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

I dont know if its just me or not, but a lot of posts on this particular thread seem to strike me as having double standards!!

Here it appears that it is perfectly acceptable to post what you want, but under the Gun shop section experiences/opinions are regulated by the 'Scotsgun Ruling'.

How does slating this organisation differ from explaining a possible negative deal with a certain retailer?

CK :?

I do not see it as double standards.

In the Gun Shop section we are talking about businesses, people earning a living or trying to in this current climate.
They are individuals who can sue for libel.

The NRA is a public body and it will hopefully only grow better from the criticism it gets here. Of course the criticism has to be well founded and not just unfounded negative comments.

christel wrote:In the Gun Shop section we are talking about businesses, people earning a living or trying to in this current climate.
They are individuals who can sue for libel.

Does this not apply here?

As you all know I am new to this sport and upon reading the post from certain forum members it would not be unsurprising if I decided that the NRA was not for me (as could be the case for others in my situation), this in turn effects the ability of the NRA to raise funds, which may effect the staffing that the NRA has, do I need to go on?

Dont mean to stir anything, I'm just curious

CK :?

No, the NRA is a national body, not an individual.

What is being discussed here, hopefully in a professional and well documented manner, are the policies of the NRA, not an individual's reputation.

At least that is the way I see it, please correct me if I am wrong?

The problem as I see it is NRA employed individuals cannot easily reply to such a post as they are effectively setting a stake in the ground. I am sure heather would love to say something but she could be criticised for taking sides one way or the other, which just leaves NRA members that agree for the most with what the NRA offers to fight the NRA corner.

My view is the NRA gives me rifle insurance at a good rate, additionally I have third party liability cover and access to a legal team and access to Bisley which is a brilliant place to shoot. the NSC is around 65 miles from home and despite being a nightmare drive sometimes (M1/M25) is well worth the visit.

As far as NRA politics go I have no views as such. I guess I had better read a bit more of the other thread.

sorry have edited my last post since you posted

CK :roll:

For me the fundamental difference is that these organisations have chosen to occupy these boards and have a presence here, on an open forum that invites peoples views and opinions. As that is what forums like these are for.

As I am probably seen as one of the leading challengers of the NRA I should say that I have nothing but respect for the individuals from the NRA who come here to fight a corner. The sad thing is that we get no corporate response to my criticism and suggestions which does leave the NRA employees here out on a limb a bit.

All that I say here I also have fed into the NRA as a member and as such I have the right to hold views on the organisation and express them, especially as the NRA purports to be a member led organisation.

The thing that is particularly interesting to come out from the discusions here is how the NRA members who feel they are getting something from the NRA are those who are able to use Bisley.

I just feel that the NRA should be more than just Bisley.

I rest my case.

Yeah, in regards to which organisation to support I see where you are coming from, CK.

I know it sounds very simple and that is because I am avoiding the political element however they all provide insurance for your outfit and legal aid.
Do you want to shoot at Bisley independently of your club, then you need membership.

If not and supporting the country side is what you like to do then BASC is for you.

dromia wrote:The thing that is particularly interesting to come out from the discusions here is how the NRA members who feel they are getting something from the NRA are those who are able to use Bisley.

I just feel that the NRA should be more than just Bisley.

I rest my case.

In this respect I wholeheartedly agree that the NRA has to be more than just Bisley to survive long term. Regarding geographical location it is probably easier to get to Diggle than Bisley on a bad day, certainly I get home from Diggle a lot easier than Bisley on a Friday afternoon. That is not Bisley's fault, that is our national road infrastructure as a whole.

I love Bisley and have shot and competed there regulary for many years one of the best range complexes in the country and the old colonial feel is something to be cherished.

At the end of the day it is a shooting facility, the NRA purports to be a member lead organisation that supports shooters and target shooting, the two are still conflated in peoples minds and that is one of the reasons why the NRA needs to separate from Bisley so as to be and be seen to be more than just a potentially great shooting facility.

My NRA membership used to confer distant shooters some benefits that helped offset the cost of attending Bisley but for reasons that has stopped, if the only thing that NRA helps you with is shooting at Bisley then it cannot be a National organisation.