I do hope there’s enough individual accountability on the board that Jackson is unable to win another term.

I agree that the ‘extremists’ need to join NRA, not leave it, and also think that much of the complaining comes from people who, by not doing this, have sidelined themselves from being able to effect change.

I agree with you, Sebastian, that voting or not voting for NRA Directors is the best way to make this happen, but the problem is, there is no coordinated and systematic means for people not in “the NRA establishment” to do this–and I’m sure you’ve found that getting gun owners to agree to anything is like the proverbial herding of cats. So we’re left with situations where NRA posts its Nominating Committee recommendations, and we saw the way they discouraged the coalition put together by the late Neal Knox–so the LaPierre faction retains control. And this is not to start the debate on whether they should or not, or what their track record is, or whether a more extreme approach would result in more or less progress with legislation–I’m only examining the process for board change here.

How do we know who to vote for and who will be more “hard core”? You can’t just disqualify people because they’ve been nominated by the committee as you’ll lose a few who are OK. And you can’t rely on published bios, because they’re basically just advertisements.

I do use them–I just don’t rely on them. For instance, if all a candidate can say is he’s an endowment member and he helped put in some hunting program, I figure we’ve got more than our share of those already.

What I’d like to see is some sort of rating system–just as NRA and GOA do with politicians. But how would we know how to rate them?

I developed a questionnaire some time back, admittedly not acceptable to all, but it satisfies what I need to know–and I suspect what a few fellow ‘extremists’ would like to know, too. Trouble is, I was the only one pushing it, so naturally it would not go anywhere. When everyone in a race doesn’t return your questionnaire, that kind’a moots the point that they didn’t respond.

Still, I believe the idea is valid. I just don’t think it would be effective to host it on my site, because again, I’m tainted with the brush of being biased and having an axe to grind, plus, my reach is way too small. However, if a coalition of bloggers and activists picked up this idea and formed a coalition to promote it, it could turn it into a force to be reckoned within NRA elections.

Ratings could then be given, although I’d expect them–and the questions–to be challenged and competing alternatives to spring up–which I view as a good thing, new outlets for gun owner involvement…

Face it–if we can’t even generate the clout to affect an NRA election, how can we expect to be effective on a larger political scale? And until we do something in an organized fashion like this, future BOD elections will continue as they have, in effect impervious to dissatisfaction, with individual directors shielded from accountability.

I already have a copy of “In Search of the Second Amendment”, though, and have met David Hardy on a few occasions. If you’d like to help promote the film, might I suggest going here to David’s blog, where he’s asking people to carry it on netflix, and get it in libraries.

I never knew much about either until they recently jammed their boots in their mouths.

Now I know enough to make me like neither.

The Second Amendment cannot afford to have “friends” like Jackson and Zumbo.

The only way you could imagine Jackson and Zumbo to be friends of the Second Amendment is if you do not understand the “original intent” behind the Second Amendment.

If you consider yourself a friend of the Second Amendment, it is important for you to understand the “original intent” behind it.

Use a search engine to look up “In Search of the Second Amendment.”

It is a very recent scholarly documentary (not entertainment) by David T. Hardy, one of America’s most respected Second Amendment scholars (quoted in Court decisions and in high level policy documents).

Neither Jackson nor Zumbo is a friend of the Second Amendment.

If Bitter will run for the board, I’ll stay in.

Except if you do that, you leave the wishy washy guys in charge, which weakens NRA, and suddenly you have more gun control to deal with. I really think the only way to affect change in NRA is from within.

Because the tax laws didn’t require them to have a separate lobbying arm until then. They always had a heavy lobbying presence. They just decided it was easier to give in on anything that most members didn’t care about.

The only way to deal with someone like Joacquin Jackson is to quit in large enough numbers to cause the rest of the board to shame him into resigning and apologizing.
He’d probably fit right in at one of the phony law enforcement groups allied to the Brady Campaign.

Repealing the Brady Act – not going to happen in my lifetime
Repealing all of GCA 68 – not going to happen in my lifetime
Repealing all of NFA – not going to happen in my lifetime

We have to focus on what’s achievable right now, and work toward it. We’ll burn the other bridges when we come to them.