NRA douchbag
http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/movies/jackson5_44k.mov
"I believe that assault weapons need to be in the hands of the military, and in the hands of the police. But as far as an assault weapon to a civilian, it's all right if you've got the magazine capacity down to five."-*Joaquin Jackson, NRA Board member and ex-LEO.
--
Is there anyone left who actually believes that the NRA is a pro 2nd ammendment organization?
"I believe that assault weapons need to be in the hands of the military, and in the hands of the police. But as far as an assault weapon to a civilian, it's all right if you've got the magazine capacity down to five."-*Joaquin Jackson, NRA Board member and ex-LEO.
--
Is there anyone left who actually believes that the NRA is a pro 2nd ammendment organization?
0
-
One statement by one board member. Do not condemn the entire NRA board for one idiot's comment. The NRA is not perfect but is the most effective lobbying group we have.
Oh, and I suspect that he won't be a board member after the next election... if he isn't forced to resign early. The NRA as an organization strongly supports the right to own any firearm. This clown's opinion does not reflect the view or official position of the NRA.
Suggesting that the NRA is anti-gun is downright silly.0 -
quote:The NRA is not perfect but is the most effective lobbying group we have.
If that is truly the case, we are screwed.0 -
I'm not suggesting that the NRA is anti-gun. I believe the NRA is only pro gun when it's convenient for them.
True, I'll wager that he doesn't stick around long. But that is simply because he has gone PUBLIC with his thoughts. I guarantee you he has always voiced opinions like this with his fellow board members or upper officers. The only reason the NRA will try to get rid of him now is because he shot his mouth off on TV and failure to act will make the NRA seem like it approves of his stance in front of its membership.
I have met lots of NRA members in my life so far. Many, more than I would like, had no problem whatsoever with the 'Assault Weapon Ban', on the same "Don't need it to hunt!" BS this guy said. He is not alone. There are probably many more like him in the NRA upper staff, they just don't voice their thoughts to the press.0 -
I still don't like his comment about the five round magazines. Why is he even on the board... of the NRA? With a thought process like that, it hurts the cause rather that help it. Kinda scary, having board members who belong with the NRA making comments like that. The other thing that bothers me about the NRA, is they brought him on board and stand behind his actions. 0 -
Also, if you'll notice from the picture in the video, they we're using him simply as a photo op. "Oh lookee! It's an ex ranger that's in the NRA!"
The fact that he has a totally screwed idea of the Constitution and the 2nd Ammendment didn't seem to bother the NRA. And you know very well they knew his stance when they brought him in.0 -
He's the new NRA poster boy. That's just great[:(!] 0 -
This one's been posted before, and it still concerns me. Yes, I know he's only one member of the board, but he is a board member. That makes him a leader, one who speaks for the organization. I have no problem with rank and file members of the NRA making statements like that (although I disagree with his statement), but when he speaks as an NRA board member, he is the mouthpiece of the organization. I hope that you all will vote him off the board if you haven't already done so. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
One statement by one board member. Do not condemn the entire NRA board for one idiot's comment. The NRA is not perfect but is the most effective lobbying group we have.
Oh, and I suspect that he won't be a board member after the next election... if he isn't forced to resign early. The NRA as an organization strongly supports the right to own any firearm. This clown's opinion does not reflect the view or official position of the NRA.
Suggesting that the NRA is anti-gun is downright silly.
How did he get on the board?
Don0 -
The NRA has gotten a lot better in recent years. Before that, they only endorsed hunting and target shooting. 0 -
To be totally honest, this doesn't surprise me in any way.
And, just by reading their literature and magazines, it shouldn't surprise you either.
Here's a test:
Go get all your old copies of "American Rifleman" and put them on the table in front of you.
Start at the beginning and go through them all, one page at a time, and look at the pictures and illustrations that are inside (the ones chosen by the NRA, not the ads. What do you see?
Usually it's this: Stereotypical 'country guys.' Posing with their generic to top of the line bolt action, low capacity semis, lever action or breakopen hunting rifles and shotguns. Almost every one of them a domestic manufactured model. Lots of times, they'll have the sterotypical moustache and 10-gallon hat too. It's going to be a split between that and the pistol pictures.
Now go back through and count how many pictures you see of someone with a Kalashnikov variant, and SKS or h#ll, even an AR-15.
After doing that, the movie and quote provided in the post above should come as no surprise.0 -
Don- He was elected by NRA members who were unaware of his attitude. He will soon be gone.
When the Zumbo thing happened the NRA Board of Directors issued a statement saying that ALL types of firearms are protected by the Second Amendment and the NRA defends the right of people to won and use ALL types of firearms.
I know that many folks get very angry at the NRA over compromises they have made in the past and that's a legitimate topic to debate. But I think it goes way too far to say that the NRA is anti-gun, or doesn't work to preserve gun rights, or isn't interested in the Constitution. Maybe you don't think they do enough, or sometimes make they bad decisions, but at least they do something... unlike the 50,000,000 or so gun owners who never join any group, never write any letters, never protest bad laws, and never do anything but complain (if they even do that). If we are screwed, it's because of the gross apathy by the vast majority of gun owners, not because of the NRA.0 -
I hope that you all will vote him off the board if you haven't already done so.
As has been previously mentioned, there are millions of gun owners that won't/haven't done ANYTHING to further the rights of gun owners; this post is one symptom of the anti-gun disease.
When only 3 million gun owners are pulling the wagon of gun rights and advocacy for all the other 150 million gun owners; the ones doing the work are often blamed for the inaction and indifference of the rest.0 -
i have better test for you all. open an NRA magaizine from 1949 and tell me what you see? military surplus guns being customized to hunt and target shoot with.
plus stories...real stories about hunting and shooting. real articles where GUNS ARENT THE SUBJECT, rather, the person WITH HIS firearms is.
guns were never suppose to be the focus. the MAN AND HIS MACHINE was.
i own every nra mag from 1945 to present. though some are destroyed by flood, i can still see the transition over time where the man AND HIS TALENT was pushed aside for guns and ADVERTISIING.
its turned into a captialism game. it all stinks. isnt it funny...i found a patern in my gun world. i tend to read OLD ARTICLES and then end up buying OLD GUNS to see what they were talking about. i checked my gun safe. i dont own a gun newer than 1976.
only 3 of my rifles have hi cap magazines. all 3 are MATCH GUNS for military matches. and i havent shot them for 10 years. i can understand havent military guns if you need them for a task, but to own them and hoard them just because you have a right to is silly.0 -
<sarcasm>
You see, the NRA was founded so that people could, with only a few new restrictions each year, go hunt whitetail, moose and game birds, provided of course that they use only the best domestically manufactured, low capacity, politically correct firearms that money can buy! Afterall, our founding fathers wanted to make sure we would always be able to hunt!
All you politically incorrect neaderthals that think the 2nd Ammendment applies to all firearms and are against magazine capacity limitations can just take your eeeeeevvvillll black rifles and go over and join GOA. But of course, that means that you are mentally unstable maniacs who are probably looking for a reason to shoot up a school and, of course, you hate cops and apple pie.
</sarcasm>
Honestly, I will apologize if the NRA dumps this guy and makes a public declaration that all restrictions on magazine capacity are violations of the 2nd Ammendment. They won't, of course.
I agree with you bobski, for the most part. I could be wrong, but wasn't Ruger a big supporter of the AWB? I think I read that in an AP Wire story (correction please?). If so, I can understand why. A lot of cheaper competition would be removed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bobski
i have better test for you all. open an NRA magaizine from 1949 and tell me what you see? military surplus guns being customized to hunt and target shoot with.
plus stories...real stories about hunting and shooting. real articles where GUNS ARENT THE SUBJECT, rather, the person WITH HIS firearms is.
guns were never suppose to be the focus. the MAN AND HIS MACHINE was.
i own every nra mag from 1945 to present. though some are destroyed by flood, i can still see the transition over time where the man AND HIS TALENT was pushed aside for guns and ADVERTISIING.
its turned into a captialism game. it all stinks. isnt it funny...i found a patern in my gun world. i tend to read OLD ARTICLES and then end up buying OLD GUNS to see what they were talking about. i checked my gun safe. i dont own a gun newer than 1976.
only 3 of my rifles have hi cap magazines. all 3 are MATCH GUNS for military matches. and i havent shot them for 10 years. i can understand havent military guns if you need them for a task, but to own them and hoard them just because you have a right to is silly.
Perhaps the same logic should be applied to anything & everything, houses, motorcycles, cars, tools, books, livestock, children, etc.
[xx(]
I would hate to see your interpretation of the 1st amendment.
Don0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
quote:The NRA is not perfect but is the most effective lobbying group we have.
If that is truly the case, we are screwed.
