The Front Page/HOME Gun Pics/GGPs Lists The Weekend Women

Friday, September 07, 2007


Bottom of Comments | Comment Form

Another Zumbo Moment

Kim du Toit
September 7, 2007
8:20 AM CDT

Good grief. Every time I feel myself sidling up towards renewing my NRA membership, someone like this asshole* comes along and pees in the soup. (Link courtesy of Reader JP and the JPFO.)

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.

Patronizing bastard.

Looks like it’s going to be another year (or more) before the NRA sees any of my money, or my support. You NRA members may want to contact them with your thoughts on the subject. (I think that one of those NRA begging letters returned in the postage-paid envelope with a message scrawled in red ink saying: “Not Another Penny Till You Change Your Position On Assault Rifles!” would be a decent touch.)

“The NRA: looking after your gun rights since 1865, unless you’re one of those nasty people with a scary-looking assault weapon.

OR:

The NRA: When it comes to assault weapons, we’re just like Schumer, McCarthy, Feinstein and the Bradys.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll go to the range… with my 10-round-capacity assault rifle.

image




Comments

Bottom of Comments | Comment Form | Original Post

  1. Ok, I gotta ask, when in the heck did the whole idea of magazine capacity enter the NRA lexicon.  I am not a member, but I am wondering has this been going on since the Wayne LaPierre days, cause I don’t remember it.

    I mean, did they talk to people who were not NA members and hear them say, “Ya know, I would be a member, ‘cept for that support you all have of scary, black Bakelite encased rifles.” Somehow, like all lobbyists who spend time on the DC circuit, I bet they just got tired of not being invited to the parties and he lobbyists convinced the leadership this was the way to go, instead of the other way around.

    MunDane | 9/7/2007 08:31 AM CDT | #99833
  2. I’m a Life Member, and I’m bookmarking this one for the next NRA fundraiser call I get. cool grin

    SDN | 9/7/2007 08:36 AM CDT | #99836
  3. Keep in mind that this is just one board member expressing his personal opinion ("I believe..."). It isn’t the position of the NRA. There are a lot of board members, perhaps 20 or more, and the NRA can’t control what they say. NRA life members, like me, elect the board, and I, and hopefully others, just won’t vote for this guy the next time around. Let’s keep the “big tent” and not damage the most effective progun outfit in the U.S. over the ill-considered remarks of one board guy.

    tsj55 | 9/7/2007 08:44 AM CDT | #99837
  4. So, I can have a semi-auto AK-47 and 1,000 five-round magazines all loaded up and ready to go, but that same rifle with an empty 30-rounder in it will make me a criminal?

    Got it.

    Bruce in NH | 9/7/2007 08:45 AM CDT | #99838
  5. I don’t get nearly as worked up about what people say as about what they do

    In that respect, the NRA has a pretty good track record of fighting “assault weapon” bans nationwide.  It seems clear from the context that Jackson was speaking from his own personal viewpoint and not for the NRA. 

    Those of you who demand rigid ideological purity from anybody are bound to live lives of disappointment.  And if you think that anybody in Congress is intimidated by those miniscule “no compromise” organizations like JPFO and GOA, then I can make you a killer deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.  smile

    Staff Martin | 9/7/2007 08:47 AM CDT | #99839
  6. Joquin Jackson explains his words here:  NRAILA

    Seems he was referring to fully auto weapons, which really matters not, but he is waffling.  It’s still condescending to many of us.  It’s got me to thinking maybe I really DO need a fully automatic weapon or two...with gigantic All-Day magazine loads…

    ScoutGunner | 9/7/2007 08:50 AM CDT | #99840
  7. Just sent and email to membership and asked for a formal statement.  Let’s just see how much they care.  I wish COL Cooper was still on the board, and alive for that matter, would love to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting.  Possibly could have dragged him behind his big trike to work on an attitude adjustment!

    dbltap | 9/7/2007 08:50 AM CDT | #99841
  8. Life member here too. NRA website has a explanation. He supposedly claims he means real full auto weapons, not our semi-auto versions. FWIW.

    tenmikemike | 9/7/2007 08:51 AM CDT | #99842
  9. This is appalling.

    He needs to be shown the door.

    He must be a Brady Bunch plant.

    molonlabe28 | 9/7/2007 08:54 AM CDT | #99844
  10. Life member here too.  I won’t let one old fellow who gets things confused, to which I can relate, cause me to feel ill towards NRA.  It’s about all we have to combat the simpletons in power who would grab more of it if not for us…

    ScoutGunner | 9/7/2007 08:56 AM CDT | #99846
  11. Kim;

    THAT can’t be a scary assault weapon; it doesn’t have a pistol grip!  LOL  LOL  LOL

    The Mad Yank | 9/7/2007 08:58 AM CDT | #99847
  12. 1. 1 board member does not an organization the size of the NRA make. 
    2. The NRA board election is a pretty Byzanntine affair with all sorts of voting and nomination restrictions…
    3. I am sure that a concerted letter writing campaign to the Executive board would result in some sanction of said offending member of the board. 
    4. The statement is typical of what I call the Gun Control Lite people.  They are all too willing to allow control over guns that they don’t own or shoot.  Imperious “holier than thou” bastards are common in the heirarchies of such organizations.  Also people who are in the organization for vailed motives.  I bet a good percentage of the NRA membership goes to Gun Controllers looking for artificial credentials for the MSM Propaganda mills.  NRA MEMBER CALLS FOR ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN… stuff..

    The NRA has never been keen on “black guns” or high capacity magazines… While they haven’t been organizationally stupid on the issue, they haven’t been overly supportive, either.

    As evidence, the recent court suit that resulted in the DC gun ban being overturned was OPPOSED by the NRA as a risky tactic that COULD RESULT in further court rulings against the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

    Frankly this mook’s statement is a testiment to the ultimate timidity of some parts of the organization.  Too quick to duck and run for cover when the real fighting begins… to afraid of the MSM and the propaganda assaults to actually advocate something that might make them sound or look “unreasonable”.  “Being Reasonable” is the Liberal/Leftist trap for badgering people into surrendering their own rights.

    But the NRA, as an organization feels compelled to be “reasonable”.

