Primary Arms

What Do You Think About Brandon Webb’s Possible Candidacy For NRA Board Of Directors?

Former SEAL and SOFREP Editor Brandon Webb is talking about running for the NRA Board of Directors. His possible candidacy has already spawned an “anti” Facebook page as well as a rather lively thread on BW is certainly outspoken and in response, he has posted a platform of sorts on SOFREP which we are sharing with permission. This isn’t an endorsement of Webb’s positions or candidacy but rather meant as a informational post and to spark discussion on the issues raised in his post.

A Navy SEAL Sniper’s Perspective on Firearms Ownership & The NRA in America


I’m writing this in response to a recent stir about my intent to run for an NRA board seat.

I first joined the NRA when I decided to attend the NRA Range Development course in 2005. I was there to learn about private range operations and the hurdles of getting shooting ranges approved in California. I learned that getting a shooting range approved in California is almost harder than getting Spotted Owl on the menu at a Sierra Club gala.

I took military leave from the SEAL sniper course to attend the Las Vegas NRA Range Development conference in 2005. I remember sitting in the conference room as the attendees were going around the room introducing themselves, “Joe from Colorado, gun show owner”, “Bob from Montana, gun smith…” When it came to my turn, I stood up, kept a straight face, and told them I was a representative of the Sierra Club who was attending to find ways to shut down shooting ranges across the nation. I’m pretty sure one guy had a stroke, and the rest were just north of apoplectic. When I told them I was bullshitting them and gave them my background as a Navy SEAL, the tension disappeared and the room erupted in laughter.

I never shot much as a kid, aside from shooting clay pidgeons off the bow of the boat I worked on. I hunted quite a bit, but it was with my spear gun, not a rifle. I learned to shoot in the Navy, and only became an expert with a weapon by the time I finished my first SEAL platoon work up. It was there that I was given a shot to attend sniper school with my best friend Glen Doherty (later killed in Benghazi, Libya).

My first exposure to the firearms hot button came when I spoke out in defense of school shootings and compromise on my personal blog. Things heated up again more recently when I announced that I’m going to run for a 2015 NRA board seat on my author Facebook page.

Many people I’ve encountered on social media lately have misinterpreted my position on the 2nd Amendment. Lately, I’ve heard people develop wild and ungrounded conclusions about my position on the 2nd Amendment. Some think that I’m automatically talking about Americans giving up their right to keep and bear arms, and 2nd Amendment compromise. They couldn’t be more wrong.

In the dark corners of the Internet they lurk, call names, and make ridiculous emotion-based (not fact-based) assumptions. I’ve heard it all, and I’ll take this on the chin. To be honest, I could have been clearer on my position in the past. However, do keep in mind that the word “compromise,” a term I’ve used before, comes in many forms; sometimes it includes sitting down with your adversaries and having an intelligent conversation and debate on major issues.

What have I learned since getting out of the Navy in 2006? Few things will stir people up in this country like the 2nd Amendment. It’s right up there with gay marriage and abortion. And I’ve learned that you can’t have a conversation with a fanatic.

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject.” – Winston Churchill

Some facts about me

-I’m Canadian-born American citizen by birth (by a US parent).
-I grew up hunting fish (Halibut, Yellowtail, Bass, nothing was safe) and Lobster in the kelp forests of the Channel Islands with my spear gun.
-I bought my first gun when I was a new SEAL at Team 3. I still have it – an HK USP .45.
-Favorite gun manufacturer: Rifle-Blaser Handgun-HK
-I was an M-60 Gunner in my first platoon (It’s one bad ass area weapon!)
-I am a certified SEAL sniper, sniper instructor, and US Army-trained stinger missile gunner.
-The snipers in the Teams used to go on Navy-sponsored hunting trips, mostly white tail.
-I shot my first buck in 2002 at 443 yards with my issued .300 Win Mag in Washington State.
-I served in the Navy from 1993-2006.


I own (don’t tell on me):
-Remington 300 Win Mag w/Night Force 15x Mil Dot optic
-HK .45 USP
-HK .45 USP compact (carried this in Afghanistan and Iraq)
-Sig Sauer 1911 .45 “Nightmare”
-Glock 19 9MM
-Mossberg 12 GA Stainless mMrine (I love my stainless)

My wish list for 2014:
-S&W 686 .357
-Blaser .338/.308 with Schmidt & Bender Mil Dot optic
-HK UMP .45
-A good .308 suppressed semi-auto with short range scope and red dot (my Zombie gun)


A Snap Shot Perspective of My Views on Gun Ownership & The 2nd Amendment

-The 2nd Amendment is inherent in America’s cultural DNA
-Limiting magazine capacity is ridiculous and impractical
-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 *this point was clarified from my earlier post.
-The NRA should be like PADI or NAUI and encourage gun ranges to only accept NRA basic qualified shooters on the range.
-Few people outside of America understand how important firearms ownership is to Americans
-Background checks are a good idea but should take minutes, not days
-Often gun laws are made by people who don’t use, own, or understand firearms
-Mass shootings have to be dealt with head-on or America will face more gun restrictions and erosion of 2nd Amendment rights
-NRA training needs to be brought up to date.
-Legislation on increasing the prevention of mentally ill folks from gaining access to firearms seems logical
-Increasing early warning signs
-Dogs/handlers at schools and colleges are better than armed guards, in my opinion
Guns aren’t the problem, mental illness is the problem. It’s like punishing responsible automobile owners (which kill more people annually) because of drunk drivers killing innocent people on the road
-I like high cap magazines
-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
-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
-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
-If elected to the board I would be one of 76, but I would do my best to make sure we hold the elected leaders accountable, and work on ways to promote and engage the responsible youth in this country. They are the future, and there’s a decline in youth participation in firearms sports.
-I believe the 2nd Amendment is a right we should keep and hold dear
-Hopefully this clarifies my position. I’ll be happy to address more specific questions when I go forward with a petition to get on the 2012 board ballot. To the name callers, and haters of the Inter-web I have nothing to say to people who can’t change the subject. To the rest, thanks for your support regardless of your NRA membership or vote.