No. That's not why we are screwed. If you want to hang your rights on the coat-racks of a few lobbying groups and that is the general consensus of most gun owners then THAT is why we are screwed. Make a campaign contribution. Write letters. Let them know you vote. I don't use that silly GOA website that generates all of those automated letters to politicians. It doesn't show that you care enough to type a letter and lick a stamp. It's deleted as easily as it's sent and it isn't worth your time so it's not going to be taken seriously by a politician.0 -
quote:only 3 of my rifles have hi cap magazines. all 3 are MATCH GUNS for military matches. and i havent shot them for 10 years. i can understand havent military guns if you need them for a task, but to own them and hoard them just because you have a right to is silly.People collect... cars, coins, motorcycles, knives, swords, ect... But military guns are silly??? Unless your using them for military matches??? You belong on the NRA board. 0 -
What is the NRA GANG doing with all the money they get??????????? 0 -
I love the NRA. Look how much they actually do. Me on the other hand I send in my $35 a year and read a really great magazine. The only other positive thing i do for our gun rights is vote (which nearly amounts to nothing) I have no doubt that there are individuals on this forum that work hard to advance our cause but i suspect that far more are like myself. Then there is the minority. The ones that complain and accuse and blame. They find fault with everone always expecting perfection and not doing one positive thing to help. 0 -
*sigh*
Calamitywood, I guess you aren't one of those people that expects much for your money.
$35 is about what I pay for insurance for one of my older cars to State Farm. If I had been doing that and suddenly, one of the top guys in State Farm said "You know, I wouldn't be opposed to limiting paying on claims to people who were in accidents with yellow or green cars."
If that happened, I would look for another insurance company. I wouldn't say "Oh well, I don't expect much for my money. And besides, I LOVE the literature that comes with the bill!"0 -
you made my point perfectly. I wonder if you got mine? 0 -
"They find fault with everone always expecting perfection and not doing one positive thing to help."
- Your point, and please correct me if I'm wrong, appears to be that unless you devote lots of time and effort to the cause, you have no right to expect those who are 'professionals' that we pay money to so that they will advance the cause to be consistent, which doesn't make a lot of sense.
If $35 isn't enough for them to stay on message and with their purpose, then perhaps they will let us know how much money we DO need to pay them so they will stay consistant.
As for those of us who pay, write letters, and instruct on an individual basis when we get the chance, there's really not a lot more we can do. Especially considering that we have things like, oh, jobs, family responsibilities, etc. That is why we PAY organizations to represent our interests: WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR ABILITY TO DO ALL THE WORK OURSELVES.0 -
I am not making a blanket statement that ALL LEO's feel this way.
I do know some officers with the same feeling toward "semi-auto rifles". Their reasoning is "they feel outgunned on the street", and "IF" the rifles/mags. were banned they wouldn't worry so much about it, which as most of know is BS. Most of these same officers think that "semi's" should only be in the hands of Mil. and Police.
IMO most officer's that get shot, aren't paying attention to everything around them (tunnel vision).
An example from personal experience. I got off work at midnight.
On my way home, there sits one of my "experienced" troopers eastbound side at a major intersection. He was watching a southbound stop sign and running radar. He was also doing paperwork, with the interior light on. I was eastbound. I pulled over on the right shoulder, he was on the left. Cut my lights off, got out, walked up to the right rear of his patrol car. He never knew I was there. I whacked the side of his car, while looking in the pass. window. Scared the crap out of him. Never went for his pistol. After a good laugh, mainly on my part, and a good talk, I believe he learned an important lesson. Pay attention!
-0 -
Wonder how long THIS mostly-pro NRA thread will last...? 0 -
I don't think I like that dude at all.... 0 -
that whole association does nothing but take your money and put stickers on the back of your truck 0 -
i emailed the nra about this and this is what they responded with
Thank you for contacting the NRA Membership division.
The NRA-ILA has posted Mr. Jackson's official statement online at
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9899 for your review.
Thank you very much for your support and please feel free to contact us0 -
collecting military guns is not silly. owning military guns as a political statement ONLY, is silly.[;)] 0 -
Mr Jackson needs to step down, and the NRA needs to step up.
Trinity +++0 -
I think the NRA had its past time. Now its just there. It would be nice to see another, more politically aggressive group take the stand. Seriously, I think the NRA just kinda foots around. Having guys like that on their board. They really don't represent me, and I was irrate to learn that the money I donated went to non-legislative programs... I mean sure the eddie the eagle program is all fine and dandy, but I want that political pendilum to start swinging back in the pro-gun favor. I wanna start seeing stuff like, oh gee, um maybe the 86 crime bill going away. It would be nice to legally purchase and own a registered machinegun that was made after 1986...
I'm really scared to see what happens when we get a new democrat in office, cause you know we will. More magazine restrictions or bans on semi-automatic so called "assault" rifles. Whats next, "sniper" rifles, aka pretty much any bolt action sporting rifle with a scope.
I mean not everyone wants a gun to go hunting with. Sometime people actually enjoy shooting paramilitary type weapons and sporting guns.
When you say "you don't need more than 5 shots to kill a dear" you are obviously about as smart as the former members of the old brady group... Who said the samething, and claimed they were actually pro gun, just for hunting and sporting guns.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
42 comments