table over and crying in the corner about how I never get my way.

      • Boris

        Andrew: “burn the ATF to the ground.”

        Crikey Andy, you can’t go popping off about burning the ATF to the ground. That’s almost as bad as your man crush hero Brandy Webb making personal threats on FB.

  • ChainMail

    My stance isn’t tearing anything apart. I’m just here minding my own business. I’m not the one trying to pass laws to criminalize my “countrymen” for innocuous behavior. No, I haven’t misjudged you. I think your focus on the process of negotiation as an inherent good is misguided and dangerous. And no, I’m not the one denying them an audience. Their views have permeated our culture. Every liberal boob on Twitter and Facebook is full of reasons why I’m too stupid to have the right to choose the tools I use to defend myself and my family. They call people like me terrorists and murderers. They want me in jail or dead. I’m as interested in negotiating with them as I would be with a rattlesnake.

    • Charlie Kilo

      Not one more inch. I’m with you. S/F

  • ChainMail

    All right, Andrew. Pick a female relative. Got one in mind? Good. Now let’s say your Congressman proposes legislation that he has the right to sleep with her, whether or not she wants to, on any night of his choosing. Should you compromise with him and counter with the offer of sleeping with her only on the second Tuesday of each month? Or would you conclude that compromise and negotiation with such a person is a bad idea?

    • Andrew

      Yes. Exactly. This. Because everything that I have said would lead you to this conclusion. Thank you for being incredibly dense and totally incapable of considering an opinion that isn’t yours.

      Of course compromise here is a bad idea. It is also remarkably less complex than the issue at hand. But thanks for again mischaracterizing me again as someone that doesn’t really care about my rights.

  • ChainMail

    I don’t know whether to be shocked or amused at your naivete. They already know we want all that. They don’t care.

    And I hate to do this to you, but aren’t you contradicting your earlier reply to MAC? Remember this?

    “We should not have to break down rights into their special interest groups, because society should inherently defend the rights of the individual. If I understand your position correctly, there shouldn’t be any sacrifice of any kind. The rights of gun owners is totally unassailable in any way, shape, or form. I disagree whole heartedly.”

    • Andrew

      First of all, in many cases yes, they do know those are the goals. But they don’t get why those are the goals. It hasn’t been presented correctly or at all why those would be the goals. That is what we work on. That is the education. Education and common ground precipitate compromise. Why is that so hard? Why is this unattainable?

      I missed the contradiction. Perhaps you can point it out for my feeble mind.

  • ChainMail

    Andrew, it’s pretty obvious to me that you’re thinking about this emotionally. You said you were from California, so you ought to know the leftists don’t care what you think about much of anything. That said, I think I know why you’re coming at this from a supplicating position. It’s because you’re in the minority in your state, and your voice doesn’t get heard.

    The majority of gun owners aren’t in that position. We’re used to occupying a position of strength. We beat the gun grabbers after Newtown. California gun owners haven’t had a state level victory like that in decades.

    I get it. You’re beaten down, and you feel the only way to ensure we don’t get utterly routed on this issue is to negotiate. I don’t know how else to say it, but you’re going to have to trust the people who have been successful. People with my no-compromise approach are the reason we won Heller. In my state, after Newtown we actually loosened gun restrictions in spite of the media’s pressure to the contrary. Our approach works. And yes, we do education programs. We picket, we lobby our representatives, we organize community activities, we have booths at county fairs and festivals across the state.

    So calm down. We’ve got this.

    • Andrew

      I don’t accept that. It is of little comfort to me that religious following of dogma in most parts of the country is what beats out the liberals, who are also religiously following dogma. I am talking about a higher level of critical thinking that I don’t see on either side. It may work in your state, it works in my soon to be home state of Texas. But it is falling apart or falling on deaf ears in places like New York, California, and Massachusetts and those places matter. I refuse to let any political stance be left unquestioned because nobody learns from that. I don’t see a turn in the media language or national language. I do not see great victories, regardless of where I call home. Our argument could be better and in many places needs to be better because in many places, citizens have all but lost the right to defend themselves.

  • ChainMail

    “It hasn’t been presented correctly or at all why those would be the goals.”

    That isn’t true at all. On the one hand you’ve got more cerebral justifications for the 2nd Amendment offered by people like Jeff Cooper. If you prefer a more pop-culture approach to the issue, the NRA has Colion Noir on the payroll. There are 2A advocates for every possible niche, and all of them make excellent arguments in the public square.

