NRA Board of Directors?????

[lcambre]

Reading his statement still does not explain why he should be an NRA director.  Making statements contrary to what he now claims to believe and being willing to throw machine gun owners under the bus make it clear that we can do far better than Joaquin Jackson.

[fullautovalmet76]

Reading his statement still does not explain why he should be an NRA director.  Making statements contrary to what he now claims to believe and being willing to throw machine gun owners under the bus make it clear that we can do far better than Joaquin Jackson.

+10

[mudman]

ZUMBO part two3456789

[GUNS-R-US]

ZUMBO part two3456789

Yea I think I mentioned that possibility. It's a mistake that cost him dearly. Some people are Hunters and some people are Shooters. I'm a Shooter first and a hunter second! I hunt as a byproduct of shooting not the other way around, which is the group I think most gun owners in this country fall in.
 

An e-mail reply to me from Joaquin, whom I met once at a gun show, funny, he replied twice and called me Bob twice. In his own words to me.

Hello Bob. Yes I remember you, reference the interview, what I said was taken out  of conception as I did not get to follow and explain, I was talking about hunters in particular, I feel that if a hunter needs more than five rounds to get his game, then he needs to take some shooting lessons, but I also feel that if he wants to carry a 30 or 40 round magazine with him that is his right, I stand firm and fight for the 2nd admendment, and as I took an oath as a Ranger to protect and uphold these rights, I took a lot of heat over that interview but I think I finally got it straighten out. I am set in my ways about marksmanship, especially law enforcement, but anyone who owns a weapon should become proficient with it. I hope this answers your question. Any law abidding citizen of this country, and mentally sound should be able to own any weapon he chooses and all the ammo he wants. Joaquin

Thanks for adding this to the tread. It does make me feel better about him and his stance on 2A issues reading it, and know it came from him through you helps as well.

[Pecos Bill]

Who is this putz? He wants to restrict  "civilians" from having "assault weapons"? Limit them to Military and LE only? How was this ........ person ever proposed for the B of D anyway? To quote a line from some other fool "Throw the bum out". If this is what is being discussed in the NRA B of D we need to fire them all and start over.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

Who is this putz? He wants to restrict  "civilians" from having "assault weapons"? Limit them to Military and LE only? How was this ........ person ever proposed for the B of D anyway? To quote a line from some other fool "Throw the bum out". If this is what is being discussed in the NRA B of D we need to fire them all and start over.

He's been on the board for several years, in fact this interview took place a couple years or more ago.

[fightingquaker13]

Guys
I Think we need to take a deep breath here. One there is a difference between hunting regs and gun control laws. As an avid wing shooter, I am all in favor of the 3 round mag restriction for waterfowl and wished it applied to upland game as well. Higher capacity leads to a "spray and pray" flock shooting mentality and wasted and wounded game. Any serious hunter out there has seen it.
BUT......
A "sporting purposes" test" FOR a sporting purpose, is a whole different animal than a mag ban for general use. If I hunt the tax payers ducks on the tax payer's land, I I have zero problem with a plug that limits me to three. However, once the hunt is over, I want all 8 (or 5 vs 30 if we're talking rifles and deer).  I own an 8+1 round shotgun and an AR. I support the three and 5 FOR HUNTING. Otherwise, HELL NO! I don't see a contradiction here. One is a reg imposed by DNR for licencesed hunters in the field, the other is a law applied to every one. Its apples and oranges.
FQ13 who doesn't know this guy, or any one else on the board. What I WANt is someone who will not give an inch on the 2A for general purposes and will support a candidate of any party who is pro-2A.

[fullautovalmet76]

Guys
I Think we need to take a deep breath here. One there is a difference between hunting regs and gun control laws. As an avid wing shooter, I am all in favor of the 3 round mag restriction for waterfowl and wished it applied to upland game as well. Higher capacity leads to a "spray and pray" flock shooting mentality and wasted and wounded game. Any serious hunter out there has seen it.
BUT......
A "sporting purposes" test" FOR a sporting purpose, is a whole different animal than a mag ban for general use. If I hunt the tax payers ducks on the tax payer's land, I I have zero problem with a plug that limits me to three. However, once the hunt is over, I want all 8 (or 5 vs 30 if we're talking rifles and deer).  I own an 8+1 round shotgun and an AR. I support the three and 5 FOR HUNTING. Otherwise, HELL NO! I don't see a contradiction here. One is a reg imposed by DNR for licencesed hunters in the field, the other is a law applied to every one. Its apples and oranges.
FQ13 who doesn't know this guy, or any one else on the board. What I WANt is someone who will not give an inch on the 2A for general purposes and will support a candidate of any party who is pro-2A.

Using your logic, do you think it's a valid function of government to restrict your magazine capacity on your firearms as you travel down tax payer funded roads, on sidewalks or in parks? Hell, you could go crazy and spray and kill a bunch of people. That's what happens when we put high capacity, or put large caliber, or put select fire weapons into the hands of these crazy citizens. They really need to be controlled.....And DNR is....a government agency, right? And hunters are.....a subset of the population, right?  Your whole argument above is just ridiculous....

But more to the point of this thread: the interview in question he really made clear what he believes in my mind. All of these clarifications since are just political maneuvering to cover his behind, which I believe has worked so far. He sits on the board of the NRA, which means he has significant influence over how they approach issues. It's that general mindset from a time gone by that I don't want.

And I will not vote for this guy.

[fightingquaker13]

Fullauto
I do not have a dog in this fight. I generally don't vote in Board elections unless I am particularly pro or con a member. Like most of us, I don't have enough info to make an informed choice.

On your post though, I would submit the following. Hunting regs are NOT gun control. Just the rules of a particular game (witness most states with CCWs allowing a pistol for SD in archery season). The mag restrictions are to conserve game and maximize everyone's enjoyment. There is no discernable political agenda in whether I can shoot 3 shots or 5 at a duck. Its about game management. Buy the license, play the game. Its apples and oranges to the 2A, which is definately not about a game. I think you are politicizing what isn't political here.
FQ13 who wonders "do you hunt"?

[tombogan03884]

 I'm going with FQ on this one.
Every shooting sport has "Rules", Trap, Skeet, and Sporting clays even limit you to 2 rounds.
So a magazine limit for hunting is nothing new, and no big deal.
I must add that I'm am a bit put out with some of you for condemning a guy based on an interview manipulated by the anti gun, MSM, when unslanted information is available in print and on line.