Stupid NRA (again!) No 1911's or revolvers in training classes

[best defense]

This is just ''Hard love'' from those that know best.

Get a Glock.

I got 2 glocks they are no where as easy to shoot as either of my 2 1911s or my revolvers. there is a good reason there are GSSF matches for Glocks only. Glocks are much more difficult to learn to shoot well than things like 1911s and revolvers.

 

[best defense]

I don't see anything about excluding single shot BP pistols. Maybe you should sign up!

Since they are not excluded you should at least try.

 

[Medic!]

I got 2 glocks they are no where as easy to shoot as either of my 2 1911s or my revolvers. there is a good reason there are GSSF matches for Glocks only. Glocks are much more difficult to learn to shoot well than things like 1911s and revolvers.

Well?

I shoot 1911's, Revolvers, and Glocks well.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I don't think these are what they had in mind for the course ...
That said...
38 grains of 2f and .454 round ball out of the Colt's Dragoon and 40 grains of 2F with a .530 round ball out of my "Horse Pistol" will put some womp-ability down range...
Andy

 

[Medic!]

Sorry Andy.

It's been proven by science.
There is no such thing as womp-down power.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Hey ! Don't go throwing science at my Southern English...
Andy

 

[Diamondback]

'Handheld firepower' is a radio with Arty or a cell of B-52s on the other end.

 

[Boboclown]

frickin' clowns....

No animal balloons for you!

 

[etrain16]

No animal balloons for you!

Probably made from condoms anyway....

 

[Boboclown]

Probably made from condoms anyway....

Nah, I unfortunately don't know how to do a snake balloon animal.

 

[U8395279]

Just when you think the LaPierre cabal couldn't get any stupider, comes this:

NRA: No 1911s or Revolvers in NRA Carry Guard Training Classes

Here's the link to the story: NRA: No 1911s or Revolvers in NRA Carry Guard Training Classes - The Truth About Guns

"We will not allow revolvers or 1911s as your primary firearm in this class."

And if you use a 1911 or revolver in self defense, Carry Guard probably won't cover you because THEY didn't train you on it. Just speculation, but I'll bet you a buffalo nickel it's somewhere in the fine print.

We pause now for ALL the NRA groupies to jump in with their shrill denunciations of anyone who criticizes the Frenchman's Fudds. The rationalizations for this INCANDESCENTLY stupid move should be a real hoot!

This is actually totally bogus fake news. The story is completely false.

That is the problem that we now face in the age of the Internet. We look at something online, and automatically believe that it is true, without doing any fact checking of our own.

Here is what the Carry Guard training course actually says about what guns to bring to the classes:

*NOTE ON FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION: You will need one handgun with a 6-round or greater carrying capacity (revolver or semi-auto) that you are comfortable firing 1,500 rounds through over the course of 3 days. This will be your "primary" handgun throughout the training where the focus is developing the fundamentals.

You can read all of the requirements for Carry Guard training classes on the Carry Guard website here on this webpage:

NRA Carry Guard | Register


Folks, in the future, you need to do some fact checking, before posting stuff. Here you have all been condemning the NRA, based on a false allegation. That is not at all good.

.

 

[etrain16]

This is actually totally bogus fake news. The story is completely false.

That is the problem that we now face in the age of the Internet. We look at something online, and automatically believe that it is true, without doing any fact checking of our own.

Here is what the Carry Guard training course actually says about what guns to bring to the classes:

*NOTE ON FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION: You will need one handgun with a 6-round or greater carrying capacity (revolver or semi-auto) that you are comfortable firing 1,500 rounds through over the course of 3 days. This will be your "primary" handgun throughout the training where the focus is developing the fundamentals.

You can read all of the requirements for Carry Guard training classes on the Carry Guard website here on this webpage:

NRA Carry Guard | Register


Folks, in the future, you need to do some fact checking, before posting stuff. Here you have all been condemning the NRA, based on a false allegation. That is not at all good.

.

Actually, not fake news Lance...

If it were, then why did the NRA, just yesterday, release this statement in response to the blowback they received on this:

In response to clear feedback surrounding the NRA Carry Guard Level I course announcement, we have modified the required firearm platforms as well as our site language to clearly articulate how firearms will be used in the class.

Bottom line: our decision to not include 1911s and revolvers as primary firearms in our initial Level I course was a mistake, and we appreciate the feedback we have received from the firearms community.

In response to the clear and overwhelming demand for these firearms to be used throughout the entire course, our instructors have decided to accommodate all safe, reliable handguns with a capacity of 6 rounds or more. Firearms with less than 6 rounds of capacity will still be allowed as secondary platforms.

We welcome anyone serious about building the skills necessary to defend themselves and their families to attend our NRA Carry Guard Level I course, beginning in July.

Here is what the NRA had posted on THEIR website just a few days ago - it clearly stated you could have a revolver or 1911, but could not USE IT AS YOUR PRIMARY WEAPON:



So, no, not fake news. They did exclude them as a 'primary weapon'. But since many carry them as their primary weapon, it pizzed off enough folks in just a few days to get the NRA to reverse their decision.

Note though, their decision excludes guns with a capacity of 5 rounds or less, which means some small revolvers are still excluded as a primary weapon.

I support the NRA, life member, but doing stuff like this doesn't help their image.

BTW - new thread on the reversal of this decision by the NRA if any care to comment there:

Stupid NRA Part 2 - Ooopsie and we changed our mind.

 

[U8395279]

Actually, not fake news Lance...

If it were, then why did the NRA, just yesterday, release this statement in response to the blowback they received on this:

In response to clear feedback surrounding the NRA Carry Guard Level I course announcement, we have modified the required firearm platforms as well as our site language to clearly articulate how firearms will be used in the class.

Bottom line: our decision to not include 1911s and revolvers as primary firearms in our initial Level I course was a mistake, and we appreciate the feedback we have received from the firearms community.

In response to the clear and overwhelming demand for these firearms to be used throughout the entire course, our instructors have decided to accommodate all safe, reliable handguns with a capacity of 6 rounds or more. Firearms with less than 6 rounds of capacity will still be allowed as secondary platforms.

We welcome anyone serious about building the skills necessary to defend themselves and their families to attend our NRA Carry Guard Level I course, beginning in July.

Here is what the NRA had posted on THEIR website just a few days ago - it clearly stated you could have a revolver or 1911, but could not USE IT AS YOUR PRIMARY WEAPON:

View attachment 371714

So, no, not fake news. They did exclude them as a 'primary weapon'. But since many carry them as their primary weapon, it pizzed off enough folks in just a few days to get the NRA to reverse their decision.

Note though, their decision excludes guns with a capacity of 5 rounds or less, which means some small revolvers are still excluded as a primary weapon.

I support the NRA, life member, but doing stuff like this doesn't help their image.

BTW - new thread on the reversal of this decision by the NRA if any care to comment there:

Stupid NRA Part 2 - Ooopsie and we changed our mind.

Actually, it was indeed fake news, spread by you. You were very happy to attack and condemn the NRA to your heart's content over this issue, despite the fact that this limitation was no longer true.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy or respect for gun owners that are so eager to bash and denounce the NRA, as you so clearly are inclined to do. I do not share your most obvious anti-NRA agenda.

.

 

[etrain16]

Actually, it was indeed fake news, spread by you. You were very happy to attack and condemn the NRA to your heart's content over this issue, despite the fact that this limitation was no longer true.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy or respect for gun owners that are so eager to bash and denounce the NRA, as you so clearly are inclined to do. I do not share your most obvious anti-NRA agenda.

.

What are you talking about??! Are you trying to be funny?? WTH??

Lance, you CLEARLY didn't read any of my posts. I actually defended the NRA while some others attacked them. I also PROVED it was not fake news and you completely dismissed that. Not sure what the problem is here, but I made myself very clear as to my position.

I have consistently supported the NRA on this site against NRA haters. No, I'm not always happy with how they do certain things, but I support them regardless. Proudly, a life member.

 

[Flymph]

 

[smoothbore]

Folks, in the future, you need to do some fact checking, before posting stuff. Here you have all been condemning the NRA, based on a false allegation. That is not at all good.

.

LOL! Yes we do

 

[U8395279]

What are you talking about??! Are you trying to be funny?? WTH??

Lance, you CLEARLY didn't read any of my posts. I actually defended the NRA while some others attacked them. I also PROVED it was not fake news and you completely dismissed that. Not sure what the problem is here, but I made myself very clear as to my position.

No, I did not dismiss your posts. As you already surmised, I simply overlooked them. My comments were not directed at you, but at Mr Natural, the person that brought this subject up. So I have no idea why you appear to think that I am speaking to you personally.

I did see person after person jumping on board this thread to attack and vilify the NRA, without checking into the matter themself, though.

Why the OP here has such a hard on against the NRA, that he has gone to such great lengths to condemn the organization in these threads that he has started about this subject, I do not know. I very much doubt that anyone that is high up and in a position of authority in the NRA was in any way involved in the decision for this rule. The way that he rails about the " LaPierre cabal" is absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion. To blame this matter on LaPierre is really quite a crazy thing to do.

 

[U8395279]

LOL! Yes we do

The fact is that the information was indeed wrong, and was no longer accurate, when I made by post. Yet the OP continued to let the bashing of the NRA continue here in this thread, unabated.

He only issued a correction many hours after I made my post. So yes, he did need to check his facts further. And even then, after learning about this development, he has started yet another topic, for further lambasting the NRA. It is obvious that he is making the organization his whipping boy.

Guys this is such a great idea, for gun owners to go to such lengths to denounce and disparage the most influential organization fighting for your gun rights in America.

Hillary Clinton must be laughing her head off right now in glee.



.

 

[etrain16]

No, I did not dismiss your posts. As you already surmised, I simply overlooked them. My comments were not directed at you, but at Mr Natural, the person that brought this subject up. So I have no idea why you appear to think that I am speaking to you personally.

I did see person after person jumping on board this thread to attack and vilify the NRA, without checking into the matter themself, though.

Why the OP here has such a hard on against the NRA, that he has gone to such great lengths to condemn the organization in these threads that he has started about this subject, I do not know. I very much doubt that anyone that is high up and in a position of authority in the NRA was in any way involved in the decision for this rule. The way that he rails about the " LaPierre cabal" is absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion. To blame this matter on LaPierre is really quite a crazy thing to do.

In your post #133 - you quoted ME, not the OP, then you said:

"Actually, it was indeed fake news, spread by you. You were very happy to attack and condemn the NRA to your heart's content over this issue, despite the fact that this limitation was no longer true."

So you quoted me, then addressed that quote using "you", so yeah, I took it you were going after me personally. If that's not the case, then we're good. I wasn't the OP of this thread, that was a different member.

 

[Boboclown]

This is actually totally bogus fake news. The story is completely false.

If the decision was changed as of yesterday then it isn't fake news. This thread was from Monday.

I'll make it known that the only reason I consider donating to the NRA at all is because the other organizations don't have as much influence. Other than that, I don't care for the NRA. But I'm not going to go out of my way to "attack" the NRA. The thread was made before the reversal of the decision, so it isn't fake news. Its only old news.