PDA

View Full Version : Front Sight Firearms Training Institute partners with "Second Amendment March"


Liberty1
04-27-2009, 5:34 AM
I understand the reservations we all have about such an event. However if it is going to happen I want it to be a success and would love to attend personally as I like public displays of my support for the RKBA. Still, I'm undecided...

Two days at Front Sight is tempting...:)


http://secondamendmentmarch.com/news_032109.htm

April 22 , 2009

Front Sight Firearms Training Institute Supports Second Amendment March!

The Second Amendment March is proud to announce we are partnering with Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, www.frontsight.com a world-renowned personal defense school located near Las Vegas, Nevada. Dr. Ignatius Piazza, Four Weapons Combat Master and Founder and Director of Front Sight, has graciously offered to support the Second Amendment March by backing up his words with his money.

Dr. Piazza is a patriot and believes so strongly in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment March that he is offering a FREE Two-Day Defensive Handgun course to any person who supports or attends the Second Amendment March in Washington DC or any of the 50 State Capitol Marches. Upon attending the DC March or any of the 50 State Capitol Marches you will receive a certificate redeemable for a Front Sight Two Day Defensive Handgun Course with no expiration date! That's right! You heard me correctly. We're talking about a $1,000 Two-Day Defensive Handgun Course at world-class Front Sight Firearms Training Institute FREE OF CHARGE simply for supporting the Second Amendment March! How can any patriotic American justify not supporting the Second Amendment March with an offer like that?

But wait! Dr. Piazza isn't done! If you can't make it to the DC March or any of the 50 State Capitol Marches to take advantage of this great offer, then read further... Dr. Piazza will extend this offer to any person who donates $100 to the Second Amendment March in the next 30 days! That's how serious he is about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms! Please don't miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity! Go now to www.frontsight.com and to learn all about the classes Front Sight offers. This is a $1,000 class simply for doing the right thing in supporting the Second Amendment March!

Once again, thank you Dr. Piazza and Front Sight Firearms Training Institute for your generosity.


All the best,

Skip Coryell Founder,
Second Amendment March

WokMaster1
04-27-2009, 8:03 AM
for some reason when I was reading that press release, the Oxy-Clean guy's voice kept popping in my head.

Good deal, though.

Bill_in_SD
04-27-2009, 8:46 AM
At least he avoided the 'exchange in abundance' language that was last year's overused term.

Great training though - I use Front Sight and have become a better firearm owner because of it.

Theseus
04-27-2009, 10:45 AM
Not to derail, but what is the problem with Front Sight? Some people seem to hate it for some reason. . . I myself am tempted. . Maybe a vacation after trial is over.

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 10:50 AM
Two questionable organizations working together? Why am I not surprised.

I would recommend to everyone to stay away from both of these.

Bill_in_SD
04-27-2009, 11:09 AM
Front Sight has been through a lawsuit regarding membership and broken promises/contracts/etc.

Some people bought into the Front Sight vision of building a community that has firing ranges instead of gold courses. This dream was never realized and a number of folks put some big $$ into it based on the marketing of the plan.

I would never have enough money to buy into something like that anyhow, but have taken advantage of the cheapest membership in order to take the pistol and shotgun courses there. I have learned a lot and enjoyed almost every minute of it.

It is what you make it - go, try it and have fun, but like everything in this world, do your homework before signing on to own a plot of land in this program. If you keep your involvement to training only, you will be just fine.

Theseus
04-27-2009, 11:23 AM
I don't think I would want to buy a piece of land in an "organized" community. I would rather buy some land in Colorado or something.

FastFinger
04-27-2009, 11:47 AM
A few years ago Front Sight had a intro offer where you could enjoy free one day Uzi familiarization course. It was similar to those timeshare promos – enjoy some free goodies in exchange for sitting through a sales presentation. The sales talk lasted about an hour, but certainly wasn’t high pressure.

The Uzi training was a blast and very informative. It lasted the entire day with an instructor for every 2 or 3 students. The instructors really knew their stuff and were patient, safe, and thorough. They even supplied the ammo, I recall we went through 300 rnds or so.

Then a couple of years ago they had another promo where in exchange for posting info about Front Sight you could get a 4 day hand gun course. I went with two friends. I don’t have experience at other courses to compare to, but we all thought that the instruction and experience was top notch.

This time the sales pitch was all of 5 or 10 minutes, and extremely low key. If you weren’t paying attention you’d probably have missed it entirely.

My problem with their pitch is this – Individually the courses seem like they’re quite a bit more expensive than other training facilities. However when you join and pay up front for a certain level of membership you have the ability to take certain courses without additional charge, for life. My concern is that eventually they might run out of new members, and since all existing members attend for free the costs of running the place could exceed income and they’d be forced to close the doors.

But 2 days for marching – or for $100, sounds good to me if it’s available to people who have already attended a course their.

eflatminor
04-27-2009, 11:56 AM
Two questionable organizations working together? Why am I not surprised.

I would recommend to everyone to stay away from both of these.

What do you have against the 2nd Ammendment March?

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 12:01 PM
What do you have against the 2nd Ammendment March?

It is an ill-conceived idea, it will do harm to the gun rights movement, and I wish it weren't happening and I hope no one shows up.

I don't know anything about the management of it, but if they're connecting themselves to "Dr" Piazza that's also a bad sign about them, and I honestly question their motives for organizing this without NRA backing. I assume the NRA has attempted to discourage this from happening.

eflatminor
04-27-2009, 12:42 PM
It is an ill-conceived idea, it will do harm to the gun rights movement, and I wish it weren't happening and I hope no one shows up.

