The Olympic Coaches Association

tireur

This existence of this group and their input to the debate on conditions affecting shooters in this country has come up on the NTSA AGM thread. I would appreciate hearing from any member of the group or anyone else who can tell us what their aims are and how they are contributing to the shooting community.

JunkieW

tireur wrote:

This existence of this group and their input to the debate on conditions affecting shooters in this country has come up on the NTSA AGM thread. I would appreciate hearing from any member of the group or anyone else who can tell us what their aims are and how they are contributing to the shooting community.

You seem to know more about this group Tireur than the rest of us. Can you tell us what you know?

tireur

What I know is subject to verification which is why I would like a member of the group or someone close to them to elucidate their programme.

tireur

JunkieW wrote:

You seem to know more about this group Tireur than the rest of us. Can you tell us what you know?

I see you just registered today JunkieW, to comment on this item. Clearly you know the subject but are unwilling to share your knowledge along with your two colleagues quoted below
Quote from Sparks on the Olympic Coaches Association

" What has that got to do with the NTSA?"

Quote from Foresight on the same subject:

" Hi Tireur,
Your questions to Sparks here are irrelevant the 'Olympic Coaches Association' has nothing to do with the NTSA"

Does this mean that JunkieW, Foresight and Sparks are part of this group?

JunkieW

tireur wrote:

I see you just registered today JunkieW, to comment on this item. Clearly you know the subject but are unwilling to share your knowledge along with your two colleagues quoted below

Yes I did register today, but have been reading this forum on and off for quite a long time. I'd been meaning to register, but only got around to it today. I didn't register just to ask this question, but it's the first one that interested me enough to post to. (All the other ones seemed a bit long winded )

And the first thing I did was vote on the minutes poll. That's the one that prompted me to register.

And Sparks and Foresight are not my colleagues, I really don't know anything about the OCA... That's why I asked the question. It just seemed to me that having read the other thread, you weren't going to get an answer and it was pretty obvious that you knew something.

JunkieW

tireur wrote:

Does this mean that JunkieW, Foresight and Sparks are part of this group?

Actually I was far too bloody polite in my last post. Consider this a correction.

What sort of paranoid suspicious crap is this?, I post to this board for the first time and get the above as a response. None of this "Welcome to the board" airy-fairy nonsense, no, straight for the jugular.... "Are you or have you ever been a member of...." Actually McCarthy was a pussycat. Tireur goes past question 1 and straight to "You are, and have been until proven otherwise.."

Try taking your blinkers off Tireur, and read your post as if you had never posted to this board before and got that crap as an answer. I had thought from reading your posts that you were a rational, straight thinking member of the shooting community. Just goes to show how wrong you can be.

It's looking unlikely that I'll ever post to this board again, if that response is anything to go by. Or maybe I shouldn't say that in case dark motives are ascribed to me by some other warped individual.

entropy

JunkieW wrote:

It's looking unlikely that I'll ever post to this board again, if that response is anything to go by. Or maybe I shouldn't say that in case dark motives are ascribed to me by some other warped individual.

i wholehartedly agree with you on the poor welcome you got from tireur. its a pity that such a response is illicited for just asking a simple question. im afraid this thread that he started says more about tireur and his motives than anything else hes written so far on the boards.

i feel sorry for the ntsa and its membership, vindictiveness and paranoia is something we dont need in shooting

and before im assasinated by him i just want to point out i have no interest or connection to the rifle or pistol world, im just a plain ole dtl shooter, so spare me the conspiracy theories!

tireur

JunkieW wrote:

Actually I was far too bloody polite in my last post. Consider this a correction.

What sort of paranoid suspicious crap is this?, I post to this board for the first time and get the above as a response. None of this "Welcome to the board" airy-fairy nonsense, no, straight for the jugular.... "Are you or have you ever been a member of...." Actually McCarthy was a pussycat. Tireur goes past question 1 and straight to "You are, and have been until proven otherwise.."

Try taking your blinkers off Tireur, and read your post as if you had never posted to this board before and got that crap as an answer. I had thought from reading your posts that you were a rational, straight thinking member of the shooting community. Just goes to show how wrong you can be.

It's looking unlikely that I'll ever post to this board again, if that response is anything to go by. Or maybe I shouldn't say that in case dark motives are ascribed to me by some other warped individual.

