NRA Board member against assault weapons

[Sig 210]

"Whether you like the NRA or not, without them we wouldn't be talking about losing our 2nd Amendment rights, we would be remembering what it used to be like when we had them long ago."

Exactly. If it were not for the NRA we would have lost our right to self-defense and gun ownership decades ago.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Mad_Max]

The bottom line, is that the Democrats have control of Congress right now. They are looking very strong in the Presidential election and Hillary could be our next President.

This means that another ban on so called "assault weapon" is all but imminent.

BUT this time there will be no sunset provsion and they will not just be after 30 round mags and bayonet mounts. I also doubt that they will stop at just manufacturing but instead an all out ban....meaning you'll have to turn in your AR or AK. They will sneak in as many semi-autos into that class as they can.

While doing this they will use the words of Jackson (retraction or not) and others like him (Zumbo) to bolster the fight. The NRA needs to be more vigilant than it has been during the current Bush Presidency.

With this ban, will be an outright ban on all so called high capacity magazines. This means pistols too.

With Jacksons comments on record I would not be surprised to see them ask for a 5 round max instead of the previous 10 round.

[Rob99VMI04]

The bottom line, is that the Democrats have control of Congress right now. They are looking very strong in the Presidential election and Hillary could be our next President.

This means that another ban on so called "assault weapon" is all but imminent.

BUT this time there will be no sunset provsion and they will not just be after 30 round mags and bayonet mounts. I also doubt that they will stop at just manufacturing but instead an all out ban....meaning you'll have to turn in your AR or AK. They will sneak in as many semi-autos into that class as they can.

While doing this they will use the words of Jackson (retraction or not) and others like him (Zumbo) to bolster the fight. The NRA needs to be more vigilant than it has been during the current Bush Presidency.

With this ban, will be an outright ban on all so called high capacity magazines. This means pistols too.

With Jacksons comments on record I would not be surprised to see them ask for a 5 round max instead of the previous 10 round.

I think your jumping the gun a little on this. Politicians aren't stupid!! What I mean by this is that the last time they tried this they had a lot of incumbants that did NOT get re-elected after the passing of 94 AWB. After, being so close to Katrina and situations that actually proved why these guns were of value, and are still of value, I don't know if shes going to come RIGHT out of the gate and call for an all out ban. That may not get her re-elected. Expecially in time of war.

I think some people are finally starting to see the light as well. VT showed a lot of people. Yeah we went throught the same rigamarole with the standard blame the guns, but your seeing more and more people and not only that but writers and columnists starting to turn after the FAQ's came out as well when logical thinking took over. Once they figured out that the police response was suburb at VT and that everything was done in order to save innocent lives, some realized thats still not enough. Sorry I'm getting off topic but it took the SWAT team 9 minutes to get to a shooting location and start entering the building. THAT is a super awesome fast response when you consider small southern town thats very dispersed over a large area. I think the last I read the national average is like 15-20 min.

So my point is, I think even Liberals/ Democrats are starting to agree its not the guns that are the problem its the current laws on the books restricting the law abiding, and also the lack of prosecution and incarceration for these "BAD PEOPLE".

I know Hillary is a feared anti gun person(and she is also anti-gun), however, I sometimes wonder how much of that is just smoke and mirrors, so she can get re-elected in state where the vast majority think along these same lines. You have to give the woman credit although extremely annoying she is very intelligent, by this I mean there has never been a woman in US history that is this close to the US executive office. Also,keep in mind before Hillary met Bill she was very conservative, she also has to deal with alot more than just the gun debate if she makes office. Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, China, Cuba, Horn of Aftrica, now Russia, who is as of today starting up their bomber patrols again, I'm by no means defending her nor am I going to vote for her, but I think there is more to the equation here thats all I'm saying.

[P95Carry]

I wonder what the figures are like for crime overall currently, and useage of previously banned gun variants etc.

I cannot believe that since the previous ban sunset in 2004 that there has been any demonstrable change in gun crime - at least, not attributable to the ban sunsetting. Apart from this - it matters not what further bans are considered - they will have ZERO effect on the criminal's choice of weapon, thus only serving to be punitive toward legitimate and law abiding folks.

Unless there was proof positive - big time proof, that such a ban could achieve anything remotely useful towards crime then it should be dead in the water, and treated as what it really is - a ploy purely to expand gun control by yet another increment.

[Blackeagle]

The bottom line, is that the Democrats have control of Congress right now. They are looking very strong in the Presidential election and Hillary could be our next President.

This means that another ban on so called "assault weapon" is all but imminent.

I don't think the situation is quite that dire. The Dems have control of congress because of pro-gun Democrats that won seats in red states in the last election. Those members have got to know that if they do anything too anti-gun it could cost them their seats in the next election (and if they don't, I'm sure the NRA will make it clear to them). Quite frankly, I doubt the Democrats could get 218 votes in the house for HR 1022 right now, much less muster 60 votes in the Senate.

[Sig 210]

"This means that another ban on so called "assault weapon" is all but imminent."

The US senate will probably pass the AWB with the Republicans or Democrats in charge. The house is another matter altogether. Assuming that the House makeup is about the same after the 2008 elections; an AWB could only get through the house with lots of Republican support. i do not see the Democrats increasing their numbers in the house in the 2008 elections.