I don't know anything about the management of it, but if they're connecting themselves to "Dr" Piazza that's also a bad sign about them, and I honestly question their motives for organizing this without NRA backing. I assume the NRA has attempted to discourage this from happening.

Is it the connection to Piazza that turns you off from the march? I'd really like to know why you think the march is a bad idea. Why would it do harm to the movement?

As far as Piazza is concerned, from what I have read, the only concern I would have is his failure to deliver on what early investors had hoped for at the Front Site community. Other than that, I haven't read anything that would make me concerned about the guy.

I'm not trying to undermine your position, just better understand it.
Thanks

highpowermatch
04-27-2009, 12:47 PM
why do we have to have the NRA endorsement for anything pro gun related?

eflatminor
04-27-2009, 1:34 PM
why do we have to have the NRA endorsement for anything pro gun related?

I agree, we don't need NRA's endorsement. As an endowment member, I support the NRA but I sometimes think The 2A Foundation is better at getting the right lawsuits at the right time. In addition, I'm tired of the NRA not speaking to the REAL reason for the 2nd. The NRA should stop talking about hunting and shooting sports!

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 1:51 PM
I'm not trying to undermine your position, just better understand it.

I'm not going to get into it because if your mind is made up, I won't change it.

Re: marches: they make us look like nuts. There is no positive PR to gain from it. It will show on camera as a bunch of overweight white men wearing t-shirts with unappealing slogans on them, and it will confirm all that we don't want confirmed about the gun owner stereotype. Then the media will do interviews with march participants. They will find the 100 most crazy-looking, and interview them, and from that 100, they will pick the craziest interview, and from that interview, they will pick the craziest 25 seconds and that's what they will run.

So it's a PR loss, and it sure won't have any impact on our legislators. In fact it may embarrass some who would be on our side.

Re: Mr. Piazza: if you really care, read the lawsuit (http://www.frontsightlitigation.com/) and make your own opinion.

eflatminor
04-27-2009, 2:00 PM
I'm not going to get into it because if your mind is made up, I won't change it.

Thank you for your response. I get your point about the marches and the lawsuit sheds light on Front Site. I'm not sure why you think I had my mind made up; it wasn't, which is why I asked. Thanks again.

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 2:05 PM
Thank you for your response. I get your point about the marches and the lawsuit sheds light on Front Site. I'm not sure why you think I had my mind made up; it wasn't, which is why I asked. Thanks again.

Ok, sorry for my grumpiness. I made a grumpy response because so many people have proposed marches and don't listen at all to all the negatives associated with them. They accomplish nothing and they give us the worst possible PR. It will be clips of a bunch of overweight white guys wearing anti-immigrant t-shirts, and then a clip of some unshaven guy in cammo talking "intensely" about defending ourselves against the UN, and everyone watching at home will say, "yup, just what we thought about them". This march is a really bad idea and should not happen.

I get the feeling that this guy Skip is doing it for self-promotion mainly.

eflatminor
04-27-2009, 2:18 PM
CCWFacts, I attended the Tea Party protests and saw some of what you're referring to. While everybody I talked to were normal folks, tired of goverment overspending and wanting to avoid more socialism/economic fascism...but that's not who the media focused on. They went right for the "Obama is the anti-christ" guy or the crazy looking dude saying that 9/11 was an inside job. Hardly the point of the vast majority of the protestors.

I think it would be great if a woman's group or a minority organization would lead a pro 2a march. All the whites guys could stand in the back and say "We're just here to support the ladies" or something to that effect. Maybe?

7x57
04-27-2009, 2:22 PM
In addition, I'm tired of the NRA not speaking to the REAL reason for the 2nd. The NRA should stop talking about hunting and shooting sports!

I'm not so sure. The NRA people I know tend to personally understand the full meaning fo the 2A. But the organization not emphasizing it gives us the opportunity to play good-cop bad-cop.

"Well, Mr. Senator, do you want to deal with the NRA or with JPFO? Thought so."

Hey, I can dream, can't I? :rolleyes:

7x57

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 2:28 PM
CCWFacts, I attended the Tea Party protests and saw some of what you're referring to. While everybody I talked to were normal folks, tired of goverment overspending and wanting to avoid more socialism/economic fascism...but that's not who the media focused on. They went right for the "Obama is the anti-christ" guy or the crazy looking dude saying that 9/11 was an inside job. Hardly the point of the vast majority of the protestors.

EXACTLY! That's EXACTLY what this march will look like on TV and everyone at home will think, "yeah, that's what these gun owners are like. Crazy! I wish they could pass an assault weapons ban."

I think it would be great if a woman's group or a minority organization would lead a pro 2a march. All the whites guys could stand in the back and say "We're just here to support the ladies" or something to that effect. Maybe?

It's a good idea, but it's not going to happen, and the best we can do is discourage everyone we know from attending this very ill-conceived march.

The RKBA movement should just rid itself of the idea of any kind of marches. It is not something that's ever going to be a win for us.

eflatminor
04-27-2009, 2:33 PM
I'm not so sure. The NRA people I know tend to personally understand the full meaning fo the 2A. But the organization not emphasizing it gives us the opportunity to play good-cop bad-cop.

"Well, Mr. Senator, do you want to deal with the NRA or with JPFO? Thought so."

Hey, I can dream, can't I? :rolleyes:

7x57

I agree that among the NRA members I know personally, including a long standing board member, they get the real reason for the 2nd. However, I've never seen an NRA representative on CNN or NBC or whatever, talk about it. Wayne LaPierre himself always takes the "criminals don't follow the law" line or mentions the number of gun owners or the hunting and shooting traditions...but never the real reason the 2nd exists. I find it frustrating.

