Via Gun Law News, meet Joaquin Jackson, NRA Board member and
gun bigot, reincarnation of Bill Ruger, er, Jim Zumbo, um, clueless idiot, ah! “Only One.”
He’s apparently an ex-Texas Ranger, so that explains the “Only Ones” mentality.
I personally believe a weapon should never have over a – as far as civilian – a five round capacity. If you’re a hunter, if you’re a hunter, if you’re going to go hunting with a weapon, you shouldn’t need only but one round.
This after stating:
I feel like if we lose the Second Amendment, then somebody will take the first, then they’ll take the third, and the fourth and there will be a domino effect….
His statement was made in an interview in 2005, and apparently the YouTube video is a recent post with no date. The NRA is now attempting damage control:
Recently, concerns have been raised in response to statements made by NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson to Texas Monthly in 2005. We have received questions from NRA members who are seeking clarity as to NRA’s positions on the subject matter discussed in Mr. Jackson’s interview. To be clear, NRA supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to Keep and Bear Arms for all lawful purposes. We will continue, as we have in the past, to vigorously oppose any efforts to limit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment freedoms. These efforts include opposition to any attempts to ban firearms, including firearms incorrectly referred to as “assault weapons”, and any attempts to place arbitrary limits on magazine capacity.
Mr. Jackson also attempts to defend himself on that page:
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 be 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.
And I suppose you have a “wide stance” as well.
Sorry, Ranger Jackson, that doesn’t fly with me. As a former law enforcement official you were one of “the Only Ones” – and apparently liked it that way. Fully-automatic rifles were not mentioned – hunting was. (A five-round capacity for fully automatic weapons? How stupid do you think we are?) I will not accuse you of supporting a ban – you did not. You stated your personal opinion, and the word “ban” wasn’t mentioned.
But it was implied that you wouldn’t oppose one.
I sincerely hope that since that 2005 interview you’ve changed your mind on the topic, but this shuck-and-jive routine makes me think that you have not.