– Brandon Webb

2nd Amendment – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Tags: ,

163 Responses to “What Do You Think About Brandon Webb’s Possible Candidacy For NRA Board Of Directors?”

  1. Paul says:

    Best wishes on your campaign Brandon!

  2. bulldog76 says:

    “The NRA should be like PADI or NAUI and encourage gun ranges to only accept NRA basic qualified shooters on the range.” and that is where i have a problem

    • Jon says:

      You like getting muzzle swept at ranges? A basic level of qualification is not a bad thing.

      I bet if you examined the range you like to go to there is a certain level of competency among the shooters that attend. No one wants to go shoot with a bunch of safety ignorant folks.

      • Ethan says:

        Agreed, but what if you were brought up in a home around guns and don’t have the wherewithal to spend a couple hundred bucks on a class? Well, you’ve just been blocked from going to any range because you aren’t made of money.

    • James says:

      The first NRA course I took was the NRA Basic Pistol Instructor course. That was after three years on a highly-ranked competition smallbore team, three years of Army ROTC with annual qualifications, shooting IPSC in a local league, and having NRA classification cards for across the course and long-range shooting, and having a concealed carry license for over twenty years. The NRA is NOT the only source of training, and how is a prospective shooter to learn how to shoot if they have to get training first? Not to mention, the minute you require government approved training to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right, you’ve violated that right.

      So Brandon Webb certainly isn’t getting this Life Members vote.

  3. Ash says:

    “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject.” – Winston Churchill

    Who was this being applied to in your article? From my experience, the surest sign you might be a fanatic is calling other people fanatics… Just wanted to get clarification.

    • DA says:

      Best assumption, given the context was he was referring to most parties involved heavily in the 2A argument. Most people that want to get into the discussion are fanatical on the topic- same goes with abortion and gay marriage, just as he said above the quote.

      Level-headed, and open-minded people need to be in on the talk. Fanatics don’t compromise and it leads to all-or-nothing one way or another.

      • Ethan says:

        However, compromise is generally considered a bad thing when dealing with rights.

        • DA says:

          Compromise was a poor choice of word- fanatics don’t see both side of the story or make decisions based on understanding both sides. And as much as I agree with you, legislation and compromise regarding our rights happen all the time, hence, penal code and law take up a lot more pages than the bill of rights.

          • Ethan says:

            I see your point about fanatics. On the other hand, my understanding is that the mission of the NRA is supposed to be rolling back rights violations, not the adding on of acceptable violations.

  4. Patrick Bateman says:

    He won’t be getting my vote.

  5. Simon says:

    Hi Guys, I know this will seem like trolling, but since I come from a country where even bolt-action hunting rifles are highly controlled, this site is one of my only interfaces to American gun culture. This part of post caught my attention: “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”

    The difference between what’s permitted (like full auto AR15s) and not always struck me as arbitrary. Obviously, some things should be controlled (like MLRS, M134s and stinger missiles for example), but is there some consensus about what should be permitted and what should be made unavailable? Does the distinction hang on what are considered “arms”?


    Simon from Australia

    • Stan says:

      “The difference between what’s permitted (like full auto AR15s) and not always struck me as arbitrary. Obviously, some things should be controlled (like MLRS, M134s and stinger missiles for example), but is there some consensus about what should be permitted and what should be made unavailable?”


      The standards were set by the US Congress in the 1930’s then modified in the 1960’s and then once again in the 1980’s. They are arbtrary and open to a lot of interpretation by the agency tasked with enforcing them, the ATF. For example if I have a 16 inch barrel on my carbine thats ok, if its 15 inches its illegal. Can you explain how that missing inch (2.54 cm) makes a carbine that much more deadly? I can’t.


    • Chance says:

      I think it’s reasonable to say there’s effectively no consensus on anything. And you are absolutely correct in that many limitations are completely arbitrary.

  6. Baldwin says:

    “The 2nd Amendment is inherent in America’s cultural DNA.”
    He’s got my vote.

  7. wes says:

    brandon webb for president!

  8. icehcky002 says:

    Driving isn’t similar to the second amendment at all on so many levels, but let us address the obvious, driving is NOT a right is a privilege.

  9. Petey says:

    Seem he does not know the difference between a right and a privilege. With other rights do we require training to use those rights. We don’t require training for freedom of speech or freedom of religion so why would you require it for the right to defend yourself from the state.

    • John Smith says:

      Because speaking your mind and going to your place of worship doesn’t require any skill or knowledge. Those activities do not have the potential to blow someones head off.

      • Strike-Hold says:

        ^ Word. Right also carry responsibilities.

