TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:

45ACP wrote:The NRA backed a Democrat running against Ron Paul, the ONLY member of Congress who consistently tries to uphold and defend the Constitution at every possible opportunity:

Minor correction: The NRA did not "back" Mr. Sklar in the sense of giving him support. They gave him an A rating based on a questionaire (he had never held a legislative office and had no voting record).

Dr. Paul got a lower rating because he voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which the NRA pushed very hard.

P.S.: I live in Dr. Paul's district.

- Jim

You're right, I stand corrected. The NRA apparently did not endorse either candidate.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

longtooth wrote:I want to hear from Charles.

Sorry guys/gals, but since I'm on the Board of Directors, I cannot comment about another Board member. In fact, none of us can speak for the NRA in our individual capacity; this has to be done collectively through resolutions passed by the entire Board.

I'm not trying to dodge the issue, I simply cannot violate my duty as a Director. You will note that I haven't even responded to the anti-NRA comments and quotes as I normally would have done. Yes, this is a belt and suspenders approach, but I try to avoid even the hint of impropriety.

BTW, this duty isn’t unique to the NRA, members of any board of directors have the same limitations and restrictions.

Chas.

Charles, I understand what you're saying. Based on this: "In fact, none of us can speak for the NRA in our individual capacity..." did JJ violate his duty as a board member?

What useful options do NRA members have? When are the next elections? This is unacceptable to me, and I want something done about it.

I have long felt that the NRA mostly supported hunters and single/double shotgunners, not black-rifle enthusiasts, survivalists, IPSC competitors, or die-hard 2dA fanatics. When Charlton Heston posed for the "from my dead, cold hands" photo op, he was holding an antique blackpowder rifle. Not something I'd choose for home defense. Unless the NRA becomes more pro-active, I'm afraid that's all we'll be able to own before the gun grabbers get finished with us.

I'm afraid KBCraig nailed it: "To be truthful, I think he (JJ) probably represents the average NRA member better than Nugent.

If we took a vote of 100% of the membership, I suspect the majority would rather preserve .30-30s and sixguns and hunting rights, than would support repeal of NFA'34 and GCA'68. Not to mention FOPA/MGB'86".

The NRA working to repeal NFA'34? GCA'68? FOPA/MGB'86? Not gonna hold my breath on that. That's what it would take to regain my trust, however.

I had a friendly chat with Larry Pratt of the GOA once. He said he wished the NRA would stick to the things it was good at (firearms safety and marksmanship training), and stay out of politics. I agreed with him.

The NRA backed a Democrat running against Ron Paul, the ONLY member of Congress who consistently tries to uphold and defend the Constitution at every possible opportunity:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/ ... 70937.html

Please understand that I'm not interested in bashing the NRA. With all the power and money (especially MY money!) the NRA has, I expect much more from them. Please pass along my comments to the board of directors, or to whomever it might make a difference. Thank you.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
- George Bernard Shaw

Renegade wrote:Here he is backpedaling. Too bad he just looks worse:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9899



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.

Thanks for posting this. I agree with you that he looks worse, I'm not buying his 'clarification'.
It appears to me that Mr. Jackson believes, or wants us all to believe that the 2d Amendment might have something to do with hunting game animals. Either way, as far as I'm concerned he's unfit to be a Board Member of the NRA.

Renegade wrote:

Jason73 wrote:


Guess who wont be renewing their NRA membership - I may as well send my money to the Brady bunch, the goal for both seems to be the same.

I have the opposite plan. I will be renewing my membership and will be voting against him.

When is our next chance? When are the next elections?

george wrote:Hey, if you guys really were in the NRA, why didn't you read the story in the American Rifleman about this, instead of advancing this drivel!

Mister, I am a Life Member and a Certified Instructor and Range Safety Officer. The NRA has received a considerable amount of money from me. So I feel betrayed by this garbage, and none too happy about it.

What part do you claim is drivel? Did you WATCH the video?! Watch the video and then tell me what you think is drivel.

http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/a ... n5_44k.mov

With friends like these, who needs enemies? You know it's got to be pretty bad when the NRA doesn't understand the 2d Amendment. This Joaquin Jackson guy clearly doesn't have a clue and needs to go.

Jason73 wrote:


Guess who wont be renewing their NRA membership - I may as well send my money to the Brady bunch, the goal for both seems to be the same.

May I suggest that you take the renewal amount and send a check to GOA or JFPO and send a copy of the check to the NRA along with an explanation of why they lost your financial vote?

NRA Director Says Five Rounds is Enough
That JPFO and the NRA have different views on "gun control" is no secret; you can read our position -- and view supporting evidence -- at http://www.jpfo.org/alert20061211.htm . You can also read an article on the NRA's recent alignment with gun-prohibitionist Carolyn McCarthy at http://www.jpfo.org/smith-nra.htm .

And now, NRA Director Joaquin Jackson has publically stated that magazine capacities should be limited to five rounds and that "assault weapons [sic] should be limited to military or police." That's right -- a director of the supposedly pro-gun NRA wants to take YOUR semi-automatic rifles away.

Don't believe us? Think it's just a rumor? View the evidence for yourself at http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/a ... n5_44k.mov (we also have it mirrored on the JPFO site at http://www.jpfo.org/joaquin.mov ).

Already the NRA apologists are coming out of the woodwork. Anyone who points out the hypocrisy of Jackson's position are denounced as "wackos", "black helicopter paranoids," and "just trying to make a buck."

It's time to "Humiliate and Repudiate" Joaquin Jackson and the NRA. Go to http://www.jpfo.org/handbill-joaquin.jpg to see our latest handbill. Print it out and distribute it to those who still believe the NRA is working in the interest of gun owners. They are not.

If you value the truth more than betrayal and want an aggressive defense of your natural and Second Amendment rights, visit http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm to learn how you can join JPFO. We encourage you to use our "gun control" destroying books and videos ( http://shop.jpfo.org ) and get on board with us today.

- The Liberty Crew

PS Don't forget that you can view all our "Humiliate and Repudiate" handbills at http://www.jpfo.org/freebies.htm