    Love him as I did, and agree with his statement as I do, I never saw Charlton Heston raise an M14 above his head, and announce forefeully..."FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!”

    It was more often than not… a custom $5,000 plus flintlock Pennsylvania Long Rifle… More art than use, there.  Which might say something about large quasi-political “non-partisan” organizaitons like the NRA.  Expensive, elegant, and “reasonable”.

    wink

    The Mighty Fahvaag | 9/7/2007 08:59 AM CDT | #99848
  13. Well, it might not have a pistol grip but it DOES have a sooper scary bayonet on the front.  Must be an evil assault rifle.  wink

    Tyler

    Tyler | 9/7/2007 09:06 AM CDT | #99850
  14. Oh, my bad, it’s not the actual bayonet on it that makes it an assault rifle, it’s the bayonet LUG.  tongue rolleye

    Tyler

    Tyler | 9/7/2007 09:08 AM CDT | #99851
  15. From the explanation:

    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.

    So he doesn’t have a problem with the ban of “Assault Weapons” as long as the definition fits his definition.

    I’m sorry.  I don’t recall seeing an asterisk in the Constitution excepting “Assault Weapons” from “Right to bear arms.”

    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.

    So “shall not infringe” is not synonymous with “rigorous regulations”?

    Double speak.

    Connie du Toit | 9/7/2007 09:15 AM CDT | #99855
  16. The thing is, even when he waffled and said he says he meant and claimed it was about Title 2 NFA weapons, those are legal to own too.  So he’s still a numbnuts in my personal opinion. 

    As to only needing one round to hunt, usually that works and sometimes it doesn’t so it doesn’t hurt to have a couple more.  I’m happy with 3.  BUT, being a Texas law enforcement officer, he should know that there isn’t a magazine capacity limit for things other than birds in the State of Texas that I can recall. 

    I’ll hunt the world with a Sharps or a No 1 or a 98 with 3 but I also have a mattel toy or three and I don’t begrudge anybody from wanting to hunt or shoot one of those either.

    Tom | 9/7/2007 09:16 AM CDT | #99856
  17. He won the seat in 2001, 2004, and 2007.  The comment was made in an interview in June 2005. He’s up for reelection to the board in 2010.

    Justin Buist | 9/7/2007 09:17 AM CDT | #99857
  18. There are 75 NRA Board members.  Not surprising that one would go off the reservation.

    And I don’t accept the “he was talking about full-auto” line one second.  NFA owners undergo the most rigorous background check of any gun owners.  Here in Maryland (considered a reasonable NFA state, believe it or not), you get to submit two photos, three sets of fingerprints, and undergo two SEPARATE background checks before you clear both state and Federal approvals.

    Pity we can’t put Congressmen through the same process.

    But this twit needs to be shown the door.  There are a lot of better candidates for the BOD.

    Mike of the Duelling Pistols | 9/7/2007 09:19 AM CDT | #99858
  19. I read his comments, and his explanation.  If the explanation serves any purpose, it’s only to point out that this bozo needs to be off the board of the NRA.

    I emailed the NRA about a week ago about the whole JJ affair.  Of course, I’ve had no response.  I will also make a point to bring it up when I get the next fund-raising phone call (that I’ve repeatedly asked them to stop making, but that’s another story).

    bmcgraw | 9/7/2007 09:27 AM CDT | #99860
  20. “I believe that assault weapons need to be in the hands of the military, and in the hands of the police. Because we’re the only ones, in this room, that I know of, proffesional enough B-B-B-B-B-B-BOOM .......................( a 6 to 9 round burst to his organization’s foot).

    That’s an excellent idea,Kim. I’ll be returning the begging envelopes with the message to remove one Joaquin Jackson from the board.............

    jimbob86 | 9/7/2007 09:33 AM CDT | #99862
  21. How short some folks memories are. Remember when the AWB came back up awhile ago? The NRA was quite happy to let it be renewed as long as the gun manufacturers received some protections. They were going to wave the flags and let it be renewed, (and be signed into law by Bush, who had his pen ready to go), until GOA, JPFO and a large number of their rank and file let them know that it was a no go. They didn’t even change their position until the vote was almost down to the wire. The NRA serves no-one.

    mrjarrell | 9/7/2007 09:33 AM CDT | #99863
  22. When did we start letting the GFWs define the terms of the debate?  Your semi-automatic AR-15 is NOT an “assault weapon.” Nor is your Garand, your semi-auto AK, nor your freaking SKS.  So the first question to Mr. Jackson is: Define your terms, Asshole.  He’d still be wrong, but it makes a difference.  (Context doesn’t look good for this old fool, though.)

    Also, the idea that a hunter should only need one round is just plain stupid.  You ever try hunting hog or bear, Sir, to mention only North American game?  Your life may depend on round #2, even though the first was perfectly placed.  And no, you don’t have time to drop another into the breech!

    Sheez.

    Mike.

    Mike_MN | 9/7/2007 09:34 AM CDT | #99864
  23. Although I am a big Heston fan, if he and the NRA were truly serious about fighting for gun rights, then “Moses” would have held up an assault rifle instead of a flintlock rifle nearly 200 years out of date....

    Achilles | 9/7/2007 09:35 AM CDT | #99865
  24. Although I am a big Heston fan, if he and the NRA were truly serious about fighting for gun rights, then “Moses” would have held up an assault rifle instead of a flintlock rifle nearly 200 years out of date....

    Achilles | 9/7/2007 09:35 AM CDT | #99866
  25. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What parts of that do these people NOT understand. The 2A was written for a very real purpose. Actually, these people know what the founding fathers meant. And THAT, boys and girls, is precisely why they’re so afraid of it. And use every opportunity to try to restrict and regulate it. Any and every attempt to inflict gun control is purely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I wouldn’t want to feed any fully automatic weapon, unless maybe it was a .22. However, it is my constitutional right to do so should I so desire, But the FFs wrote that in to ensure the gummint couldn’t be as was the gummint we’d just left. They know that. Bumpersticker wisdom:  Fear the government that fears your guns

    cmblake6 | 9/7/2007 09:45 AM CDT | #99867
  26. Note to the NRA:

    The next time I hear some sanctimonious NRA Elmer blabber to me about how many rounds I “need” in my magazine, I’m canceling my life membership. 

    And I’m absolutely fed up with LEOs who haven’t figured out that that they too are civilians in every sense of the word.  (Even Massad Ayoob doesn’t try to draw that odious distinction anymore. ) Unless you’re subject to the UCMJ and can be shot for failing to carry out lawful orders (something I’d like to have seen in NOLA) you’re a civilian, plain and simple.  (I’m not sure when the term “peace officer” fell into disuse, but it’s time to bring it back.)

    I’m tired of this goddamn divisiveness.  Why are we having to waste time on these people while Sarah Brady continues to slither across the landscape?

    Moriarty | 9/7/2007 09:54 AM CDT | #99868
  27. I received a response in 5 min to my email.

    They gave me a link to his “explanation” and a real persons name, address, email and phone number to contact in the future.

    Does not excuse his words, and he needs to go, but damn fine customer service.

    dbltap | 9/7/2007 09:57 AM CDT | #99870
  28. Yet another lifetime member here.  Is there a recall petition?  This guy needs to be shown the exit door.

    1911Man | 9/7/2007 10:01 AM CDT | #99871
  29. Not an NRA member, but I will be to the range this weekend… with my 20 round capacity assault rifle.  I probably won’t load up all 30 of my magazines, though.  Heck, I might even attach the frickin bayonet.  grin

    joeh5050 | 9/7/2007 10:10 AM CDT | #99872
  30. This is the very reason I do not belong to the NRA.

    They will trade and trade and trade one side and you know what happens after a while?  You no longer have anything to trade anymore.

    Those morons just do not get it and until they do, no $$$ from me along with appropriate BAD PR.

    It is just too clear:

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Read the words NRA asshole and quit masturbating the dictionary.

    </disgust>

    Fox3 | 9/7/2007 10:17 AM CDT | #99873
  31. These would be the same “professionals” that deep sixed Marbut’s Montana-only militia machinegun legislation, simply because they didn’t approve it?

    The MSSA is right on the edge of leaving the NRA over this. Way to go, arseholes!

    The NRA is over, as far as I am concerned. And yes, I am a life member.

    kbarrett | 9/7/2007 10:29 AM CDT | #99875
  32. Just thinking, if we are allowed to have what ever high cap mags for our semi-auto assault rifles but only 5rds for full autos, then 1. what is going to stop anyone with half a brain from using their “semi-auto legal” mags in their full auto? 2. what is the point in owning a full auto with only 5rd mags?  The mag would be empty by the time your finger touched the trigger.  3. it would be a feel good measure that could (and I am sure would) be used as a spring board to futher restrict us.  4. In “hit the reset button/Red Dawn” situations (Kim, I know you said wave good bye to Red Dawn but I am just trying to make a point) semi-autos are as good or better in most cases.

    SpiderSlayer | 9/7/2007 10:30 AM CDT | #99876
  33. Never given a dime to the NRA and every time I start getting serious about a membership, Kim posts something that gives me a very good reason not to.  Someone needs to tattoo this on every NRA spokesperson’s forehead: “The Second Amendment is not about hunting”.  The Second Amendment *is* about killing people, tyrants and their agents in particular.  It is sad we live in a world where such protection is sometimes needed, but denial of that reality is dangerous to the survival of our free state.  While you may not need more than five rounds to hunt deer, when a squad of 20 assault your home because you had the audacity to insult President Hillary Clinton on your blog and you refused to pay the fine, a 5 round capacity only means the other 15 in the squad take you down as you try to reload.  This asshat needs to be shown the door Zumbo-style.  An NRA board member really should know better.

    I also find it amusing that the average Officer Friendly I meet on the street or talk to enthusiastically supports my right to concealed carry, possess scary looking rifles, high-cap magazines, 50 cal rifles, and so on.  But the minute you get some LEO-type in front of the cameras, suddenly their attitude changes and they start parroting the Brady Bunch talking points. 

    I think a GOA membership is where I’ll be spending my money instead of the NRA.

    Jon | 9/7/2007 10:35 AM CDT | #99877
  34. I can’t believe some of you are buying into his whole “I was talking about automatics” BS. He talked about limiting magazine capacity to 5 rounds, pure and simple. This ‘Explanation’ is simply him floundering around after he got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

    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 or 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, the people have the sterotypical moustache and 10-gallon hat too. It’s going to be a split between that and the pistol pictures. They are trying to show a POLITICALLY CORRECT IMAGE.

    Now go back through and count how many pictures you see of someone with a Kalashnikov variant, an 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.

    AK47IsTheTool | 9/7/2007 10:36 AM CDT | #99878
  35. OK, he said it...it’s done.  Now, let’s see how the NRA reacts.  Either way, I agree.  He has shit the bed and it’s time for him to relinquish his position.  In my opinion, this last part is non-negotiable.

    skb12172 | 9/7/2007 10:38 AM CDT | #99879
  36. Funny I thought the NRA was formed to promote rifle marksmanship because so much of the population even then was becomining citified and there was a reduction of people with the basic skill required for military action.  Now they have members who oppose “assualt rifles” which is the basic rifle used by out and everybody else’s military. 
    Too many on the NRA board care nothing about the Second Amendment or the way of the rifle.  They just want to make sure nobody messes with their fancy shotguns.  Country club shooters.  Kind of like RINOS.

    toad | 9/7/2007 10:48 AM CDT | #99882
  37. Oh, no toad! That’s not it at all! 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.

    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.

    AK47IsTheTool | 9/7/2007 11:03 AM CDT | #99883
  38. Lighten up on the NRA. This guy doesn’t speak for the NRA any more than Ted Nugent does, or any other board member. Not supporting the IRA based on this guy’s statements is like not voting for a conservative political candidate because of disagreements with Guiliani or McCain.

    tsj55 | 9/7/2007 12:07 PM CDT | #99886
  39. Joaquin got elected because of his having been a Texas Ranger and a movie consultant.  It was assumed that just because of that background and because he was already an NRA member, he understood what the 2A was all about.

    He’s not the brightest star in the heavens, as a reading of his book will show.  (Granting that those of us who live in the parts of Texas where he worked have a better “insider’s view”.) For instance, the chapter about the crooked sheriff of Presidio County:  Joaquin was astounded when the guy got caught with a metric ton of pure cocaine.  Yet, the locals had for many years known the guy was a crook.