      • Sam says:

        I’ve never seen something more false than this spoken. To say that the right to free speech or that the freedom of religion doesn’t require knowledge or skill is an insult to religion in general and free speech as a whole. Nothing on earth has had so many people killed as ideas (speech being the tool to convey them obviously) and religion. To say that they require no knowledge or skill is foolishness. Review your history then come back and tell me again that freedom of speech never blew anyone’s head off. I can show you photos from the last 50 years that definitively prove otherwise. Extend that mentality to he right to vote. Does that also require no knowledge or skill? I would contend that more damage has been done to our country by those who have voted in ignorance than firearms could ever possibly do.

        I don’t support Mr. Webb. He confuses rights with privileges. It isn’t for the government to decide what the minimum standard should be for exercising your rights. The Constitution grants you nothing. It merely codifies the idea that you, as a human being, have preexisting rights and puts in place a system to prevent their removal. Unfortunately we’ve allowed lawyers to nickel and dime heir way in to those codes and gradually degrade their protections.

        If you allow the government today to set a minimum standard of competency for you to exercise your 2nd amendment right because you want to be “reasonable” today, they’ll do the same thing to your 4th amendment right, or your right to vote, or your right to speech tomorrow. And we’ve been down that road before with poll taxes and literacy tests.

    • Case says:

      People have a right to say and do stupid things. That extends to firearms and unfortunately innocent people are injured and killed by their stupidity. So freedom of speech and worship is not the same thing as RTKBA.

      Don’t defend ignorance and stupidity. There are better ways to support gun rights.

  10. james says:

    A men brother… If you do not own a firearm you should been exempt from legislating for or against them.

  11. H.C. says:

    Explain to me why carrying on an elementary school campus, or any ,earning institution, is impractical. If he won’t tackle the absurdity of gun free zones, a major issue with mass shootings, then what will he do?

    • JP says:

      He was referring to open carry, I believe, and if you can’t understand why that’s impractical, then you’re part of the problem.

      • Stan says:

        In my state its not uncommon for schools to deny uniformed police officers the ability to wear the duty weapons on campus. That nonsense to a direct outcome of your position.

      • Jesse says:

        He said Concealed Carry too. If he meant open carry only, then it wasn’t very clear.

    • DA says:

      Simple, it causes hysteria.. from children, parents, teachers, etc. the occasion on-duty LEO, patrolling is fine, but if you think a well trained K9 could have stopped Lanza, or Harris and Klebold, you have no clue how well those dogs are trained. I agree gun free zones are basically a joke, but there isn’t a need for them in Schools, with few exceptions.

      • DA says:


      • Ethan says:

        I was wondering if someone was going to talk about the dog handler bit. The dog will cost as much if not more than your car because they are carefully selected. Perhaps only one or two will be selected out of a carefully bred litter. Then there’s the training which can be time consuming on a massive scale. It’s more practical to train selected teachers and administrators to use weapons than to have a dog handler at every school.

        • DA says:

          Ethan I also don’t disagree with that statement, it’s more practical from a monetary and time consumption standpoint to train an employee with a weapon. But in today’s day and age and the fear that the gun can instill in many people, even when meant for protection not harm, the dog is a more “friendly” option. no matter the cost. and still effective.

          • Ethan says:

            Remember what I said about rarity of the dogs. Even though these litters are carefully bred for the job the trainers still only choose one or two that have the necessary qualifications. They don’t just pick up any pure bred Malanois or German Shepard and train it. These dogs are rare, which is the reason why they cost $40,000 a dog at this time at the current demand. Thus if you put one or heaven forbid two in every school, you will encounter some severe supply and demand issues which would probably cause $100,000 K9’s to become the norm. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you’ll just have quality issues.

  12. red2429 says:

    Might want to pick something else to compare gun ownership to besides owning and driving a car. Something is not a “right” unless it is somehow guaranteed by the Constitution. So unless something has changed owning and or driving a car is not in the Constitution. Which makes the implementation of laws restricting peoples ability to drive legal. On the other hand you are completely right that the Constitution says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Which would make any laws restricting the peoples right to own firearms illegal. I agree with you for the most part but please pick something else to compare gun ownership to. The whole gun/car argument leads people to think that it is the same issue. It is clearly not.

    • John Smith says:

      “Which would make any laws restricting the peoples right to own firearms illegal.” Yes, let’s give the guns to ANYONE!

  13. Resabed says:

    Measured, reasonable, and articulate. I fear he is doomed. Best of luck. If he is elected I may actually rejoin the NRA.

  14. Rjf98 says:

    Brandon, thanks for your service. You will not have my vote. While you intended to clarify your position you muddied the waters a bit with
    “-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)”
    “-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.”
    1) what is impractical about concealed carry on a campus of any kind, and, if we can do a pre-check for rapid screening of passengers why shouldn’t we be able to do the same for law abiding gun owners? I carry, legally, on planes all the time, why shouldn’t a law abiding citizen be able to do the same?
    2) “should attend” and “must attend” are two different things. Usually politicians start with “should” or “shouldn’t” but end up with ” mustn’t”. Think I’m wrong? How about all those can’t smoke in public laws? It all stRted put with politicians telling us how bad it was to smoke and encouraging us not to do so, then it snowballed from there. Since you’re running for a board you must be elected to you fall into the politician category.
    Clear up those issues for me. Again, as a fellow veteran I appreciate what you’ve done, but if the above represent, as m interpreting them, your true feelings; your on the wrong side of things for me.

  15. Haji says:

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

    That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a right and a privilege. Driving is not a right. Never has been, never will be.

