The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Gun Pimp wrote:But, if the NRA and NSRA can't amalgamate - when they do exactly the same thing in the same place - NATSS never really had a chance.

Um they don't do the same thing in the same place.

Personally I think Performance Matters did very well out of it as I certainly didn't see any money heading towards any of the NGBs! One person from the CPSA was appointed to coordinate stuff but I doubt he was paid a fortune.

I also would love to see the accounts for NATSS but I doubt if I ever will

It was a complete mess but it was not the fault of the NRA, NSRA or CPSA!

Love

Karen

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:

John25 wrote: 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!

And that senior official and another tried very hard to change the name of the NRA by some very devious methods including adjusting General Council minutes to imply that GC had agreed to a name change - we hadn't and he was stopped!

Love

karen

I know this is an old thread but a single governing body is something I have been banging on about for years, massive IF we could all shoot under one umbrella then we would have a louder voice and I would go as far as to make it law that you had to be a member to own a firearm of any type, while controversial I know, at least we just may have a voice that people ( the rats in Westminster ) would listen to.


Essexboy

I think the closed shop was outlawed last century.

Clearing a forest is difficult: different sizes of trees, different root systems, hard and soft woods. On the other hand, cutting down one big tree is easy-----. Has it occured to anybody that the diversity of our sport and the large number of groups and organisations makes us difficult to dictate to. Who was the prime mover in seeking to bring all the shooting disciplines together? The Home Office?
Fred

IainWR wrote:I think the closed shop was outlawed last century.

I presume that you have a driving licence?

FredB wrote:Clearing a forest is difficult: different sizes of trees, different root systems, hard and soft woods. On the other hand, cutting down one big tree is easy-----. Has it occured to anybody that the diversity of our sport and the large number of groups and organisations makes us difficult to dictate to. Who was the prime mover in seeking to bring all the shooting disciplines together? The Home Office?
Fred

Fred

As far as I remember from the time Sport England wanted to have only one body to talk too regarding funding the various Shooting Sports, it was nothing to do with the Home Office.

Alan

essexboy wrote:

IainWR wrote:I think the closed shop was outlawed last century.

I presume that you have a driving licence?

?

IainWR wrote:

essexboy wrote:

IainWR wrote:I think the closed shop was outlawed last century.

I presume that you have a driving licence?

?

Less cryptic then, I presume you were alluring to the fact that my idea was a closed shop? If so then I suppose anytime you are required by law or otherwise to take part in an activity that you must join/ attain a certain accreditation is like wise.
Try shooting at bisley without being a member in some form,
Try walking into the Garrick club without being a member,
Try driving a car without a licence.

All closed shops in there own right, if you disagree with my idea then fair enough, I can't say that all being separate entities in the shooting world has worked to well up to now, the idea of all pulling in the same direction seems to make sense to me and if it would take it being law to join the national shooting organisation then so be it, not that I'm a fan in any shape or for in any colour of government. At the moment all we seem to have is each organisation trying to stand up for there little piece of turf.
To crib a line out of a pretty duff film
The needs of the many out way the needs of the few or one.

Essexboy