    Stuff happens.  Come 2008, vote him out.

    ‘Rat

    Desertrat | 9/7/2007 12:10 PM CDT | #99887
  40. I’m with you 1911man—I say recall this Fudd (says Fudd-me sitting here in camo just back in from morning dove hunt).

    Is there a mechanism for recalling NRA board members?

    Option 1:
    Quit the NRA, or don’t join and just it leave to Fudd’s like this.

    Option 2:
    Join/Stay in NRA and vote these the mealy mouthed compromisers off the board.

    dw
    NRA Lifer (tempted to quit but staying the course, hoping to win back the organization)

    blackeagle603 | 9/7/2007 12:10 PM CDT | #99888
  41. Here’s what I sent the NRA:

    Dear Board Members,

    I was about to upgrade my membership to lifetime member, but after Mr. Joaquin Jackson’s statement against citizen ownership of “assault weapons” I won’t contribute a single red cent.  He must either resign or be kicked out, and the NRA must soon release a STRONG public statement in favour of ordinary law-abiding citizens having access to the same type of small arms as the police/military. 

    Believe me, I am not your only member who feels so strongly.  Expect your contributions to go down the toilet until this matter is dealt with.

    Regards,

    Dan

    Danny Boy | 9/7/2007 12:12 PM CDT | #99889
  42. Oh yes, by all means let’s misconstrue what someone said, pillory them in public, and instead trying to find common ground to work together we can just pull our own side apart.

    It’s a flawless plan, really.

    NRAhab | 9/7/2007 12:37 PM CDT | #99890
  43. You know, the NRA has NOT been defending gun rights for some time, but preserving their own power by compromising gun rights time after time.  It’s not rocket science, folks - the right to keep and bear arms is not the gift that keeps on giving, forever.  One day, it will be gone, and the NRA is not delaying that day as much as they want you to think.  This quote is just the latest example.  You NRA defenders (’only one opinion’, etc.) get real - you are being played for suckers by a bunch of power mad lobbyists.

    Tallis | 9/7/2007 12:42 PM CDT | #99891
  44. Come 2008, vote him out.

    Positions on the board last for 3 years.  He was last elected in 2007 so we’ll have to wait until 2010 to do that.

    Justin Buist | 9/7/2007 01:09 PM CDT | #99892
  45. I couldn’t agree more with Staff Martin’s response in 5 and tsj55 in 39.  You can complain all you want about isolated little differences with the NRA and its board members but without the NRA (and its 3+ million members like me), we’d have long ago been in the same boat at Australia and England.

    As far as the “purist” organizations, they are totally ineffective.  How do I know that?  Because if they were, the gun grabbing liberal Dimmocarps and their lefty media lap dogs would bitch and moan about them like they do the NRA.

    Still not convinced about the effectivness of the NRA?  Ask Bill Clinton why Al Gore lost the 2000 election and ask yourself where we’d be today if he had won.

    dbrown | 9/7/2007 01:11 PM CDT | #99893
  46. I support the NRA as the “big tent” wherin us gun folk can wield serious influence in congress.  I also support JPFO and GOA and 2AF, because they better represent my view of 2A issues.

    If lifetime (voting) members of the NRA don’t give Mr. Jackson the axe at the next opportunity, the NRA will get no more of my money.  This is where I draw the line.  Who cares if they are the “big tent.” If the big tent doesn’t protect our rights, I won’t sleep in it. 

    The actions of the board as a whole will matter far more than the words of one arrogant LE/Military only type.  Time will tell but for now I remain a member.

    Danny Boy | 9/7/2007 01:23 PM CDT | #99894
  47. Dammit,

    Now I have to go out and buy a big scary black clad rifle with a huge clip, bayonet before those get outlawed too.

    All these stupid people sure are making it tough for me to stay within my gun budget this year.

    Perhaps Ted Nugent can get that waste of DNA on his show and blast him into submission like he did to Zumbo.

    Precision | 9/7/2007 01:23 PM CDT | #99895
  48. ...and without the “absolutist” GOA and JPFO, the NRA would be like the NRA of Great Britain—yelping about “hunting” issues because that’s all there’d be left to yelp about.

    What these Fuddsjust don’t seem to get is that they’re more vulnerable than anyone: all those acres of wilderness and naitonal forest—until the Greens start telling people that hunting belongs in the 18th century, and isn’t “relevant” in the modern age, and hunting gets banned on public lands except for “game management”.

    And you know what? They’d have a point. But where the “need” for hunting may diminish or disappear, the need to protect against “enemies foreign and domestic” will never go away.

    I just wish the Fudds would see that.

    Oh, and by the way, I’m not siding with the Greens, of course—but that’s the danger when you compromise ONE INCH with these bastards. The NRA is always saying how gun owners should stick together.

    It’s about damn time they practiced what they preached.

    Kim du Toit | 9/7/2007 01:30 PM CDT | #99896
  49. Just HAD to send them an email...:

    Dear Sirs,

    To encounter an ignorant fool with not even the most base grasp of the Constitution is one thing and, sadly, not entirely uncommon, but when the drooling imbecile happens to be an NRA Board Member, it’s beyond the pale.

    KLRU

    Quote:

    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.

    Would you fine gentlemen please take Mr. Jackson outside behind the woodshed and give him a thorough switching along with a primer on the actual text of the 2nd Amendment, because I most certainly don’t remember “, unless said firearms have a magazine capacity above five rounds” after the words “shall not be infringed.”

    If he were just a random village idiot with less brains than G-d gave a fruit fly it would be one thing but, again, I’m informed that Mr Jackson is an actual Board Member of our organization!

    He is most certainly entitled to his opinion, but I’d much prefer it if he, assuming that he wasn’t just drunk or under the influence of illicit substances when this load of drivel dribbled out his pie hole, would be using something OTHER than the NRA as a platform from which to display his illiteracy, idiocy and lack of even the most basic rudiments of intelligence.

    I was proud to sign up as a member of the NRA, but now I’m beginning to wonder if I should thank my lucky stars that I didn’t go for Life Membership right away, as was my original intent.

    I expect to hear about Mr Jackson’s pending dismissal and admission to an institution for the mentally retarded.