    Every legal gun owner should want to get trained it how to use it, but the government isn’t the way to make that happen.

  16. Stan says:

    “-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.”

    Wow! I knew the standards of education in the US were bad but the fact this person doesn’t understand the difference between a constitutionally guaranteed right and a legislatively granted privilege is amazing. Maybe he attended schooling in Canada…

    I will not vote for anyone who believes I should have to pass a “competency” test to exercise a fundamental right. Nor would I vote for someone so naive that they don’t understand the inherent dangers of having popularly elected politicians and unelected judges (In most states and courts that means urban far left democrats.) define what “competency” means.

    I could easily see the Nineth Circuit Court in San Francisco setting a standard so high only the top 5 to 10% of shooters could meet the required “competency”. Just think of the nightmare “testing” the urban far left super majorities that run the California and New York state governments would set. Would anyone pass? I doubt it.

    While I agree NRA training programs need to be updated and the testing standards for CCW permit holders (in my state at least) are too lax I cannot support most of this persons positions.

  17. Lev says:

    It’s tough to look at the current NRA Board and say an NSW combat vet, with a record of honorable service, is unfit. NRA could use an infusion of this sort. Moreover, while NRA valiantly supports and promotes 2A, as do many organizations, 2A transcends any organization. There are many upcoming battles to be fought, particularly Hillary and the likelihood we’ll see the Supreme court shift left and attempt to change 2A. I’ll support him. He brings something new to the fight.

    • Stan says:

      “It’s tough to look at the current NRA Board and say an NSW combat vet, with a record of honorable service, is unfit.”

      Honorably serving in the armed forces (Even those from SOCOM) doesn’t give one a free pass from criticism for the rest of their life.

      I served 20 years in the US Marines and I can guarantee you there are plenty of moral bankrupt, just plain stupid and politically extreme people who serve with honor and get honorable discharges every year. (I am not saying Mr. Webb is any of those.)

      Mr. Webb’s service in the US Navy, while something he should be proud of, isn’t in anyway something that soley qualifies him to serve on the governoring board of the NRA or any other elected office. The NRA doesn’t need an elite naval commando, it needs a person with good judgement and a dedication to protecting the rights of the American people. Is Mr. Webb that sort of person? Based soley on his public statements I’d say no.

      • Lev says:

        As a fmr Marine infantryman who got out recently, I’ve noticed that while there are a lot of good men and women on the NRA Board, Veterans with recent combat experience are under represented. I agree to some extent with the purist 2A stance implied in your many comments, but if NRA doesn’t think strategically, bring in new blood and ideas, in short evolve in a way that ensures the primacy of 2A, the struggle against the mouth-breathing sheep is going to be that much tougher. Further, and while I don’t personally know BW, we shared some of the same mtn snow and urban grit and good friends at ST3 and 1 who’ve served with him say he’s a good man. Chuck Norris, Ted Nugent and R. Lee Ermey are solid and help the NRA, but I don’t know if I’d 100% concur with every 2A-relevant statement they’ve made, particularly if we’re considering the emphemeral nature of the web. BW has a growing platform at sofrep and elsewhere that I hope would invigorate the NRA ranks with the community of recent Veterans, whom I believe might be less likely to join Associations than previous generations.

        • Stan says:

          Lev says, “As a fmr Marine infantryman who got out recently, I’ve noticed that while there are a lot of good men and women on the NRA Board, Veterans with recent combat experience are under represented.”

          Like I said before your service as an 0311 (even in combat) doesn’t give your opinion any more authority or weight than any other American on this subject. The opinion of constitutional rights of a supply clerk, an air winger or even a civilian is just as valid as your. It is a really desturbing trend among young vets to feel one’s service gives one some sort of special status in civilian life. It doesn’t, you’re a normal guy just like everyone else.

          This is the NRA’s mission statment: To protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to promote safe, responsible, and competent use of firearms.

          Given that mission where is there a dire need for “recent combat” experience? If anything, given that mission, it would seem the group needs 0933 range coaches, markenship trainer 0931 and maybe HQ types used to dealing with highly political environments.

          Lev say’s “I agree to some extent with the purist 2A stance implied in your many comments, but if NRA doesn’t think strategically, bring in new blood and ideas, in short evolve in a way that ensures the primacy of 2A, the struggle against the mouth-breathing sheep is going to be that much tougher.”

          It’s not a 2nd Amendment “purist” stance I am putting forth, its a strategy based on a reasoned assessment of my opponents. When you compromise with an opponent that believes the 2nd Amendment means nothing all you do is lose.

          • Lev says:

            2a needs to stay, as it is and unchanged. I generally have the same discrepancies as you with certain among BW’s comments but i wouldn’t discount him as a potent ally who would strengthen the NRA with new membership. I won’t say I’ve seen more or less sustained combat than anyone else who has deployed multiple times in the last decade, but I’ve experienced enough to have a clear concept of service and sacrifice for this nation and know that I’m a minority whom most people in this country don’t (a) give a sh_t about and (b) understand. As for vets w/ combat experience having a more valid stance and experience than those who’ve never served…i don’t know. Define service how you will(I define it chiefly as putting your ass on the line for your country), if one has given nothing to the country, I don’t see any commitment greater than honest working men and women enjoying the privileges of country of birth….and look at the f-sticks in DC this lightweight non-committed-no-skin-in-the-game “citizenry” elected calling the shots now? Goatrope or monkey f-ing a football falls short of characterizing our decision-making capability as a nation. We’ll see how this shakes out, but I do share BW’s not-always-tactfully put sentiment that it’s difficult to see Mr. Lapierre as more than one piece, among many, that will uphold 2A and that recent combat vets (like their predecessors) know what it’s like to send rounds downrange when it’s not for sport yet are underrepresented among the, respectfully, graybeards and suits-majority populating the NRA leadership. Or we can keep isolating folks, splitting hairs over blog comments, and wait for further gov shift Left, and bet your ass they will galvanize and change in the definition of 2A with the courts and we’ll be wishing we had organized more effectively and employed every ally and asset, such as the community I believe BW will help bring to NRA. 2A is black and white and you’re either for or against. I believe BW is on the right side.

  18. mikethemedic says:

    not getting my vote either.

  19. Kona says:

    Measured, reasonable, and articulate. I fear he is doomed. Best of luck. If he is elected I may actually rejoin the NRA.


  20. AntiCitizenOne says:

    He is only 1 of 76. Why worry?

    • Stan says:

      Why? For the same reasons we worry about who is our US Senator. They are only 1 of 100.

  21. Jesse says:

    We should see more of these from the current board members so we can know exactly who to vote for and more importantly who should not have our vote.

  22. NRALIFER says:

    I just want to know one thing. Are you Brandon a registered democrat or republican? I know you are reading these responses. Not responding to this simple question will be percieved as dodging. And dodging this question will be answer enough.

    • MAJ Michael says:

      And what does that have to do with the NRA?

      I’m much more interested in his measured and articulate position, thank you very much.

    • Brandon says:

      I’m a registered Independent.

      • NRALIFER says:

        Thank you Mr Webb for your timely response. I take the political affiliation of someone who wants to be on the NRA board very seriuosly. However, saying you are an Independent is code for Democrat, which means you tend to lean left. I knew this already but wanted to see what your response was. At least you were honest about your registration. I however cannot support you. I do not support democrats, liberals or so called independents or fence sitters. Thank you again for your time and Merry Christmas.

      • Stan says:

        That’s a good dodge.

  23. […] Soldier Systems has posted Brandon’s response about the criticism he is getting. I am glad he is coming out and stating in plain English his thoughts and beliefs. Kudos to you Brandon. Read it all. It’s pretty good. […]

  24. Drew says:

    I’ll echo some of the other comments, driving is a privilege, gun ownership is right given to us by the constitution (even Joe Biden got that one right). That being said, even to vote you have to register (which is a right that we all have). I don’t disagree that firearms education needs to stem from something other than what gets portrayed on the big screen. And getting people safer on the range is never a bad thing. But the implementation of everyone having to have an NRA training to shoot a gun is not practical. However, having free, online training that people can access, gain education to firearms and shooting sports would be a much better position to take. At least you are putting positive education out there, as opposed to what Biden might put out there on gun safety. It can’t hurt to have a combat veteran well versed in today’s gun market on the board, we need to shake things up. The NRA’s image needs updating in order to give the people a better representation of gun owners.

    • Rjf98 says:

      Gun ownership is not a right given by the constitution. The natural rights of man come from the creator. The wording of the second amendment comes from a belief that all men have a natural right to life and the defense of it.
      Any right granted to you by a piece of paper or a government is no right at all, for surely the paper can be destroyed and the same government can take it away.
      The bill of rights may codify and protect my natural rights, but they certainly don’t grant them to me. There is a fundamental difference and you need to learn it

  25. MP16 says:

    I like his “North Face” jacket

  26. John Smith says:

    Here is a guy with a military background/education, COMMON SENSE, and undying patriotism. For the most part you misinterpret his analogies (which even a first grader could understand) and you people think he is the idiot?! Meanwhile you all go out to the range on saturday wishing and pretending to be someone as skilled as Mr. Webb. It’s things like this that make me realize this country is absolutely screwed.

    • Thomas M. says:

      Guess what, when it comes to the NRA Board, nobody cares if he fast roped into the Eagles Nest and strangle Hitler in his bed or jumped into a time machine and gutted Staling with a spork at the Yalta Conference.

      Gabe Gomez the former SEAL who ran for the Senate and lost, has all kinds of military qualification. But his public flip flop and current support for gun control makes me glad that he lost his bid for the Senate.

      • NRALIFER says:

        Your a wise man Thomas M. There are liberals in disguise amongst us. look at Colin Powell. His career was advanced by no one but republicans. reagan made powell the first black Nat. Sec Adv. Bush 41 advanced him over serveral senior people to become the first Chair of the Joint Chiefs. Bush 43 made him the first black SoS. John McCain went to Clinton and asked him to make Powell’s son head of the FEC. McCain is far from a right winger yet Powell said he supported Obama cause the republican McCain wasnt MODERATE enough. All BS. Mr Webb said he is an INDEPENDENT under the 16:15 post reply. We know thats CODE of democrat or liberal.

  27. sidenote says:

    Check out the last picture, it saids F face trollled

  28. Chance says:

    “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).”

    Define practical / impractical. What is your position on people owning ARs and similar weapons?

  29. Mike Nomad says:

    If more people like Brandon Webb were on the board of directors, I would be a lot closer to joining. I wish him well, and the best of luck on his election.