    You keep talking about compromise, but gun owners are not going to compromise. The goal of education is to mint new gun owners committed to 2A freedoms, not to forge policy and law that restricts those freedoms.

    And please lose the condescension. It’s wearing thin. If you want to have a civil discussion I’m happy to oblige.

    • Andrew

      I apologize for my condescension, but for lack of a better term, you did start it.

      I acknowledge and admire those resources. However, how often does Jeff or Colion get heard by Bloomberg or Feinstein? Probably never. Admittedly we don’t need to convince them as much as we need to convince their constituents. My point is that both points of view exist in their own echo chamber. Few people are crossing the aisle on this and I have to wonder why. You read my policy recommendations, how much am I stripping away the rights of the citizen? Again, there is an education gap. Education and common ground precede compromise and policy making. Compromise is synonymous with compromise. Not with handing our rights over. It may be a dirty word when the left uses it, but I am not them. I would hope that you acknowledge that.

  • ChainMail

    Then you’re not paying attention. I’ve been doing this for a couple of decades, and I have never seen a more comprehensive defense of the 2nd Amendment than I have seen in the past 2 years. There is a reason most new gun owners are women. We are reaching people who were previously on the other side, and we are doing it without appearing weak to the left.

    No one is saying there isn’t room for improvement. I think the hiring of Colion Noir was a particularly wise move for the NRA to make. We haven’t seen a connection between the NRA and African-Americans since the Civil Rights Movement, when the NRA sent weapons to black folks in the South. Similar outreach to other minority groups should be undertaken as soon as possible. But none of that involves compromise or negotiation.

    • Andrew

      Mind explaining my state then? Because those messages don’t ring as loud here. Or in Massachusetts, Colorado, Maryland, DC, New York, Connecticut etc.

      We keep saying negotiation, likely because I first used it, but that is not the correct connotation I want. I would amend negotiate to discuss. It requires discussion. That is my answer and I am sticking to it.

  • ChainMail

    You’re saying you want to simultaneously expand and contract 2A liberties for the sake of security. I’m not sure what you mean by “compromise” if your wish list comes true. That’s the contradiction.

    • Andrew

      I think here is the confusion. I think there should be more rules on the books than just the 2nd Amendment. That technically means contracting our rights from what they could be. However, I place my contractions are smaller and less significant in many ways than our current situation. In more straight forward speak, I want more than nothing but less than what we have now.

  • ChainMail

    So it’s your contention that we could sit down with Bloomberg and Feinstein and realistically expect to educate them on the 2nd Amendment?

    • Andrew

      My contention is that we should be able to meet anyone willing and educate them. I am extremely doubtful that Feinstein is willing, but stranger things have happened. It is amazing what you can do when don’t alienate and divide.

  • ChainMail

    And do note again the fact that most new gun owners are now women. We really are breaking new ground these days.

    • Andrew

      i knew it before this discussion and I do not dispute, this is a good thing.

  • WKL

    I want one person here to please articulate in a coherent and rational manner as to how any so-called “compromise” is going to benefit gun owners. In fact, we can look at the 1986 FOPA as a great example of a failure. According to that persons travelling in other states with legal firearms that are lawfully secured are to be allowed passage to their destination, yet we have seen numerous instances in NJ, D.C and NY to name a few where people have been arrested and charged with violating firearms laws. In that little compromise we lost the ability to purchase machine guns at rational prices and also helped to drive a nail in the development of small arms.

    No one who wants to restrict guns wants a compromise. They want exactly what they are getting in places like NY, CA, MD and other places. To incrementally encroach on the rights of citizens to own firearms. It’s it’s not just evil “assault weapons”. They want all guns! Look at the SAFE Act in NY. They targeted everything. Tell me how a black rifle with a flash hider is more dangerous or deadly than one without? Tell me how a fixed stock is somehow more magical then a collapsible one. It’s not. Handgun Control Inc, was formed by Sarah Brady after the attempt on Reagan and her husband was shot. They have now morphed into other groups to take away all guns. These groups and politicians like Diane Feinstein have public stated this in their own words from their own mouths.

    So please tell me who is compromising here?

  • ChainMail

    Your state is overrun by a combination of gerrymandering, voter fraud, and a gigantic welfare magnet that draws the idle poor from across the country. Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut are culturally different from the rest of the country. I wouldn’t expect gains to start showing up there first. Colorado is doing well, all things considered. Three Democrat state senators who voted for the new gun control laws have either been recalled or resigned, and Hickenlooper will likely not be re-elected.