    Yours sincerely,

    Emp. Misha | 9/7/2007 01:37 PM CDT | #99897
  50. “I couldn’t agree more with Staff Martin’s response in 5 and tsj55 in 39.  You can complain all you want about isolated little differences with the NRA and its board members but without the NRA (and its 3+ million members like me), we’d have long ago been in the same boat at Australia and England.”

    Written by dbrown on 09/07 at 03:11 PM

    Hear hear.  I plan to be a life member of all groups listed (NRA, JPFO, GOA, 2AF, CCRKBA, CRPA), but the real problem here is, these guys have been fighting for gun rights for a long, long time.  I urge each and every one of you to find ancient copies of American Rifleman, as far back as you can go, and read them.  You will see that, even in the late 40s, the anti-gun foo foos were shoveling the same shit they are today, and who has been there to make sure our gun rights are still here, forsaking all others?

    Guess.

    Recon | 9/7/2007 01:42 PM CDT | #99898
  51. The lefties love to screw with the language to obscure meaning. Let’s reverse that and start calling assault rifles “resistance rifles.” That’s really what the Second Amendment is about: empowering the citizenry to resist overweening government.

    Bill D | 9/7/2007 01:51 PM CDT | #99899
  52. In regards to post 35:  One thing that I noticed years ago is in The Armed Citizen column.  Every time I read the column, it seems like most of the defense articles revolve around .22lr weapons.  While it may be that most defense situations are thwarted by a mere .22, I have often wondered if there was an underlying thought by the NRA that you really didn’t need more than a .22 to defend yourself.

    Now, raise your hand, if you’re personally relying on a .22lr round as your first choice as a defensive cartridge.

    Neither am I.

    bmcgraw | 9/7/2007 02:12 PM CDT | #99900
  53. ...and without the “absolutist” GOA and JPFO, the NRA would be like the NRA of Great Britain—yelping about “hunting” issues because that’s all there’d be left to yelp about.

    Because the NRA hasn’t done anything to help pass concealed carry laws nationwide, or fight against “black rifle bans” in the Midwest.  No, all the NRA does is try to protect people’s hunting rifles.

    NRAhab | 9/7/2007 02:16 PM CDT | #99901
  54. and who has been there to make sure our gun rights are still here, forsaking all others?

    The 125 million gun owning households?

    The 50% of the electorate that shows up to vote and makes this issue a priority?

    It certainly isn’t the NRA.  The NRA is about protecting the rights of hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts.  When it comes to protecting the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Second, they are somewhere else. 

    3 million members of the NRA don’t make a difference in elections, but the VOTERS DO, regardless of their affiliation with the NRA.  The politicians know if they piss off the NRA they are going to piss off a far greater number of voters who feel a lot stronger about the Second than the NRA does.

    Connie du Toit | 9/7/2007 02:17 PM CDT | #99902
  55. NRAhab,

    I’m not going to get into an argument about everything the NRA has done over the years—because as many positive things they have done, they’ve also done a few assholic things, too.

    Like this particular case.

    I’m sick of always being yelled at by NRA members whenever I dare raise my voice against the Holy Ones. The fact of the matter is that while the NRA isn’t perfect, there are times when they are so far from being perfect that it’s hard to believe that they actually believe in the Second Amendment, every jot and tittle, as they claim to do.

    Like in this particular case.

    And by the way, before anyone even thinks of sliming me as an “absolutist”, I’m not. I actually have no problem with some (a very few) restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

    But in this case, Jackson was talking through his ass, and if he’s typical of even a minority of NRA Board members, it’s time they woke up and smelled the Brady coffee.

    You wanna see a quick litmus test? How do you think the NRA would fall if the choice was between CCW and hunting rights?

    Given that choice, I think CCW would disappear faster than single malt whisky at a Kennedy dinner party. And the reason for that is because a HUGE majority of NRA members are hunters, and not gun rights supporters like myself.

    Kim du Toit | 9/7/2007 02:43 PM CDT | #99904
  56. Neglecting to notice that Mr. Jackson clarified his statements, presumably to avoid creating this sort of foolish hubbub, where exactly do you people think we would be without the NRA?

    And the reason for that is because a HUGE majority of NRA members are hunters, and not gun rights supporters like myself.

    And that wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the majority of gun owners aren’t gun rights supporters like you, would it?

    Maybe instead of alienating those “fudds”, we might want to try to work with them.  Just a thought.

    NRAhab | 9/7/2007 02:58 PM CDT | #99907
  57. C’mon! There are 75 NRA Board members. So one of them went off the reservation a little on assault rifles. The NRA itself hasn’t done anything, “assholic” or otherwise. The voting membership can recall the guy, or not reelect him. The voting membership consists of life members. So become a life member and vote against him, or use your pulpit to criticize this Jackson guy, but don’t say “I’ll assume Jackson must be speaking for the NRA, so let’s mock the NRA”. By the way, Jackson is part of the LEO wing of the NRA, not the hunters. The LEO guys frequently have a 2nd Amendment weakness when it comes to assault rifles, teflon bullets, polymer guns, ect, since they sometimes have to face them.

    tsj55 | 9/7/2007 03:02 PM CDT | #99908
  58. I read this piece this morning then I had to mow the yard and think about it.  I read Jackson’s book and he seems like a decent guy, I pondered, how the hell could he say something like this?
    I found the exact interview on line, 2005 with Texas Monthly and here it is: [url=http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/5_high.asp]KLRU].  He first states that he believes in the 2nd amendment then he says that civilians do not need weapons with more than 5 rounds.  His first 5 RD statement does not qualify with assault weapons, he is talking about hunters not needing more than 5 RDs. Then the interviewer mentions assault weapons and asks if he has discussed this need with the NRA for smaller capacity weapons and he says that this has been a consideration.  This is a Zumbo moment if I have ever seen one, even if it took a couple of years to come up. 

    I think it is time for all of the gun community to educate the NRA about one of their board memebers making statements like this to the media after he has been idenitified as an NRA director and with his statment that they have discussed this issue.  It is time to “TURN THE DOGS LOOSE!” JACKSON, FIVE ROUNDS AND IT IS A KNOCK OUT!  Time for this retired Texas Ranger to ride off into the setting sun.  The actual interview is worse than I thought.