    My problem with the NRA has more to do with what they are: They are lobbyists. Their loyalties are first and foremost to their organization. Just ask Smith & Wesson. The idea that I should join an organization that identifies me as a probable gun owner, with the possibility of that membership information being turned over to A Government Agency, I find insane.

    Yes, the Second Amendment is a right, and getting a Driver’s License is a privilege. The difference between them is mostly semantics: It is the Federal Government that takes away your Constitutional Rights (it can, by amending the constitution and using its various enforcement agencies to make the change stick), while it is a State/County/Local Government that takes away your Privileges.

    In both cases, the groups doing the granting/taking, etc. ultimately do it with the force of arms, either expressed or implied.

    • Cpl Punishment says:

      So you’re not willing to lift a finger or drop a measly $20 a year to defend the Second Amendment now, and we’re supposed to give a bucket of cold cow piss about your opinions regarding the NRA?

      Clearly your mommy never delivered an important life lesson: you are NOT a unique and special snowflake.

  30. BlackLion says:

    “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” ..not a dog.

    • CRH says:

      Spoken like someone who has never seen what a highly trained military grade working dog can do.

      • Mic68 says:

        Spoken like someone who doesn’t realize that even the military has a shortage of those dogs.

  31. Brandon advocates compromise on Second Amendment issues – whether or not you think we should be negotiating with our constitutional rights is a decision each NRA member has to make on their own. The fact that the majority of the original post is “running to the right” and trying to prove his bona fides should speak volumes.

  32. Ralph says:

    I would actually rejoin the NRA if more guys like this had a say. The way they are currently structured right now they just do more harm in the long run than good… Sadly there is no chance he will get elected when people are unable to concede even basic stuff such as on range safety (these are probably the same people sweeping their muzzles across the entire firing line)

  33. Angry Misha says:

    2nd Amendment: A well-regulated “MILITIA”, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    From Merriam Webster Dictionary

    mi•li•tia (m??liSH?/) Noun
    A group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are “TRAINED” like soldiers.

    Brandon Webb’s comments;
    – I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a firearms safety qualifications course, and this should be standardized across the country. (hmmm sounds like “Training”)
    – The NRA should be like PADI or NAUI and encourage gun ranges to only accept NRA basic qualified shooters on the range. (hmmm… sounds like “well-regulated”)

    So, what the flip is your issue with this? Seriously, you have to take a flipping hunters safety course before you get a flipping hunting license!!! And “why” do you have to take said “safety course”? TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT THE FLIP YOU’RE DOING WITH THAT FLIPPING BOOM STICK YOU FLIPPING PRIMATIVE SCREW HEAD!!

    Actually, I would go further; I would require training on each TYPE you want to purchase (i.e. Black Powder, Bolt Action, Lever Action, Semi Auto Rifle, Semi Auto Rifle w/Detachable Magazine, Pump Shotgun, Semi Auto Shotgun etc. etc. etc.). Of course there would be exceptions for Military (If they can produce documentation that they’ve received firearms training), Law Enforcement (well, maybe law enforcement lol) and grandfather in those who have attended concealed weapons (that require shooting), shot in NRA sanctioned DCMA matches or attended a hunters safety course (that requires shooting)

    YOU PEOPLE TALK OUT THE SIDE OF YOUR FACE! With your logic, or more appropriately “Lack of” we should just slap an M4/M-16 in the hands of a geek off the street recruit, toss him a mag and send him to the range because it’s his “Right”. But of course we don’t do that because we want to make sure he knows how to “Use it”.
    Personally, 80 percent of the people I see on the civilian ranges shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm let alone drive.

    Really people, get a grip.

    As a Life Member of the NRA, Brandon, you have my vote.

    • JJS243 says:

      Amen bro….with one caveat, the regulation should be managed by the State, or even the County gov. The willingness of the country to create more Federal government, inefficient, bumbling and easily manipulated Fed government, is baffling. Why the hell does this easy shit need to be centrally managed? Let the States handle it, all of it! (health care too…see how long that lasts). You’ll get a nutty deviation like Colorado once in awhile, and CA and NY are maybe gonzo, but the State elections are a hell of a lot easier to impact that the national fiasco that resulted in the current lightweight Admin and his band of twitterati. You want to get through the current gun control BS?….put the decision-making back into the State’s hands. We’re done seeing anything good come from the Fed.

  34. Paul says:

    He’s right about Wayne LaPierre, that’s for sure.

  35. Aaron Bank says:

    Brandon Webb plays right into the hands of the anti-gun lobby with his support for unreasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. There isn’t a single state or even municipality in the United States where a person must demonstrate a level of knowledge and familiarity with firearms analogous with driver’s licensing requirements to simply own a firearm.
    As a life member, I will oppose Brandon Webb for Board of Directors, and ensure that every NRA voting member I know and meet will know where he stands.

    I’ll remind you of the oath you swore, Webb.
    Not another damn inch.

  36. Blehtastic says:

    If this guy gets elected it’s going to push yet more people towards GOA, SAF, and Armed Citizens United in lieu of the NRA. Training is great, but getting our rights back is far more important than reinstating militia training.

    • Angry Misha says:

      Whatever dude. If firearm owners were required to have training they’d be taken more seriously and it would remove the “entitlement” attitude of gun owners also. So I guess you support the “Right” of a welfare slut cranking out babies because it’s her “Right” even though the American tax payer has to foot the bill?

      You people have no logical argument and are akin to nothing more than a bunch of armed goat herders

      • Blehtastic says:

        Your screen name is very apt, your comparisons are nonsensical, and your willful misreading and misinterpretation of someone else’s arguments calls your honesty into question.

