A good friend steered me to the following video originally aired on KTLA over a year ago where an NRA board member, Joaquin Jackson, stated that he thought an assault weapon was any that had a magazine capacity of more than five rounds and that a firearm of this type should only be in the hands of police and military.

The URL of the interview is :
http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/5_high.asp


If this man is on the NRA board, where does that leave our enemies to sit?

I hope that hasn't already been posted. it is entirely new to me.

A good friend steered me to the following video originally aired on KTLA over a year ago where an NRA board member, Joaquin Jackson, stated that he thought an assault weapon was any that had a magazine capacity of more than five rounds and that a firearm of this type should only be in the hands of police and military.

The URL of the interview is :
http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/5_high.asp


If this man is on the NRA board, where does that leave our enemies to sit?

I hope that hasn't already been posted. it is entirely new to me.

Perhaps the place to bring this up is with the NRA....NOT saying of course that you should not bring it up here, you should. I had never heard of this before. :mad:

This man just made a statement that he supports the second amendment yet in the next breath he uses the old hunting comparison to justify his comments about only needing 5 round mag's and that only police and the military should have assualt weapons. My reading of the second amendment states nothing about hunting being the reason for having it, as a matter of fact it is their to protect us from the abuses of the goverment and its enforcement arms, the police and military.

There is an NRA Directors election coming up soon (I just signed a petition to get an individual on the ballot). Perhaps he's up for re-election.

Perhaps the place to bring this up is with the NRA....NOT saying of course that you should not bring it up here, you should. I had never heard of this before. :mad:
Good idea and that is the first thing I did.
Thanks for the suggestion.

Shades of Jim Zumbo! He does say it is what he feels personally, and not that it is an NRA position, but as someone who shoots magazines loaded with 8 rounds all the time under Service Rifle Match rules, it is clear to me that this fellow sees hunting as the only private sector use for long guns and has no awareness of other civilian peacetime applications, nor of the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I think I will write him and point out that the CMP is currently fielding civilian volunteer instructors to train the Army's Unit Designated Marksmen, owing to the Army's shortage of qualified instructors who are not deployed in the sandbox. This is part of what civilian training with military arms was always intended to accomplish, and it is something we would be unable to do if civilian marksmen had not learned and maintained skills with "assault" weapons.

I received a reply from the NRA where Mr. Jackson "clarifies" his videotaped comments. I heard what he said on the videotape and the written clarification contradicts it completely. In fairness I have put the URL of his clarification below that the NRA has posted on their website.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9899

Thank you all for your interest.

Terry

That sounds like a good explanition to me, as I've been cut short on ocasion to make my statements sound very misleading.
This flustrating but sometimes you can get trapped and made to sound like an a--!!

My first thought was what a jerk he was (although "jerk" wasn't the word).

But...I remembered when I was interviewed by a newspaper man as I left a gunshow near Chicago in 1989, when the first "assault weapon" scare was going on. Some of my comments were in the next day's paper, but I had to read them a few times to recognize them as mine because they were chopped up to suit the newspaper.
The short verison is- I said that my primary shooting interest at the time was competing in rifle matches, and while I didn't want an AK47, I thought I should be allowed to own one if I wanted. That became something like "a competitive shooter who saw no use for assault weapons".

Since then, I tend to not take printed or televised comments very seriously.
Jim Zumbo was different, since his comments were straight from the horse's(asse's) mouth.

Ranger Jackson's? I'll give him a pass, but not without suspicion, I'm afraid. I would think that someone in his position, and with his experience in dealing with media over the years, should know how to avoid being set-up. You should know that as an NRA board member, anything you say can and will be used against you (and all of us) and will be twisted to suit the needs of the user, and should know to be very, very, careful.

It would have taken some awfully slick editing to make those particular recorded comments come out of context. Agree that editing is done to achieve a "slant" rather than to be objective, however.

That pass I gave him...I'll be taking that right back now.

Earlier, I read the statement before the interview, and was reminded of when my quote was butchered in a newspaper in 1989 (that I mentioned above).
That must have clouded my thinking.

Because after looking at both his interview and NRA statement again, I ain't buying it.

His claim in the NRA statement is that when he said "assault weapons" in the interview, he meant assault weapons in the proper definition- selective fire (full-auto capable).
If that's the case, when he said in the interview that he thought it was OK for civilians to have them if limited to five rounds, I guess he meant we can have full-autos if they have only a five-round capacity?
Somehow, I doubt that's what he was saying.