    OldTexan | 9/7/2007 03:20 PM CDT | #99910
  59. The NRA has its flaws, as any large organization will.  But those who know the Congresscriters often remark at how scared they are of the NRA.  If it had 10 million members instead of 3 you would given a machine gun free of charge once you turned 18. 

    Life member here, even when they piss me off.

    happycynic | 9/7/2007 03:22 PM CDT | #99911
  60. Sorry Kim, I put the link in above and then reread you piece where you already had it in.  We don’t need to throw the NRA away and we can work from within but we need to make a fuss every once in awhile when things like this surface.

    OldTexan | 9/7/2007 03:26 PM CDT | #99912
  61. tsj,
    I’ll respond with what I tell any LEO that starts whining about polymer guns, etc.  Police officer regularly falls below other professions such as construction on the list of most dangerous jobs.  In fact, in the most recent list, LEO was no higher than 5th.  Given that, you never see construction workers whining about how dangerous their job is or demanding special rights from society.

    Bottom line...if they can’t take it, quit and do something else for a living.  Abdicating my rights for your sense of well being is NOT a reasonable solution.

    skb12172 | 9/7/2007 03:34 PM CDT | #99913
  62. tsj,
    I’ll respond with what I tell any LEO that starts whining about polymer guns, etc.  Police officer regularly falls below other professions such as construction on the list of most dangerous jobs.  In fact, in the most recent list, LEO was no higher than 5th.  Given that, you never see construction workers whining about how dangerous their job is or demanding special rights from society.

    Bottom line...if they can’t take it, quit and do something else for a living.  Abdicating my rights for your sense of well being is NOT a reasonable solution.

    skb12172 | 9/7/2007 03:34 PM CDT | #99914
  63. I’ve given up on the NRA, long ago.  They have ‘compromised’ our rights away at every turn. I guess I’ll just have to suffer with several 30 round magazines, stored in a bag in my nightstand.  Maybe JPFO will suit me a bit better, at least I can hope so.

    Tinker | 9/7/2007 03:42 PM CDT | #99916
  64. I forgot you owned a Rasheed; I was having a fit deciding what that thing was.

    That would explain why it looks like a Ljungman on the action, but has a foldy bayonet and takes 7.62x39.

    Cripes.

    Sigivald | 9/7/2007 03:49 PM CDT | #99917
  65. Regarding concealed carry versus hunting rifles, etc., all I can say is that here in Florida the NRA was involved - directly and indirectly - with getting the concealed carry and castle doctrine/no retreat laws passed.  Maybe other organizations did as well, but as a gun owner and voting citizen, I sure didn’t hear about them or from them, or see them mentioned in the local media or by our state lawmakers.  In my view, this was not the case with the NRA, which was front and center on these issues.

    Of course, I could be totally wrong on this and, if there are other organizations that helped get these laws passed here in Florida, I’d love to know about them.  At the end of the day, I’m all for the “big tent” and would be happy to join as many legitimate gun rights organizations as possible.  However, having limited resources, I want to make the most efficient use of my contributions.  In my opinion, that’s the NRA.

    As far as not making a difference during elections, I couldn’t disagree more but that’s just a difference in opinion.

    dbrown | 9/7/2007 03:56 PM CDT | #99918
  66. NRAhab,

    Jackson’s “clarification” defies the context of his original comments.  Why mention five-round magazines if the issue is fully-automatic rifles?  An automatic with a five round magazine is useless even for innocent amusement.  And why mention hunting with one round if he’s only talking about fully-automatic rifles?  Why mention the police, if the issue is only fully-automatic rifles?  Police carry semi-automatic AR-15s and the like.  No, Jackson was clearly not talking about fully-automatic rifles, which means that he didn’t even know the definition of “assault rifle.”

    Nope.  I gave him the benefit of the doubt at first (see #23), but on further consideration of the context doubt fades.  At best (and I’m really straining the bounds of generosity, here), his comments were muddle-headed nonsense.  His “clarification” doesn’t wash.

    b/t

    I am not at all impressed by the LEO-vs.-civilian distinction; if some LEO-type thinks teflon bullets are more dangerous to him than ordinary hollowpoints, then his opinion is bunk at root and branch.  If he doesn’t care to know what he’s talking about in public, then what the hell is he doing on the NRA board?

    But can the NRA throw out an elected board member for being a logorrheic twit?  I don’t know the bylaws on that point.  In any case, as a life member of said organization, you can be sure that my displeasure will be registered now and in three years, come election time. 

    Mike.

    Mike_MN | 9/7/2007 04:07 PM CDT | #99919
  67. “Those of you who demand rigid ideological purity from anybody are bound to live lives of disappointment.”

    True in general, but not for the people we hire specifically to manage the fight for our ideology!  They’re either in or they’re out-- through the plate-glass, lobby window, on their asses, on the sidewalk.  Would you hire a salesman for your company who went around talking about how your company’s product line sucks?  Hell no.  You’d fire his ass in a second.  I don’t want even the stamp licker in the NRA mail room saying stupid crap like that.

    There is no shortage of real 2A supporters out there such that we have to settle for fifth best.  Nor does any NRA board member have to be elected by a majority of American citizens.  If the half-way, sorta-but-not-really 2A supporters want to start their own organization and call it something like “The National ‘Please-Can-We-Have-One-Single-Shot-.22-If-Its-Not-Too-Scary-To-Anyone’ Association” they are welcome to lose on their own.  We have no use for them.

    Lyle | 9/7/2007 04:08 PM CDT | #99920
  68. Maybe instead of alienating those “fudds”, we might want to try to work with them.  Just a thought.

    Maybe “fudds” like Zumbo and Jackson (and certifiable elitist dickheads like David Petzal) ought to first engage their brains before giving the Brady Bunch more handy sound bites and alienating us.  Just a thought.

    Moriarty | 9/7/2007 04:12 PM CDT | #99921
  69. And that wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the majority of gun owners aren’t gun rights supporters like you, would it?

    Compare the number of hunting licenses to the estimated number of guns in this country.  The vast(VAST) majority of gun owners don’t hunt.

    princewally | 9/7/2007 04:31 PM CDT | #99922
  70. There is no shortage of real 2A supporters out there such that we have to settle for fifth best.