7x57
04-27-2009, 2:48 PM
I agree that among the NRA members I know personally, including a long standing board member, they get the real reason for the 2nd. However, I've never seen an NRA representative on CNN or NBC or whatever, talk about it.


Don't you think that might just indicate something?


I find it frustrating.

Frustrating or not, however, it may be that the NRA has learned what kind of language works in the public sphere and what is counter-productive.

7x57

MP301
04-27-2009, 3:29 PM
The previous posts have explained pretty accurately the only negatives regarding front sight. So, im glad i didnt invest and am not affected by those negatives.

As far as the training goes, I have been to otehr schools and the police academy and nothing I have experienced or anyone I know has experienced can equal the training they provide. I started out with a 4 day cert and after my first experience, I now have the top available membership (diamond). If they closed the doors tomorrow, I would have to say I have already received my moneys worth.

Please dont knock it unless you try it because you look like an idiot to those of us that have experienced it. I have never seen such well thought out methods and curriculam(sp?) as well some of the most top notch instructers before. Everyone should go to front sight or they are missing out.

As far as marches go... Im split because even though we should be more vocal instead of keeping a low profile, a couple of idiots will show up and the media will focus on them and make all of us look stupid. Then again, all of those stupid looking hippy flower children protesting in the 60's brought the government to its knees... and the media didnt seem near as liberal as it does now....too bad we couldnt give all of the knuckledraggers the wrong date so the media would have to focus on the normal people....We need lotts and lots of women...minorities? That could go both ways...

The reality of it is, if you cant keep it from happening in the first place, there is only one alternative. If as many normal people as possible dont go, then it makes it much easier for the media to focus on the knuckle draggers! They wont even have to look for them...they wont be lost in a crowd of normal people because the normal people wont be represented...And if its gonna happen anyway, tell me....is any more damage going to be done by normal people going too? No. Will more damage be done if only knuckledraggers show up? Yes.



Now should leaders of Calguns, NRA, eet. sponser or otherwise put their name on such an event? Well, if the odds are we are gonna somehow be screwed by the media, then probably not... They have to avoid negative whenever possible. BUt it doesnt mean we cant go and leave our Calguns/NRA t-shirts at home...

The moral of the story is that if you cant stop or avoid a potentially negative event, you had better go for plan B and do everything in your power to reduce the negative....and that doenst mean pretend it aint happening. It affects us all!








Maybe all of the normal people can go early, out number the knuckle draggers and hide them..either surround them in the crowd or knock em on the head and drag em in an alley! Or we can stick brady bunch stickers on their back and cry foul?

eflatminor
04-27-2009, 4:25 PM
"Don't you think that might just indicate something?"

Maybe so, maybe so...

I will continue to support the NRA but I'd sure like to hear from them why they avoid the issue. If there's a valid reason, we should hear it. It's just hard to imagine that we should not use the actual reasons the 2A exists as a counter to proposed gun control measures. It's such an effective counter argument!

bwiese
04-27-2009, 4:55 PM
I will continue to support the NRA but I'd sure like to hear from them why they avoid the issue. If there's a valid reason, we should hear it. It's just hard to imagine that we should not use the actual reasons the 2A exists as a counter to proposed gun control measures. It's such an effective counter argument!

Bright people have figured out that self-defense/security + sports are convenient publicly-digestable reasons for RKBA.

"Ability to take down gov't" - while indeed understandable to us - does not go over well with borderline politics and is not an effective argument to the supposedly 'reasonable middle', even soccer moms that want CCW for personal protection.

There's a reason why Pledge of Alleigance is said at all NRA gatherings. Kinda hard to portray us as antigov't revolutionaries if videos of the mtgs get sneaked out.

N6ATF
04-28-2009, 12:55 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the day before or the day of the marches there is a perfectly-timed massacre a la Columbine. What better way for the Brady Campaign to wage war against all law-abiding citizens on behalf of criminals than to have one of their followers mass murder-suicide?

triggerhappy
04-28-2009, 7:58 AM
Regarding marches and such, perhaps well-spoken and well-dressed group could attend?

Sport coats are easily had at thrift stores (I found some NICE ones for 4.00).

Any "march" which desires success should bear in mind that the words we speak are only part of the deal. If we look like nuts, we will be assumed as such. Save the BDU's for the field, and treat any endeavor such as these as strictly business meetings and dress appropriately.

Here's a thought: if you could wear it to an interview, it's good enough for a gathering like this.

These things still make me think of Rosie O'Donnell, though...

7x57
04-28-2009, 9:04 AM
I will continue to support the NRA but I'd sure like to hear from them why they avoid the issue. If there's a valid reason, we should hear it.


You can't figure it out? Pretty obvious, I should think.


It's just hard to imagine that we should not use the actual reasons the 2A exists as a counter to proposed gun control measures. It's such an effective counter argument!

Hard to imagine? Effective? Criminey. See, this kind of inability to see the general mindset is what scares the beejeezus out of me. What on earth makes you think it is an effective counter-argument? That it is effective for *you*? OK, suppose it is...are you representative of the non-gun owning population at large? The same population that votes against the Republic and for whoever promises them the most loot and the least responsibility? You think it is hard to imagine that this argument is not effective with them?

I have shot all my life, so you'd think it works for me too, right? But my connection to the 2A was hunting and rural life. I learned the full intent and meaning of the 2A by reading The Federalist papers. Then do you know what I did? I more or less thought about it to myself for ten years, reconciling the Right of Revolution with good citizenship. Now, it's fair to say I had an incorrect notion of citizenship, incorrect for Americans anyway. That's not my point. My point is that if it took me that long to chew over The Federalist, then you should expect the average non-gun owner to get comfortable with it basically *never*. It's a generational thing. If you want a country that understands the 2A, teach your children.

