The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Shawn S on August 12, 2007, 08:12:55 PM
-
Here's a link to an interview with an NRA board member Joaquin Jackson who is against rifles holding more than 5 rounds. Hopefully he doesn't convince other board members to share his views.
http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/jackson.asp (http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/jackson.asp) It is the last video clip on this page.
-
Noticed the NRA is becoming useless or dangerous.
Remember the 2nd amendment and support Ron Paul not the NRA.
-
It looks like the interview is from 2005, I guess I should have investigated it better before posting the link. I have no idea wether he is still a board member or not.
-
Noticed the NRA is becoming useless or dangerous.
Remember the 2nd amendment and support Ron Paul not the NRA.
OK, he is one member of a 4 million member organization, and you are gonna use this as an argument not to join the NRA??? Give me a break. As my main man John Taffin said in the last issue of GUNS magazine, shooters that are not NRA members are parasites feeding off the time and money of the rest of us.
-
I don't know about "parasites", but someone said it best when they called the NRA "Our 800 pound gorilla on capitol hill".
I don't agree with everything they put out and they can be quite shrill about stuff, but they DO get the attention of these knucklehead politicians, and that is important.
I just wish they wouldn't spend my entire yearly dues sending me requests for more money.
-
I would say that he is a bit more than a member as he is on the Board of Directors. The question is how many other Board members also share his view, and how far up the chain does it go?
-Bidah
-
OK, he is one member of a 4 million member organization, and you are gonna use this as an argument not to join the NRA??? Give me a break. As my main man John Taffin said in the last issue of GUNS magazine, shooters that are not NRA members are parasites feeding off the time and money of the rest of us.
Sounds to me like the NRA"brainwashing" is working. ;) Now I see why they spend all that cash on stamps. :o
-
Here's a link to an interview with an NRA board member Joaquin Jackson who is against rifles holding more than 5 rounds. Hopefully he doesn't convince other board members to share his views.
http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/jackson.asp (http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/jackson.asp) It is the last video clip on this page.
Many people are surprised to learn the NRA is America's oldest gun control advocacy group as recently reaffirmed by their support of the voice vote to "keep guns out of the wrong hands" by expanding the NICS database to include anyone who is allegedly mentally defective.
But for historical context here is the testimony of then NRA President Karl Frederick before Congress in 1934:
MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"
If he had his way, pistols would be under the same Class III restrictions machineguns and sawed off shotguns are today.
Remember in 1934 a $200 "tax" was financially crippling especially when the weapon involved might cost only $10.00 which in
and of itself was as much as a week or two worth of pay for the working classes.
Here is a link to the entire column:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp
Best regards,
-
Now we are going back to 1934???? So, guys, what orgainization out there is better or has more influence than the NRA? Tell me and I will join them today. The NRA is the only game in town, like them or not. Yeah, they have done things in the past that they should not have done. But they basically tried to stay out of politics completely untill the 60s! If not for the NRA, you would have no gun rights today, period. You can choose to not believe that if you want to, but that is the truth.
-
The danger becomes the government - they decide who is a criminal and/ or mentally unfit.
Governments have alway been the biggest mass murders.
Our government has murdered our own many times, from experiments with syphillis on a black town to radiation - all done with full knowledge of the outcome.
Second amendment, whats left of it, along with other rights were to protect us from government and Hitler want a bees.
The now beginning financial distaster in our economy is also a consequence of power hungry politicians.
-
The danger becomes the government - they decide who is a criminal and/ or mentally unfit.
Governments have alway been the biggest mass murders.
Our government has murdered our own many times, from experiments with syphillis on a black town to radiation - all done with full knowledge of the outcome.
Second amendment, whats left of it, along with other rights were to protect us from government and Hitler want a bees.
The now beginning financial distaster in our economy is also a consequence of power hungry politicians.
Amen, Brother. One little quibble though, the economic disaster will not be allowed to happen, because it is all about the money these days. No one in power wants to see their economic base destroyed, so it will be averted, or minimized, so the rich and powerful stay that way.
The only way the economics can fail is if someone wants them to fail, to destroy or punish their rivals or us uppity peons.
-
This jerk is just like one of the justices that sit on the supreme court, you have to have 1 jackass or they all look bad and it looks like some kind of conspiracy or a bunch of gun nuts. I give little credance to the article and wont worry about him.