And-
Assuming he is against any private ownership of full-autos, or even if he would like to see a five-round limit on those only... then he IS in favor of more federal restrictions. As it stands now, the federal gov't allows private ownership of full-autos (no magazine capacity limit), provided it's OK in your state, and you go through the correct procedures.
I have a couple to prove it.

I'm still sore at the NRA for selling us Class 3 guys out in 1986. At the BEST, he's apparently another one.
But I don't think that's all. I think what he said the first time, in the TV interview, is exactly what he meant. He would like a five-round limit, preferably a one-shot limit.
At least for us regular people.

Sorry I aint buying it, I listened to the interview again and their is no way he was talking of just fill auto assault weapons.

The NRA President or Exec VP should relieve Mr. Jackson if they have the authority to do so. Statements like that coming from a member of the board are totally unacceptable. I am emailing them a response today.

The NRA President or Exec VP should relieve Mr. Jackson if they have the authority to do so. Statements like that coming from a member of the board are totally unacceptable. I am emailing them a response today.

I e mailed 2 days ago.I received an email from NRA to check his rebutal at Nra site.i read it. seems resonable knowing the media.nothing any one says comes out right in the media.

In the first place, the term "assault weapon" was invented by anti-firearms politicians to scare people into believing their rhetoic. They also invented the term "cop-killer" bullets for bullets that had never killed a cop.

Guess who they said should be the only people with cop-killer bullets? You guessed it, Cops. Now, I suppose the cops are running around killing each other with them. Not. They use them on us.

I e mailed 2 days ago.I received an email from NRA to check his rebutal at Nra site.i read it. seems resonable knowing the media.nothing any one says comes out right in the media.

It didn't sound reasonable to me. It only looked like an attempted spin. A very poorly done spin.

The man said what he said in that interview and the subsequent letter is nothing more than public relations spin. I sincerely hope he is outed from the Board of Directors asap (may be with us till 2010 sad to say). He has violated the trust placed in him by the members of the NRA and no amount of spin can change that.

Found this on a website. I may not renew my membership for the next 3 years and throw my bucks at a better 2A organization.

Cut&Pasted:
************

He is a graduate of the National FBI Academy and holds a B.S. Degree in Police Administration. Lives the philosophy: "Say what you mean, mean what you say, and tell it like it is." Married to Shirley for 38 years; they have two sons.

Joaquin Jackson was elected to the NRA Board of Directors in 2001 for a 3 year term.

They didn't invent "assault weapon" but they sure were the first to misapply it to semi-autos. Someone once said words to the effect that you should beware of government's agenda when it has to change the meaning of words to get what it wants.

Found this on a website. I may not renew my membership for the next 3 years and throw my bucks at a better 2A organization.



Deciding not to renew with the NRA because of the actions of one board member is like quitting the US because of one senator, it doesn't make any sense. Rather re-up and help vote him out. And there isn't a better organization when it comes to the defense of our rights than the NRA.

Deciding not to renew with the NRA because of the actions of one board member is like quitting the US because of one senator, it doesn't make any sense. Rather re-up and help vote him out. And there isn't a better organization when it comes to the defense of our rights than the NRA.

I agree wholeheartedly. It is us, the members, who should keep apprised of what is going on as this post shows.

It is also forums like this one that gets the word out when people who we trust stab us in the back.

In any gun rights organization, even the NRA, there will be one or two who don't fully understand the difference between hunting rights and Second Amendment rights.

The change is in the culture. The culture changed drastically when we tipped the balance over to an urban from a rural environment about 30-40 years ago.

They didn't invent "assault weapon" but they sure were the first to misapply it to semi-autos. Someone once said words to the effect that you should beware of government's agenda when it has to change the meaning of words to get what it wants.

I beg to differ on that point. There was not, and still is not a firearm class called "assualt weapon." There are Assault Rifles, but those have selective fire capability.

What the anti-firearm politicians attempted to do with the new term was to ban the sale, manufature, and ownership of semi-automatic firearms in the United States. There never was a clear definition of it. It basically boiled down to any semi-automatic firearm that used a magazine that held more cartridges than they thought we should have, had a pistol grip, a flash hider, and that scared them.

They are scared of all firearms, unless they are the only ones who can have them. Many of the most vehement anti-firearms politicians have their body guards posses them. They may even themselves have them.