There is one way in which you are right about the effectiveness, but it's subtle. The British may have given up on it entirely (come to think of it, it may have been the Irish troubles that did it, I have to think about how that relates to us almost losing it over emancipation and segregation), but the origin of the idea of the RKBA is English. The English-speaking world seems to be just about the only place with a complete integration of the RKBA with support for the rule of law at every level. And yet it's been lost or is being lost everywhere except, we hope, the US. How? Because all they talked about is sporting use. We at least talk about self-defense against crime, and the rise of shall-issue CCW shows it is working.

So going beyond sporting purposes to self-defense has been effective, but it has been a long, hard, generational struggle to present it to the public. I'd say the same will be true of self-defense against official oppression, if we manage it at all. Maybe we will in the long run--the popularity of black rifles seems like a step in that direction. The interest in carbines for home defense seems to be growing, which seems like a second step.

But we cannot, really cannot do it now. If we do, if we get ahead of what the public will accept, we lose. If we really do it badly, we lose it all. Remember, we lose our rights mostly through fear. Talking about the Right of Revolution creates fear.

7x57

eflatminor
04-28-2009, 9:48 AM
Talking about the Right of Revolution creates fear.

7x57

There, I agree with you. Fear works. It's how Pelosi and her ilk got where they are. It's why Bush was elected to a 2nd term. Why then should we not use our most effective tool, especially when it's used to speak the TRUTH?

I'm sorry it took you 10 years to figure out the reason for the Bill of Rights. I was taught that in grade school. Not in ultra Liberal California of course, but in my birth state of Ohio. I agree we should teach our children the truth but to hide that truth from others while arguing for incidentals such as self defense and hunting, is cowardly. I am no coward.

Even if you consider your tactics effective, I must ask you to look at the results. You're in California, the worst state for gun owners in the nation. Therefore, I suggest your tactics have FAILED. Strap on a pair and tell 'em what you know to be the truth!

scrappy
04-28-2009, 10:52 AM
Frustrating or not, however, it may be that the NRA has learned what kind of language works in the public sphere and what is counter-productive.
7x57

What makes you think the NRA's language is working? Is it because Obama said "I see some sportsman in the back of the room, I don't want to take YOUR guns"?

I doubt that the march will have any effect on the public. The news media always shows marchers as crackpots, no matter if it's a 2A march , gay rights, save the whales or whatever - the TV news is producing entertainment. Think Jerrry Springer show.

That said, having a million or so pro-2A people out, may show politicians that people who believe in 2A are now organized, and it may wake up some fence sitters. It will backfire big time, if only a few thousand show up and the politicians think... "f**K em".

To effectively impact the public's perception of gun owners, we'd need to over ride years of anti-gun conditioning. Perhaps, something along the lines of showing Schindler's List and asking people to consider what might have been, had the German people not been afraid to speak up during the early years of an abusive government. Asking if having the means to defend themselves might have given those people a little more courage to speak up and stand up.

7x57 makes a well reasoned argument that we cannot, really cannot do it now. But if now is not the time to speak up...when will be that time?

MP301
04-28-2009, 11:13 AM
There, I agree with you. Fear works. It's how Pelosi and her ilk got where they are. It's why Bush was elected to a 2nd term. Why then should we not use our most effective tool, especially when it's used to speak the TRUTH?

I'm sorry it took you 10 years to figure out the reason for the Bill of Rights. I was taught that in grade school. Not in ultra Liberal California of course, but in my birth state of Ohio. I agree we should teach our children the truth but to hide that truth from others while arguing for incidentals such as self defense and hunting, is cowardly. I am no coward.

Even if you consider your tactics effective, I must ask you to look at the results. You're in California, the worst state for gun owners in the nation. Therefore, I suggest your tactics have FAILED. Strap on a pair and tell 'em what you know to be the truth!

You know, 7x57 is right.

Do you think we would have made more headway in CA by playing knuckledragger? By running around and spouting off how we need guns to take down the government? Do you really think for a second we wouldnt be in even worse shape?

Gee, a lot of the states have legal open carry, but in CA a bunch of knuckle dragging miltants decided to march on the capitol with loaded guns and lo and behold - we get the loaded part removed because of what? FEAR

Everyone here, no matter which camp you come from - (those that wish to protect themselves, hunters and and target shooters, core RKBA 2A believers and even the knuckledragging less then government supporting folks) should ALL agree on the reason we are in our current screwed up state of affairs.

That reason is because the anti's have used better tactics, were more motivated to this issue and more patient. They were willing to take what they could get. Small piece by small piece, little by they have been chipping away at this issue. Incrementalism. They have been systematically outmanuvering us whetehr we wish to admit it or not.

Our side? General apathy.... We would bi*ch and moan, but did we do anything productive to stop this? Gee, did most of us even figure out until later there scheme? No, we acceptable this "reasonable regulaton" because in the end, at least so far, we stil had our guns.

Look at it like this, you have to fight fire with fire - true, but you have to be smart about it. You dont do or say things that alienate the masses. Most people dont give a rats *** about anything beyond there own little world and people running around making statements that guns are here to overthrow the government will percieve a threat to thier world.

So what have we learned from the anti's? Incrementalism works. Patience works. motivation works. Thinking 3 steps ahead works. And yes, even fear works.

The thing about fear, however, is that it works both ways. You can scare someone into thinking a certain way. But you can also show people that you can take fear away by thinking a certain way as well. Being less afraid of getting attacked, raped and killed because of you have the means to protect yourself works far better then being afraid of people running around with guns wanting to over throw the government, is it not?

Anyway, I find your statement that 7x57's method has failed to be kinda silly considering all of the recent progress we have finally made in the right direction... Heller, incorporation of Heller in the western states and the very amusing spanking their side is about to get from Gura's latest lawsuit in DC on CA's handgun roster...