You are right JunkieW. Before a few days ago, I was a shooter only interested in shooting and enjoying myself in the company of like minded individuals. I did not know about the boards and the amount of politics lurking in the background. I found the debate on the NTSA AGM, UDI etc very sad indeed .I was especially saddened and annoyed by the amount of very obvious personal animosity and bias promulgated by a small number of individuals and decided to join in the debate. But horror of horrors! I have been infected. I began to enjoy being biased and one sided, because that seemed to be the modus operandi needed to survive. There is a rich vein of paranoia running throughout much of what is posted on here and if you saw my questions about what moderators do earlier in the AGM thread you could see that I expected some semblance of moderation from them but I was wrong in this.
Now to answer your original question, which I was rude about before, the Olympic Coaches Association clearly exists and some of the regular posters to this board know about it. I believe that it has met with some Government bodies to put forward a view on organising and regulating shooting in Ireland. I would like to know is this so and if so, what are they saying because they could affect all shooters current rights.

tireur

entropy wrote:

i wholehartedly agree with you on the poor welcome you got from tireur. its a pity that such a response is illicited for just asking a simple question. im afraid this thread that he started says more about tireur and his motives than anything else hes written so far on the boards.

i feel sorry for the ntsa and its membership, vindictiveness and paranoia is something we dont need in shooting

and before im assasinated by him i just want to point out i have no interest or connection to the rifle or pistol world, im just a plain ole dtl shooter, so spare me the conspiracy theories!

You are of course right entropy!

Sparks

Right, finally got time to reply.

It doesn't exist. At least not as far as I know of.

And if an organisation like you're describing does exist tireur, I'd like to hear about it please, because I know of at least two highly successful olympic shooting coaches who'd be bloody interested to know why they've not been invited to join such a group to represent their needs to the DoJ, DoAST, ISC, OCI, FIS, PSNI, SCNI, NCTC, or any other relevant body.

And on the whole "attack the new guy" approach tireur, the courtesy of not doing so was extended to yourself in the NTSA AGM thread, I'm dissappointed that you didn't extend it yourself, but fair's fair, you did apologise and that takes some measure of guts.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

I found the debate on the NTSA AGM, UDI etc very sad indeed .

The day of shooters not taking an interest in what their NGB does and having opinions on it won't ever come, tireur, it was there decades before either you or I were born, and will be there decades after you and I are dust.
The sad thing is when that debate has to be kept in the dark, lest the debaters suffer sanction from those they question, whose job (and remember, as the NTSA is a limited company, their legal duty) it is to put the shooters' and the sport's interests first.

Now to answer your original question, which I was rude about before, the Olympic Coaches Association clearly exists and some of the regular posters to this board know about it.

And *now* I want to hear where this is coming from tireur, because as I've said, so far as I am aware, this body does not exist and I know at least two people who would be interested (and a few more who probably would be interested) in finding out a hell of a lot more about it. Who's in it? When was it formed? Where is it operating from? Who do I contact in it to get details from the horse's mouth?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

And *now* I want to hear where this is coming from tireur, because as I've said, so far as I am aware, this body does not exist and I know at least two people who would be interested (and a few more who probably would be interested) in finding out a hell of a lot more about it. Who's in it? When was it formed? Where is it operating from? Who do I contact in it to get details from the horse's mouth?

It seems we have a common list of questions about the OCA Sparks. I too would like answers to those questions. I have only second hand reports so far hence I am not going to further promulgate these reports without verification which was the reason for starting this thread. Your initial response to the topic, endorsed by Foresight, was to tell me that the OCA had nothing to do with the NTSA. This may be true but it is an odd response considering your current statement that the OCA does not exist. Why not just say this to begin with?

Sparks

Because I wanted to check about first Tireur. I called around a few people to see if this group did exist; it doesn't; and several of those I spoke to would now be quite interested in knowing more. So where did you hear of this and who do I go to in order to get more information? And at the time you put it out, it was little more than a diversion from some rather fundamental questions I had asked (though, I'll say again, which I was not by a very long shot the first to ask) and which you have yet to answer. And you'll have to forgive a certain curtness in my replies by this stage tireur, but so far, it's not been a most enlightening discussion with your good self.

tireur

Sparks, was a there a meeting between the DOJ and some of the target shooting community in the last year?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

it was little more than a diversion from some rather fundamental questions I had asked (though, I'll say again, which I was not by a very long shot the first to ask) and which you have yet to answer. .

All of your questions which were based on sensible logic and facts have been answered Sparks. Perhaps you were referring to the ones based on rumours, half truths and innuendo which have been treated the way they deserve. Anyone reading this thread who has not looked at the NTSA AGM thread is urged to look there to see what I mean.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

Sparks, was a there a meeting between the DOJ and some of the target shooting community in the last year?

No, there have been several meetings between the DoJ and several sections of the target shooting community in the last year (assuming that you're talking about the meetings related to the Criminal Justice Bill's Firearms Act amendments and not to the ongoing NARGC-Fine Gael meetings to draft an entirely seperate Firearms Bill). The NRPAI, the ICPSA, the NTSA, the IPC, all (and more) have had meetings with them, made submissions to them, given them video footage and photographs and data seven ways from sunday. Even individual members of the community have been involved; see the thread that's been stuck to the top of the forum for the past 13 months with a sampling of the submissions we've seen thus far. Why do you ask?

tireur wrote:

All of your questions which were based on sensible logic and facts have been answered Sparks.

No, they haven't been. Look tireur, perhaps you're a bit confused, but this isn't verbal conversation. People can go and read what you have written in plain black and white. It's kindof like shooting really; the target comes back and there's the hole and there's the scoring rings. There's no fudge involved, you can't convince others that a seven is actually a perfect ten, that's just the way it is. Honesty. Best part about this sport, really.

Anyone reading this thread who has not looked at the NTSA AGM thread is urged to look there to see what I mean.

Something we agree on - I may require medical attention for the shock...

tireur

Sparks wrote:

No, they haven't been.


.

I think you missed the qualifiers Sparks.

Sparks

Nope, read them in full tireur. I think you just have a different definition to the rest of us for the word "sensible". It's a similar difference in definition to that we saw in the speeches against the motions at the AGM, when words like "loyalty" and "unity" were bandied about with abandon, ignoring the fine print that showed that most of the actual competitive shooters in the NTSA are fiecely loyal and united; but loyal to the sport and each other, rather than to the NRPAI; and united as Shooters, rather than as those who are willing to do whatever a private club (in which they have no direct voice) tells to them to. Similarly, you'd using the word "sensible", but not your definition and mine differ; I would think "sensible" meant, well, nonsensical, well-defined, logically self-consistent, understandable. Your definition, frankly, seems to differ drasticly...

tireur

Sparks wrote:

most of the actual competitive shooters in the NTSA are fiecely loyal and united; but loyal to the sport and each other, rather than to the NRPAI; and united as Shooters, rather than as those who are willing to do whatever a private club (in which they have no direct voice) tells to them to. .

That is why the voting went 68 in favour of staying with the NRPAI to 38(approx) in favour of leaving. Now I suppose you will tell me that the 68 were uncompetitive shooters.

Sparks

I won't tireur; I'll let the participation numbers at the last and the next competitions speak for me, instead.

Rovi

I am sooooooooooo tempted to post this picture of a British Olympic Coach-


...but that would be childish and silly, so I won't.




.

Celer et Audax

Excuse me but I am new to this board. Is there an issue between target shooters and other shooters regarding what type of guns should be allowed or have I misunderstood the debate here?

Sparks

If there is such a disagreement Celer, it's the first I've heard of it.

civdef

That debate certainly exists in some quarters. I've heard several olympic style target shooters say they see no need for anyone to own centrefire pistols, for example.

Sparks

I dunno civ. Example;

That's an ISSF pistol. .32 calibre Morini. Centerfire. ISSF shooters arguing against centerfire pistols would be odd beasts.

That said, I know I've heard people lamenting the fact that the sidearms were the pistols being most loudly yelled about (hell, I'm one of 'em, I'm still puzzled as to why air pistols aren't being shown off from every media outlet available with disabled shooters shooting alongside able-bodied juniors and septagenarian veteran shooters); I'm hearing from all sides that the time is fast approaching where the more, well, daft elements will have to be told to reign it in before we all get it in the neck as a result of their shenanigans; and there is more than just myself that feels personally uncomfortable around practical pistol; but someone actually saying "no, too dangerous, take them away please Minister"? Nope.

(Mind you, if what I heard is true, I'd *dearly* love to find out exactly who it was that told the Department of Justice that 9mm pistols were needed to shoot Olympic pistol events...)

tireur

Sparks wrote:

(Mind you, if what I heard is true, I'd *dearly* love to find out exactly who it was that told the Department of Justice that 9mm pistols were needed to shoot Olympic pistol events...)

I'd like to know who in the target shooting community told the DOJ that nobody in the country needed a pistol with a calibre above .22. for target shooting.

Sparks

Have the DoJ been told that, tireur?

tireur

We have building towards this point since last week Sparks, You have asked a number of questions and finally, I will answer the question at the heart of the debate,This is the question about shooters standing together. This is the question about the Olympic Coaches Association and how they have not demonstrated this unity. But first, as you have pointed out, this is not a verbal debate A record exists. Let me remind you of what you said about the Olympic Coaches Association in a number of posts:

QUOTE SPARKS--from several posts

START OF QUOTES

"It doesn't exist. At least not as far as I know of.

And *now* I want to hear where this is coming from tireur, because as I've said, so far as I am aware, this body does not exist and I know at least two people who would be interested (and a few more who probably would be interested) in finding out a hell of a lot more about it. Who's in it? When was it formed? Where is it operating from? Who do I contact in it to get details from the horse's mouth?


Because I wanted to check about first Tireur. I called around a few people to see if this group did exist; it doesn't; and several of those I spoke to would now be quite interested in knowing more. So where did you hear of this and who do I go to in order to get more information? And at the time you put it out, it was little more than a diversion from some rather fundamental questions I had asked (though, I'll say again, which I was not by a very long shot the first to ask) and which you have yet to answer. And you'll have to forgive a certain curtness in my replies by this stage tireur, but so far, it's not been a most enlightening discussion with your good self.




No, there have been several meetings between the DoJ and several sections of the target shooting community in the last year (assuming that you're talking about the meetings related to the Criminal Justice Bill's Firearms Act amendments "

END OF QUOTES

Now, bearing in mind your statements here is the information you requested:

A delegation from the SSAI was at a meeting with the DOJ in April of this year. During the debate ,the DOJ officials gave the impression that they had been told by another group of shooters, that nobody needed a pistol with a calibre greater than .22 for competitions.When asked who had said this, they replied that it was the target shooters.The NTSA had met the DOJ and had not made this statement.The NTSA group had also heard from the DOJ, in their meeting with them, that a representation had been received from another group of target shooters styling themselves the "Olympic Coaches Association" .The SSAI had also asked , in the course of their meeting, who these people were and who they represented. The answer was that they called themselves the "Olympic Coaches Association". When asked who the actual people were, guess whose name was mentioned as one of the attendees?.

It seems that you have been in a position to answer your own questions all along Sparks..

Sparks

tireur wrote:

We have building towards this point since last week Sparks

You didn't just come out and spout this crap you mean?

Now, bearing in mind your statements here is the information you requested:
A delegation from the SSAI was at a meeting with the DOJ in April of this year. During the debate ,the DOJ officials gave the impression that they had been told by another group of shooters, that nobody needed a pistol with a calibre greater than .22 for competitions.When asked who had said this, they replied that it was the target shooters.The NTSA had met the DOJ and had not made this statement.The NTSA group had also heard from the DOJ, in their meeting with them, that a representation had been received from another group of target shooters styling themselves the "Olympic Coaches Association" .The SSAI had also asked , in the course of their meeting, who these people were and who they represented. The answer was that they called themselves the "Olympic Coaches Association". When asked who the actual people were, guess whose name was mentioned as one of the attendees?.
It seems that you have been in a position to answer your own questions all along Sparks.

Bull**** tireur. I'm not in this "Olympic Coaches Association", so far as I know it does not exist, if it did I couldn't be in it as I'm not an Olympic Coach, and I've never, ever said that pistols with a calibre over .22 inches aren't needed, to anyone, nor would I let anyone say it in front of me without correcting it - in case you missed the above post, ISSF shooters need centerfire pistols in calibres up to .38 themselves so why the hell would I say anything like that?

I am curious, by the way - whom in this SSAI delegation told you that this is what was said? Or were you not in the room and are we hearing this fifth-hand after a good round of chinese whispers?

Sparks

And since you're obviously privy to SSAI minutes tireur, perhaps you'd answer the previous question - were the rumours I heard true? Did the DoJ think that 9mm pistols are needed for the Olympic Games?

tireur

I do not think you have the credibility to continue posting to this thread but I know that will not stop you. You seem to have missed the main points as usual so to borrow one of your techniques, let me take you slowly through it:
The key issue, is that when it was important for all shooters to stand together and put forward a co-ordinated and well thought out position, one group of shooters, the OCA, put forward a narrow self centred position, with no notice to, or debate with their NGB..This view has done some damage to the overall position. I am not surprised that no one from this group wants to confirm this. You have no respect for the NTSA or the SSAI or for any other shooters it would seem. Whether anyone in the OCA is qualified to call themselves an Olympic coach is beside the point but I suppose it was chosen because it sounded official and impressive. The ISSF issue is also irrelevant because, as the styled themselves the OCA, it is reasonable to assume that they would have put forward an "Olympic" as opposed to an ISSF position hence the. 22 statement which has done the damage.

Sparks

Tireur, you're simply lying.

tireur

We shall see--

Sparks

How, exactly? You won't even tell us who you are, let alone where you heard this crap from. It's a lie from start to finish and I'll be damned if I'll be cast as the backstabbing creep who told the DoJ that shooters didn't need centerfire pistols when I've been wanting to get into fullbore events for years now, and when my own disciplines need centerfire pistols. I now know why it is that I've been getting dirty looks from pistol shooters at matches, and I'm very mad to find that some dirty little sod has been spreading this kind of ****e around the place behind my back without once having the decency to stand up to my face and say this. Says a whole fecking lot for what your ilk thinks of "shooting unity", that does. It's not like I've been hard to find!

tireur

Now to be fair Sparks, it may have not have been you individually who made the statement to the DOJ but you were in the delegation which made the statement. And by the way, I have not discussed this issue at large which you imply, I have sat on it until it was "sparked" by the discussion following the AGM hence those looks must be imagined or for some other reason.

BOBTHESHOOTER

This long running saga really needs to be closed, if truly we are to be standing together and protecting the rights of any shooting group to participte in any chosen discipline they wish regardless of calibre or type of firearm.

Unfortunately there are people out there who wish to comment on what should and should not be allowed under license, unfortunately this plays into the hands of the people making the legislation and who generally no no better then what they are told. Fact is that this is the position now taken by some in authority as a result of someone saying it.

Abuse and bad language will not change the facts and the fact is that a group calling itself the "Olympic Coaches Association" met with senior officials of the DOJ and gave them their opinion. Sad fact is that they have no mandate from anyone to do so. Ther other fact is that the officials pulled the file while I was there and identified the individuals who were on the delegation and guess what..............it appears the Tireur was right all along.

Sparks

Bob, that's crap. How the hell can I be in an organisation without knowing about it? And I'm not in any such group. And you didn't read what I posted; I wouldn't say what Tireur is saying I said, nor would I let anyone else say it. And as it happens, I've been told who it was that said what is being talked about and it wasn't any "Olympic Coaches Association", and someone is definitely lying to the NRPAI, but I can't prove that it was who I was told it was, not yet :mad: And somehow I can't see the DoJ leaping to help out here.

It's also nice to know that my name's been dragged through mud without anyone ever bothering to talk to me about it. :mad: Is this what the NRPAI mean when they say they stand up for shooters?

BOBTHESHOOTER

Well there you go........I did not identify you directly, I simply said the Tierur was right all along, somewhat of a clear guilt complex if you ask me, you clearly want a direct answer: the file related to the "Olympic Coaches Association" was consulted and your name was without question metioned as being part of the group.................Thats it, end of debate, get off the stage. I was at the meeting I heard what was said, it was reported back to the SSAI committee and noted.

I very reluctantly got involved in this debate but when I saw the direction it was taking and the clear misleading information that was being provided I felt it necessary to set the record straight.

This really should end here and now, nobody wants any more damage done than may have already been done, the fortunate situation is that we have now access to sports that were denied to us since 1972, everbody has a right to particiapte in theor choice of that sport unhindered by any other group or individual, lets go forward and not backwards...............