-
Now we are going back to 1934???? So, guys, what orgainization out there is better or has more influence than the NRA? Tell me and I will join them today. The NRA is the only game in town, like them or not. Yeah, they have done things in the past that they should not have done. But they basically tried to stay out of politics completely untill the 60s! If not for the NRA, you would have no gun rights today, period. You can choose to not believe that if you want to, but that is the truth.
Sooooo, if we present you with material "ripped from today's headlines"--the NRA Complicity with voice votes to expand Brady Bill
NICS checks against a large population of potentially innocent people, you look the other way.
If we present you with the thoughts of a BOARD MEMBER, you declare him insignificant.
If we remind you those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it with an NRA quote from 1934 you declare that old news.
Tell me, is there anything we can say or do or not say or not do that will remind you the 76 million gunowners (out of some 80 million) who take the 2nd Amendment seriously do not endorse or join the NRA, America's oldest gun confiscation advocacy group?
The NRA does to the 2nd Amendment Community the same thing other "community leaders" (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, CAIR) do to their repective communities: stifle the true thoughts and feelings of the majority in favor of a carefully scripted point of view that fixes things that are not broken until they are ruined beyond repair.
The NRA- always available when you do not need them and never around when you do.
What organization has more influence than the NRA? The 76 million American gunowners who belong to the unorganized militia.
Let the word go forth from this time and place the torch has passed to a new generation of Americans, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow erosion of those freedoms America's sons and daughters have died to defend around the world.
We ain't interested in your Grandfather's NRA. Pass the word.
Best regards,
-
Are you talking about the 76 million gun owners that just voted in the liberal Democrats? Or just stayed at home on their butts instead of voting at all? The same bunch that will look the other way when those same liberals ban your guns because the liberals view the NRA the same as you? What politician would dare to stand up to 80 million people, untied in one voice? But, no, only 4 million do the work of 80 million. And when something gets passed you don't like the first thing you cry is where was the NRA?
-
Here is the official answer
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9899
-
Statement of Joaquin Jackson
Recently, concerns have been raised in response to statements made by NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson to Texas Monthly in 2005. We have received questions from NRA members who are seeking clarity as to NRA’s positions on the subject matter discussed in Mr. Jackson’s interview. To be clear, NRA supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to Keep and Bear Arms for all lawful purposes. We will continue, as we have in the past, to vigorously oppose any efforts to limit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment freedoms. These efforts include opposition to any attempts to ban firearms, including firearms incorrectly referred to as "assault weapons", and any attempts to place arbitrary limits on magazine capacity.
For more information on NRA's legislative efforts to protect and defend the Second Amendment, please visit www.NRAILA.org and www.Clintongunban.com.
STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN JACKSON
Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.
In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.
In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.
As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.
But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.
Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.
I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.
I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.
-
As the above statement makes clear, some folks are only too quick to jump to judgement and condemn the NRA and it's members.
-
Here is the official answer
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9899
Thanks Haz for the link, its good to know what the real view is. I can not BELIEVE that the media would contort info for their own gains. >:( Nope Just Can Not Be Man! :-\ I am not one to forgive anybody for offending the gun rights of anybody, but to change a dudes words around and expect me to group him with Zumbo, Hilliary, Rosies and other gun/freedom grabbers ....... cant do it. As for the 76million non NRA members. If the NRA's membership was free and they(NRA) did all the leg work, along with running the ship only on donations, the membership would SPIKE in my opinion 10fold. But the NRA is "Big Business" and that will not happen.
-
Sure am glad he cleared the air with that explanation. ::) Since he stated he was considering only full autos to be assault weapons and that the magazine capacity limit he talked about was purely for hunting regs only, then at the end of the clip he must be advocating hunting with full autos, as long as it has a 5 round limit.
His words in the interview were. as far as assault weapons to a civilian, it's alright as long as you got that magazine capacity down to five"
I'm not trying to bash the NRA here at all, I think without them we would be screwed, I just hope they don't get too many board members with this guys views. Or if you accept his explanation, then I hope they don't get too many board members with his lack of communication skills while giving interviews.
-
Thank you for the update, I met Joaquin just before fathers day last year at a Dallas, Tx gunshow, and bought 2 copies of his book, that he signed for me. Seemed very straight forward, unfortunately, we only talked for about 5 minutes. Good book too.