Failed? No, its just that the only thing that works is incrementalism and it takes time. Fortunately for us, it doesnt appear that its going to take 50 years or a hundred years like it has for their side. I think thats because we are right and they not and now we are on the proper offensive instead of just trying to defend our position.

Extremist all or nothing views have done more damage to our side then the anti's have. I propose that even if you cant see the logic here, or dont agree with the logic, at least admit that things are starting to move in the right direction and support this logic. Hows about we let the right people who have made this headway run the show - CGF, NRA, SAF or whatever alphbet organization that is part of the solution here?

Lets not F this up now. We may not always agree, but results are what matters here. I think we all would like to see some or all of this mess fixed in our lifetimes, yes? It will never, ever happen by sounding like a militant.

eflatminor
04-28-2009, 11:34 AM
Do you think we would have made more headway in CA by playing knuckledragger? By running around and spouting off how we need guns to take down the government? Do you really think for a second we wouldnt be in even worse shape?

and

It will never, ever happen by sounding like a militant.

Here's where we disagree. I do not believe that adhering to the constitution, the law of our land, constitutes "knuckledragging". I have never suggested that we need to take down the government. I'm certainly not a member of a militant black rights group that killed OC.

I wear a suit and tie. I do not have a gut. I am not a redneck. I am highly educated and can speak to the real reason for the BoR without sounding militant. It's a great story and one the people in liberal la la land should know about.

I'm pleased with the progress we've made across the country. I am enthusiastically involved in making progress here in California, but the fact remains California laws are as bad as it gets in this country, with the possible exception of the city of Chicago. You're right we should not be militant nor knuckledraggers. We should however, speak the truth in a professional and intelligent manner.

edwardm
04-28-2009, 11:50 AM
Race can be an effective tool in the effort, but I would hesitate to invoke Hitler/Nazi Germany for fear of pulling the Godwin's Law card.

Starting way back when, gun control was racial disarmament of freemen trying to protect themselves and their own, nothing more, nothing less. They didn't seek overthrow, riot or revolt. They sought peaceable existence and they were willing to protect and create such an existence with the assistance of arms.

Fast forward to 2009 and you have any number of criminal elements (same thing the Jim Crow folks were) seeking to abridge the peaceable existence of everyday ordinary people. Media conditioning has pretty much destroyed the idea of armed persons in places like Oakland and Richmond protecting themselves in such a manner, but they also realize that once the gunfire stops long enough for someone to call 911, the damage is done, people are dead and the community has suffered another loss.

Deterrence is the keyword. And parading the inability of certain racial minorities to effectively implement lawful deterrence may very well be a key (not *the* key) to a meaningful pushback. If 'white America' was ready for a black president, then white America may not be too far away (if properly re-conditioned) from equality in self-defense capability.

The counter to "too many guns already" is "no, just not enough guns in the proper hands" and the counter to "but it's a violent neighborhood" is "you're depriving law-abiding minorities of the right of defense. Would you deprive a white neighborhood of that right if it was needed? Further deprivation only engenders further illegal violence."

Of course, tell me - who would be the better spokesperson for something like this? A cracker-*** whitey or a guy from the rough part of town just trying to raise a family and earn a buck?



To effectively impact the public's perception of gun owners, we'd need to over ride years of anti-gun conditioning. Perhaps, something along the lines of showing Schindler's List and asking people to consider what might have been, had the German people not been afraid to speak up during the early years of an abusive government. Asking if having the means to defend themselves might have given those people a little more courage to speak up and stand up.

7x57 makes a well reasoned argument that we cannot, really cannot do it now. But if now is not the time to speak up...when will be that time?

edwardm
04-28-2009, 11:53 AM
By necessary analogy, the Founders were 'knuckledraggers' by present standards. However, they were well-spoken, well-educated, and generally well-regarded knuckledraggers.

It's not the argument that doesn't hold water. It's the face on the argument that spooks folks.

Here's where we disagree. I do not believe that adhering to the constitution, the law of our land, constitutes "knuckledragging". I have never suggested that we need to take down the government. I'm certainly not a member of a militant black rights group that killed OC.

eflatminor
04-28-2009, 12:28 PM
It's not the argument that doesn't hold water. It's the face on the argument that spooks folks.

Agreed! So let's get into a professional mode, by virtue of the way we look and speak, and put the right face on the argument.

For what it's worth, I've always argued not for the overthrow of the our government, but for the near 250 years in which we've not had to overthrow our government. The BoRs is the reason we don't fear our own standing army. It's the reason things tend to remain calm even after a president is assasinated or forced out of office. It's the reason we have stability. No despot dare turn their forces, internal or external, on the American people...because we're armed. If you don't want a revolution, support gun rights. My argument is ANTI militant!

edwardm
04-28-2009, 12:34 PM
The problem is finding that face which is appealing. White male? Not likely. Minority of some flavor? Maybe, but there might be enough folks still spooked my a minority to run that one down, too. Woman? Getting closer. Woman from a minority group? I think we might be getting warm. Now, do you pick a racial minority or a social minority? Well, America as a whole isn't really all that LGBT-friendly, though that segment of society does have possibly a stronger claim on the discrimination front in recent memory. So that leaves me with something like a single or married black or hispanic woman with children, working a job, not on welfare, trying to raise a kid or two in a healthy and decent manner (i.e. not on drugs, productive member of society, etc.). Think along the lines of "the perfect plaintiff", in other words.

So, where to find?


Agreed! So let's get into a professional mode, by virtue of the way we look and speak, and put the right face on the argument.

