I noticed post 9-11 a lot of ranges that had 'no human targets' were selling Bin Laden and Sadam targets.
19 Turkeys, thanks for clarifying.
19 Turkeys, thanks for clarifying.
It's over, we've lost
- Thread starter BozemanMT
- Start date
- Status
Is wearing turbans and praying banned too? I doubt it, wouldn't want to offend one of the minority protection groups. Banning people with a similar distrust of excessive or abused power to our founding fathers who wish to openly express that belief is okay though? I am not saying they are well trained or not pretending to be soldiers/patriots, but come on this is America. Are people not allowed to express beliefs by wearing funny clothing?
A bench is a poor place to practice field tactics anyways, only accuracy can be practiced at such a place. Field tactics require training on how to effectively move as a fire team.
Covering and supressive fire while others flank and maneuver. A maneuvering fire team adds multiple variables in thier favor, while two opposing sides stuck behind cover have only accuracy, and the value of thier chosen cover as variables. While fire that forces one side to remain behind cover working as a team to quickly change positions (or flank) adds the variables of multiple angles of fire, the side still behind cover is being forced to spend a few precious seconds reaquiring the new positions of the fire team members before targeting them. Assuming the fire team is accurate, they already know the location of the enemy and need far less time to aim and fire as they do not need to reaquire. So one side needs a second or 2, and the other needs mere miliseconds. Who has the advantage? Grenades are also highly valuable as they are necessary to flush out opposition with highly effective cover. However you can't use those either
Of course these tactics are only effective with a well trained fire team that is used to working together and rotate covering fire so nobody disproportionaly runs low on ammo. Covering fire must be rapid and accurate enough to force the opposition to lose line of sight or die while other team members move to gain the advantage. Suppressive fire must not be sustained very long so a lot must accomplished as it is rotated. It must be accurate or it becomes ineffective against a well trained opposition. This means the team must be highly accurate while stationary and on the move, something you cannot train for at a bench. Speed and precision are key factors as the longer the other side has to become entrenched the better they will resist (position snipers etc), and the more reinforcements they will have.
Basicly the only skill you practice at a range is accuracy while stationary, and that is far from the only necessary skill in organized effective firefights. How you can practice 'military style' training from a bench is beyond me. Unless it is sniper/spotter training.
My point being why would the militia types want to practice at that kind of range anyways? Don't they pride themselves on actual tactics not just hitting a bullseye?
A bench is a poor place to practice field tactics anyways, only accuracy can be practiced at such a place. Field tactics require training on how to effectively move as a fire team.
Covering and supressive fire while others flank and maneuver. A maneuvering fire team adds multiple variables in thier favor, while two opposing sides stuck behind cover have only accuracy, and the value of thier chosen cover as variables. While fire that forces one side to remain behind cover working as a team to quickly change positions (or flank) adds the variables of multiple angles of fire, the side still behind cover is being forced to spend a few precious seconds reaquiring the new positions of the fire team members before targeting them. Assuming the fire team is accurate, they already know the location of the enemy and need far less time to aim and fire as they do not need to reaquire. So one side needs a second or 2, and the other needs mere miliseconds. Who has the advantage? Grenades are also highly valuable as they are necessary to flush out opposition with highly effective cover. However you can't use those either
Of course these tactics are only effective with a well trained fire team that is used to working together and rotate covering fire so nobody disproportionaly runs low on ammo. Covering fire must be rapid and accurate enough to force the opposition to lose line of sight or die while other team members move to gain the advantage. Suppressive fire must not be sustained very long so a lot must accomplished as it is rotated. It must be accurate or it becomes ineffective against a well trained opposition. This means the team must be highly accurate while stationary and on the move, something you cannot train for at a bench. Speed and precision are key factors as the longer the other side has to become entrenched the better they will resist (position snipers etc), and the more reinforcements they will have.Basicly the only skill you practice at a range is accuracy while stationary, and that is far from the only necessary skill in organized effective firefights. How you can practice 'military style' training from a bench is beyond me. Unless it is sniper/spotter training.
My point being why would the militia types want to practice at that kind of range anyways? Don't they pride themselves on actual tactics not just hitting a bullseye?
MatthewVanitas
Member
How about "wouldn't want to violate the 1st Amendment?"
What a bizarre non-sequiter...
You're free to waltz down Main St in a camouflage tutu if you so desire. But if Bob's BBQ mandates a suit and tie, you either wear it or don't eat at Bob's.
Not to mention, this thread basically ended when a member of the range in question dropped in and said that the original post was incorrect.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant...
