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
Ping.
Maybe so, but how did this "minor functionary" find himself on the NRA board of directors? And how many more are in the queue?
Those "minor functionaries" can add up eventually if members aren't paying attention.
Can I join ya? I watched and understood the 5 round comment right off. Most states already have a 5 round max for a hunting weapon. THREE shells max for a shotgun. Nobody has raise a peep about these rules.
OTOH, I'm not sure about the assault weapon explanation. It seems to me like more of a CYA than truth.
He needs to stand down for the good of the cause.
Who was that (former) sportswriter who dissed black guns? I can’t even remember his name but he was gone so fast he left a contrail.
I wonder how many more people in NRA feel that us commoners shouldn’t own autoloaders with mags?
I was making a joke....
Ten shots from a hand gun might kill him but not before he tears you up.
Even if NRA board member Joaquin Jackson truly was opposed to 'semi-automatics' and standard capacity magazines being owned by civilians, it would still be a reasonable position in my view for the following reason:
There are millions of NRA members and they're bound to have varying views on RKBA. The NRA board seats are elected positions, so it's only natural that you can expect that a skeet geek "Fudd" or two are going to get seats.
I disagree with those Fudds entirely, but the notion that one or two NRA board members may believe differently than I do about RKBA doesn't cast a bad light on the NRA as a whole. It's simply an internal debate where some less philosophical NRA members don't realize that we're all in this together and that the anti-gun forces don't believe in such a thing as a good and decent gun. They're willing to compromise our rights away, but the NRA structure has a remedy for that: Their board member elections conducted by voting NRA Life Members. Just like in modern America, we hold scheduled revolutions rather than taking to the streets in anarchy when faced with someone we disagree with. If you don't like a particular Fudd on the NRA board, replace them with a Neal Knox (RIP, Neal) type that I prefer.
If the NRA demanded of it's elected representatives a cult-like adherence to fanatic doctrine without question under threat of excommunication, they'd be the much smaller and far less effective 'Gun Owners of America' (GOA) outfit.
So, not only do I accept Joaquin Jackson's explanation, I believe that there is no need for an apology of any kind.
His speech was a bit blurry, but I got the definite impression that he does not care for semiautos with mags in civilian hands.
He prefaced his statement by saying that the issue was something that he and his buds in NRA had discussed at length, then went on about how assault weapons don’t belong in the general population.
So NRA BoD Member Jackson believes in magazine limits of five rounds for fully-automatic firearms. Just... wow.
Wait a second. If citizens should not have "assault weapons," why should the police have them?
This is more trash from GOA/JPFO...the guy is a minor functionary, not the head of the NRA (John Sigler).
I disagree with those Fudds entirely, but the notion that one or two NRA board members may believe differently than I do about RKBA doesn’t cast a bad light on the NRA as a whole.
Because the NRA is NOT a gun rights group. It's for hunters, collectors and professional shooters who often think guns need to be kept out of the hands of others.
If you're a competitive shooter, it's a nice use of $25. If you actually believe the text of the Second Amendment, you're throwing your money and your rights down a rat hole.
Ah, did the JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP miss this?
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9899
The author didn’t say “THE” director.
When one is on a board of DIRECTORS, the proper title is Director.
It isn’t enough that he will be removed at the next election. He should be removed immediately if the NRA disagrees with him else the whole Board and the NRA will bear the brunt of this idiot’s stupidity.
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.
####
Read About It:
Posted: 8/15/2007 3:22:01 PM
Why? Because a small gun group is using a years-old, MSM-edited clip to bash the NRA as part of a fundraiser?
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.