        Training can take many forms. We’ve seen the failures of public education’s standardized methods with America’s low standing on international tests and high drop out rates. Replicating those mistakes at the gun range would not be beneficial for gun rights or safety and would be taken by many wishing to exercise their rights as merely a hoop to jump through to get some unwanted gun permit. The knowledge they were supposed to learn would be quickly discarded because of its mandated nature; and this, of course, would push gun grabbers to call for yet more and more “training” until it becomes next to impossible for the average citizen to own firearms.

        We have a way of dealing with unsafe gun handling practices in America. We charge the person with criminal negligence. Your solution has no problem.

        • Angry Misha says:

          Blah blah blah, yeah, let’s be reactive and charge someone after the damage has been done rather than being proactive.

          Fine, you want to own a firearm, it’s your right. But if you have PTSD, on psychiatric drugs, been arrested and charged for any violent offense, charged for any criminal negligence, underwent psychological counseling aside from grief counseling, sorry but no boom stick for you.

          • Blehtastic says:

            If you’re not fit to own a gun you’re not fit to be unchaperoned in public.

          • Mic68 says:

            Funny Brandon has been diagnosed with PTSD……and openly acknowledges it.No Boom stick for him i guess. He doesn’t even realize his call for mental illness restrictions would include him. They will either take the whole of mental illness or leave it up to your Doctor. Do you know the political leanings of your doctor? This might be a very bad way to find out.

  37. buzz_knox says:

    “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.”

    Mr. Webb, given that this is your stated position, it follows that under your preferred regulatory scheme, a person who is not 1) able to obtain a permit or 2) properly trained/certified would not be allowed to own anything. This reduces a right to simply a privilege, to be allowed or denied by the simple expedient of changing the rules as to what constitutes “proper” training or certification. We’ve already seen the consequences of requiring a permit to own a weapon, as evidenced by the refusal to issue permits in many jurisdictions, regardless of one’s level of training.

    As for Angry Misha, I suggest you read the large wealth of documentation surrouding the adoption of the Bill of Rights, as well as the SCOTUS decision in Heller. The first part of the Second Amendment simply explains why the right to bear arms is important; it in no way limits or links the excercise of the right.

  38. Steve says:

    He’s right the NRA needs to change but not with his ideas. He’s not getting my vote because his ideas suck and are down right insulting. Oh he was a seal so he’s better than the rest of us mere proles.

    Brandon Webb thinks way too much of himself. Im just waiting for him to take a page out of gabriel gomez’s book and go full retard.

    Love how everyone who has posted so far knows what’s best for everyone else. Do yourself and everyone a favor shut up. The only thing that should prohibit me or stop being from owning anything is the contents of my bank account or the amount of money in my wallet.

  39. MarineFo says:

    Would be great to have Webb’s voice of reason on the NRA board.

  40. Howdy says:

    “-Mass shootings have to be dealt with head-on”

    What does this mean? What specific course of action is being discussed here.

  41. Invictus says:

    I think BWebb’s an interesting, articulate, and engaging fellow. That said, I’ll vote for required training for firearms right after required sterilization for welfare…

  42. NRALIFER says:

    I have yet hear hear Mr Webb’s response to the question of what is his political party registration. A no answer is an answer.

    • SSGCMW says:

      Seriously? Less than five hours after you ask the question he needs to be on this blog responding?

  43. Jim says:

    Brandon Webb will not be getting my vote. He doesn’t understand the critical difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE. To make matters worse he advocates legislation requiring training and other requirements to exercise an unalienable right. The man is a fool. He may be a likeable highly trained SEAL but what practical skills does that give him to serve as a NRA board member? He obviously doesn’t have a basic grasp on the legal differences between a right and a privilege. He’s doesn’t understand the multitude of ways the anti-gun crowd in government can kill us one bureaucratic policy at a time if his universal training requirement was passed into law. He has no sense of history because he’d know how the government has used old laws to come up with new regulations to deny us free exercise of our rights. 922r parts counts and barrel import bans anyone?

    How many times are we gun owners going to keep letting “leaders” like this hand the scalpel to the enemy so they can carve off just a little bit more of our freedoms? Wake the Hell up people! It is time to draw a line in the sand! We will not retreat any further. We will not surrender any more of our rights or submit to any more government encroachments.

    I want NRA leadership that will ADVANCE the cause of gun rights not hobble it more. I want NRA leadership in the fight to WIN not to pad their coffers with my donations while doing just enough to keep the fight going.

    When is the NRA going to stop treating the NFA community like unwanted bastard stepchildren? Why do I have to pay a $200 tax and wait 15 months now to buy a muffler for my gun? Why does an Form 1 or a Form 4 take fifteen Months to process when we have multi-billion dollar government databases that can profile a person in seconds laying around being used to spy on NSA/FBI employees spouses and girlfriends?

    When is the NRA going to step up to the bat and fix the situation with CCW license reciprocity? My drivers license is recognized in all 50 states. Why isn’t my CCW? Don’t blow smoke up my butt and tell me how complicated it is legally. It could be fixed with a single federal law or court decision. With the current NRA leadership the answer is never. Brandon Webb, by his own admission wouldn’t help fix this, He’d make it worse! More LEGALLY REQUIRED TRAINING! Hey people wake up! That costs money. It takes time to implement and staff has to be hired. Oops, sorry the government is in a budget crisis and the funding for all the clerks to approve your gun ownership application got cut. Sorry no guns for you. HA! HA!