What this discussion has brought up though is who's running our business? Well the people we either worked for to get elected to Congress, the Senate, The Presidency, the board of directors for the NRA, the board of directors of our local gun club, our mayor, our city council, our county sheriff, our local school board, etc... OR the PEOPLE who worked while we played to get the people they wanted in those positions. I was like most until 1994 election year and I got a crash course in politics. To get people you want, first you have to find them, then they have to be willing to do the job. Then you need a lot of people like you who agree on this person. ( the problem with Ron Paul, I agree with a lot of his beliefs, but sorry, he is not electable in today's United States. ) then we have to get the war chest going. Publicity of any kind. Come up with fundraising events, sign building parties, interviews, phone banks, anything to get this person on the map. Now we've just seen the tip of the iceberg.
For those people who are now elected who are not representing your views. Call them, fax them, e-mail them, show up at their office for the second amendments sake!!! Get organized locally. You would be surprised how many neighbors feel just like you, but don't feel they can make a difference. Talk to your local or national radio programs if you can find the time and bring up the 2nd amendment again and again.
Our greatest strength has been forever, the silent majority, any ideas who that is?? Voter turn out is at best 50%, no poll in the world knows what these people are thinking. But things have to get real ugly before they turn out, and in 1994 they did, the reason was gun control.. Some of you posters are very eloquent and passionate, why not run for city council? Probably because your too busy ( I'm the same way ) but who's gonna do it in your place?
My favorite bumper sticker. LIFE - is what happens while your making other plans. Same thing with politics.
-
Statement of Joaquin Jackson
In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles.
While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously.
No, you were, or should have been talking about the 2nd Amendment which you clearly do not understand, ipso, ergo and therefore please resign your seat on the NRA Board immediately.
There is NO distinction between citizen ownership of fully automatic and semi automatic weapons and the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.
Any current distinction that exists is an UnConstitutional Usurpation invented by Bolsheviks who should never have been allowed to acquire power in the United States Government.
Pass the word.
-
Are you talking about the 76 million gun owners that just voted in the liberal Democrats? Or just stayed at home on their butts instead of voting at all? The same bunch that will look the other way when those same liberals ban your guns because the liberals view the NRA the same as you? What politician would dare to stand up to 80 million people, untied in one voice? But, no, only 4 million do the work of 80 million. And when something gets passed you don't like the first thing you cry is where was the NRA?
No, I talk about the 76 million gun owners who tire of the double-crossing double-dealing double-talk from politicians of all persuasions.
Bi-partisan is simply code for one party rule by Oligarachy, or more accurately, Kakistocracy.
I know exactly where the NRA is, because I have seen them at work in my neck of the woods.
We ran at least one NRA lobbyist out of town on a rail when she got caught making one too many backroom deals undercutting the efforts of local 2nd Amendment activists.
If the NRA wants to get my attention and my support after my membership expires they can purchase 4 million copies of
JPFO's Documentary "THE GANG" and distribute it to their entire membership.
If you are not working to repeal 1994 gun control, 1986 gun control, 1968 gun control, 1934 gun control-ad nauseum you do not understand the 2nd Amendment and you support Sarah Brady and her agenda.
It is just exactly that simple and clear. Pass the word.
Best regards,
-
This is an interesting thread to read and it reflects issues that are important.
I wrote the following a couple of years ago and I want to share it with you:
As many of you know, my home country was Norway for over 46 years. I was "forced" into pro-gun activities in 1997 when I started my promotion of Cowboy Action Shooting (CAS) in Scandinavia. I had to. To deal with the authorities without knowledge was like trying to shoot a CAS stage and forget to load the firearms at the loading table. I became a Firearms Law Expert in my home territory. So when CAS was approved by the Justice Department, I simply continued with the general pro-gun engagements and still do, both in Norway and here in the US.
I have also been a NRA member for many years, even before I ended up in Kansas. Before that happened, many questioned my NRA membership and being a Norwegian. What's the purpose? For me, it was not an option, it was a must. There are no international bodies for pro-gun activities, but I want my US friends to know that in my book, the NRA is also important internationally. Their hard work on many issues (like the UN agenda), has an impact across the borders. Supporting NRA is the right thing to do, no matter where you live.
In Norway, they do not have a constitutional right to own a firearm like here in the US. The Norwegian founding fathers forgot about that right when they wrote the constitution back in 1814. History buffs claim they forgot because owning a firearm was common sense. Well, we all know what happened to common sense......