    Great.  Can I assume, then, that you’re an NRA member and will soon be announcing your candidacy for the board?  Because that’s the only way the NRA is going to change. 

    I’ll vote for you (incidentally, annual members can vote after they’ve been in a number of years.  I’ve been a voting member for at least a decade.)

    BTW, the NRA may only number 3 million but it has the ability to influence a much larger number than that, which is why politicians are afraid of it. 

    Of course, that also means that all you gun-owning non members are free riders, benefiting from someone else’s work.

    Staff Martin | 9/7/2007 04:34 PM CDT | #99923
  71. “Of course, that also means that all you gun-owning non members are free riders, benefiting from someone else’s work.”

    ...unless, of course, you belong to GOA or JPFO, who are helping to keep the NRA honest.

    Every single time an NRA member/ board member/ bottlewasher says something derogatory about assault weapons, the entire NRA organization is discredited in the eyes of the millions of Americans who own assault weapons.

    And they do it, over and over again.

    What the hell else are we supposed to think?

    Kim du Toit | 9/7/2007 04:47 PM CDT | #99925
  72. As to the NRA, I’m in the camp that they have done and do a lot of good and they aren’t much set up to handle people with views like me but I’m a life member none the less.  They are pretty conservative lately on what battles they choose to join and I don’t like what they are trying to do to Parker at all but I’m not going to rescind my membership either.  Life member of GOA and JPFO too.  My tastes run to single shots, double guns, and bolt rifles but I have some Mattel toys and such also.  You can’t even buy a decent autoloading .22LR pistol that wasn’t designed around a 10 rounder so the 5 round thing is beyound silly.  Are all .22LR autoloader pistols to be made illegal?

    Just wondering, I have a single shot Westley Richards that was in battles in SA and Rhodesia.  Does that make it an assault rifle?  It was used in multiple assaults.  By my reckoning that makes it more of an assault rifle than the Mattel toys.  grin

    Tom | 9/7/2007 05:01 PM CDT | #99926
  73. Compare the number of hunting licenses to the estimated number of guns in this country.  The vast(VAST) majority of gun owners don’t hunt.

    I never said they were hunters.  I said that most gun owners aren’t ardent gun rights supporters.

    I guess I’m about done here - I don’t understand the desire to provoke infighting amongst ourselves, when we really should be working together.  Yes, the hunters should get involved, and reach out to the non-hunters.  The skeet shooters should reach out to the sport shooters, etc.

    But if the hunters and the Fudds aren’t reaching out to us, doesn’t that mean we should reach out to them and make the first move instead of refusing to play?

    NRAhab | 9/7/2007 05:14 PM CDT | #99927
  74. No organization will ever make you perfectly happy. I shudder to think where we would be without the NRA.

    I belong to two organizations - the NRA and the AMA (American Motorcyclist Association). The AMA pisses me off sometimes, too, but I never hesitate to cut my check every year to both organizations, because they both have prevented onerous laws from seriously killing my rights to shoot and ride.

    The perfect is the enemy of the good. Join the NRA. It’s comical that people who scream about every proposed gun control law would not support the most powerful and effective organization for fighting them.

    I’m a little disappointed. JMO.

    Schip | 9/7/2007 05:19 PM CDT | #99929
  75. Every once in a while it dosen’t hurt to make a fuss and let the NRA know what other gun guys think of their “Stupid Pet Tricks”.  I appreciate the good stuff they do and not long ago I was one of the concerned only with hunting guys.  I use a Ruger No. 1 in 7x57 for most of my centerfire hunting and I use a 20- ga. overunder for birds. 

    Now, thanks ot Kim and all you other gun guys I have just recently aquired my Texas Concealed Carry permit.  I own some high capacity magazine pistols and semi-auto rifles and shotguns.  I like all my guns and if I could afford the license and food I would purchase a full auto machine gun.

    These changes take time and enlightenment so I would encourage folks to communicate and explain when they don’t see eye to eye with other gun people.  In my opinion we need to keep poking the NRA, if you are not a member join up for $25 per year and then keep on ‘splainen’ your position and recruit more folks like us to keep the burners turned up on high. 

    Let’s tell the NRA to not suffer fools but get in line with those of us who just plain old know the 2nd amendment means what it says, we regular US citizens can own guns (period).

    OldTexan | 9/7/2007 05:29 PM CDT | #99930
  76. I sent this to the NRA:

    ---8<---

    I write with disappointment at the comments recently made by Joaquin Jackson regarding “assault weapons”.  I was under the impression that the NRA as a whole (particularly after the Jim Zumbo episode) was against the discrimination against any type of weapon based on appearance or description.

    Given that the definition “assault weapon” is arbitrary, and that - to paraphrase - “we must all hang together, otherwise we shall assuredly hang separately”, I must request that the NRA ask for Mr. Jackson’s resignation.

    His comments are divisive, unhelpful and not consistent with the reasons I joined the NRA.  For your information, I shall immediately withhold any additional contributions of mine to the NRA until the NRA publishes a retraction and Mr. Jackson is either re-educated or asked to leave.

    I anticipate your early reply.

    Thanks,

    ---8<---

    guntotingbrit | 9/7/2007 05:47 PM CDT | #99931
  77. I’ll be going to the NRA site in a few minutes. I’ve been pondering how to say what needs saying without screaming. I’m a life member as well, but the times I’ve been upset about the “compromises” have been making me wonder why. But, again, they have been VERY instrumental in us being able to have ANYthing, and the ccw laws and castle doctrines have been WITH their support in almost every case. Through the political fear of the “largest voting block”, etc. They just need to become a little harder in their attacks, to chip away at the enemy instead of allowing them to chip away at us.

    cmblake6 | 9/7/2007 05:52 PM CDT | #99932
  78. And I sent this - slightly reworded - to NRAILA:

    ---8<---

    I write with disappointment at the comments that recently came to light, made by Joaquin Jackson regarding “assault weapons”.  I was under the impression that the NRA as a whole (particularly after the Jim Zumbo episode) opposed discrimination against any type of weapon based on appearance or description.

