cavan shooter Registered User
#16

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

1 person has thanked this post
BattleCorp Registered User
#17

cavan shooter said:
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?

cavan shooter Registered User
#18

BattleCorp said:
What's the alternative?


In fairness and as pointed out by sparks that is not for discussion in this thread.

It wasn't me! Moderator
#19

cavan shooter said:
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?

1 person has thanked this post
cavan shooter Registered User
#20

It
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.

1 person has thanked this post
BattleCorp Registered User
#21

cavan shooter There is a new thread opened where these issues can be discussed.

1 person has thanked this post
Spunk84 Registered User
#22

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?

It wasn't me! Moderator
#23

Spunk84 said:
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.

1 person has thanked this post
Sparks Moderator
#24

Spunk84 said:
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".

Vegeta Moderator
#25

Sparks said:

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.

extremetaz Registered User
#26

It
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.

3 people have thanked this post
Cass Moderator
#27

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.

meathshooter1 said:
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.

1 person has thanked this post
cavan shooter Registered User
#28

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.

extremetaz Registered User
#29

cavan shooter said:
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.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!