Board Candidates

I don’t really want to tell folks who to vote for, and who not to vote for, but since the Nominating Committee has decided to keep him on the ballot, I thought I’d remind everyone of this:


Joaquin Jackson is hardly anti-gun. I’d classify him as having varied beliefs on the topic much like many Americans do, and as Cam so thoroughly documents each night on NRA News. He’s also rendered good service to NRA up until that incident, and for that I want to thank him. The problem with what he said is, Jackson isn’t just an ordinary American, he’s a candidate for the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association, and with that comes certain expectations. One of those expectations, at least in my opinion, is you don’t throw high-power shooters and collectors under the bus. I’ll let you all decide for yourself, but for you I present this evidence.

18 thoughts on “Board Candidates”

  1. Count my vote against him. 5 rounds is plenty?? I guess he believes all us proles are sitting on the edge of mass murder, and so can’t be trusted like upstanding law enforcement officers like him. What a jerk.

  2. I wish there was a way to vote AGAINST someone. I would divide my votes between the Ranger and Senator Wide Stance.

    1. Fortunately there are plenty of good people who deserve your vote for them. We’ll be posting those soon.

  3. I have already voted. I did not vote for Mr. Jackson. Sad to say that only about 7% of edible NRA members vote in the NRA elections.

  4. “Sad to say that only about 7% of edible NRA members vote in the NRA elections.”

    Wow. I’ve heard of NRA members being testy, but never tasty.

  5. Well, he can kiss off my vote. I wonder how many other board members have similar, caveat attitudes?

  6. I personally believe a hat should never be more than a five gallon hat. Nobody needs a ten gallon “assault” hat.

    Seriously, his “five” rules out the M1 Garand even! You’ve mobilized my vote…

  7. Thank you, JimBob. After reading that, it’s easy for me to prefer that he not be elected, on the grounds of insufficient intellectual integrity.

    Because that statement of his is blatant Marie-Antoinette weaseling.

  8. This guy gets a NO vote from me.
    I don’t mind using my 5 rnd mag in the DPMS .308 but I shouldn’t be restricted to it by law. A mag cap restriction would do NOTHING to reduce violent crime.

  9. It’s fascinating that an NRA board member could have opinions like that about the 5-round limit.

    Did you think it was odd the way he said if the 2nd Amendment goes, next will go the 1st, 3rd and 4th? Isn’t that order a bit weird including the 3rd like that?

  10. He probably doesn’t know what the 3rd Amendment is. I bet most people don’t. Many who do think it’s a big joke. Maybe it is. However, there is 3rd Amendment jurisprudence.

    I find the 3rd fascinating myself. A little embarrassing to some folks though. It actually includes how the right can be infringed by law.

  11. Be careful of what you say, cause it can come back and bite you in the buttocks.

    As a former law enforcement officer, he probably took the phrase “assualt weapon” literally. But the interviewer was high fiving his fellow anti-gunners afterwards after getting that cut.

    Sounds like he is not up on the issues and should be denied a seat.

    I have a problem in my state with Dan Boren. Votes lock step with Pelosi but is on the NRA Board. How can you do both???

  12. What I see is a man you was tripped up by a reporter who was less professional than reporters should be. When I first saw this I was mad as hell, BUT, I watched it again because I like to know “why” I am mad.

    This man uses the term “true assault weapon.” NO such animal, not in FIREARMS at least. (The military definition is a rocket launcher, not a gun) So it seem to me that Jackson was trying to say “Assault Rifle” which is legally a machine gun. Further the “five rounds” thing was only spoken of with regards to hunting.

    Really, this in no different that when C Heston talked about AK-47’s.

    What really made me step down and go “Hmmm” was the amazing coincidence that this made the internet rounds on the heels of Jim Zumbo’s smack-down. Now, Zumbo deserved what he got but Jackson is a different animal. Some third party went to a good deal of effort to make Jackson look bad. Zumbo had no one but his own mouth to blame.

    Looks like someone either had a bone to pick OR, and most likely, some anti-gunner was trying to play on us pro-gunners habit of eating our own. And Jackson was made to look like something he is not. His biggest mistake was underestimating the enemy.

    In a legal war, everything is propaganda.

    Something to think about.

    PS what is Ted Nugent’s take?

  13. Neal Knox always said to vote for fewer than your allotted votes, he said that would make them more effective. The only way I could figure that to work is if you got everyone else to do that too.

    Anyway, odds are that there are plenty of good leaders we could elect that haven’t fallen to Zumbo-itis

  14. You can’t watch the interview and read the excuse statement and not be seriously put out with Joaquin unless you’re either anti-gun or you’ve really been drinking NRA Kool-aid. Just like Heston’s idiotic AK statement right after he beat my dad for 1st VP, the excuse rings completely hollow and was obviously written by the PR guy, not Heston or Jackson. I’ve since talked about this at length with Joaquin and I believe he’s gotten his head right. He wishes he hadn’t said it and wishes he’d gone with his own gut and just made an apology for shooting himself in the foot while it was in his mouth, but he said it and he let the PR guys make his excuses and that’s that. Joaquin had that LEO, “Only ones” mindset going and got a bit discombobulated on TV and he’s going to pay the price for it in this election – as he should. But he’s a good guy who’s seen the error of his ways and gotten himself right so, while I agree that he needs to not be on the NRA Board, I hope folks can let go of the personal animosity.
    As to bullet voting: 80% of the 6.5% who vote will vote for at least 22 or 23 of the 24 incumbents and maybe 2 or 3 of the new folks. The difference on vote totals between the last winner and the first loser is usually no more than a few hundred votes. If you vote for the 5 or 10 candidates that you really want to win – and vote for 10 or 15 you think are probably OK, some of those 10 or 15 OK candidates are likely to bump some of the 5 or 10 you really wanted. By only voting for the candidates you really care about, you deny your vote to those who don’t really thrill you and increase the odds of your candidates winning. And yes, you do have to get other people to do it to make a significant impact.
    Jeff Knox – The Firearms Coalition

Comments are closed.