Chuck Dye
Member
Please note that the rules posted by BozemanMT in the original post are not the rules of the range involved. The matter has been brought to the attention of the officers and board of The Josephine County Sportsman’s Association (JCSA) and is being dealt with, as evidenced by the posts of 19Turkeys. It is my understanding that the matter will be discussed at an officers' meeting today, 6 December 2006.
Please, can we wait for 19Turkey’s next update and do without further hysterics and histrionics? With the possible exception of the JCSA, no one's ox has been gored.
Please, can we wait for 19Turkey’s next update and do without further hysterics and histrionics? With the possible exception of the JCSA, no one's ox has been gored.
brokendreams
Member
Does anybody know the reasoning behind the militia rule??
Maybe the owner got sick of one particular militia charging targets and yelling "For the militia!" or some such, and just posted a rule.
I never use silhouettes anyhow, so that doesn't effect me.
Providing a fun environment for people is number one priority. If Joe Schmo decides to teach his 10 year old the art of shooting, and they show up to a range with 20 guys dressed in fatigues, discussing RKBA vehemently, talking about their milita, doing cover and assist drills... It might scare the little one, or, give him the worng idea about shooting. Joe Schmo won't come back, and he'll likely become a little more anti.
Maybe the owner got sick of one particular militia charging targets and yelling "For the militia!" or some such, and just posted a rule.
I never use silhouettes anyhow, so that doesn't effect me.
Providing a fun environment for people is number one priority. If Joe Schmo decides to teach his 10 year old the art of shooting, and they show up to a range with 20 guys dressed in fatigues, discussing RKBA vehemently, talking about their milita, doing cover and assist drills... It might scare the little one, or, give him the worng idea about shooting. Joe Schmo won't come back, and he'll likely become a little more anti.
BozemanMT
Member
No sir
the original post is correct and I have the entire chain of emails to prove it.
What turns out to have changed is that the person who wrote it who claimed to represent the Board of Directors of the range, in fact does not represent the range except in his mind.
However, without this internet board and some timely intervention of some fine people, those rules would have been in place and would have affected the shoot, despite them not actually being real rules.
It was damn fine of 19Turkeys and the rest of the board to in fact clarify the matter and now the person who did tell our group that those rules were in affect is now in big doodoo. They didn't have to do that, and they did.
Gives me hope.
MatthewVanitas
Member
@Bozeman: I phrased that poorly. I didn't intend to say that you were wrong, but to say that the situation turned out to be different.
I agree that the original rules were ridiculously unclear, but disagreed with the hostility that many board members had. I think a dress-code (the one semi-logical part of the "new rules") is excessive but understandable. And I stand by my assertion that anyone preparing for "revolution" would be far smarter to practice in street clothes than in camo.
Your bringing up the issue brought it to the attention of the right people, so clearly it was good that you brought up the issue.
-MV
I agree that the original rules were ridiculously unclear, but disagreed with the hostility that many board members had. I think a dress-code (the one semi-logical part of the "new rules") is excessive but understandable. And I stand by my assertion that anyone preparing for "revolution" would be far smarter to practice in street clothes than in camo.
Your bringing up the issue brought it to the attention of the right people, so clearly it was good that you brought up the issue.
-MV
First, I must qualify this post by saying that I was not at the E Board's meeting last night not being an officer but simply a member of the board of directors. Second, I am not in agreement with the decision of the E Board as I believe they whimped out. Third, I plan to bring this matter to the attention of the full board at our meeting on December 13. That said, here's what I understand happened.
The individual who sent the correspondence to Brian defended the correspondence by stating that all of these issues had been discussed at prior board meetings and agreed upon by the full board. HOWEVER none of these items are in the policies & procedures manual.
I understand a discussion followed and the E Board decided to not take any action to either withdraw the correspondence or to validate it.
Personally, I feel this matter is resolved from this standpoint. The matter has been brought to the attention of both myself and the E Board. The range is fully aware that this event will be held and all of the E Board expressed their desire that the group have a good time and enjoy themselves.
I will be at the range all day on the final day of Brian's event. In fact, I will be only one range away. Also, he has my cell phone number and can call me if there are any problems Saturday.
Again, I see this an an unfortunate event and should not be reflective of the attitude of the range toward group events. In fact, JCSA sponsors two machine gun shoots per year at which vendors sell camo. Now, how can the range support the sale of the offending clothing and not support people wearing it?
Again, I do not forsee any difficulties for Brian's group, and I look forward to meeting him this coming Sunday.
Steve W.
The individual who sent the correspondence to Brian defended the correspondence by stating that all of these issues had been discussed at prior board meetings and agreed upon by the full board. HOWEVER none of these items are in the policies & procedures manual.
I understand a discussion followed and the E Board decided to not take any action to either withdraw the correspondence or to validate it.
