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
In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms.
A gun-grabber term for a kind of rifle, and if he meant machine guns (or assault rifles), why didn’t he say it?
This is Clintonian spin.
Especially sine he was replying to a journalist’s question about ASSAULT WEAPONS, less than a year after a hotly-followed sunset of the ban.
This jerk can’t even lie cleverly.
It’s Zumbo time!
Ok, I managed to watch and listen to his interview. He was not cut short on it. He states (transcript available at http://www.firearmscoalition.org/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=29) “Well, I’m a person that believes in a weapon should never…I personally believe a weapon should never have over a – far as civilian – 5 round capacity. If a hunter, if you’re a hunter if you’re gonna go hunting with a weapon, you shouldn’t need over but one round…”
Then he states when asked about assault weapons “Well we’ve talked, we’ve discussed it you know, but uh this thing about assault weapons has been a kind of a touchy deal, but personally, I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you… if you… it’s alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five…five, five… Good to go. Five rounds or some…”
So yes he did mention hunting and 5 rounds, but he also mentions 5 rounds for civilians having “assault weapons”. If he was actually talking about full boogey firearms, he should have clarified it in the interview. He could have used it as an educational tool about what “assault weapons” are, etc. I am still not convinced with his statement that you posted.
Oh, and he wants us to believe that this was all about restricting machine guns to 5 rounds? For hunting?
What kind of morons does he think we are?!
I don't disagree with you, but there is an internal process that the NRA has for this sort of problem. Just unelect his ass next time around. That's the orderly way, isn't it?
I'm just as tired of Quislings on the RKBA as you are, but if it turns out that we can just summon up enough people to call the NRA and demand that Joaquin Jackson be tossed out, then what's the point of an election process in the first place?
Zumbo is another thing entirely. We went to his sponsors and told them that we weren't buying any of their goods as long as they supported his show and column, so it turned out that THEY got rid of him. That's different from circumventing an orderly political process for electing the board of directors.
I heard and accept Joaquin Jackson's explanation and clarification and don't feel he needs to apologize to me for his personal opinions. I just will make sure that I won't vote for him on the NRA BoD and will remind my voting friends likewise. Let the established election process take it's course. Otherwise, the NRA would just be the lockstep fanatic organization that the anti-gunners claim that it is.
Zumbo was the other idiot, and I see he still has a TV show. I think a lot of the shotgun crowd looks down their collective noses at those scary “black rifles”, and I’ve heard more than one fool say “Nobody needs a gun like that.”
That usually results in an argument, ‘cause them’s fightin’ words to me.
Worse than not understanding the 2nd, as if that wasn’t bad enough, he doesn’t understand self defense.
I saw some research a few years back but I do not have a link for it that showed that the bad guys fired on average less than 3 shots. That’s because they usually had the drop on their target and the target couldn’t return fire.
OTOH, the good guy when he had a chance to return fire would use on average about 8 rounds to end the threat.
No. It's more important that the NRA's internal election process remains sacrosanct.
Put down your pitchforks and torches and pick up a pen in anticipation of the next NRA election.
Because as an NRA Certified Training Counselor I have to bear his sins I have through official channels asked that he stand down No.
on my shoulders as I train NRA Certified Instructors and NRA Certified Range Safety Officers.
and apologize to the membership.
You’re wrong.
Do you believe everything the MSM tells you? Especially when it involves the NRA?
Good enough place to bump this thread.
I watched the video (have you?), the part where he talks about “assault weapons” and magazine sizes was not edited during his statements. Read the transcript at http://www.firearmscoalition.org/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=29
My understanding of the text is that he believes civilians should be restricted to 5 round magazines for self defense handguns and single shot rifles for hunting.
Well, I for one d@mned sure will not vote for him.
With those kind of rules, a person might as well live on the coast (but I hear the fishing has gone to hell anyway).
See post 82 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1892698/posts?page=82#82) for my take on his interview and his response.
Bingo !
They lost me about 7 years ago. Either we have a right to weapons or we don't. The 2nd does not LIMIT us to peashooters, slingshots, and tiddlywinks.
You forgot 5 rounds on full boogey toys (if you believe his response), which means you have to change mags every 1/2 second or so.
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.
