PDA

View Full Version : Who says the NRA supports the 2nd?


CavTrooper
08-13-2007, 2:03 PM
Your NRA board member Joaquin Jackson discussing his views on "assault weapons"
Last video clip (bottom of page)
http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/jackson.asp

-hanko
08-13-2007, 2:06 PM
Your NRA board member Joaquin Jackson discussing his views on "assault weapons"
Last video clip (bottom of page)
http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/jackson.asp
:lurk5:

-hanko

Corbin Dallas
08-13-2007, 2:08 PM
Wow....

:eek:

CavTrooper
08-13-2007, 2:10 PM
I jumped the gun on that one.
This is from 2005, he may not even be a board member anymore. However, if this any indication as to level of representation the NRA provides gun owners... sad.

bwiese
08-13-2007, 2:32 PM
Let's see.

You're blaming the "NRA" (the entity as a whole, whose official policy mirrors that of most of its members that minor cosmetic differences on firearms should not play a role in their banning or legality) for the past utterances of one single board member who happened to get elected?

How can an elected board member be blamed for NRA's positions? The NRA does not force positions on board members. he was elected by some fraction of folks - likely a down-list candidate - that did not find him offensive, or just needed to check off one more board member on the voter card.

If this board member needs to be Zumbo'd, fine - another duck hunter bites the dust. But the whole NRA? Naaah.

CavTrooper
08-13-2007, 2:41 PM
As a member of any board you have the obligation (when speaking publicly) to represent your organazation as a whole. Like I said, he may be gone already, I dont know, this may be what got him ousted, but as a representative of the NRA this statement, when released to the public, becomes the official NRA stance on the issue (until proven otherwise). I was shocked to hear this statement myself, and like Zumbo, I belive this individual should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out on a rail by all self respecting gun owners, until he comes crawling back, begging and publicly proclaiming his mistake and ignorance on the issue (like Zumbo).

KenpoProfessor
08-13-2007, 2:42 PM
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/bod/index.html

http://www.nraleaders.com/

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

CavTrooper
08-13-2007, 2:50 PM
http://www.nraleaders.com/

ya know thats an ANTI site right?
Good place to watch the enemy.

hoffmang
08-13-2007, 3:02 PM
I think the NRA supports the 2nd:
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/nra_amicus.pdf

There is their brief in Parker v. DC.

There is room to be critical of NRA, but the hyperbole is a bit much.

-Gene

CavTrooper
08-13-2007, 3:46 PM
That brief was a great read. I am glad there are folks out there fighting for our Constitutional Rights.
When you have a board member whose views are opposite those of the members of the organization, that person needs to be removed and replaced with one who will represent the membership. I dont know if this person is still on the board, Ive been informed that he is still on the board but I can find no list of current board members (my google-fu isnt very good.). If he is, why? If not, its a good thing.

6172crew
08-13-2007, 4:11 PM
The guy is from Texas, need i say more?:D j/k I know from talking with the NRA leaders in CA they are looking to change the direction of NRA to support all rifles. They are looking for CalGuns members to go to the counsel meetings and change the minds of those crusty members who think the 2nd has to do with hunting.

That old fart doesnt speak for anyone but himself.:cool:

CavTrooper
08-13-2007, 4:36 PM
The guy is from Texas, need i say more?:D j/k I know from talking with the NRA leaders in CA they are looking to change the direction of NRA to support all rifles. They are looking for CalGuns members to go to the counsel meetings and change the minds of those crusty members who think the 2nd has to do with hunting.

That old fart doesnt speak for anyone but himself.:cool:


Is this a prevelant viewpoint within the CA membership? That the 2nd is about hunting?

SemiAutoSam
08-13-2007, 4:59 PM
This guy gets around. They are outraged on the east coast as well .

To think one of who we thought was our own turns on us like this.

Anyone know of a good rail this guy can be run out of town on ?

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=23277

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/IMAGES/MMPH/170254.jpg

http://www.321clipart.com/images8/dividers/div24.gif

Some people won’t be content until gun owning citizens have only one bullet per gun!
"Right Barney?"

WokMaster1
08-13-2007, 5:45 PM
Anthony, can you email him & ask him if he has been reformed after the Zumbo fiasco?

hoffmang
08-13-2007, 7:23 PM
5 round capacity... Ugh....

Well, looks like I have some fishing for contact info tomorrow.

-Gene

CavTrooper
08-13-2007, 7:29 PM
theres threads going on this topic on several different boards. People have already got in contact with NRA hq and voiced thier displeasure as well as sent many emails, left messages, etc. I think that JJ is gonna have some splainin to do soon.

otteray
08-13-2007, 8:36 PM
What about my Garands, M1 carbine and 1890's "high capacity" leverguns?
All of a sudden they should be limited to 5 rounds?
And so- called "assault weapons" (I'll bet he's including my SKS and semi auto shotguns there ,too) should only be in the hands of law enforcement people- like him:eek:?

I emailed the NRA and expressed my displeasure with this holier-than-thou law enforcement elitist and distruster of civilian gun-ownership .

SvenFrost
08-15-2007, 1:01 PM
Here is JJ's waffle..er, I mean response.

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

Best,
Sven

SemiAutoSam
08-15-2007, 1:21 PM
I feel the NRA supports the 2nd Amendment when it suits their needs.

But when they helped with the Volkmer-McClure--the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 AKA the May 19 1986 NFA LAW that stopped all new possession of new NFA weapons that was not supportive of 2nd amendment rights now was it.

Maybe Im grossly mistaken in my reading of this act but when I read it both the first time and the last it really looked like the NRA was helping get this law passed.

Maybe it was a bone they threw the antis but it was a gigantic bone if you ask me.

JawBone
08-15-2007, 1:22 PM
Good to seem him "come around." I'm glad it was all just biased interview editing - I could have sworn I heard Joaquin himself say all guns should be limited to no more than 5 rounds. :rolleyes:

Even Old Man Ruger didn't go that low.

hoffmang
08-15-2007, 2:14 PM
An Automatic Weapon limited to 5 rounds :rolleyes:

One more Zumbo...

-Gene

oaklander
08-15-2007, 3:24 PM
Jeez - he says he supports the second, then thinks that so-called AW's should only be given to police & military.

The only different between an AW and a hunting rifle is appearance - heck, most hunting rounds are more powerful than a lot of AW rounds.

Kestryll
08-15-2007, 3:27 PM
He did specify AW to mean select fire, not as defined by appearance.

No comment either way but lets pillory him on what he actually said if we do.

KenpoProfessor
08-15-2007, 3:46 PM
I'm not a hunter and I think that anyone that hunts for sport should not be able to use firearms at all. If you're hunting for sport, your weapons would be bow & arrow, spear, meat cleaver, or knife, nothing more. You want to go after a bear or a buffalo for a trophy, you're gonna have to get it the hard way like primitive man had to. I can't stand hunting for sport, but I respect the right of hunters to do what is legal, doesn't mean I have to like it.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

dustoff31
08-15-2007, 4:26 PM
I feel the NRA supports the 2nd Amendment when it suits their needs.

But when they helped with the Volkmer-McClure--the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 AKA the May 19 1986 NFA LAW that stopped all new possession of new NFA weapons that was not supportive of 2nd amendment rights now was it.

Maybe Im grossly mistaken in my reading of this act but when I read it both the first time and the last it really looked like the NRA was helping get this law passed.

Maybe it was a bone they threw the antis but it was a gigantic bone if you ask me.


Just follow the money. If they fully supported the 2nd, and had as much clout as they say they do, they would be out of business.

Piper
08-15-2007, 4:32 PM
I'm not a hunter and I think that anyone that hunts for sport should not be able to use firearms at all. If you're hunting for sport, your weapons would be bow & arrow, spear, meat cleaver, or knife, nothing more. You want to go after a bear or a buffalo for a trophy, you're gonna have to get it the hard way like primitive man had to. I can't stand hunting for sport, but I respect the right of hunters to do what is legal, doesn't mean I have to like it.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Now you're talking. I love bow and black powder. It definately makes things more challenging. Good way to practice one shot, one kill.

hoffmang
08-15-2007, 5:21 PM
Just follow the money. If they fully supported the 2nd, and had as much clout as they say they do, they would be out of business.

I once thought that too and then I thought about all the ground the antis are still going to fight on:
Ammo
Ranges
"Safe handguns"
etc...

The NRA isn't going away anytime soon - much like the pro-choice groups haven't gone away with a supreme court win either.

-Gene

Mssr. Eleganté
08-18-2007, 3:41 AM
I feel the NRA supports the 2nd Amendment when it suits their needs.

But when they helped with the Volkmer-McClure--the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 AKA the May 19 1986 NFA LAW that stopped all new possession of new NFA weapons that was not supportive of 2nd amendment rights now was it.

Maybe Im grossly mistaken in my reading of this act but when I read it both the first time and the last it really looked like the NRA was helping get this law passed.

Maybe it was a bone they threw the antis but it was a gigantic bone if you ask me.

Sam, if you could make Volkmer-McClure go away, would you?

The massive increase in the prices for NFA weapons sucks, but full-auto weapons were always a niche market, even before the 1934 NFA.

But the flood of Mausers, Enfields, Mosin-Nagant's, SKS's, Garands, Hakim's, FN49's, SVT40's, CZ52's, P38's etc that the 1986 FOPA allowed into this country has created hundreds of thousands of new shooters and 2nd Amendment supporters. How many of us here only got interested in guns because of the cheap milsurp rifles we saw at Big 5? Those guns wouldn't be legal to import without the 1986 FOPA.

Do you really want to go back to the time when these firearms were not legal to import, just to bring the price down on NFA weapons?

Sure, we would all love to have cheap milsurps and cheap NFA weapons. But the NRA has to make compromises when they don't have enough members. They have to operate in a political reality.

SemiAutoSam
08-18-2007, 9:13 AM
Yes I would make it go away if I could and the actual NFA as well. I see this as an infringement on the 2nd Amendment and any infringement is not good.

I dont feel that making any compromise is good for the 2nd Amendment.

SO the NRA that gave NEW NFA weapons for milsurps ? I didn't realise this at the reading of 1986 FOPA. I guess Its easy for me to say they did wrong as they traded one thing for another but I dont see how any compromise is good for the RKBA its just the camels nose under the tent and as you can see more of the camel has snuck its way into the tent since 1986 FOPA.


Sam, if you could make Volkmer-McClure go away, would you?

The massive increase in the prices for NFA weapons sucks, but full-auto weapons were always a niche market, even before the 1934 NFA.

But the flood of Mausers, Enfields, Mosin-Nagant's, SKS's, Garands, Hakim's, FN49's, SVT40's, CZ52's, P38's etc that the 1986 FOPA allowed into this country has created hundreds of thousands of new shooters and 2nd Amendment supporters. How many of us here only got interested in guns because of the cheap milsurp rifles we saw at Big 5? Those guns wouldn't be legal to import without the 1986 FOPA.

Do you really want to go back to the time when these firearms were not legal to import, just to bring the price down on NFA weapons?

Sure, we would all love to have cheap milsurps and cheap NFA weapons. But the NRA has to make compromises when they don't have enough members. They have to operate in a political reality.

Mssr. Eleganté
08-18-2007, 10:34 AM
I dont feel that making any compromise is good for the 2nd Amendment.

Really? Even if the compromise means hundreds of thousands of military style firearms in the hands of American citizens? The NRA fought long and hard to get the milsurp ban lifted and to get the ban on out of state long gun sales lifted and to protect interstate travel with firearms. When the machine gun restrictions got tacked onto the 1986 FOPA at the last minute, the NRA didn't have enough clout (members/money) to keep it out of the bill. They had to make a compromise.

$99 SKS rifles at Big5 did more to help the Second Amendment than $600 full auto M16's were doing.

Anthonysmanifesto
08-18-2007, 2:54 PM
Some people give the NRA godlike powers when speaking of compromises.

what was largely understood to be a hunting organization who was learning to be more ILA focused (ILA was ten years old at that time) just waves a wand 20 years ago and compromises become reality. To believe that compromise can, at all times be avoided in the political arena is dime store fiction, to believe that an organization who did had maybe a million members on a good day and limited financial resources pulled all the strings in a democrat congress is worse...

To declare that any of us lives a life that allows us to never have moral ambiguity, or compromise is just as silly as declaring that any membership you hold will be free from such ills going back to 1871!

the United State Congress and President Reagan made a tough call. Ditch the FOPA because of a hostile amendment, or was it hostile? both houses of Congress were democratically controlled. Republican President Reagan signed it.

now, what do you do with an organization with less than a million members in 1986?

if we are playing you make the call, without having been there, or knowing anyone who was there, I'm not sure I have an intelligent answer. But we can all deduce the call wasn't to go on the offensive with the White House at the last minute over the amendment. its fair to discuss this, its fair to question it. Its not fair to lay out an absolute value judgment. Its anachronistic (http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/5392223/1981_rolling_stone_covers/photo/9/large/elvispresley) and it is not politically grounded.

I don't run around saying I wont add to the NRA's numbers, or not vote in the Board of Directors elections or I want to join a one man garage based organization to vent my frustration for the outrageous prices on NFA weapons. It was the first significant gun bill since 1968.

think of all that has gone on since.

Early nineties saw a couple of things, Brady Bill and AW ban AND almost as a result, a change in leadership and focus and message by the NRA. by the end of the decade they would be known as juice players on the HILL (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/12/08/234927/index.htm) , swelling over 4Million strong by election day 2000.

It had reversed prior financial troubles and was blamed by many a pundit , including president Clinton, for the defeat of V.P. Al Gore (who was an NRA endorsed Senator, who turned his back on the Association as VP).

with our numbers and our personal efforts, we now have the juice to take on those who leave the reservation, we have the money and bodies to fight with.

did we have that in 1986? you've had 20 years to mourn.

and no new gun laws for over a decade , no matter how hot the debate gets

eydaimon
09-06-2007, 8:25 AM
Anyone know what the deal is here? Is there more to the story?

source: http://jpfo.org/alert20070906.htm

hoffmang
09-06-2007, 9:14 AM
We hashed that out in another thread. Some rogue board member was off the reservation...

-Gene

DrjonesUSA
09-06-2007, 9:20 AM
I jumped the gun on that one.
This is from 2005, he may not even be a board member anymore. However, if this any indication as to level of representation the NRA provides gun owners... sad.


I got this same "alert" from JPFO.....if this interview truly is from 2005, then it's pathetic that they need to drudge up material that's almost 3 years old in order to further divide gun owners.

That's the beauty of an organization like the NRA - if you don't like its policies, GET INVOLVED and MAKE CHANGE YOURSELF.

gazzavc
09-06-2007, 9:33 AM
I'm not a hunter and I think that anyone that hunts for sport should not be able to use firearms at all. If you're hunting for sport, your weapons would be bow & arrow, spear, meat cleaver, or knife, nothing more. You want to go after a bear or a buffalo for a trophy, you're gonna have to get it the hard way like primitive man had to. I can't stand hunting for sport, but I respect the right of hunters to do what is legal, doesn't mean I have to like it.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Welshman: What about pointed sticks?

Sergeant: Shaaatup !!

Glock22Fan
09-06-2007, 3:07 PM
If we should leave the NRA as a protest against the views of a board member, maybe we should leave the California electorate in order to protest the views of Feinstein and Boxer?