A look at a NRA board member? Joaquin Jackson

[swan hunter]

This is an older interview but this guy has no business on the NRA board...
The vote deadline is April 25th. The ballot is in the March American Rifleman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

 

[TexasRifleman]

Good thread on this over at TFL with a little more discussion.

I will be voting against Mr Jackson for sure.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3976995

 

[ClarkEMyers]

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.

 

[swan hunter]

The question wasn't put in context of hunting...

From his followup statement after that interview:

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.

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...

 

[cane]

You do realize this interview was in 2005 don't you? He hasn't managed to destroy the NRA yet.

 

[swan hunter]

I don't understand this logic?

from my original post...

This is an older interview but this guy has no business on the NRA board...

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

He hasn't managed to destroy the NRA yet.

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

 

[Balrog]

You do realize this interview was in 2005 don't you? He hasn't managed to destroy the NRA yet.

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.

 

[esquare]

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.

 

[JohnBT]

"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

 

[gopguy]

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

 

[benEzra]

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

Hmm, if he had said this...

M: Of course a lot of law enforcement are concerned about things like trap guns which they feel like don't really contribute to the keeping of the peace.

J: Well, If a hunter, if you're a hunter if you're gonna go hunting, you shouldn't need a trap gun…

M: If you're any good

J: If you're a good shot.

M: So have you brought to the attention of your fellow board members at the NRA that maybe trap guns ought to be restricted?

J: Well we've talked, we've discussed it you know, but uh this thing about trap guns has been a kind of a touchy deal, but personally, I think these trap guns 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 trap guns to a civilian, no...

Had he said that, you think trap shooters might have been suggesting that he be voted out?