For what it's worth, I've always argued not for the overthrow of the our government, but for the near 250 years in which we've not had to overthrow our government. The BoRs is the reason we don't fear our own standing army. It's the reason things tend to remain calm even after a president is assasinated or forced out of office. It's the reason we have stability. No despot dare turn their forces, internal or external, on the American people...because we're armed. If you don't want a revolution, support gun rights. My argument is ANTI militant!

MP301
04-28-2009, 12:53 PM
Here's where we disagree. I do not believe that adhering to the constitution, the law of our land, constitutes "knuckledragging". I have never suggested that we need to take down the government. I'm certainly not a member of a militant black rights group that killed OC.

I wear a suit and tie. I do not have a gut. I am not a redneck. I am highly educated and can speak to the real reason for the BoR without sounding militant. It's a great story and one the people in liberal la la land should know about.

I'm pleased with the progress we've made across the country. I am enthusiastically involved in making progress here in California, but the fact remains California laws are as bad as it gets in this country, with the possible exception of the city of Chicago. You're right we should not be militant nor knuckledraggers. We should however, speak the truth in a professional and intelligent manner.

Actually, we really dont disagree. I too feel that all should know these things as well. But as they say, timing is everything and no matter how well dressed and intelligent we may be, that particular part of our RKBA can and will be twisted and distorted and used against us if we throw it in their face publicly.

MP301
04-28-2009, 12:58 PM
By necessary analogy, the Founders were 'knuckledraggers' by present standards. However, they were well-spoken, well-educated, and generally well-regarded knuckledraggers.

It's not the argument that doesn't hold water. It's the face on the argument that spooks folks.

The founders were not knuckledraggers. Knuckle draggers are the guys that wear the camaflouge and t-shirts that say "...from my cold dead fingers" etc that are not well spoken or presentable and follow a stereo type of un undereducated inbred.

How can you confuse the two... The media sure can spot them with their eyes closed!

7x57
04-28-2009, 1:47 PM
I'm sorry it took you 10 years to figure out the reason for the Bill of Rights.


Reading is fundamental. I didn't say that. It took about ten minutes of reading the right parts of The Federalist, because it's quite clear. Nor was it an unfamiliar concept at that point--of course I'd heard it before. But I also had heard a quite different view, and I knew that the non-RoR view had far better support from those whose credentials say they know what they're talking about. For far more than my lifetime to that point, nearly every law professor in the country taught the collective rights theory. The only people I heard a historically-founded version of the 2A were not educated people. Not having the knowledge to derive an interpretation on my own knowledge, I had to choose someone to believe (which is where most people are, and we must never forget that). On such a technical matter, I was not willing to accept the folk wisdom all by itself, and so had an ugly suspicion that there must be some substance to all the ugly lies of the left, of the anti-gunners, of the omnipotent statists.

What the Federalist did was tell me that those good old boys had a more historically accurate understanding of the 2A than those law professors. What took ten years was re-writing a world-view to the point where the founder's notion of citizenship was integrated with other things. That's the point at which I became confident enough that I had explored every possible alternative and knew the right answer to insist to others that I knew what it meant better than anyone who denies the full meaning, no matter how many letters after their name. I had to be able to argue from sound ethics and sound history if I was going to do that, and if I was going to fully act on it myself for that matter.


I agree we should teach our children the truth but to hide that truth from others while arguing for incidentals such as self defense and hunting, is cowardly. I am no coward.


You have to decide whether you want to win or not. I conceive it as my duty to play to win, but you may have another ethical standpoint.

As for lying, that is your inference and you may not attribute it to me. I never said lie--but I did say there are truths we need not be pushing now. If you ask my name I have not lied if I only say my first or first and last names, even though it is not my full name.

What I said was that we should explain two or three of the five key aspects of the 2A, in order from least to most scary to the civilians:

(1) that citizens will learn to use arms for any lawful purpose that suits them, so that they will be skilled marksmen and shooters. This *includes* hunting because it is particularly useful for practical field marksmanship, because it increases independence by providing a food source that doesn't depend on others, and because they knew that every time a citizen took game it stuck a finger in the eye of the King who insisted that he owned all the game in England. This is least important as an end but incredibly important as a means to train for the others. Every young boy who learns to shoot or hunt has fulfilled an obligation of citizenship.

(2) that citizens may defend themselves against ordinary crime. We've won this one, as the rise of shall-issue shows, and this is the greatest sign of health vis-a-vis the other common-law countries. I assume it needs no further discussion.

(3) that citizens may defend themselves against active government oppression. This is undeniable, but a foolish thing to discuss in public as the NRA well knows. It is a good idea more privately, when the audience is receptive. That's how we'll eventually be able to talk about it in a public forum without losing big--because we've already taught the meaning to a criticial mass of citizens by other means. So talk about it--but not to the press or in public fora.

(4) that citizens may defend themselves against passive government refusal to protect. This is a kind of hybrid between (2) and (3); the active threat is non-governmental, but the government is complicit because it refuses to intervene. This is incredibly important in our history (it seems to be the main reason for insisting on protecting the 2A for the freed slaves during reconstruction, and the main reason for fraudulently mangling the 14A during segregation) and in the history of the world. We've had unofficially supported death squads all over the world, and their targets have no recourse beyond themselves. Usually they don't have that either, because they've been disarmed. But I gather there are few or no instances of genocides against an armed population, and that's precisely because self-defense works. It's worked many places, but usually outside the law or in a grey area. The unique idea of the American 2A is about building the mechanism in at the core of the law.

Because of all that, I think it is worth trying this argument in public for two reasons. The first is that it is true but less scary than (3). I want to find out if it is not too scary to advocate right now. The second is that it leads to (3); a person who accepts and internalizes this one is half way to accepting the Right of Revolution.

