TexasCHLforum.com

So, anyone here know anything about the others on that ballot? Please share.

UpTheIrons wrote:So, I guess if I have to ask the question: "How do I know if I'm a voting member?" it probably means I'm not, right?

If you are a voting member, you have the voting insert in your NRA magazine. If you don't have the insert, you're not a voting member.

gemini wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

Chemist45 wrote:In your March 2010 magazine you will get the ballot for the NRA board of directors.
Before you cast your vote, watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

H. Joaquin Jackson thinks that you should be limited to a five round magazine.
He also does not think civilians should be allowed to own "Assault weapons".
We can debate about what an Assault weapon is, but the five round limit on magazines is clear.

Vote for whomever you like, but vote informed.

Mr Jackson explains this http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... px?ID=9937" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, I for one, am totally confused. Listen to :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE
starting @ 1:06. Mr Jackson very clearly states "I personally believe a weapon for a civilian should
never have more than 5 rounds..... ."
Then at 1:38. Mr Jackson clearly states "assault weapons need to be in the hands of the military and
police........assault weapons for a civilian, alright, if the magazine capacity is down to 5 rounds... ."

The explanation in this Statement (supposely written by Mr Jackson) http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... px?ID=9937" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
doesn't mesh.
Maybe someone will be able to enlighten me.... I'm so used to politicians talking out both sides of their mouths....
I never expected a Texas Ranger. But what do I know? I'm just a civilian that believes in 1 shot kills when hunting, but I
also believe you have every right to have a 30 or 100 round mag crammed into your weapon of choice.

It appears Mr. Jackson has an issue with the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment he alleges to support.

My voting choices just got easier with one less candidate to consider.

Excaliber wrote:My voting choices just got easier with one less candidate to consider.

I'm really glad for this thread.

I think I said this last year, but the list of candidates is often a little confusing. It's hard to know who each person is, and why you might want to vote for them.

I think each time voting season comes around, we should have a thread like this where we discuss the candidates and assist each other in being better informed.

TheArmedFarmer wrote:I think I said this last year, but the list of candidates is often a little confusing. It's hard to know who each person is, and why you might want to vote for them.

I think each time voting season comes around, we should have a thread like this where we discuss the candidates and assist each other in being better informed.

Agreed! I searched the older threads, going back to 2007, whose candidates should have been up for reelection this year.

Also of interest is that I could not locate on the NRA site a complete list of Directors. I was specifically interested in James Dark and Tom Selleck, who I would write in if they are not currently serving.

For those concerned about the other candidates for the NRA board, i will point out how much this is being discussed and how long this has been known. When you think about it, the NRA is really a fairly small and tight-knit community. It has 4 million members, which does not sound small, but the active membership (those who vote and pay attention to the politics) has never been a large portion of the total. This is true of any club or organization, many people pay their dues and think that is enough.

Look at the Texas community and those active on this board. Someone quickly pointed out the problem with Mr. Jackson when he came up for re-election this time. It is also being pointed out on the other gun boards I frequent. I feel confident that if there were problems with attitudes in any other candidates, we would all have heard of it by now too. I cannot say this for a fact, but I can say that it is highly unlikely that one of the other candidates has made such statements in public and no one here knows about it to point it out.

BTW, my opinion of Mr. Jackson is that he has become much too involved in politics since his retirement. He also does not fully support the 2A, even in his printed retraction. He still supports a ban on "military" full auto weaponry, which means to me that he does not yet understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. This is, to me, much like State Senator Ogden saying he supports the 2A but does not support removing the authority of the university to allow or ban weapons in their classrooms. I see the 2A as a take it or leave it thing. If you do not support it fully, you do not support it. If you support any restrictions, you do not support it. You must support freedom fully or you are not supporting freedom.

srothstein wrote: I see the 2A as a take it or leave it thing. If you do not support it fully, you do not support it. If you support any restrictions, you do not support it. You must support freedom fully or you are not supporting freedom.

We have a new winner for posting of the month.

gmckinl wrote:

srothstein wrote: I see the 2A as a take it or leave it thing. If you do not support it fully, you do not support it. If you support any restrictions, you do not support it. You must support freedom fully or you are not supporting freedom.

We have a new winner for posting of the month.

And possibly a new write in candidate!!!

KFP wrote:

UpTheIrons wrote:May I ask my question again: "How do I know if I'm a voting member?"

Or, if I have to ask that question, does it mean that I am not?

I believe that you have to be a member for five consecutive years or a life member in order to receive a ballot. They came in this month's "American Rifleman" magazine (or whichever NRA magazine you selected).

OK. That settles it. I've not been a member long enough, but my father has. Perhaps I can bend his ear if he's still got his ballot.

Excaliber wrote:

UpTheIrons wrote:So, I guess if I have to ask the question: "How do I know if I'm a voting member?" it probably means I'm not, right?

If you are a voting member, you have the voting insert in your NRA magazine. If you don't have the insert, you're not a voting member.

No insert for me, so, as they say over on Fark.com, "no votey!".

Thanks for the info.

srothstein wrote:I see the 2A as a take it or leave it thing. If you do not support it fully, you do not support it. If you support any restrictions, you do not support it. You must support freedom fully or you are not supporting freedom.

Just so I get this right on the write-in portion of my ballot, you spell your first name with a "ph," correct?

Chemist45 and Steve - Thanks for the heads-up. To think I was going to vote for him, he being a Texan and all.

Stan

srothstein wrote:For those concerned about the other candidates for the NRA board, i will point out how much this is being discussed and how long this has been known. When you think about it, the NRA is really a fairly small and tight-knit community. It has 4 million members, which does not sound small, but the active membership (those who vote and pay attention to the politics) has never been a large portion of the total. This is true of any club or organization, many people pay their dues and think that is enough.

Look at the Texas community and those active on this board. Someone quickly pointed out the problem with Mr. Jackson when he came up for re-election this time. It is also being pointed out on the other gun boards I frequent. I feel confident that if there were problems with attitudes in any other candidates, we would all have heard of it by now too. I cannot say this for a fact, but I can say that it is highly unlikely that one of the other candidates has made such statements in public and no one here knows about it to point it out.

BTW, my opinion of Mr. Jackson is that he has become much too involved in politics since his retirement. He also does not fully support the 2A, even in his printed retraction. He still supports a ban on "military" full auto weaponry, which means to me that he does not yet understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. This is, to me, much like State Senator Ogden saying he supports the 2A but does not support removing the authority of the university to allow or ban weapons in their classrooms. I see the 2A as a take it or leave it thing. If you do not support it fully, you do not support it. If you support any restrictions, you do not support it. You must support freedom fully or you are not supporting freedom.

Well said, Steve.

This might be a good time to remember that the same goes for the other amendments and the rest of the Constitution as well.

I just noticed, he made these statements in 2005 and still got reelected in 2007.

Hopefully we get enough folks paying attention to what he said this year.

Excaliber wrote:

srothstein wrote:I see the 2A as a take it or leave it thing. If you do not support it fully, you do not support it. If you support any restrictions, you do not support it. You must support freedom fully or you are not supporting freedom.

Well said, Steve.

This might be a good time to remember that the same goes for the other amendments and the rest of the Constitution as well.

Why don't the open carry haters understand that?