Meet Joaquin Jackson

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

only1asterisk

member
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
2,412
This is NOT an L&P thread. This is an informational thread to inform readers of THR to the relevant facts. This thread has conditional Moderator approval in the hopes that it will lead people to edcuate themselves and act accordingly, please don't get it locked with needless base behavior. Take what information you want and do with it what you will.
Joaquin Jackson is currently serving on the NRA Board of Director (confirmed through the NRA).

He was filmed for an interview in 2005 in which he said some things that seem totally inapproriate for member of the NRA board. The video is available here: http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/jackson.asp

Mr. Jackson's statements cause an intense response after the video was posted in several forums a few days ago.

NRA has responded by issuing to explain away Jackson's comments:

STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN JACKSON

"Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.

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. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.

In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.

As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.

But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to abject failures.

Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.

I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.

I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.
Click to expand...

Many people are still extremely unhappy with this explanation and continue to press Jackson to resign or for his fellow board members to vote for him to be removed from the board.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

"Assault weapons" is a term the media and gun banners coined to describe "evil" looking or military style semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. The term is specifically defined as a matter of law to apply to semiautomatic weapons, and is not generally used to describe fully automatic firearms.

So, is the guy ignorant or just lying?
 
I would have to agree with the above sentiments. He should have resisted the bait and worked to undermine the term "assault weapon" for the loaded term that it truly is. Similarly to terms such as "gun violence", etc.
The number one goal should be to dismember these loaded terms that serve to misinform the masses.
 
I was just told that Jackson is still on the BOD. So I'm opening this back up.

The thing is, we don't want any of the standard L&P style whining and bloviating. What are we going to do about this... Ideas, plans, action, etc.

Yes, we know this makes you angry. No kidding. Now what are you going to do about it?
 
Maybe I won't vote for him next time. Meanwhile, he's just one of what, 70-some directors on the Board?

He's entitled to his opinion just like everyone else. Maybe he'll learn a few things and use his vast experience to help the cause.

He hasn't been all bad you know. Look at his background.

John
NRA Patron Member
 
And this too. I can't believe anyone would criticize someone for using the true definition of assault weapon. John

"A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. (See machine guns.)"
 
Why shouldn't we get upset about an NRA board member agreeing that civilians shouldn't own weapons protected under the 2nd Amendment?
 
I think his reply explained the statement fairly well. While remaining slightly uncomfortable with his presumption that even a little bit of banning is OK, I don't believe he should be drawn and quartered, nor Zumboed.

TC
 
Reviewing his earlier statement in light of the subsequent explanation, his position is that assault weapons are legal as long as civilians can only own 5 round magazines with which to operate them. Correct?

Now, a semi-auto Uzi or AR uses the identical magazine as a full-auto Uzi or AR, correct? So do we pass a law telling "assault weapon" owners to not own higher cap magazines (thereby effectively prohibiting them from owning said magazines for their semi-auto weapons) or do we just outlaw higher cap magazines altogether?

This is what happens when someone 1) says what they truly thing or 2) something about which they truly are ignorant and then try to put the genie back in the bottle by spinning the story.
 
He hasn't been all bad you know. Look at his background.
Click to expand...

NRA board members are handpicked esp. for their backgrounds AND their ability to positively represent the NRA and its goals. Mr. Jackson demonstates that he either defines the RKBA in a way that is irreconcilable with those of many NRA members OR clearly demonstrates that he is a very poor choice for representing the NRA in public (being manipulated by a low level newsie during his interview). Either way, I don’t care for his continued service on the board. I’d prefer Mr. Jackson excuse himself from the board, but there is a process (I believe) by which he can be removed.

It has been requested that people contacting the NRA on this matter go through the NRA's Secretary. If you do happen to get to speak to him, please show the proper respect. He's more than earned it.