    I can live with “discussion” if by that you mean continuing to make intelligent moves like the Colion Noir hiring. If you mean something other than that, it would be helpful if you spelled it out in greater detail.

    • Andrew

      I know that is why my state and others are like that. I feel most states are at least gerrymandered too but that is another talk for another time.

      My point was we don’t have the reach that you claim. Some people are ignoring the message yes, but I think most of this is most people don’t receive it in the first place. Most people live inside a political echo chamber that does nothing more but spoon feed what the group think wants to hear. This happens on both sides of the debate (I find it to be horrible in the gun community). A lot of this is due to the nature of politics in this country today and just how volatile and divided everyone is. That needs to change. And what better a place to change that dynamic than in the 2nd Amendment debate.

  • ChainMail

    What do you see the gun rights community doing that alienates and divides?

    • Andrew

      Group think. Total refusal to approach those of other opinion with respect or restraint. I see much of the gun community is over taken with “my way or the highway” pseudo-constitutional machoism. Hiding behind the Framers doesn’t make one more right, and there is a lot of that in this community. It is off putting to many and easy fodder for libs. You yourself were adamant earlier about not even addressing the other side. You just wanted to be left alone, now you are telling me about all the out reach and education the community does.

      I have said this on a previous post but I will restate it because I think it is poignant. The 2nd Amendment, to me, is a fairly simple ordeal. We have the facts on our side, the Constitution, the moral argument, and tradition to back us up. This really should make this a no brainer. So then how, with all the pro-2nd Amendment people have going for themselves, still fail so epically in the media and in many states around the country. We blame the libs for so much of our troubles, but this is really a two way street. The gun community, from what I have seen, and many others have confirmed (either by agreeing or demonstrating) sucks at packaging a fantastic product while the other side rocks at packaging a dog turd. Agree?

  • ChainMail

    Ok, assuming it actually exists, how do we change the echo chamber dynamic. What specifically needs to happen?

    • Andrew

      Do you not think there is a political echo chamber in this country?

      I think major media outlets needs to re-evaluated if not torn down all together. I think people need to abandon political parties or at least develop their own ideas and morals instead of having party leadership do that for them (this requires critical thinking). Create more honest and transparency amongst politicians, specifically by illuminating their campaign funding apparatus and their rabid abuse of gerrymandering…

      There are many too many ways to break this down so I will just make two categories of the kinds of actions that are needed. We need to have a movement of the individual citizen towards critical political thought/understanding and motivation and make politicians accountable. There is a long list of ways to do this and varying view points on how but I think the end goal is needed. The country is hyper polarized and politicians are both hyper polarized and hyper unresponsive and breaking that dead lock will allow the national and statewide honest discussions we need on so many issues. But that is just my opinion.

  • ChainMail

    When I said I wanted to be left alone, I was talking about two decades ago when I was minding my own business and the left decided they wanted an assault weapons ban. You’re underestimating the value of emotion-based arguments for winning people over. It’s ok to mock gun grabbers or depict them as ridiculous, or even evil. That’s part of propagandizing for your side. It’s also ok to state their actual motivations in blunt terms. There is a real threat of state-sponsored violence from the left, and that needs to be highlighted. It’s a huge part of their history.

    Now, does that need to be the primary tone of your argument? No, and that’s why you’ll see people on Youtube or Vine doing humorous 2A-related videos, or Daniel Defense making a self-defense based ad that doesn’t single out specific politicians.

    Honestly, I’m still not sure what you want to do differently other than be less strident.

    • Andrew

      Being strident is the entirety of it. How do we really win when we detract from the left with BS propaganda as opposed to well reasoned arguments? You will have greater effect if you are more precise in language and tone and you won’t step on your dick as much. It sounds like a little thing now that we have it broken down, but I think it constitutes a major problem for our cause.

  • ChainMail

    Most of that is far beyond the scope of the NRA, but with respect to winning the minds of individual citizens, the grassroots movement in social media is doing that by itself, with or without the NRA’s involvement. Being polarized isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. It means the latent philosophical disagreement between the left and the right is finally coming to a head. That’s why I’m so adamantly against compromise, especially now when we’re at a potential inflection point.

    • Andrew

      You are going to have to elaborate on your last sentence because that is the exact opposite of how I feel.