Personally, I feel this matter is resolved from this standpoint. The matter has been brought to the attention of both myself and the E Board. The range is fully aware that this event will be held and all of the E Board expressed their desire that the group have a good time and enjoy themselves.
I will be at the range all day on the final day of Brian's event. In fact, I will be only one range away. Also, he has my cell phone number and can call me if there are any problems Saturday.
Again, I see this an an unfortunate event and should not be reflective of the attitude of the range toward group events. In fact, JCSA sponsors two machine gun shoots per year at which vendors sell camo. Now, how can the range support the sale of the offending clothing and not support people wearing it?
Again, I do not forsee any difficulties for Brian's group, and I look forward to meeting him this coming Sunday.
Steve W.
BozemanMT
Member
Thanks
I'll send Jack over to talk.
he's umm, a character.
I'll send Jack over to talk.
he's umm, a character.
BrokenDreams,
I figure that these rules are in place to counter the stereotypical view of the gun owner. Since it is a private range, I can't really see anything wrong with it. If anything, I somewhat approve of these rules.
I know I might catch some flak, but let me explain.
The typical view of the gun enthusiast in this country, usually held by non-gun owners is that we are all either crazed, inbred, jimbo rednecks or crazed anti-gov't militia radicals with tinfoil hats. While we no that these assumptions are typically false, for the greater portion of the firearm-ignorant masses, perception is reality. If the news does a story at the range, and they see tacti-cool camo mall ninja types, the stereotype is reinforced. If someone happens to go to the range because they might be curious about firearms, and the next shooter over is proclaiming the glories of the militia or ranting against the gov't, the stereotype is reinforced and it might turn the person away. This is similar to the effect that survival commandos and WWII memorabilia (with real Nazi daggers and pins...
) dealers have at gun shows. These folks just go to further a negative stereotype that results in more fear and ignorance from the sheeplish masses.
If we want to be taken seriously as gun owners and responsible neighbors, we should start by projecting a serious and responsible image.
As far as sillhouette targets go, we all know what guns are really for, but there really shouldn't be an absolute need to advertise the fact at the range all the time. A paper plate makes a fine and inexpensive target that doesn't demonstrate that you are practicing putting your shots in a bad guy's center of mass.
If you have a friend out in the country with a private range, or there are other ranges where these rules don't apply, then break out all the fun stuff and sillhouette targets, no problem.
I'm not saying that I hate all that stuff, but simply that if we want to win people over to our side, we need to change their minds about who the gun owner really is. Take a look at the majority of Oleg's posters. They are nicely done, no threatening, and don't typically weird anybody out too much. Then, take a look at 1/2 the adds in a mainstream firearms magazine. Tell me that some of those adds don't leave you feeling a little embarrased.
Same as enjoying Star Trek as a television show, but then seeing TV coverage of a Star Trek convention costume contest.
I figure that these rules are in place to counter the stereotypical view of the gun owner. Since it is a private range, I can't really see anything wrong with it. If anything, I somewhat approve of these rules.
I know I might catch some flak, but let me explain.
The typical view of the gun enthusiast in this country, usually held by non-gun owners is that we are all either crazed, inbred, jimbo rednecks or crazed anti-gov't militia radicals with tinfoil hats. While we no that these assumptions are typically false, for the greater portion of the firearm-ignorant masses, perception is reality. If the news does a story at the range, and they see tacti-cool camo mall ninja types, the stereotype is reinforced. If someone happens to go to the range because they might be curious about firearms, and the next shooter over is proclaiming the glories of the militia or ranting against the gov't, the stereotype is reinforced and it might turn the person away. This is similar to the effect that survival commandos and WWII memorabilia (with real Nazi daggers and pins...
) dealers have at gun shows. These folks just go to further a negative stereotype that results in more fear and ignorance from the sheeplish masses.If we want to be taken seriously as gun owners and responsible neighbors, we should start by projecting a serious and responsible image.
As far as sillhouette targets go, we all know what guns are really for, but there really shouldn't be an absolute need to advertise the fact at the range all the time. A paper plate makes a fine and inexpensive target that doesn't demonstrate that you are practicing putting your shots in a bad guy's center of mass.
If you have a friend out in the country with a private range, or there are other ranges where these rules don't apply, then break out all the fun stuff and sillhouette targets, no problem.
I'm not saying that I hate all that stuff, but simply that if we want to win people over to our side, we need to change their minds about who the gun owner really is. Take a look at the majority of Oleg's posters. They are nicely done, no threatening, and don't typically weird anybody out too much. Then, take a look at 1/2 the adds in a mainstream firearms magazine. Tell me that some of those adds don't leave you feeling a little embarrased.
Same as enjoying Star Trek as a television show, but then seeing TV coverage of a Star Trek convention costume contest.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
