" His statement was to the moderator's statement/question (after discussing his status as a NRA board member) "Of course a lot of law enforcement are concerned about things like assault weapons which they feel like don't really contribute to the keeping of the peace." Nothing about hunting, he is the one that talks about hunting in his reply to that statement/question. Then they start discussing "assault weapons".
The discussion was about semi-auto assault weapons from the very beginning. Jackson said that any in civilian hands should be limited to 5 rounds and gave a hunting setting to explain why. His mention of a gun, obviously refers the subject gun Smith brought up. It's not all inclusive, because six shooters and the lever action he's always holding in his pics holds 7. It's clear he's talking about semi-autos, not class III like he later says in his "explain", where he blames the viewer for being too stupid to understand what he's talking about, and the "media" for cutting him short, before he could "explain" that he was really talking about citizen held class III guns used for hunting. The fact that he brought up the hunting scenario is important, because it illustrates w/o a doubt, that he was talking about semi-autos, not full autos.
Here's the transcipt of that part:
Smith: Of course a lot of law enforcement are concerned about things like assault weapons which they feel like don't really contribute to the keeping of the peace.
Jackson: 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…
Smith: If you're any good
Jackson: If you're a good shot. Five rounds would be plenty.
Smith: So have you brought to the attention of your fellow board members at the NRA that maybe assault weapons ought to be restricted?
Jackson: 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…
Smith: Five rounds. Limited to that.
Jackson: …five, five… Good to go. Five rounds or some…
Now here's what Jackson later said in his explain: ""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."
That's a flat out lie. When was the last time the grabbers complained about class III guns? Who hunts with a full auto? Yes, hunting's important since he brought it up to explain why those guns need to be limited to 5 rounds. Those guns he was talking about in the interview are semi-autos, not full auto. Here's a quote from his director's page: "Lives the philosophy: "Say what you mean, mean what you say, and tell it like it is."" All I see is BS from ths Ranger, and I doubt very much, that he only recently began using the lie as a tool to weasel his way out of a mess.
That is what I was trying to say, it was not about hunting. He injected hunting into the discussion. I realize that he was talking about semi-autos, but he does make the statement that you shouldn’t need over 1 round if you are a hunter. That only adds fuel to the antis, along with his other statements.