  • ChainMail

    First, I’m using the word “compromise” in the traditional sense, meaning we give up X, they give up Y, and we meet halfway. I thought you were saying you wanted to expand 2A freedoms. Did I misunderstand that part?

    Second, by inflection point I mean the beginning of a sea-change in public opinion. I sense we are at an inflection point because of the majority opposition to new gun control laws, the massive buying of weapons and ammunition when such laws are proposed, and the inroads we’re making with traditionally skeptical demographics, particularly women.

    This is a great opportunity to push back against the left by proposing loosened gun restrictions. That has already been accomplished in several states, and within the next 4 years, we could see similar successes on the national level as Obamacare implodes and takes Congressional Democrats out.

    • Andrew

      You see an opportunity for the right to beat the left on this issue. I see an exodus away from both parties and am advocating solutions outside of parties. This is clearly two different view points.

  • ChainMail

    I’m not sure how you address a political problem like this without at least some party involvement. The cultural piece is important, probably more so than the political piece. But the end-game is still legislative by nature. In other words, you’re trying to change people’s minds on the issue in order to then elect people to office to pass laws loosening restrictions.

    The Democratic Party will not be joining us for any of this. Therefore, definitionally, we’re talking about electing people who are not Democrats. I don’t know how we avoid that reality.

    • Andrew

      That last paragraph assumes that the future is secure for parties and that democrats of today will be the same tomorrow. I am not so sure. My thinking away from parties and towards critical thought removes the very barrier that you want to uphold. Obviously parties are necessary, but they are a necessary evil, not essential for how politics should run in this country.

  • ChainMail

    I’m just not really clear on what your solution looks like. You want people to think critically, but then what? What is the concrete objective beyond people becoming convinced of the righteousness of the pro 2A position?

    • Andrew

      What more do you need? An independent thinking and engaged citizenry and an accountable legislature and by extension, executive branch. The concrete goal is that this restores many freedoms that we have lost and creates an effective apparatus for future problem solving and cooperation on a social and political level. Where is the downside to leaving the divisiveness of today’s politics behind?

  • ChainMail

    Propaganda isn’t inherently BS. It’s just emotion-based arguments. The left have mastered this, and done quite well for themselves in the process. People don’t really respond to rational arguments. They respond to things we would like to think of as peripheral, like pride, fear, shame, or happiness. Emotions, in other words. So for example, a propagandizing approach to the 2nd Amendment might make use of shame by accusing gun control advocates of making women vulnerable to rapists. “Gun control is OSHA for rapists.” Like that. See how I weaponized my language? Only bad people would identify with rapists, and you’re not a bad person, right? That’s the subtext of what I’m saying to my audience.

    Here, read this:

    • Andrew

      I get it. Propaganda is an effective tool that can be used for good. But it is sleazy as all hell. You can make emotional arguments and connections without muck raking propaganda.

      I have read about half of your article and I think I get the gist as I have gotten the gist before. But I don’t care about party monicker nearly as much as I care about actual solutions and integrity. I hope to see an abandonment of typical party politics and doctrine, not wins for the lesser of two evils. I have grown up hearing just about all the bad things that can be said about democrats by republicans and reached the conclusion that neither of them are worth the time people invest in them. They certainly aren’t worth the confidence or the money.

  • ChainMail

    You need concrete legislative action, which will have to be taken in the face of political opposition from a statistically significant minority. Realistically, within my lifetime we’re talking about being able to win over 60-70% of the country. The best-case scenario involves passing legislation that will be bitterly opposed by 90 million Americans, many of whom have an outsized political voice. The divide is not going away, no matter how you and I conduct ourselves. We’re talking about true believers, people who mean it when they tweet that the kids of NRA members should be murdered, or that white NRA members just want to murder black people. Those folks are not reachable in any meaningful sense. The best you can do is politically restrain them from stealing our liberties.

    Having the kind of citizenry you (and I) hope for means changing their minds on the 2nd Amendment. Socially, it’s unavoidable that they will argue with their peers and associates. When I became a libertarian, it caused significant social friction with some of my friends and family. But that’s not a bad thing. It’s inherent to self-government that there will be strong political disagreements. Expecting to be able to leave that behind ignores the realities of human behavior in our model of government. There will never be a time when we have virtual unanimity about the 2nd Amendment. That’s just not the way self-government works. And as I said before, it’s good that the latent philosophical differences are finally coming to a head. We need to have this debate between the authoritarian utopianism of the left and the virtue-ethics and self-governance of the Founders.