    Given that the definition “assault weapon” is arbitrary, and that - to paraphrase - “we must all hang together, otherwise we shall assuredly hang separately”, I must request that the NRA ask for Mr. Jackson’s resignation.

    Mr. Jackson’s feeble attempt at a retraction is not fooling me.  What would be the point in a fully-automatic weapon with a five-round magazine?  And, in any case, the possession of fully-automatic weapons is not generally permitted.  Mr. Jackson is, in my opinion, attempting to hide behind a semantic definition.  As Mr. Zumbo showed his true colors, I belive that Mr. Jackson has also shown his.  He has no place in “My NRA”.

    His comments are divisive, unhelpful and not consistent with the reasons I joined the NRA.  For your information, I shall immediately withhold any additional contributions of mine to the NRA until the NRA publishes a retraction and Mr. Jackson is either re-educated or asked to leave.

    I anticipate your early reply.

    ---8<---

    guntotingbrit | 9/7/2007 05:54 PM CDT | #99933
  79. Kim wrote:
    “...because a HUGE majority of NRA members are hunters, and not gun rights supporters like myself. “

    Accepting that as a given but also recognizing that the NRA is the largest gun owners group in existence now and for the foreseeable future—what can we do about improving the state of Freemen and RKBA? 

    It’s axiomatic in PolySci that small, activist groups always have a larger influence than warranted by their numbers.  Couldn’t this be the case within the NRA if a gunrights supporters dedicate themselves to reclaiming the NRA as stronger 2A supporter?

    Ask yourselves:
    Which action increases our national influence?
    Which action marginalizes and diminishes our national influence?

    The options that have been set before us are
    a) walk away from NRA or
    b) stay within NRA but not change the organization. 

    That’s really a false set of options, no?  Those are not the only choices are they? 

    A more complete set of options as I see them:
    1) Gun rights supportors can walk away from NRA.
    Effect: Increases the NRA tilt toward Fuddism. However, does another gunrights organization gain signficant national influence from new membership? Unlikely.

    2) Evangelize a Fudd a month. Take him to a steel plate shoot. Link him a Michael DRTV video of a 3-gun competition, etc.

    3) Outbreed and outlobby the Fudd’s within NRA.
    Add family member to NRA. Recruit other Gunrights people to payup/join the NRA voting rolls.  Get them all in voting status.  This may be one of the biggest direct $contribution payoffs of any political support money if it tilts NRA toward a more absolutist stance on 2A issues.

    4) Lobby and persuade on websites and discussion boards where Fudds and gunrights supports intersect (e.g. Dave Petzal’s Gun Talk).

    Effect of 2 + 3 + 4: Change the outcome of board elections.  It doesn’t take many active members to tilt an organization. Most NRA members don’t vote and most NRA Fudd’s aren’t activist. Call it a friendly, hostile takeover. 

    Come on! Let’s freak out Carolyn McCarthy by getting Ted Nugent elected NRA Pres!
    Why not?

    blackeagle603 | 9/7/2007 06:03 PM CDT | #99934
  80. Who made what first move?

    Let’s review…

    Most recently (2007):

    In a moment of (weakness?  honesty? stupidity?), celebrity hunter Jim Zumbo throws “scawwy looking rifle” owners over the side on his personal blog, giving Rep. McCarthy’s bill much-needed media support. 

    A predictable Intarweb shitstorm ensues, ultimately costing Zumbo his position with Outdoor Life, his endorsement income and his career.

    Zumbo apologizes and recants.  Some gun owners accept this.  Many do not, as serious damage has been done and some remain unsure that Zumbo has fully grasped the concept of a RKBA, outside of “sporting” uses. 

    But all the way back to 1994:

    David Petzal, in his capacity as Shooting Editor for Field and Stream, penned the following:

    “Gun owners — all gun owners — pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons. The American public — and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public — would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma.”

    The AWB was signed into law and we endured 10 years of the stupidest legislation ever enacted.

    There was no shitstorm (largely because gun owners lacked the vox populi leverage of the Intarweb to cause one.)

    Petzal never recanted.  His stance on the RKBA was never openly questioned and he kept his position and celebrity.

    In 2007, Petzal not only denied that he endorsed the 1994 AWB, he accused gun owners of furnishing the Brady Campaign with support, given the understandably heated comments regarding Zumbo.

    I’m not only a shooter, I’m a landowner.  If hunters want to keep me as their political friend and supporter—indeed, if they want to keep hunting on my property as they now do, they’d better be the ones to reach out and make that first move.  I, and a whole lot of other shooters, can live without them.  They can’t without us.

    They need to recognize this.

    Moriarty | 9/7/2007 06:07 PM CDT | #99935
  81. Taking over the NRA has been tried.

    Neil Knox and his “hard corp” group tried it ... and Lapierre spent as much of the organization’s money as was needed to kick him and everyone associated with him off the board.

    Once he got a two vote majority, Lapierre purge every director who would not join him ... and then had the bylaws changed so he would never be in danger of losing his position again.

    The NRA is over, folks. You give them money, you are giving money to Wayne Lapierre. Let us know how that works out for you.

    kbarrett | 9/7/2007 07:00 PM CDT | #99937
  82. Now, raise your hand, if you’re personally relying on a .22lr round as your first choice as a defensive cartridge.

    Neither am I.

    Nope.

    My ‘short gun’ cartridge is .45 ACP; my ‘long gun’ is a kinda .22, but I guarantee you it AIN’T lr!
    It’s WAY bigger than .22 Mag, too!

    But it IS “kinda” .22; .223, anyway, but lots longer, with a LOT more powder charge. And Mickey Mouse LOVED it, once they got the right kind of powder in there.
    And once the chamber got chromed, it was a pretty good weapon, even in the jungle.
    Now, out on the desert, where the range is something beyond interstellar, things get a bit far for the mousegun, but then again, I’M not planning on shooting anybody THAT far away from me. Because unless it’s somebody in Kim’s class or better, that particular raghead is NOT going to hit me be first round anyway, and that wheet! will give me the chance to duck! while OBL’s henchman is trying to draw a bead on me.
    Omar the tent-dweller can shoot the sand all he wants to, I don’t mind; when he runs his AK- dry, THAT’S when I’ll pop up and nail his ass with my Mousegun, because by the time he empties that Kalashnikov, I’ll either