    Oh you want to take your kid and the neighbors kid to the range and teach them to shoot? Well have they had the NRA class? It’s only $150 a head and only takes a few days. No? School and all that economic recession stuff taking up to much time in your schedule, huh? Well there goes the future generation and our gun rights. Good job all you mandatory training idiots. Outstanding. Now you can go help the animal rights people pave another road to Hell.

    • Matt says:

      Amen. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The idea of comprimising over my right is absolute feel good non-sense.
      I’m an NRA member, a 24 year active duty CWO, and a SOFREP subscriber but I cannot in good conscience support BW on this. The stakes are too high and the people on the other side are playing dirty.

  44. Mike says:

    Making initial, safety related training available at no cost would be a good thing for a lot of folks…BUT IT SHOULD BE INDUSTRY DRIVEN AND PROMOTED, NOT GOVERNMENT MANDATED OR FOR THAT MATTER HAVE ANY GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT WHATSOEVER. It can also never be mandatory.

    The driving comparison is stupid.

    Mr. Webb is far too vague.

    • Blehtastic says:

      Absolutely, safety training and safe gun handling practices should be totally market driven. What range wants their customers getting muzzle swept by some loser? People that are irresponsible at the range should be kicked out immediately and told not to return unless they’re willing to pay the RSO for one on one training for as long as it takes till he’s satisfied they’ll be a responsible customer.

  45. tyler says:

    I wont vote for him.

  46. Monty says:


    I really enjoyed your book and thank you for your service! Explain how you will get your “wish list” HK UMP and that will help me validate your knowledge of civilian firearms. I think you could be an asset to the board but compromise when facing an opposition that includes many whose sole stated end game is the elimination of civilian firearm ownership scares me! I also think that mandated training could be used too easily as a de facto ban. I do enjoy your outside the box thinking and ability to start a conversation on critical issues. I look forward to hearing more of your 2a opinions–keep up the good work!

  47. Logan F. Crooks says:

    I Didn’t Agree With Everything Brandon Said, But He’ll Definitely Be Getting My Vote.

  48. Your Lying Eyes says:

    What bothers me most about his “candidacy” is that it seems to be either very spur of the moment or another self-promotion effort by the king of tactical blog self-promotion (it worked. I checked out his multiple blogs). If you were actually a member of the NRA (is he) you would know from your mailings what the rules are. First of all, you must be a life member to run (is he?). Second, the NRA completely controls who gets put on the ballot. Who is the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, that is who. A black horse candidate will not make the ballot, especially not when you insult the leadership of the organization. This is made abundantly clear in the laws of the organization. I know this because I thought it would be fun to see if I could make a ballot once. A very, very cursory read of the by laws indicates that there would be no way it would happen. People are talking about a name dropper with the over-priced watches and abundance of blogs again , so if that is the purpose then he is succeeding. But, debating his platform is about as silly as debating my platform for the NRA. It will not happen.

  49. majrod says:

    Brandon is a good guy but he doesn’t understand the opposition.

    I don’t trust the anti-2nd amendment movement. The overwhelming majority of gun owners have a superior sense of responsibility when it comes to owning a gun. The anti-2nd amendment movement has ZERO problem using that sense of responsibility to curtail the 2A. Have you noticed that “gun safety” has replaced “gun control”?

    To use Brandon’s quote, “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject.” – Winston Churchill The anti-2A crowd are the ones who have not changed their views or “changed the subject”.

    The solution to those that purposely mischaracterize you isn’t to negotiate with them. They give up nothing while they kill you with incrementalism. The practicality of putting dogs in every school isn’t realistrc, nor do I see how a dog and unarmed handler stop a madmen. I also find huge opportunities for the anti-2A crowd to use “national standards” to fix a problem. Common core and Obamacare are teaching us this lesson, again.

    Wish Brandon the best in his endeavors but I think he underestimates the anti-2A movement who will also embrace a “common sense” approach.

    I want a serious discussion on immigration but I’m not even entertaining a discussion until we secure the border.

    Read more:

  50. Brandon says:

    Hi Everyone-

    First thank you Eric at SSD (A great site), and to everyone on here who took the time to comment regardless of whether we agree with one another. Chances are most of us would not agree on everything 100% but, fundamentally I feel that my views are aligned with most of the NRA membership base.

    My main position is that the 2nd Amendment was put in place for a purpose, and I don’t want to give up my guns to the government for any reason, “from my cold dead fingers is appropriate”. I like less government in all things.

    Some of you have asked about my political affiliation, I really don’t have one but I’m a registered Independent. I’m fed up with most career politicians regardless of party, they’re out of touch with America, and make rules to exclude themselves from laws they force on us.

    The same as Mr. Wayne La Pierre, I think he’s out of touch and ill qualified to lead the NRA. Take a minute to look at his professional background, he’s never been a true gun guy. He doesn’t hunt, or enjoy guns for sport. He’s a career lobbyist.

    I think that it’s time for the NRA to take a more intelligent stance, and we need new executive leadership. Rather than bitch about it I’m willing to do something about it. Like I learned in the SEAL Teams, don’t complain about something unless you’re willing to propose solutions, and do something about it.

    Again, thank you to everyone on here that voiced their opinion in a respectful manner.

    Brandon Webb, UDT/SEAL Class 215