    • Andrew

      We seem to be approaching the same page. Though I would like to reinforce that my idea is a separation from all party in both belief and disbelief. This would be contrary to your assessment of the left, though likely accurate in the current climate. I find this tool to be limited in definitiveness but very helpful in figuring out allegiances.

      I still hold to my assertion that every citizen of this nation, regardless of how blatantly abhorrent, stupid, disgusting, and distasteful is still my fellow countrymen. I see a failure by others in the community to be a failure by myself as well. I think that it is reasonable to uphold a level a civic duty to the conduct and behavior of your fellow man. Yes some people are just assholes, and that is magnified by the internet, but it is a journey not a destination. If we don’t spend everyday moving towards excellence, then we are moving away from it.

  • ChainMail

    The Horowitz article is more valuable for its insights into the psychology of politics than as a roadmap for Republican political strategy, even though I would argue you’re not going to be able to abandon the Republican party as a vehicle to expanding 2A freedoms.

    Propaganda isn’t sleazy. It was a huge part of winning WW2. As conservatives or libertarians, people like us are more impressed with factually oriented arguments. For example, it seems like a great argument against gun control would be pointing out the simultaneous increase in gun ownership and decrease in violent crime. But that’s not what most people respond to.

    As Horowitz is pointing out, the left is constantly telling a story. Republicans are the bad guys. There’s some victim or victim group of Republican policy X. Democrats are the good guys because they want to stop Republicans from hurting the victim or victim group. It’s purely emotional, but it works well on the part of the population that is actually winnable when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, i.e. independents. Why do you think the War on Women card keeps getting played? Because it works.

    I don’t see any reason to leave that card unplayed in defense of the 2nd Amendment. Ideally, everyone would respond to factual arguments, but that’s just not human nature. And politics, as we know, is the art of the possible. You do what you can with what you have.

    • Andrew

      I am saying we can do a better job of packaging and appeal to the emotional side without blowing things out proportion. That is something that is attainable if we take a second and think. And it probably requires a new approach to the issues on our part. But as I said earlier, this community seems to be against innovation in both packaging and content.

      • Chaotic Good

        “Compromise and negotiation” got us to the point we are at now.l How on earth with MORE “compromise and negotiation” enhance our rights?

        By agreeing to compromise and negotiate up front you have already (if unconsciously) indicated that you do not fully believe in your position.

        • Andrew

          Why? Because history and politics aren’t complicated at all and we should just do the opposite of our prior actions no matter what? I bed to differ. If you have gotten this far you must have read my policy recommendations. How compromising and catering to gun grabbers do those seem?

  • ChainMail

    I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t continue to re-evaluate packaging. In my opinion, that isn’t the severe problem you seem to believe it is, but I can understand why some might see segments of our community as hidebound or unnecessarily hyperbolic.

    To bring this full circle, though, we’re commenting on an article related to a guy who explicitly says he wants to compromise on the 2nd Amendment, relates compromise to minimizing mass shootings (even though we know, statistically and factually, the two are unrelated), and wants to do so in an official capacity at the NRA. Separate from question of packaging, the actual content of that approach only ensures further encroachment on 2A freedoms.

    • Andrew

      2 things. You had no debate with me when I made my policy recommendations which obviously have more restraint then none. And of course there is the current state of gun laws which have more control than we want but in most places really aren’t untenable. This makes gun laws more of a balance between liberty and security. Evidently Webb has ideas that shift the balance more in favor of security, probably in the wrong direction. Yet the arguments against this are tend to be, and have been very much so here, how unassailable the 2nd Amendment is, which evidently it isn’t. It is overzealous hypocrisy, spurred on by not thinking critically.

      Which, secondly, is my whole point. Our overzealousness and lack of critical thought are damaging and does not focus on building bridges. People here act like if the situation gets any worse, we have to go to war or else. There seems to be more hype and clinging to dogma in this community than is healthy. In fact, I think it is damaging. And the hyperbolic are in full force on this article. That was my point when I made my first, evidently unpopular , statement.