What the Norwegians have like other European countries are "privileges under current laws". For them, that means they can own firearms if they can document a legal need and have the personal requirements (law abiding, no mental history, etc.). These privileges can be lost within a year. Look at England and Australia.
Talking to many US citizens about the 2nd amendment, I have the impression many take their rights for granted. Knowing that 4 million gun owners out of 80 million are NRA members, it is to me obvious that my impression is correct.
The irony behind statements like the ones from Mr. Jackson and Zombo, is that they are wake up calls for all of us and to realize that the ongoing attempts to rock the foundation of the 2nd amendment can come from within. Jackson's statement was according to post comments taken out of context. The Zombo statement was a huge screw up written too early in the morning.
Regardless of reasons, when comments like these hit the public, different groups for both sides of the table start hammering. What I register and with a huge portion of sadness, is that our side does not unite as much as the other side. We tend to split even more. I have experienced it in Europe and I see it clearly on this side of the pond as well. The 800 pound gorilla is as good as we allow him to be. He can lean forward with 4 million members behind him, but can you imagine the impact with 40 million?
For me and with my limited rights as a permanent resident in the US, it is hard to understand why the vast majority of my fellow gun owners here in the US would rather search for alternatives to the NRA or as most of do, simply take a passive stand than to help push the gorilla forward.
What we have seen in England and Australia can happen here. Not overnight and as fast as the gun bans overseas, but the US anti gun machinery is oiled and also fueled by international pressure and influence. It is driving forward using many different routes to reach it's objective. Here's just an example of one of them:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=3200&issue=
-
Thank you Marshal for posting that. As you say, too many gun owners take what we have for granted. I pray they do not wake up one day and our rights are gone because they did not agree with the NRA on 100% of the issues, or get tired of a little "junk mail" every now and then. I wonder what Washington would think of folks now a days that would not join a cause of this importance because of "junk mail"? Or folks that spend hundreds of bucks each year on deer season, new guns, etc., but won't send the NRA a lousy $35 so they can continue to enjoy their rights?
-
Here is the official answer
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9899
Good work Hazcat! Nothing like a little information.
Now, for the ones that aren't voting members of the NRA, become one. If you don't like the organization, maybe you don't have good information...thanks again to Hazcat. There are a lot of NRA members out there to ask...but I think some people blindlessly bitch to clear their conscience (sp?) so they don't have to feel bad about not sending in money to somebody....these would be the people at the bar who have fishhooks in their pockets.
How about doing something special other than bitching....how about c-o-n-t-r-i-b-u-t-e and I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about get in there to alert people to problems to help change the organization so it can be the best it can be. There are valid points, and it is good to bring up errant board members. I'm a voting memeber of the NRA that takes time to research the candidates and I'll for certain not vote for a person who restricts the 2d ammendment.
If all you want to do is bitch, go buy a dress.
-
I have also been a NRA member for many years, even before I ended up in Kansas. Before that happened, many questioned my NRA membership and being a Norwegian. What's the purpose? For me, it was not an option, it was a must. There are no international bodies for pro-gun activities, but I want my US friends to know that in my book, the NRA is also important internationally. Their hard work on many issues (like the UN agenda), has an impact across the borders. Supporting NRA is the right thing to do, no matter where you live.
Talking to many US citizens about the 2nd amendment, I have the impression many take their rights for granted. Knowing that 4 million gun owners out of 80 million are NRA members, it is to me obvious that my impression is correct.
Welcome to the United States Mr. Halloway! Do not confuse membership in the NRA with 2nd Amendment Activisim.
There are many, many individuals and state and national organizations actively challenging the Federal Government's interpretation of the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
It is those individuals and organizations who have seen the NRA in action in their jurisdiction that have become most alarmed about the true nature and purpose of the NRA.
The NRA has repeatedly been caught with it's institutional hand in the cookie jar and has repeatedly backtracked when caught.
2nd Amendment Activists are VERY worried about the NRA's NGO status in the United Nations (non-government organization) given their history of backroom deals and under the table capitulation and you should be too.
We hear today from the NRA the same type of talk we heard from Ford and GM and Chrysler for decades about how American
cars were the only cars worth purchase and all those imports would never amount to a hill of beans.
The truth is, American cars had too many moving parts that were inefficient and when a better idea came along Americans embraced the improvement .
