dromia wrote:
The reasons outlined by John 25 above is not the experience I have of most shooters who truly year for a good healthy single national shooting organisation. The current bunch of "national" shysters have lost any respect amongst most shooters I know, the sooner they all bankrupt themselves and wither on the vine the sooner we can move on with hope of creating something better. In fact anything has to be better than the crap we currently have.
Dromia, I was originally all in favour of NATSS (Apart from the title)
Following a walk around NSRA and CPSA in 'mufti' when I was Senior Ranges Supervisor, and, having listened to the views of the employees and members of those organisations, and listening to the views of sporting clay shooters, I formed the opinion I stated above.
Whilst I agree with you that there a many shooters of all disciplines who hanker for a unified voice (Me for one) there were, and probably still are, too many who proffer the arguments I have listed.
There simply were too many obstacles and lack of motivation, or the will, to compromise
Slighlty off topic, a very senior NRA official once said to me that he doesn't like the name National Rifle Association because it sounds too right wing, like the NRA of America!
wtfwtf What chance then of a unified and strong voice? More especially with a 'weak' name?
:cheers:
