Posted on 09/07/2007 11:24:04 AM PDT by looscnnn
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/archives/movies/jackson5_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
Nowhere. Only the interim provisions were challenged and found unconstitutional, and not on second amendment grounds. The NRA has been loathe to take a case to the Supreme Court on the basis of the second amendment, mostly out of fear. The final provisions, which added long guns to the requirement for the Instant Background check, are still in effect and are being enforced.
I’ve read some pretty good and coherent posts by you but this is nonsense and in fact, you argue against yourself.
Every organization has a process to weed out bad seeds, even Congress. There is a serious disconnect between the right to keep and bear arms and the privilege to have certain government approved firearms and capacity.
You argue that removing this guy is doing the work of the anti gunners, but you would have what appears to be an anti gunner on the board of the group that is supposed to defend our rights. Your path would have the enemy within our inner circle. Sorry, but that is unacceptable.
Finally, you seem to argue that insistence on our gun rights is extreme and even irrational and over the edge.
Would you accept restrictions on your other rights? Would you support a person or group that only defended a limited version of your rights? This man is giving cover to the grabbers by making their arguments for limits acceptable and that is totally unacceptable.
If so, you don’t argue for your rights, but only for that which the government will allow.
The NRA did endorse RINO Charlie Crist before the primaries.
Or like most major corporations, with "members" being replaced by "shareholders".
Actually most JPFO, GOA, and SAF/CCRKBA members are also NRA members. It's not either or, you can, and I do, belong to more than one.
No, I argue that removing this guy outside the NRA established process of voting would be doing the work of the anti-gunners.
There is a significant difference.
I am going to takle post 154 & 155 with this one post.
You ask about examples of the NRA negotiating away our right go to http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247 and read about their support of NFA ‘34. Then you can go to http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=175 and read about other NRA blind sides
The Brady law was never repealed or ended, the AWB did end but you still have to have the NICS check done (which is what the Brady law was mainly about). The NRA supports extending that POS
With all the pro gun Congress members that the NRA have endorsed the DC ban was never repealed, it was overturned in court (for now).
Then you have their endorsements of anti gun candidates, who have passed gun control (thus making the NRA indirectly responsible).
If there is a process for removing/replacing a member then it is not outside the normal process. I am sure there is a process and there certainly seems to be just cause. As long as he stays, he is a problem for gun owners and the perception of the NRA as an organization that really wants to protect the entire unfettered right that they claim to stand for.
There is nothing over the top about wanting your rights, is there?
The fact is that the NRA supported the FOPA because it provided "relief" for those who had been dishonorably discharged, raised the burden of proof for prosecutors to include the "willfullness" standard, restrict BATF power, etc.
"Law abiding citizens who happened to wander into anti-gun jurisdictions could wind up being harassed and imprisoned," says Scott Bach, a New York-based attorney and member of the NRA board of directors. "FOPA was passed to end abuses."
Really, seems that the GOA was able to do what the NRA couldn’t on Thursday night. See post 152 for more info.
Have you watched the video? How can it be slander if they just state what he said?
Briefly: Any Officer/Director may be removed by petition of any voting member of Association. Petition must be submitted 150 days prior to annual mtg. 450 signatures required. At the time of regular election of Directors voting members will be informed of the recall petition and allowed to vote on said petition.
There is a procedure. Organization. That is what separates us (NRA) from a Democrat Convention...
GOA also supported the 1986 FOPA.
Thanks for posting the offender’s statement. That makes my critique much easier.
“I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms.”
According to the Founders, an armed citizenry was essential - “for in such manner is tyranny kept in check”.
Historically, Americans could and did own crew served weapons (cannons to lurking Liberals) and even war ships now known to historians and non-Liberal Americans as “privateers”.
Just how does a NRA Director suddenly believe that just because some socialism impaired goober in a gooberment agency wants to ban or license machine guns, that such acts are Constitutional?
Saying “But it is the law!” won’t do - remember Dred Scott?
Now for Da Director’s:
“I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution.”
Very good. Then start by so doing. How about starting by getting that Nazi weapons control act off our law books.
You know, the Federal Weapons Control Act which was an exact translation of the Nazi law! That law, the one doddering Senator Dodd had the Library of Congress translate from the original German.
Thank G*d for JPFO.
IIRC GHWB, NWO puke, publicly renounced his life membership in the NRA after the totally accurate jack-booted thugs remark (I think made by Wayne LaPierre). GHWB also calls Slick Willy "son".
I won't attempt to link the NWO statements of GHWB, his familial love for the Scumbag, and his public dumping of NRA because that would invite a foil award.
I hate the occasional weakness of the NRA, but I do believe that without them we would have already lost our guns long ago. I also believe in belonging to more than one gun rights group. JPFO has personal knowledge of where gun control leads.
My father was a member of the Military Order of World Wars. He thought that I was sometimes too extreme in my defense of RKBA. He handed me a brochure one day, printed by MOWW, stating the the NG was the “militia” in a constitutional sense. This view is prevalent in parts of law enforcement as well.
You may not find very many cops and military officers who would refuse an order to confiscate your guns, on some simple whim of government.
I can’t say many bad things about my father, except doubting he would have ever questioned orders, and refused them, even bad orders.
The Board of Directors, collectively, set the policies of the NRA and appoint the "head". Any voting Board member has quite a bit of influence over how the NRA behaves, and the fact that the rest of the Board tolerates this guy's presence tells us a lot
You are all too correct. Few have either the knowledge or the backbone to refuse an order. Fortunately, that “Ah wuz jest follerin’ orders” defense made by NOLA’s uniformed, armed and armored ‘Missing Links In Uniform’ was dealt with at Nurenburg, Germany after WW II.
It was held to be an invalid defense.
IMHO, the NOLA ‘ossifers’ who collected those guns should be in prison for decades on a number of charges.
I had not heard/seen that, not saying that you are lying, do you have any links with info?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