(5) that citizens may do their duty to support the officers of the law when the "hue and cry" is raised. This one is never discussed, unfortunately, and perhaps it is too odd or subtle to use in public, but it is IMO profoundly important. It both reinforces the citizen's determination to uphold the law and the state's dependence on the citizenry for just use of the Power of the Sword. But we're further from this one than even (3), so I don't tell others to advocate it. I am still working out the philosophical consequences myself.

Also, I think it would scare the government absolutely witless, so we're not likely to restore the "hue and cry" in the forseeable future. A pity, too.


Even if you consider your tactics effective, I must ask you to look at the results. You're in California, the worst state for gun owners in the nation. Therefore, I suggest your tactics have FAILED. Strap on a pair and tell 'em what you know to be the truth!

Let's try not to assume things willy-nilly without reason. I come from Montana, and we've done a lot better than CA. I've lived here for twenty years, but still don't call myself a Californian if that tells you what I think of California law and society. If I acted on that belief I'd leave and tell you all to just stew in the hell of your own making, but I don't because (1) I have ethical orders that I respect not to do so, and (2) California diseases spread like the bubonic plague throughout the body politic. So in fact I'm defending my own homeland where battles should be fought, on other people's real estate. I would like to leave so I don't have to raise my kids in this fun-house mirror version of America, but as long as I live here I have to fight closer to the front lines.

But don't ever call me a Californian.:chris:

7x57

7x57
04-28-2009, 1:52 PM
What makes you think the NRA's language is working?


Shall issue in > 40 states. It has nothing to do with sport and everything to do with self defense. Further, we're now able to talk about having a CCW holder on the spot in a mass shooting, so we're starting to edge closer to talking about direct citizen support of the law and the reasoning behind the old idea of the "hue and cry" and the sheriff's posse. We're able to talk about more of the 2A than a few decades ago. We're winning inch by inch.


7x57 makes a well reasoned argument that we cannot, really cannot do it now. But if now is not the time to speak up...when will be that time?

When you have private conversations with non-gunnies and casual shooters and over and over again they react well to the idea of a protected Right of Revolution. When people with a great deal of media relations experience are able to talk about it in public without getting their metaphorical head handed to them on a platter.

7x57

7x57
04-28-2009, 2:02 PM
The thing about fear, however, is that it works both ways.


You've nailed it. The thing about fear is that then people have to decide how to address it. The antis say ban guns, trust the government. We say learn to defend yourself. We've been winning and shall-issue has been spreading because we've demonstrated that we are right and they are wrong. We didn't used to even get a hearing. We've earned it now, because the evidence that the gun-banners are lying is more and more plain with every extra year of shall-issue and every state that passes shall-issue.

And the great thing about earning credibility is that people are more ready to listen to other things you say. Someday, if we always earn trust when we are given it, they will be ready to listen when we tell them the truth about the Right of Revolution--that it prevents rather than promotes social stability. It's true--but we don't have the credibility to get it heard.

Yet. But every time we offer a workable way to address fear and the antis offer false promises, we move a step closer.

7x57

MontClaire
04-28-2009, 2:10 PM
why do we have to have the NRA endorsement for anything pro gun related?

they don't like the competition for our membership fees and they discredit other groups because of it. simple really..:rofl2:

Jarrod
04-28-2009, 4:25 PM
The previous posts have explained pretty accurately the only negatives regarding front sight. So, im glad i didnt invest and am not affected by those negatives.

As far as the training goes, I have been to otehr schools and the police academy and nothing I have experienced or anyone I know has experienced can equal the training they provide. I started out with a 4 day cert and after my first experience, I now have the top available membership (diamond). If they closed the doors tomorrow, I would have to say I have already received my moneys worth. ...


I have been to Front Sight myself and am very pleased with the training I received. I am a professional educator and have been to other trainng schools as well.

No, I am not thrilled by the advertising methods of Front Sight, but the training I got was very well thought out, brutally honest/realistic, and very well constructed from a pedagogical point of view.

$100 for 2-days of training is very well-worth the cost, assuming you do not get the free cert.

nicki
04-29-2009, 1:33 PM
These guys are putting alot of effort into this march and it is going to happen.

Since it is going to happen, it is critical that it is a successful march.

Considering how many gun owners live within 300 miles of Washington DC, if the march is not a "huge event", it is because most gun owners don't care.

Obviously this march is going to have speakers. I hope the march organizers make sure that they have a cross section of speakers and that they pre screen what those speakers will say.

We are all glad about Heller, but the truth is in the early stages of the case, the NRA tried to sabotage the case.

We have to take "risks", and some of those "risks" are going to backfire.

Right now we are on "borrowed time". If the "Heller Case" didn't happen, we would be looking at significant gun legislation right now.

Now is the time to be BOLD, we can't afford to stick our heads in the sand anymore.

Nicki

JDay
03-06-2010, 8:38 PM
I think Front Site has withdrawn this offer. Its no longer on the Second Amendment March site.

ZombieTactics
03-06-2010, 8:58 PM
The previous posts have explained pretty accurately the only negatives regarding front sight. So, im glad i didnt invest and am not affected by those negatives. I've met a member (still a member) who was one of the original "real estate investors". When it became clear that FS wasn't going to be able to start a housing development anytime soon, Piazza called him personally to apologize, and offered him a 100% refund, and told him he could keep his membership and bonus guns on top of it. Some people took that offer ... funny how the press never gets around to mentioning that. 3 investors thought that this refund offer wasn't good enough, and decided they needed to litigate. Others got full refunds or some other out-of-court satisfaction.

