I'm writing in response to Joaquin Jackson's statement, posted 8/15/07, dealing with his 2005 interview with Texas Monthly.
Even with all the respect due a former Texas Ranger, I cannot suspend disbelief long enough to take Mr. Jackson's "explanation" at face value.
Anyone remotely involved in gun politics knows that the term "assault weapons" is well on its way to being re-defined to include any "scary-looking" gun, regardless of how it functions. The interviewer was clearly referring to semi-automatic rifles with his question, despite his incorrect nomenclature.
I'm relieved to see that Mr. Jackson at least understands what real assault weapons are, but to try to say that he was talking about full-auto weapons in that interview is, quite honestly, an insult to the intelligence of the NRA's supporters and gun-owners in general.
Rather than taking the opportunity to educate the interviewer and the audience about real assault weapons, Mr. Jackson stated that firearms (he did not qualify this with full-auto, semi-auto, rifles, handguns, or anything else) should have no more than 5 rounds capacity, perpetuated the myth that the second amendment is intended to only protect hunting, and finished it off by furthering the notion that military and law enforcement personel are somehow entitled to better arms than the people in general.
Trying to defend these comments from a pro-2A position is pointless. I hope Mr. Jackson will take a lesson from Jim Zumbo, who made similar statements, but later published a sincere apology and retraction, acknowledging his mistaken reasoning. Gun owners tend to be reasonable and understanding people, but we have a low tolerance for bull-hockey.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. The NRA is a strong resource in the preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights, and I trust it will continue to stand up for our liberties at every opportunity.