  • Rob

    First off MAC, thank you for everything you do in regards to firearms. You post thought provoking videos and review a multitude of firearms, which is very helpful. I know you are taking a lot of comments on this article due to your opinion, which is your right to express it as you have done so here. Webb comes from a service were he had rigorous weapons training to the tune of which most people who buy firearms could never attain. So, that is one issue, Webb was in a group of soldiers who constantly had their weapons in check. He leaves the military and enters a world where most people who buy firearms don’t have his level of training. So, rather than him take the time to teach people or work on the issue at hand; he begins to say everyone should have a mandatory safety course. However, consider this, remember the article you posted about the Australian jewelry maker who was producing knock off MAC-10s? How would a mandatory safety course prevent that? Or how about Lanza’s case? He killed his mom and then took her firearms in order to commit a horrible tragedy. Do you think a mandatory safety course would have prevented that? There will always be individuals who will be able to subvert new regulations that are passed in regard to firearms.

  • Scott Snoopy-Smith

    As a Veteran, I appreciate Mr Webb’s service and his continued support of the troops and Vets. That said, I would never support his position on the BOD and will share those thoughts. Having Jackson on the BOD is enough, the NRA compromised by supporting the now deceased rat bastard marine (yes I intended small m–think Hidythia Marines) Jack Murtha for many terms to the congress over other candidates because of his seniority in the house. Murtha screwed Americans at every other opportunity; the NRA BOD does not need a partial supported.

  • Mark

    I am glad you posted this. I made a rash decision on thinking he would be a good choice. You make a lot of good points. I think it is every shooters responsibility to train and be prepared. I think that is something the community can do to promote. I don’t need another mandate.

  • Kevin Schick

    It would seem to me that “compromise” would invole anti-gunners giving us something in return for background checks, like national reciprocity or dissolving the NFA. Anything that involves only our side giving up part of our individual, constitutionally guaranteed right is bullsh*t. Compromise, by definition:
    “an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.”

  • Pingback: Brandon Webb standing for NRA Board; deserves attention()

  • Pingback: Keep Brandon Webb off the NRA Board of Directors - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum()

  • jamesbtowle

    I am truly sorry that JJ actually made those remarks on TV and worst still how he struggled to spin his way out of the damage he had done. Chances are he will not hold his position with the NRA. For those of us in Texas who know JJ we will miss him….but will continue to hold his legend close along with the respect for a man who gave us an image to look up too when no others could stand…bye JJ. buena suerte my friend…

  • OEFVet06

    I learned a new word today: libtardic. I like it. Thanks MAC!

  • Ed Kern

    No compromise is the only way to avoid the loss of our rights from the slow but persistent tide of creeping incrementalism. All of us want to help to preserve our right to bear arms. I believe the only way to do that is to treat gun rights like christian missionary work; convert one person at a time. Offer to take your friends, family, and colleagues to the range and show them the respect that gun owners have for firearms. Show them that gun owners do not think they are Jason Bourne, John Rambo, or Leon the Professional. Show them how safe and predictable firearms are when handled with the respect that they deserve. And most importantly, show them how to safely handle them. Many of the people at the range who do not handle their firearms safely may do so because none of their gun owning friends have bothered to shown them how. They may not even know which of their friends are responsible gun owners. We need to stop letting douche bags and bigoted right-wing rednecks be the face of gun ownership. It is time for those of us who are responsible gun owners to openly discuss the issue while standing true to the cause.

  • DeltaOneSix

    Well stated. We have already “compromised” as gun owners in this country. 1934, 1938, 1968, 1989 Import ban, 1994 AWB (which thankfully expired), and are we any safer? Other than lowering gun toting criminals health insurance premiums making it safer for them, we have not done much for us hard working, protect what I earn types. When our forefathers laid out the US Constitution, there was no differentiation between Miltary grade firearms and Civilian firearms, what you hunted with is what you went to war with. Firmly believe we should not be differentiating them now or regulating them to the extreme making them cost prohibitive, another way to regulate, that is not addressed much. This all falls into the Governments and power broker elite total mistrust of it’s governed populace. Yes, as a nation we are morally circling the drain in some regards, regulating our only means of defending ourselves and taking God out of everything has certainly attributed to a large degree to us being here, that and poor leadership. But instead of reversing those decisions, look to the anti-gunners and governments response, more laws and more penalties. I close with a quote from Ronald Reagan “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Compromise only moves the needle more to the left for us. Reagan would be a right wing ultra conservative now a days. As a nation, it is time we restore our founding principles and say enough to those that make every issue “gray”.

  • Mark7Seven

    Consider this: If we as citizens gave as much time, debate and consideration to those we elect to Congress we would not have a need for the NRA, Armed Citizens United or any other stand alone organization to safeguard the rights listed in our beloved Constitution. If we engaged every day as we have been on this forum our elected officials would stand that post for us.