Sparks

BOBTHESHOOTER wrote:

Well there you go........I did not identify you directly, I simply said the Tierur was right all along

That was identifying me directly given what Tireur has been saying.

you clearly want a direct answer: the file related to the "Olympic Coaches Association" was consulted and your name was without question metioned as being part of the group.................Thats it, end of debate, get off the stage. I was at the meeting I heard what was said, it was reported back to the SSAI committee and noted.

I don't believe it Bob. I've never put myself forwards as being a part of an "Olympic Coaches Association" or anything like that. And I've never, ever, either suggested or hinted or in any way said that non-ISSF stuff should be sacrificed or comprimised for ISSF stuff the way Tireur has accused me of.

And if you were there, you're a part of the NRPAI; and if you're a part of the NRPAI, I want a clear answer; Why did no-one say this to my face? Am I that hard to find? By his own admission, Tireur was sitting in the same room as me in the NTSA AGM less than a fortnight ago and didn't have the guts to come up to me and sort this out then; why not? Is this what the NRPAI means when it says it's for shooters? Or for shooting unity?

TrapperJohn

BOBTHESHOOTER wrote:

This long running saga really needs to be closed ...

Not at all Bob, this is a great insight into the tactics employed by the ssai to get their spin put on issues and I for one am having great fun watching Sparks dig at you and your esteemed friends refusing to stand up to the plate and argue your points upfront instead of hiding in the long grass.

If these guys are so bent out of shape over someone making representations to the doj then let them take disciplinary action against that person! If there has been no disciplinary action taken to date (bringing the sport into disrepute etc) then whats the big issue, this is nothing but spin against what appears to me to be an honest and very balanced moderator of these boards.

Keep it up sparks, nobody is taken in by these guys and their spin!

tireur

On the issue of disciplinary action Trapper, why did Sparks leave the NTSA committee?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Tireur was sitting in the same room as me in the NTSA AGM less than a fortnight ago and didn't have the guts to come up to me and sort this out then; why not? Is this what the NRPAI means when it says it's for shooters? Or for shooting unity?

I seem to recall watching a debate on shooter unity and "speaking with one voice as being important". I recall you speaking against this saying you do not like to do as asked by the NGBs as you do not like dictatorships and that diissent was fine. Isn't that what this is about?

What you said at the AGM was just inept and amusing but not annoying. It was the tirade you issued on the boards that induced me to see if I could balance off your bile against the NTSA and SSAI .
By the way, I really like the way you use the word unity. You have two meanings for the one word,viz.
1, When critsizing the SSAI or NTSA it is a bad thing meaning dictatorship.
2. When being critisized by others it is something to aspire to.

TrapperJohn

tireur wrote:

On the issue of disciplinary action Trapper, why did Sparks leave the NTSA committee?

Oh, I suppose he stood up and said he was the masked crusader who told the doj that only .22 is needed for Olympic disciplines and then fell on his sword ...

Why ask me? Whats it got to do with this thread? This sort of "answer one question by asking another off subject" is pathetic and the innuendo is laughable .... a straight answer to a straight question is very difficult to get from you guys!

Sparks

why did Sparks leave the NTSA committee?

As with most of what I've done in the past, that's a matter of public record.
Here's the thread.

Sparks

TrapperJohn wrote:

If these guys are so bent out of shape over someone making representations to the doj then let them take disciplinary action against that person!

They might find that a tad akward to do following their own requests:

> From: NRPAI E-Mail
> To: FLAG
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 10:41 PM
> Subject: FW: Derek Bernard's Firearms Law List
> Dear all
> I am very pleased to report that our recent call for support has had an
> international response.
>
> Derek Bernard is a leading authority on the effects of firearms
> legislation with particular reference to restricting the rights of law
> abiding firearms owners, I am very pleased that he has taken the time to
> specifically respond to our proposed amendments and I believe the
> overriding message is a simple one, no matter what is done to regulate the
> legal possession of firearms it makes not one jot of a difference to the
> criminal abuse of firearms, what more evidence do we need.
>
> Please, please pen a few lines in response to the request to comment on
> the DOJ website, when given the opportunity, we must take it.
>
> Regards
> Declan