The NRA is no different.
In America, institutions that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden are abolished or overhauled.
Joaquin Jackson was not quoted out of context or misrepresented.
HE DOES NOT BELIEVE COMMON MILITARY WEAPONS should be in the hands of "We the people".
That is his fundamental belief.
Ipso, ergo and therefore he does not belong on a PRO 2nd Amendment Board of Directors.
And if he does remain, Pro-2nd Amendment Activists should look very carefully at the organization he helps to oversee.
Here is a prominent pro-2nd Amendment Activist and author's thoughts about the latest NRA kerfuffle:
Link:
http://www.jpfo.org/smith-nra.htm
The NRA Disgraces Itself -- Again
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com
I've seen the latter many, many times, most recently when the National Rifle Association cooperated with some of the nastiest, most notorious advocates of victim disarmament -- congressvulture Carolyn McCarthy, that blood-sucking scavenger of the dead for one -- to "tighten up" provisions of the highly-illegal Brady Law.
Passed by the congress on an unrecorded voice vote, HR 2640, the "NICS Improvement Act" drags us not just another notch closer to national firearms registration, or even worse, to a national registry of firearms owners, but to a Big Brotherhood in which everything an individual does can be monitored and scrutinized electronically by jackbooted thugs.
Best regards,
-
http://www.jpfo.org/smith-nra.h
Drat! Incomplete link:
http://www.jpfo.org/smith-nra.htm
-
The clarification is worse than the original statement. In the original statement, Mr. Jackson made clear that any civilian weapon should be limited to 5 rounds. I think his stance is wrong, but he's entitled to his opinion, which he honestly offered.
In the clarification, he suggests that he was talking about true, select-fire assault weapons. You know, the ones that cost thousands of dollars and require a $200 tax stamp... after a background check. Politically, this is much more palatable, because there are so few full-auto shooters out there. It's also spin. Most of the magazine fed full-auto weapons have semi-auto clones, so there would be no way to restrict magazines for full-auto weapons without restricting them for everyone. Full-auto weapons are already heavily regulated; legally owned full-auto weapons are almost never used in crimes. An NRA BoD member should know that when the media refers to assault weapons, they aren't restricting the definition to full-auto weapons.
Personally, I think the clarification is an insult to my intelligence.
If the NRA is the only game in town, then they had better get on my side if they want my support. What does my side believe? It believes "shall not be infringed" doesn't leave any wiggle room.
-
The clarification is worse than the original statement. ,snip.....,-auto weapons are already heavily regulated; legally owned full-auto weapons are almost never used in crimes. An NRA BoD member should know that when the media refers to assault weapons, they aren't restricting the definition to full-auto weapons.
Personally, I think the clarification is an insult to my intelligence.
If the NRA is the only game in town, then they had better get on my side if they want my support. What does my side believe? It believes "shall not be infringed" doesn't leave any wiggle room.
One thing is for certain, I won't vote to reelect this guy. On the other hand, I spent 45 minutes or so talking with Michael Humphries at the Wannamacher Gun Show last fall...as one of the troops on the ground at NRA Michael Humphries came of as a strong across the board supporter of the 2nd ammendment that will not support restrictions like the ones the board member is echoing. Which is a good thing for all to know. I also got to speak with Jim Supica and Phil Schreier who are on NRA TV....they appear to be good guys as well. So Mr. Jackson is someone the membership put in who has "standards" that don't fit yours or mine (or the NRA ground troops). Are you voting members listening....I bet you are.
But, as for Mr. Jackson, he does not reflect my views and will not get my vote.
Which brings up an interesting question, if you are an NRA member do you actually send in your ballot and vote for board members....I'm gonna start a poll!
And, I really appreciate it when you guys educate and inform me. We've got to stick together and support our 2nd Ammendment rights that have been bought and paid in blood on battlefields strewn across this planet. So....if you can't be politically active, then at least get the fishhooks out of your pockets and send in a enough until it hurts...that is a small sacrifice compared to what the warriors of this nation have sacrificed...and to those of you who are warriors thank you for your sacrifice for my family. And yes, I do support our warriors with gifts and donations. If we go the route of Britain and Austrailia with the 2nd Ammendmend we will have been shown to be unworthy.
-
I don't buy his explanation, though it is clever. Five round limit for a machinegun? Nonsensical.