The FCP *without* the NARGC? - Page 2 - boards.ie
Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
23-02-2012, 18:38   #16
cavan shooter
Registered User
 
cavan shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In a house but sometimes the dog box
Posts: 2,125
Then I stand by my comment you cannot have the FCP without the NARGC present, That organisation represents around 27,000 shooters. An FCP without them would be meaningless
cavan shooter is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
23-02-2012, 18:44   #17
BattleCorp
Registered User
 
BattleCorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavan shooter View Post
Then I stand by my comment you cannot have the FCP without the NARGC present, That organisation represents around 27,000 shooters. An FCP without them would be meaningless

What's the alternative?
BattleCorp is offline  
23-02-2012, 18:46   #18
cavan shooter
Registered User
 
cavan shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In a house but sometimes the dog box
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleCorp View Post
What's the alternative?
In fairness and as pointed out by sparks that is not for discussion in this thread.

Last edited by cavan shooter; 23-02-2012 at 18:49.
cavan shooter is offline  
23-02-2012, 18:46   #19
It wasn't me!
Moderator
 
It wasn't me!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The wrong end of nowhere
Posts: 12,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavan shooter View Post
Then I stand by my comment you cannot have the FCP without the NARGC present, That organisation represents around 27,000 shooters. An FCP without them would be meaningless
You're essentially right, but what about the other 200,000-odd shooters who are denied effective representation by the NARGC's refusal to deal with the PTB?
It wasn't me! is offline  
Thanks from:
23-02-2012, 18:50   #20
cavan shooter
Registered User
 
cavan shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In a house but sometimes the dog box
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by It wasn't me! View Post
You're essentially right, but what about the other 200,000-odd shooters who are denied effective representation by the NARGC's refusal to deal with the PTB?
In fairness and as pointed out by sparks that is not for discussion in this thread.
cavan shooter is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
23-02-2012, 19:00   #21
BattleCorp
Registered User
 
BattleCorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,139
cavan shooter There is a new thread opened where these issues can be discussed.
BattleCorp is offline  
Thanks from:
24-02-2012, 00:07   #22
Spunk84
Registered User
 
Spunk84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,627
If you move on without the NARGC because you dont want them,then whats to stop you moving on without the IFA or CSA??If you dont want them after a while?
Spunk84 is offline  
24-02-2012, 00:21   #23
It wasn't me!
Moderator
 
It wasn't me!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The wrong end of nowhere
Posts: 12,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spunk84 View Post
If you move on without the NARGC because you dont want them,then whats to stop you moving on without the IFA or CSA??If you dont want them after a while?
That would be relevant if it were actually representative of this situation. This, however, isn't moving on without the NARGC because they're not wanted, but because despite the fact that their presence is absolutely desirable, they're not willing to engage with the PTB, while the rest of those involved, presumably, are. Now, it becomes more and more farcical if other major organisation like the IFA were to decide they wanted no more part in it, but the real problem then is that anyone who remains in discussion with the PTB is going to get labelled as if they're the separatists, rather than those who are throwing the toys out of the pram, despite the fact that all they're trying to do is to serve their own best interests. If people want to ensure that everybody's best interests are served without any toes being trampled, then if they're not willing to enter talks, they've got noone to blame but themselves for the sore feet. For my own part, I want any organisation I'm involved with or represented by to have a good working relationship with the PTB. If you want to be best served, you need your organisation to have such a relationship. If your organisation doesn't want to engage with the PTB, then your interests are not being served, and you need to communicate that effectively to your representative bodies.
It wasn't me! is offline  
Thanks from:
24-02-2012, 00:31   #24
Sparks
Category Moderator
 
Sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 34,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spunk84 View Post
If you move on without the NARGC because you dont want them,then whats to stop you moving on without the IFA or CSA??If you dont want them after a while?
Who said that anyone didn't want the NARGC?
The question isn't "who do we want in our club", it's "what do we do if they wont come in with us".
The NARGC are the ones doing the "not wanting".
Sparks is offline  
Advertisement
24-02-2012, 10:00   #25
Vegeta
Moderator
 
Vegeta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparks View Post
Because, regardless of court cases and everything else, we're going to have to move foward. We can't remain how we are, things are broken and need fixing.
This is how I see it too. If the NARGC wont engage then move on without them.

They might realise that years of dialogue and relationship building is better than legislative willy waving OR they'll just keep trying to fight a body who can and do change the rules to be in their favour and damage the sport for a few decades. I hope the former.
Vegeta is offline  
24-02-2012, 12:16   #26
extremetaz
Registered User
 
extremetaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Kildare
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by It wasn't me! View Post
For my own part, I want any organisation I'm involved with or represented by to have a good working relationship with the PTB.
Surely, in moving on without, more folk of this thinking would pop out of the woodwork in time? - with ranks then depleting, the NARGC would have to reconsider their position?

I'm still very much a newbie wrt all the politics, however, I do believe that standing united is the only way forward, and 27k shooters still leaves >80% of the shooting populous available for representation in any case (and that's discounting any bipartisan shooters).

They may have a big stick, but it is far from the only stick in play and I can't see that refusing to engage with the common conduit for all other shooters is going to make their lives any easier (...although it's entirely possible that I'm missing something wrt to that point).

As for negotiations being meaningless without them - that's nonesense - negotiaton with better than 7/8 of the population of anything, is still negotiation with the vast majority. It's about as far from meaningless as you can get.
extremetaz is offline  
(3) thanks from:
24-02-2012, 14:14   #27
Cass
Moderator
 
Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Laois
Posts: 14,687
Send a message via MSN to Cass
If the NARGC do not want to enter into talks then we have no choice but to move on without them. I would not like to see this happen, but no one NGB/organisation should be in a position to hold others "hostage" because of membership numbers.

I'm a member of the NARGC, and another NGB. So as was said above out of their 27,000 members how many are actually just gun club members. My point being the "majority share" then think they hold is not quite the majority they think it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meathshooter1 View Post
I would say as a guess ? That they where giving assurances that where never acted on
The answer, however frustrating to hear or deal with, is not to pull out of talks. If you do then your point goes from being heard, and acted/not acted on, to just not heard.
Cass is offline  
Thanks from:
24-02-2012, 16:40   #28
cavan shooter
Registered User
 
cavan shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In a house but sometimes the dog box
Posts: 2,125
It would appear the quote from the press release reprinted above clearly states the NARGC problem and I would guess the problem alot of shooters have, a lack of trust.

However other Organisations don't seem to have that problem what so ever,(Sparks you have highlighted this on numerous occasions) so fire away and start having the meetings. But there is no point having a talking shop when elements of the DOJ etc have no interest in taking on board what was said.
cavan shooter is offline  
26-02-2012, 12:44   #29
extremetaz
Registered User
 
extremetaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Kildare
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavan shooter View Post
But there is no point having a talking shop when elements of the DOJ etc have no interest in taking on board what was said.
...but what's the point in not talking at all?

If we stop talking we got forgotten entirely, so what's the alternative?

Again - I'm very fresh to all of this but it appears to me as though we're talking here like as if there is actually a choice to be made, whereas at present, the only "choice" I'm aware of is A) continue to talk; B) stop talking altogether.

I can guarantee we'll achieve absolutely nothing if we're all shouting individually, and no matter how big the NARGC think they are, they're in no position to represent everybody either - the only voice with any chance of being listened too is the one that engages in an organised and official capacity.

I don't want to derail the thread so if anyone could educate me as to the realistic alternatives, then please do so by PM'ing or attaching a few links because as things stand - I don't really see any actual "options" here at all.

We have to carry on.
extremetaz is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet