Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information


Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Invitation to NASRPC members...

135

Comments

  • #62
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Bananaman wrote: »
    Did anyone receive a different invite?
    Yes, I did. Others might have as well, I don't know. Everyone's not on boards... yet :D


  • #63
    Bananaman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Bananaman


    Sparks wrote: »
    If you rely on certain things not being widely known that should be more widely known though, the meeting might cause you some stress.

    I was young - I needed the money - I have no regrets.

    B'Man


  • #64
    bunny shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    I was invited too :)


  • #65
    Greenacre
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Greenacre


    Sparks wrote: »
    If you rely on certain things not being widely known that should be more widely known though, the meeting might cause you some stress.

    There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don’t know:D


  • #66
    Mr Mole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭Mr Mole


    I for one, am so glad that I didnt submit questions in respect of the whole farce that is becoming more and more apparent here. I had no doubt it would develop into a mess.

    There is a lot of "Joe said" being quoted, however the only thing anyone can be sure of is that the invitation reproduced here and elsewhere was to members of NASRPC, and only those who wished to submit questions. As we are all aware, "Joe" is well familiar with Boards, and could clarify this matter immediately if he wanted to.

    Lets hear from Joe.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    bunny shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    Why are some people so upset at the idea of "others" being invited?

    Nowhere does it say in the invitation that only NASRPC people are invited to make contributions or ask questions, or have I missed something?


  • #68
    Bananaman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Bananaman


    It is not that there will be other people there - I am curious to hear what these 'rumours' are and what other peoples experience of the SSAI and their FCP representation is.

    However, The invitation asked NASRPC members to publish their question in advance so that the responses could be prepared - which they duly did.

    I also received the invite through another group and it requested the same.

    Now I hear that any tom dick or harry can go - I feel it will be a disaster of epic proportions and the odds of me getting an honest answer to my questions is going downhill rapidly - along with my inclination to go.

    I was at the last open meeting in Abbeyleix - it was an unmitigated disaster - a free for all, there was no agenda, no control of the room, no outcomes - yet it had huge potential for a policy to be outlined and to get the mandate of the 200 people present and the 100's more in their clubs - never happened.

    I suppose what annoys me most is that I am starting to fear it could be a sequel to that one. At least when all questions were posed in advance you knew why you were there. If it is a general whinge, love-in or storytelling exercise I could be doing something better like kicking a wasps nest.

    I'm shooting two competitions on Saturday so I have used up some of next years brownie points to be going to a shooting gig on Sunday aswell - it better be worth it.

    B'Man


  • #69
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Bananaman wrote: »
    Now I hear that any tom dick or harry can go - I feel it will be a disaster of epic proportions and the odds of me getting an honest answer to my questions is going downhill rapidly - along with my inclination to go.
    So you're saying that Joe will lie because the event isn't restricted to only NASRPC-invited guests?
    Hmmm. Interesting...
    I was at the last open meeting in Abbeyleix - it was an unmitigated disaster - a free for all, there was no agenda, no control of the room, no outcomes - yet it had huge potential for a policy to be outlined and to get the mandate of the 200 people present and the 100's more in their clubs - never happened.
    Bull****.
    That meeting was a train wreck before it ever happened, it had no potential whatsoever to effect any change other than to kick off yet another court case that had no hope of succeeding but every hope of bankrupting those involved and dropping the rest of us in even deeper crap than we're currently in.
    Anyone who knew anything about what was going on on the legislative front and who's saying that that meeting had potential is behaving in a deeply dishonest manner.
    I'm shooting two competitions on Saturday so I have used up some of next years brownie points to be going to a shooting gig on Sunday aswell - it better be worth it.
    Hey, if it's that much trouble, don't go. Your questions will still be answered, and I'll post the answers here by early next week (I'll try to get them here by Sunday night, but you know, day jobs, families, brownie points, etc, etc).


  • #70
    Bananaman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Bananaman


    Sparks wrote: »
    So you're saying that Joe will lie because the event isn't restricted to only NASRPC-invited guests?
    Hmmm. Interesting...

    No - I'm saying the odds of my question getting answered are diminishing.
    Bull****.
    That meeting was a train wreck before it ever happened, it had no potential whatsoever to effect any change other than to kick off yet another court case that had no hope of succeeding but every hope of bankrupting those involved and dropping the rest of us in even deeper crap than we're currently in.
    Anyone who knew anything about what was going on on the legislative front and who's saying that that meeting had potential is behaving in a deeply dishonest manner.

    That was the largest group of people from the broadest swathe of the shooting community I have ever seen in one room. They wanted 'something' to happen. It was the bets opportunity we ever had, or may ever have again for consensus.
    There was a call for a legal challenge to what was destroying our sports - that was one option. There were others. None of them were discusses properly. It just turned into a storytelling marathon.

    Regardless of what options could have been discussed, broken down and finally agreed to, they had their FCP representative chairing the meeting.
    He could have gone back to the FCP with a mandate from that room - which would, by me at least, have been the result of real consultation and be able to state unequivocally, that was the opinion of the shooting community, as represented by him and the FCP would have had to deal with that on its merits.

    Unfortunately that opportunity to have our voices heard was squandered.

    But I digress - that was in the past - it was a whinge fest - I just wanT the questions I posed answered to my satisfaction and not have to sit through another whinge fest or storytelling marathon.

    B'Man


  • #71
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Bananaman wrote: »
    No - I'm saying the odds of my question getting answered are diminishing.
    That's not what you said at all. You said as the meeting got more participants, that the odds of you getting an honest answer were going down.
    Perhaps you could refrain from the defamation just a tad? Or even altogether?
    That was the largest group of people from the broadest swathe of the shooting community I have ever seen in one room. They wanted 'something' to happen. It was the bets opportunity we ever had, or may ever have again for consensus.
    Crap. I was there too, don't forget. What that meeting was was a large group of people who'd been (in my honest opinion) lied to to rile them up by people who hadn't a clue about the facts of what they were talking about, and it was well inside the character of those people. The fact that the chair of that meeting disassociated himself from those pushing for it as soon as he learnt of their past history says all that needs saying about the nature of the push for that meeting to my mind.
    There was a call for a legal challenge to what was destroying our sports - that was one option. There were others. None of them were discusses properly. It just turned into a storytelling marathon.
    The legal challange was a joke from the get-go. People were surprised that Michael McDowell turned down the chance to be the barrister? FFS. The group had no money and was a clear conflict of interest and they still thought they'd get McDowell to legally challange legislation he'd written. And that was seen as an option?
    Those who weren't well informed as to the legislative process (ie, half the top table and 90% of the attendees), I could understand, but the remainder were taking the mickey showing up to advocate a legal approach like that.
    Regardless of what options could have been discussed, broken down and finally agreed to, they had their FCP representative chairing the meeting.
    No, they did not. Joe was there as an ordinary attendee; and frankly, was not exactly made to feel welcome to attend in advance. Not as unwelcome as some of us, who were basicly threatened openly at the start of the meeting, which speaks volumes to its inclusiveness, but still.
    He could have gone back to the FCP with a mandate from that room
    No, he could not.
    The room had 200-odd people. The SSAI has a lot more. 200 strangers uninformed shouting being used as a mandate for a group designed to represent its members through a well-defined mechanism? Yeah, right, that'd be representative. Why not let ICABS come to a meeting and decide NARGC board policy while you're at it?
    which would, by me at least, have been the result of real consultation
    Dictionaries. Seriously, they're not that expensive. Invest in one.
    and be able to state unequivocally, that was the opinion of the shooting community
    It wasn't!
    Unfortunately that opportunity to have our voices heard was squandered.
    It wasn't an opportunity for anything but an attempt by the usual suspects to be little hitlers once more. Ego-driven, information-berefit and about as much good to a community as a hefty dose of cholera.

    I can't be more straightforward than that I think.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Bananaman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Bananaman


    You believe what you want to believe.

    I see it as a missed opportunity.

    B'Man

    PS: Please stop trying to claim I defamed anyone.


  • #73
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Bananaman wrote: »
    You believe what you want to believe.
    I saw what I saw.
    PS: Please stop trying to claim I defamed anyone.
    You said you wouldn't get an honest answer. If you don't want to defame someone, you ought to clarify what you meant and choose your words more carefully.


  • #74
    bunny shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    Bananaman wrote: »
    It is not that there will be other people there - I am curious to hear what these 'rumours' are and what other peoples experience of the SSAI and their FCP representation is.

    And you shall AT the meeting. That's what it's for :p
    Bananaman wrote: »
    However, The invitation asked NASRPC members to publish their question in advance so that the responses could be prepared - which they duly did.

    As did I, except mine went straight to Joe as I'm not in any way affiliated to NASRPC.
    Bananaman wrote: »
    Now I hear that any tom dick or harry can go - I feel it will be a disaster of epic proportions and the odds of me getting an honest answer to my questions is going downhill rapidly - along with my inclination to go.

    My name is not Tom, Dick or Harry, just for the record. It IS NOT an open meeting. I forwarded a few rumours I have heard to Joe that could directly affect me and my sport. I'm getting answers there. Same as you and your members.
    Sparks wrote: »
    ............who were basicly threatened openly at the start of the meeting.................

    That is beyond contempt IMO.


  • #75
    Bananaman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Bananaman


    What you saw was an unmitigated disaster - a whinge fest - a storytelling marathon - a meeting that was badly chaired - I saw it as a missed opportunity

    B'Man


  • #76
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bunny shooter wrote: »
    That is beyond contempt IMO.
    I thought so at the time as well. But, funny story, modding any forum tends to get you a thick skin sooner or later :D


  • #77
    bunny shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67892387&postcount=2

    B'man I draw your attention to this extract from Joe's original invitation. In your organisation's rewriting of it for the NASRPC site you must have forgot this part.........

    "I will hold a meeting for all those who have expressed their concerns in this manner on any matter , any rumour they have heard , any supposed fact that causes them unease, any case in which they think they have been treated unfairly by their shooting representatives , even any story they have heard of any 'Deal' that has been done to disadvantage them."

    So, every Tom, Dick & Harry could forward their concerns, questions and rumours for clarification as I have.


  • #78
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    I won't be able to make this meeting because of other commitments. But even if I could, I wouldn't. I've been at too many of these to believe that it will be anything more than a whingefest, with those arriving with preconceived ideas, unwilling or unable to accept the facts where they diverge with whatever notions they prefer to the truth.

    Sparks alluded in an earlier post to lack of information being promulgated. No doubt there has been a certain amount of 'information deficit', but where information has been circulated, or even where people have been in a position to hear the facts from the 'horses mouth' as it were, it's been ignored or dismissed or rubbished where it doesn't fit the framework of previously prepared or inserted positions.

    It is unremittingly depressing that people who should be capable of using their critical faculties, signally fail to do so wherever there is a steaming pile of crap to be ingested instead. Rather than deal with the current problems facing the shooting community (and in particular the target shooting community), it seems that remaining in denial and pointing the finger at anyone but oneself is a far more attractive proposition.

    Not one of said steaming turds that's ever been served up to me as fact, has withstood even the most cursory inspection, but what's even more depressing is the inability of people to understand that what smells, feels and looks like a turd, is in fact one :rolleyes:. On that level, I really feel for Joe in the ordeal he is facing into. There are many (not one or two) people, who for whatever reason wish only to cause dissent and dissatisfaction or who are so twisted, can only see the world through the prism of their own warped agendas. For the record, it is always more instructive to look at the rumour monger rather than the target of the rumour. Clarity almost always lies along that path.

    The real problems facing us are the lack of attendance at shoots which is a 32 county wide issue, so not directly related to the legislative framework here and the allied threat to the future existence of clubs.


  • #79
    sidneyreilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 649 ✭✭✭sidneyreilly


    Sparks wrote: »
    So you're saying that Joe will lie because the event isn't restricted to only NASRPC-invited guests?
    Hmmm. Interesting...


    Bull****.
    That meeting was a train wreck before it ever happened, it had no potential whatsoever to effect any change other than to kick off yet another court case that had no hope of succeeding but every hope of bankrupting those involved and dropping the rest of us in even deeper crap than we're currently in.
    Anyone who knew anything about what was going on on the legislative front and who's saying that that meeting had potential is behaving in a deeply dishonest manner.

    Hey, if it's that much trouble, don't go. Your questions will still be answered, and I'll post the answers here by early next week (I'll try to get them here by Sunday night, but you know, day jobs, families, brownie points, etc, etc).

    With respect Bman and Sparks, I think you are discussing two different meetings.


  • #80
    xesse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 204 ✭✭xesse


    Where did this guy get his mag for the pistol????how many rounds does it hold?
    Sparks wrote: »
    Haven't spoken to him in a while, but jaycee's been encountering lots of people who believe the oddest things. For example, there's apparently quite a few who think he's anti-pistol.
    As in, this guy, is anti-pistol:
    dscf5325b.gif

    And then there are the usual political bits and pieces, usually along the lines of "you sold out X to save Y", in all the possible variations.

    And then there are the ordinary questions, asking "what good is the FCP", "Why aren't we suing the Minister to get pistols back", "what was all this about?" and so on.

    But to be honest, even the idea of doing something like this is a nice one IMHO.


  • #81
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    xesse wrote: »
    Where did this guy get his mag for the pistol????how many rounds does it hold?
    Don't know where he got the mag, I think it came with the pistol, and it's a standard CZ mag from what I know of them. Eight rounds I think? I don't remember too well.
    (And yes, it's restricted these days).


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Sparks wrote: »
    Don't know where he got the mag, I think it came with the pistol, and it's a standard CZ mag from what I know of them. Eight rounds I think? I don't remember too well.
    (And yes, it's restricted these days).
    It's a joke Sparks. As it's a continual loop, it looks like it's got an infinite mag capacity. :D


  • #83
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Ah, I see. Sorry rrpc, the meeting today ran on for five hours and my brain is somewhat suffering as a side effect...


  • #84
    Bananaman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Bananaman


    Sparks wrote: »
    Ah, I see. Sorry rrpc, the meeting today ran on for five hours and my brain is somewhat suffering as a side effect...

    Hate to say I told you so

    as far as I know the standard CZ mags are either 18 or 20 rounds

    B'Man


  • #85
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Bananaman wrote: »
    Hate to say I told you so
    At least you got all the answers you wanted!


  • #86
    Bananaman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Bananaman


    Sparks wrote: »
    At least you got all the answers you wanted!

    That is a matter of perspective - I don't think too many of the questions posed got asked - never mind answered - all the questions I got answers to I put to the floor at the meeting - none of my submitted questions made it onto the altar

    B'Man


  • #87
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    About two-thirds were asked and answered by my count B'man - and be fair, you did use a lot of the floor time digging into the details of the other questions.


  • #88
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Bananaman wrote: »
    none of my submitted questions made it onto the altar
    Actually, B'man, Joe's pointed out your list of questions - and all of them were answered. The ISC stuff, the Ranges SI stuff, the AGM stuff, everything.


  • #89
    Bananaman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Bananaman


    Sparks wrote: »
    ..... and be fair, you did use a lot of the floor time digging into the details of the other questions.

    More that I didn't know what question was being answered a lot of the time.

    There was a lot of referring to emails from before I got into shooting and outlining precedences for things happening - for which I didn't understand the context or did not find relevant to the questions that had been posed - so I asked for the context or relevance and then sought an answer in the here and now.

    In a lot of cases I felt that the answer went on so long I no longer knew what the question was - so looked upon the screen to see what the current questions were and simply summarised what I believed the answer to be for confirmation.

    In a few cases I picked out specific questions that people had posed - as I felt, as examples, specifically needed answering rather than getting lumped into a category for which there was one boiler plate answer to cover all questions.

    In a few cases I tried to dilute it to a simple yes/no answer - which is all anyone wanted in many cases - as we all had long drives home ahead of us.

    And in a couple of cases where Joe could not find his supporting documentation or the wording of something - such as the contentious aspects of the Draft Range S.I. - I read em out for him seeing as there had been so many questions from so many people about it - that I felt it important we were dealing with the specifics.

    I'd see it more as facilitating the meeting and trying to keep it on track rather than "use a lot of the floor time" but then i was inside my own head looking out - perhaps others saw it differently.

    B'Man


  • #90
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Bananaman wrote: »
    More that I didn't know what question was being answered a lot of the time.
    Oh come off it B'man, they were up on the projector and Joe was reading out the questions before starting into each area. Just because there was duplication between questioners doesn't mean that there was obfuscation going on.
    There was a lot of referring to emails from before I got into shooting
    That's because a lot of the questions asked about things which arose from those emails. If someone asks a question of Joe that goes back to stuff that happened some time ago, what's he supposed to do, tell them it's ancient history and refuse to answer? Or do what he did, and lay out what happened and why?
    I asked for the context or relevance and then sought an answer in the here and now.
    And got that context and answer. Even when it dragged the meeting on. Which was ironic, but you were asking.
    In a lot of cases I felt that the answer went on so long I no longer knew what the question was - so looked upon the screen to see what the current questions were and simply summarised what I believed the answer to be for confirmation.
    B'man, a lot of those cases dragged on for so long because people wanted full answers and to ask questions about those answers, and Joe didn't shut anyone down because that was the point of the meeting.
    Given that you had your fair share of that kind of to-and-fro digging into things, it's a bit disingenuous to now claim that that wasn't desirable.
    In a few cases I tried to dilute it to a simple yes/no answer - which is all anyone wanted in many cases - as we all had long drives home ahead of us.
    "Dear Joe, did you shaft us, yes or no?"
    "No"
    "How can you say no Joe, you obviously did, QED, I'm going home".

    There's a reason for giving full answers B'man - of the 20 or so people in that room, at least six had serious personal grievances and axes to grind. And there's a difference between giving out any and all information on any questions asked; and letting some get their boot in without pointing out that they're full of it.
    And in a couple of cases where Joe could not find his supporting documentation or the wording of something - such as the contentious aspects of the Draft Range S.I. - I read em out for him seeing as there had been so many questions from so many people about it - that I felt it important we were dealing with the specifics.
    Oh what a load of horse****.
    Joe was sitting up there with (by my rough count) twenty-odd folders and about ten inches of a stack of paper. Of course it took time to find stuff; and I can only remember one case where he didn't have stuff with him, and he said he'd pass it along.
    I'd see it more as facilitating the meeting and trying to keep it on track rather than "use a lot of the floor time" but then i was inside my own head looking out - perhaps others saw it differently.
    Somewhat :D
    I figure with Michael at the top table facilitating and Joe chairing, the audience's role wasn't really to facilitate the meeting.
    The phrase we'd use on the forum is "back-seat modding"...


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Bananaman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Bananaman


    You're assuming I am giving out - I was just clarifying what I spent my fair share of floor time on and why.

    There were plenty of people there who would have no domain knowledge of what was being talked about - so I asked - plenty of other people sought or gave clarifications also

    No need to get argumentative - it was just a waffle session - hardly the UN security council

    B'Man

    B'Man


Advertisement