Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A look at a NRA board member? Joaquin Jackson

Discussion in 'Activism' started by swan hunter, Mar 15, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. swan hunter

    swan hunter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Messages:
    158
    Location:
    southern IL
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2010
  2. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
  3. ClarkEMyers

    ClarkEMyers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    A stone's throw from Henry's Fork
    I disagree, though I won't be voting for the man.

    I credit the explanation that Ranger Jackson supports full auto in private hands but does believe in reduced capacity magazines in the hunting field. OK to have a full auto say M14 next to the bed but a reduced capacity magazine is not only appropriate - much easier for prone shots - but in Ranger Jackson's opinion a reduced capacity magazine ought to be required for hunters - the ideal is one cartridge one kill I suppose just like one riot one ranger.

    That is my own understanding of Ranger Jackson's views is that much like the 3 shot limit (plugged magazine) on migratory birds he supports a limit on magazine size in the field to discourage spray and pray slob hunting.

    My own view is that spray and pray hunting and other slob hunting is a price we pay for over population in general and a lack of role models in the hunting field - but that reduced capacity magazines and other technical changes that create status offenses is not the way to deal with human nature. I do strive to have game to show for every shot I fire just the same though I don't always succeed.

    FWIW I was at Cincinnatti - sat next to the Brownells and I will be voting for Pete Brownell among a very few others - and I'm a Benefactor Member today.
     
  4. swan hunter

    swan hunter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Messages:
    158
    Location:
    southern IL
    The question wasn't put in context of hunting...

    From his followup statement after that interview:

    It made no sense for him to say that he doesn't think you should be able to use a full auto weapon for hunting and limit it to 5 rounds. Is he advocating using a full auto weapon with a max of 5 rounds?
    The question was about banning "assault weapons". When I think about this type of gun, I don't necessarily singly think about hunting applications.
    I think this was just a weak contrived excuse for disguising his true feelings that were displayed in the interview. "Only police and military should have assault weapons"...
    I don't think I have ever heard a serious suggestion that hunters should use full auto weapons...
     
  5. cane

    cane Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    743
    Location:
    Colorado
    You do realize this interview was in 2005 don't you? He hasn't managed to destroy the NRA yet.
     
  6. swan hunter

    swan hunter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Messages:
    158
    Location:
    southern IL
    I don't understand this logic?

    from my original post...
    So yes, I do know it is an older post.

    I'm not sure this is the criteria we should use to choose our leaders:scrutiny:...I think they should reflect the views of the majority of membership...but that's just me.:rolleyes:
     
  7. Balrog

    Balrog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,987
    Well, we have a winner for clueless statement of the week.

    I think we should expect a little more out of NRA board members than they just not destroy the NRA.
     
  8. esquare

    esquare Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    From what I've read, he's had AMPLE time to correct his opinion on this issue (several years) and hasn't. I have not heard his explanation about hunting before, but if that's what he meant in this interview, it means he's horrible at communicating his views. (BTW, that's not what I think - I think he has a poor view of the 2A). Either way, he really doesn't belong on the NRA board. It's people like him who signed away a lot of the 2A right that we've lost in the name of compromise. That's not the type of leadership I want to see at the NRA, and I have a hard time understanding why we need people like that when there are so many that actually have a full understanding of the 2A.
     
  9. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "You do realize this interview was in 2005 don't you? He hasn't managed to destroy the NRA yet. "

    Yes, it's been discussed a few times a year since then. I might vote for him just to keep the discussions going for a few more years.

    Next up, why do trap shooters tolerate skeet shooters on the NRA Board? Inquiring minds want to know.

    John
     
  10. gopguy

    gopguy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,189
    Location:
    S.W. Ohio
    Personally I am eager to get Ken Hanson on the board. We worked together for years trying to get concealed carry in Ohio a battle eventually won with the hard work of many. He is a no nonsense guy who will put some steel in the spine of the NRA. ;)

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7126
     
  11. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,575
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    Hmm, if he had said this...

    Had he said that, you think trap shooters might have been suggesting that he be voted out?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page