The last AWB had 38 Republicans house members voting for it and 76 Democrats voting against it. The AWB passed the house by one vote. The AWB passed the senate when several Republican senators abandoned Bob Dole and he was only able to get 38 votes on a motion for cloture.

"I don't think the situation is quite that dire. The Dems have control of congress because of pro-gun Democrats that won seats in red states in the last election."

Exactly

[ronwill]

My response to the email received from the NRA:

Thank you for your reply. I know the interview was some time ago, however, Mr. Jackson's comments concerning "automatic" weapons is a concern to many. Mr. Zumbo made a similar mistake and lost many followers and supporters because of it. I know a line must be drawn, but the Second Amendment, as you know, protects the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Making a statement of this nature weakens this simple truth. Now it's making the rounds again and will be used by those who want to remove this right. Thanks for your time.

[Mad_Max]

I think your jumping the gun a little on this.

Exactly what the anti gun crowd is counting on .

[Mad_Max]

I don't think the situation is quite that dire.

Well frankly I find that comforting - but I have learned in life that during the eye of the hurricane is the worst time to sit back and relax.

[P7fanatic]

The Dems have control of congress because of pro-gun Democrats that won seats in red states in the last election."

Exactly

A lot of these blue dog dems won on an anti-illegal immigration platform also, such as the Arizona seat. I couldn't believe that J.D. Hayworth lost.

[SMSTRICK]

I hope I am within the rules of the forum here. An important quote from another forum.



Lets send some emails folks!

I am a Life Member of both the NRA and the GOA. BUT,......if the NRA does not get a grip with itself and stop trying to compromise in legislation which could be another step to infringe upon our rights,...then I will call the NRA head quarters and tell them to take their Life Membership and shove it. If things do not change soon,....the GOA will be the only one getting my money. Thios is about LIBERTY and FREEDOM at its basic level . My liberty is non- negitiable. To compromise such a thing would not only be counter productive , it would be legitimising the cause and efforts of anti gun democrats.

[Mad_Max]

I am a Life Member of both the NRA and the GOA. BUT,......if the NRA does not get a grip with itself and stop trying to compromise in legislation which could be another step to infringe upon our rights,...then I will call the NRA head quarters and tell them to take their Life Membership and shove it. If things do not change soon,....the GOA will be the only one getting my money. Thios is about LIBERTY and FREEDOM at its basic level . My liberty is non- negitiable. To compromise such a thing would not only be counter productive , it would be legitimising the cause and efforts of anti gun democrats.

Well hopefully that won't be necessary. Hopefully if we can keep and get people involved we can get them going in the right direction...

[SMSTRICK]

Well hopefully that won't be necessary. Hopefully if we can keep and get people involved we can get them going in the right direction...

I understand your point, but what does it take to educate and inform the leader ship with the NRA that the 2nd Amendment serves and stands as a acknowledgement of a limitation of the federal government from infringing upon the rights and liberties of a free people. This is not a social event , or a a "salt of the earth hunters association." This is supposed to be a Association, dedicated to serve as guard against the very essence and nature of what government tries to attain,...POWER. It can only do this with a free society by empowering inself in the names of safety, security and crime, with the consent of a people who have come to know the government as a Nanny, or protector. Its nature is to limit our rights to empower itself,....the very nature and danger for which the Bill of Rights was originated...... (Again) The Bill of Rights does not grant us our liberty,...it acknowledges a limitation of government power.
Having to remind a board member of the NRA what the purpose of the NRA is is pathetic to say the least. If this is his stand on the assault weapons issue,...then I would hate to think of what he thinks the purpose is of the 2nd Amendment.
(Sorry for the rant)

[packinnova]

I understand your point, but what does it take to educate and inform the leader ship with the NRA that the 2nd Amendment serves and stands as a acknowledgement of a limitation of the federal government from infringing upon the rights and liberties of a free people. This is not a social event , or a a "salt of the earth hunters association." This is supposed to be a Association, dedicated to serve as guard against the very essence and nature of what government tries to attain,...POWER. It can only do this with a free society by empowering inself in the names of safety, security and crime, with the consent of a people who have come to know the government as a Nanny, or protector. Its nature is to limit our rights to empower itself,....the very nature and danger for which the Bill of Rights was originated...... (Again) The Bill of Rights does not grant us our liberty,...it acknowledges a limitation of government power.
Having to remind a board member of the NRA what the purpose of the NRA is is pathetic to say the least. If this is his stand on the assault weapons issue,...then I would hate to think of what he thinks the purpose is of the 2nd Amendment.
(Sorry for the rant)

Actually they're purpose wasn't and isn't to guard the second amendment and that is why I never fully trusted them to begin with. See the below quoted text I copied STRAIGHT from their site. This is their history. This is what they're about and always have been about.

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

[pwrincross]

As an NRA life member I am saddened by a former Texas Ranger being against the ownership of a gun based soley on its looks. To limit the clip to 5 rounds is sad as well. If this is his real thoughts then he probably was extremely happy with the Clinton Assault Weapons ban of past years. Remember, sometimes people say things in the heat of the moment and then later thing, "why did I say that". Hopefully, later he has come to regret his statements.