David
 
The problem is just general ignorance about firearms. I also can't stand the whole "machinegun vs AW" discussion. AWs are "machineguns" that fire one shot per pull of the trigger (no, I'm not talking about the ATF definition either, so please nobody post what the ATF says). The only real difference between my AKs and a full-auto is that little banana-shaped disconnecter and that on a full-auto, I could just hold the trigger down instead of pressing it repeatedly. "Machinegun" is also a concocted term. There is nothing inherently more deadly about a machinegun. Nor is it any more "mechanized" than a semi-auto. "Machine" makes people think it is some sort of self-sufficient, artificially intelligent organism. I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot by saying, "well it's NOT a machinegun", as if there's something inherently wrong with MG ownership. This is kind of like in 1994 when people said, "but assault weapons DO have sporting purposes". In short, arguments against one gun in favor of it being "less deadly" than another are a compromise on compromised ownership. I'm personally not going to be content with gun ownership until I can walk down to my local gunshop and get an MG, the same as I buy my current AKs. This fellow just confuses the hell out of people with all these terms.
 
The problem is just general ignorance about firearms.
Click to expand...

I don't really see that as the main issue, although I hate when people try to obfuscate the distinction between semiautos and fireams capable of automatic fire (even if it is a NRA board member). If, in his interview, he had said "Machineguns should be limited to mazazine with 5 rounds or less..." he'd have been just as wrong (although he likely would have gotten less flack over it.

If some people are right about the timing (I have to get a definitive answer) and this interview took place DURING THE AWB as we were all waiting for it to sunset, that bumps it up to a whole new level of wrong.

David
 
"Why shouldn't we get upset"

Life's too short to get upset over every little thing that comes down the road. He's just one Director out of 70-some and we can vote him out the next time if we want. It's not like he's running the show at the NRA.

I've grown tired of the sudden onslaught of knee-jerk reactions to every little misstep somebody makes. Why not just drop the guy a friendly line and ask him to reconsider the statement he made years ago? Why start out by demanding blood?

John
 
Why is there the desire to downplay things to the point that they are meaningless "missteps"?
 
I've grown tired of the sudden onslaught of knee-jerk reactions to every little misstep somebody makes. Why not just drop the guy a friendly line and ask him to reconsider the statement he made years ago? Why start out by demanding blood?
Click to expand...

Once you are in a position such as Mr. Jackson's, you are no longer permitted "missteps" of such magnitude without being held accountable. The higher you rise, the more your "misstep" is likely to cost you.

David
 
Once you are in a position such as Mr. Jackson's, you are no longer permitted "missteps" of such magnitude without being held accountable.
Click to expand...

Missteps are fine if someone goes "I screwed the pooch." It's the explanations that basically treat us as idiots by saying "you didn't understand me properly. Allow me to spoonfeed you an explanation that is false on its face" that really gets me. Zumbo did the same thing with his first apology wherein he said his words were misinterpreted.
 
I'm not liking his explanation. Even if it were clear he was speaking about full auto, I don't like it. I'll be voting him out.
 
I've grown tired of the sudden onslaught of knee-jerk reactions to every little misstep somebody makes. Why not just drop the guy a friendly line and ask him to reconsider the statement he made years ago? Why start out by demanding blood?
Click to expand...
Because we live in an increasingly predatory world where those who "live and let live" are destined to be some predator's lunch. I personally think a case can be made for keeping the gain pot cranked high. It tends to let the predators know the days of compliance in an effort to "just get along" are over.

Zumbo was a watershed event. Clearly communications have facilitated the rapid response to those who would control us. Don't know about you but I think Zumbo was a healthy event.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
JPFO alert
Replies
2
Views
743
Justin
Justin
D
  • Locked
Book review "One Ranger" Texas Ranger Joaquin Jackson
Replies
2
Views
818
Dan Morris
D
R
  • Locked
More Nonsense in Chicago From Rev Jackson
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Neo-Luddite
Neo-Luddite
F
  • Locked
Fudds are dangerous to your rights
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
hso
hso
G
  • Locked
ARIZONA LEAD BAN MEETING FRIDAY 18Th
Replies
2
Views
453
davepool
D
Back
Top