This was a non-NGB, non-NRPAI, non-Irish shooter privately making representations to the DoJ and being praised by the NRPAI; so the idea of the NRPAI trying to bring charges against someone alleging that they talked to the DoJ without the NRPAI's permission would be daft. Plus, there were various private clubs all having meetings with the DoJ and putting on demos at the time, and this was also being praised by the NRPAI (I have that email too, if you're interested).

tireur

Sparks wrote:

They might find that a tad akward to do following their own requests:


This was a non-NGB, non-NRPAI, non-Irish shooter privately making representations to the DoJ and being praised by the NRPAI; so the idea of the NRPAI trying to bring charges against someone alleging that they talked to the DoJ without the NRPAI's permission would be daft. Plus, there were various private clubs all having meetings with the DoJ and putting on demos at the time, and this was also being praised by the NRPAI (I have that email too, if you're interested).

Sparks, why do you keep missing the point? The issue is not that anyone could or could not make representations to the DOJ, with or without the NRPAI's permission, the issue is that a group of people, styling themselves as an organisation of Target Shooters, did so, to the detriment of shooters in general. The significance of this is born out by the fact that their statements were used by the DOJ in arguments about restricting calibers, not anyone elses!

Sparks

the issue is that a group of people, styling themselves as an organisation of Target Shooters, did so, to the detriment of shooters in general. The significance of this is born out by the fact that their statements were used by the DOJ in arguments about restricting calibers, not anyone elses!

So let me see if I have this right. You say the OCA exists and I'm a part of it; I tell you it doesn't (so far as I know) and I'm not. You say that I said that there should be a calibre limit of .22; I point out that I need higher calibres myself and that I'd have to be daft to ask for that limit, and I've argued against it in the sticky thread on submissions over a year ago. You say that the issue isn't that people could make representations to the DoJ; but that people allegedly did. You say that the NRPAI is all about shooter unity; but you come on here and say that the DoJ is saying that I'm stabbing other disciplines in the back. And even though you could have walked up to me in public a week or so ago and asked me to my face, or indeed at any point from whenever you heard this rumour, you've chosen instead to post it here, now, anonymously, just after a motion to seperate the NTSA from the NRPAI (because the NRPAI couldn't be trusted to act in the best interests of shooters).

Frankly Tireur, I'm not missing the point; I'm seeing it all too depressingly clearly.

And like I said; I've heard the .22 calibre limit bit being mentioned before; but not by me and not in front of me, and to the DoJ. I'm being blamed here for something that someone else did. And the choice of scapegoat is a bit daft, given my record.

tireur

Not a bad summary Sparks, but twisted in some areas. You have been presented with a first hand statement of evidence.You have not presented any counter arguments except denial. and a call to judge you by your track record. I agree with Bob, the debate is over and all that is left is protestation and hot air. To paraphrase the poet "methinks he doth protest too much".

Sparks

tireur wrote:

You have been presented with a first hand statement of evidence.

Where, exactly? I've been presented with two anonymous people claiming to have seen it written in a DoJ file; I've no idea who you are because you've never introduced yourself; I've no idea whether the file exists; and until I get a chance to talk to the DoJ, I've no idea what's in it.

You have not presented any counter arguments except denial.

What the hell would you like me to counter-argue? You say you've seen it, I say I know I never said it, and my track record is out there in public and *everyone* knows how I think on this subject, ad nauseum!

How the hell do you defend yourself from what are at best third-hand allegations from anonymous parties?

civdef

Right, time for the moderator hat.

What we have here is anonymous individuals making allegations against someone who has never made a secret of their identity (i.e. Sparks). Sparks has denied them. I think now would be a good time to remind the said anonymous accusers that they should be careful about how they proceed.

It would be a lot more credible if they identified themselves, and/or produced some evidence for their allegations. Failing that, what we have here is sniping against an individuals reputation, which isn't good for anyone. Frankly it's time to put up or shut up.

I now return you to your scheduled programming....

jaycee

It would be a lot more credible if they identified themselves

Consider that motion seconded .!

In the interest of fairness and good manners ,
If anyone wishes to make accusations against a known individual they
should not hesitate to identify themselves.

It is one of the principals of a fair and just society that one should know ones accusers.

Also ..since the merits and practices of their respective organisations are being discussed they should be willing to defend them openly.