As far as the training goes, I have been to otehr schools and the police academy and nothing I have experienced or anyone I know has experienced can equal the training they provide. I started out with a 4 day cert and after my first experience, I now have the top available membership (diamond). If they closed the doors tomorrow, I would have to say I have already received my moneys worth.
There's something fun about going to a training facility where you regularly train alongside SWAT cops, military, FBI officers and you learn to just as well as they do or (often) better ... and better than they did before attending FS.

Please dont knock it unless you try it because you look like an idiot to those of us that have experienced it. I have never seen such well thought out methods and curriculam(sp?) as well some of the most top notch instructers before. Everyone should go to front sight or they are missing out..
This ... especially the part I bolded. There are so many no/low cost deals available that it costs you almost nothing to go to a training or 2 in some cases. Thye don't teach Scientology, and you don't get pressured for anything. People who say (or repeat) that kind of thing are ignorant as hell.

Roadrunner
03-06-2010, 9:12 PM
Well, so far this event seems like it was a good turn out. So, this is a bad idea why?

JDay
03-06-2010, 9:20 PM
Well, so far this event seems like it was a good turn out. So, this is a bad idea why?

Do you have a time machine? This event isn't for another 13 days.

Roadrunner
03-06-2010, 9:42 PM
Do you have a time machine? This event isn't for another 13 days.

My bad. I thought this was the Palo Alto OC deal. :o But considering Palo Alto seems to have turned out well, this is a bad idea why?

otteray
03-06-2010, 9:57 PM
Regarding marches and such, perhaps well-spoken and well-dressed group could attend?

Sport coats are easily had at thrift stores (I found some NICE ones for 4.00).



http://www.nitc.co.ir/iran-daily/1384/2308/html/025821.jpg

keneva
03-07-2010, 8:51 AM
Here is the link to NRA in support of the Second Amendment March.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5401

bwiese
03-07-2010, 11:19 AM
Here is the link to NRA in support of the Second Amendment March.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5401


WRONG. MISREPRESENTATION.

That is merely a piece of news and is no way construable as an indicator of support.

The NRA reports on Brady Campaign matters too, and that in no way implies support either.

And I don't think Front Sight will ever get much traction with the NRA again after a recent dinner in which Piazza was the speaker. The expectations were he'd talk about some aspects of training -- instead he turned it into a sales pitch, lied about the NRA in various ways, bashed the hell out of NRA for non-reasons (except for sales pitch). I could see the eyes rolling. Word apparently got back to Wayne's office quickly, and I wonder what the pushback will be.

dantodd
03-07-2010, 3:49 PM
And I don't think Front Sight will ever get much traction with the NRA again after a recent dinner in which Piazza was the speaker. The expectations were he'd talk about some aspects of training -- instead he turned it into a sales pitch, lied about the NRA in various ways, bashed the hell out of NRA for non-reasons (except for sales pitch). I could see the eyes rolling. Word apparently got back to Wayne's office quickly, and I wonder what the pushback will be.

Now that you've brought that up what is the current stance wrt CRPA. Are things still rolling in the right direction or is there significant concern again?

FastFinger
03-07-2010, 4:01 PM
WRONG. MISREPRESENTATION.

And I don't think Front Sight will ever get much traction with the NRA again after a recent dinner in which Piazza was the speaker. The expectations were he'd talk about some aspects of training -- instead he turned it into a sales pitch, lied about the NRA in various ways, bashed the hell out of NRA for non-reasons (except for sales pitch).

I liked the line that a later speaker had in reference to Piazza's "pitch" , something to the effect of "It was like being sold a used Cadillac."

None the less - the FS 4 day courses are a good way to spend some quality time with your firearm out in the Nevada desert. Oddly enough the pitch while you're attending their course is only 5 - 10 minutes and very low key - it's actually less annoying and shorter than the CRPA Banquet pitch was.

bwiese
03-07-2010, 5:54 PM
Now that you've brought that up what is the current stance wrt CRPA. Are things still rolling in the right direction or is there significant concern again?

No, they're rolling. CRPA got a big kick in the butt with a new leader John Fields who cleaned a lotta stuff up, and in combination with that we have new CRPA representation in Sacramento - Tom Pedersen. Absolutely great guy, very skilled, and teams up nicely with NRA's Ed Worley.

Ed no longer has to watch his back or wear a knife-proof vest :) Tom was an absolute star in the F&GC hearings when they were trying to extend the lead-ammo-banned zone. We do need to get our state Rifle Association membership up, numbers speak very loudly. I'd love to see 100K CRPA members - getting 100K of folks in CA organized to do anything cohesive is notable and carries weight up in Sacto. And it also says "California" too - as opposed to what some politicians think is Fairfax, VA pushing gun stuff into CA.

dantodd
03-07-2010, 7:26 PM
No, they're rolling. CRPA got a big kick in the butt with a new leader John Fields who cleaned a lotta stuff up, and in combination with that we have new CRPA representation in Sacramento - Tom Pedersen. Absolutely great guy, very skilled, and teams up nicely with NRA's Ed Worley.

Ed no longer has to watch his back or wear a knife-proof vest :) Tom was an absolute star in the F&GC hearings when they were trying to extend the lead-ammo-banned zone. We do need to get our state Rifle Association membership up, numbers speak very loudly. I'd love to see 100K CRPA members - getting 100K of folks in CA organized to do anything cohesive is notable and carries weight up in Sacto. And it also says "California" too - as opposed to what some politicians think is Fairfax, VA pushing gun stuff into CA.

Good to hear, I had assumed as much since anything else would likely have elicited a number of posts here. But when I heard about the speech at the CRPA I was wondering if this was a case of someone misrepresenting what they intend to speak on, a holdover decision or some indication of a "bad moon rising." Glad it wasn't the latter and it's irrelevant to me which of the former it was.