Interesting words from an NRA board member

[JohnJacobH]

   
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.

[JohnJacobH]

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,

[Marshal Halloway]

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=   

[gunman42782]

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? 

[Rastus]

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.

[Sponsor]

[JohnJacobH]

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,

[JohnJacobH]

http://www.jpfo.org/smith-nra.h

Drat! Incomplete link:

http://www.jpfo.org/smith-nra.htm

[Tim Burke]

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.

[Rastus]

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.

[KirkWebb]

I don't buy his explanation, though it is clever.  Five round limit for a machinegun?  Nonsensical.