    Anyone else agree?

    • Andrew

      Plus one all the way. And because of the way the world works, because not many people dedicate time and energy like we have here, we dedicate money to these organizations. So we are paying other people to have a voice in Congress hopefully on our behalf. Money is required to have a voice in Congress. Now how messed up is that?

    • Sean

      You’re assuming you can hold all the American citizenry to the same standard as NRA members? What makes you think the people who would discuss this here Don’t use the same level of consideration when voting for members of Congress?

  • Eric K

    I’m glad to see a civilized discussion about Brandon Webb. Because on TAG, all the SOFREP gang is attacking who’s against Webb.

    • Boris

      That’s because animals with small brains can’t think for themselves. Same kind of euphoric false idol worship that swept a 1930’s Europe and a 2008 United States.
      When they’re losing the argument, FB threats are all that is left.

      • Templar 6

        Hero worship is a strong motivator… I don’t think anyone who critically thinks and assesses the facts can conclude his intentions are not based on non-profit and personal empowerment.

  • Mike Mac

    Has anyone called the FBI about Mr. Webb’s comment? Last time I checked threats like that were considered “terroristic” by law enforcement. Besides, are we going to let a Navy SEAL of all people attack our first amendment rights?

  • WKL

    Well I see no one has yet to refute my statement about “compromise”. That tells me I was correct. We as gun owners have never compromised. We have simply had our rights taken from us by lying hypocritical politicians and anti-gun groups who think that they and their friends should be trusted and the rest of us shouldn’t. If someone wants to give away their rights, go for it. Leave my rights out of it.

  • ricseib

    Mental health is the avenue to gun confiscation..even the so called conservatives
    can not be trusted..

  • enscriptchun
    • Mick Rolling

      He went even further to insult users of AR15,com calling them fanatics.. Regardless of what he says now, A leopard never changes his spots, he just repositions to make them better camouflage.

    • Boris

      Jumping Jehosaphat! Looks more like DC (that’s damage control for all you landlubbers).

  • Pingback: Well Looky Who’s Running For The NRA Board | The Patriot Perspective()

  • Pingback: Prepper News Watch for December 9, 2013 | The Preparedness Podcast()

  • BTmax

    I’m so freaking tired of people bringing up the whole “there’s needs to be training thing.” Is training a good idea? Sure is. But TRAINING is not an issue with gun deaths in this country. Do you see idiots at the range sometimes? Sure. Is there a mass epidemic of people getting shot by these Is there a massive issue of people getting killed because they weren’t trained? No. Let’s look at 2010 stats..62% or 19,392 of gun deaths were suicides…how would gun training do anything stop that? 35% or 11,078 were homicides…again, nothing to do with training. 606 gun deaths were labels “unintentional”. Out of those perhaps some could have been changed with training. Although I wouldn’t argue all could as we all know people who have been trained who still ignore that training…training does not equal safety 100% of the time. But let’s say for the sake of argument that mandatory govt training would prevent that. We are talking about doing all that to prevent only 2% of the gun deaths in this country. And by giving that power to the govt who could then make the training expensive, limited in time and places offered, etc we’d be giving them the power that they would most certainly use to limit gun ownership. We need to remember one thing…anti-gun people hate us and our culture…period. They want it destroyed. They will use whatever tool or loophole available to do it. If you don’t believe me look at California, Mass, Conn, NY etc to see the progression. Oh, and before you pull out the “but if it save one life or 600 lives isn’t it worth it?” it isn’t. We don’t apply that logic to anything else and we shouldn’t here. Should we limit all cars to 25 mph? That would save tens of thousands of lives? Should be not allow cars at all but only buses? Should we ban private swimming pools?..that would save hundreds of kids. The list could go on and on. Fact is, life is dangerous…and there has to be a balance. So no, giving anti-gun people the tools to limit gun ownership(and thus sentence those who won’t be able to get guns to defend themselves to death…which would be much more than 600 a year) is not worth mandatory govt training.

  • Pingback: Keep Anti-gun Navy SEAL Off Of NRA Board «()

  • Pingback: Confiscation Becoming a Reality | The Bang Switch()

  • Pingback: Keep Brandon Webb off the NRA Board of Directors | Constitution Watch()

  • Grits.N.Jowls

    I’m a Tabbed ex army Ranger and have trained with SEALs, Delta members, SAS and Air Force PJs; the best of the best in the military. Just because he wears the Tab, scroll or Trident(Tab wearer vs a Tab bearer) only means that he made it thru a tough course, nothing else. He has his opinion and we have ours which run directly opposite to what he’s proposed. I’m also a Benefactor life member of the NRA and understand that I cannot and will not ever support a person who would equivocate and compromise a God given right that he thinks should be qualified and approved by mortal men with less than honorable intentions.

    I just received my ballot to vote for this years directors of the NRA Board and will research further what he’s said but as things look now I will not be voting for him.

    • Templar 6

      Hear here!

  • Templar 6

    Well, it appears Mr. Webb is a gun control advocate and homosexual supporter. Read latest issue of SOFREP for his support and admiration of a Gay SEAL. Everyone is of course entitled to their view and support of the Gay community. Its America and freedom of speech is what we need to support. His is a very politically correct perspective of the inner circle of journalism which should lead to a greater acceptance in that group for him. Which another one of his causes. He used his on-line magazine to support this cause and turned off course from the intent of the stated goals in my opinion. Which is fine and his right. However this is an indicator of what he would do as a person involved in the leadership of the NRA. Once in place, who could predict his path? He would make great political hay for the left as a former Navy SEAL if he strayed from course following his own personal agenda. Just because you are a former Navy SEAL doesn’t mean you are above criticism. I don’t question his honor or service to this nation. He is no longer a SEAL nor is he acting in that capacity. He is now a professional journalist who seeks an elected post. I do not however wish this person on the NRA board or involved with the NRA or matters of gun rights to have a vioce on our behalf. We don’t need another appeaser or compromise with the left. John McCain could use this guy perfectly well while increasing his personal fortune. Thank you for your service, now good bye!

  • Hunter McGaughey

    I commented on Sofrep post that Brandon Webb just recently put up on site. He was trying to round up a lynch mob against Jesse Ventura!! Well it back fired and all these people starting chiming in. All negative and debatable comments were removed. Mine was one of them. He quickly made it so that, I could not comment on my removal or defend my postion. I thought this was a free country, and that a warrior of his caliber walking amongst his enormous ego would allow someone, who is also a former special operator–my opinion. I don’t trust this guy at all. I think some of these guys hide behind their bravado and military past adventures. Doesn’t make him an expert on anything. He fails to mention the Navy SEAL just a few years ago, that was trying to impress a new girl he met, and didn’t check his own weapon thus shooting himself in the head. He had all the training in the world. Look at where that got him. He fails to mention anything but how he tied to everything syill going on inthe world to include his lame story about him catching a sex offender In an ice cream truck as hes telling a story about a former Ranger who is tracking pedophiles for homeland security. He’s got a story about everything. You its us Army guys that arnt out exploiting their military experience. rarely do you see former Delta guys bragging or trying to make a buck you know why Cag guys are quite professionals not profiteers!!! Dont trust a word this guy says hes not even for free speech let alone allowing ordinarily people the rights they were born withSo tired of the Canadian types Go back there I say and take your ego with you.

    • Military Arms Channel

      There are many in the SF community who lost respect for the SEAL’s in recent years. The joke I often hear is, “Do you know how to tell if someone is a SEAL? Oh, they’ll tell you.” :)

      I love our SEALs and wouldn’t begrudge them as a community — ever. They are hardcore dedicated warriors who do things most of us can only imagine. Sure, you have some that behave in questionable ways, but that’s true of any unit or any group of people. It seems as though the SEAL’s have had a rash of high profile incidents and it sometimes seems some of them can’t get to a pen and paper fast enough to write a book about their missions. Should those stories be told? I can see both sides of the argument, but many in the SF community frown upon the practice.

      As for Mr. Webb, I have nothing against him personally nor do I have anything bad to say about his service to our nation. However, I do NOT want him on the NRA board defending our 2nd Amendment rights. He doesn’t get it. He’s a fence sitter on the 2nd Amendment and given his past statements and attempts to backpedal on them, I trust him with our rights about as far as I can throw him… and that aint very far. I wish him all the best in his business ventures, he deserves success, but please keep him away from politics.

  • Final Boss

    Brandon Webb is a weapons-grade clown and shouldn’t be trusted to water a lawn, let alone contribute to discussions on policy.
    Hey Webb, how about you make your next book a children’s pop-up deal about a guy who runs his mouth and gets happy-hatted?