TexasCHLforum.com

45ACP wrote:The NRA backed a Democrat running against Ron Paul, the ONLY member of Congress who consistently tries to uphold and defend the Constitution at every possible opportunity:

Minor correction: The NRA did not "back" Mr. Sklar in the sense of giving him support. They gave him an A rating based on a questionaire (he had never held a legislative office and had no voting record).

Dr. Paul got a lower rating because he voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which the NRA pushed very hard.

P.S.: I live in Dr. Paul's district.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

45ACP wrote:The NRA backed a Democrat running against Ron Paul, the ONLY member of Congress who consistently tries to uphold and defend the Constitution at every possible opportunity:

Minor correction: The NRA did not "back" Mr. Sklar in the sense of giving him support. They gave him an A rating based on a questionaire (he had never held a legislative office and had no voting record).

Dr. Paul got a lower rating because he voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which the NRA pushed very hard.

P.S.: I live in Dr. Paul's district.

- Jim

You're right, I stand corrected. The NRA apparently did not endorse either candidate.

I know that this may be imprudent and could expose myself to 'flames' of reproach (that certainly would be the case in many another forum), but I am going to say it anyway.

1. Yes, I did see the interview the first time it was broadcast, and again on a rerun.

2. No, I didn't like what was said in specific comments referred to. In fact I was upset by them at the time.

This being said, I must say that I have enormous respect for Joaquin Jackson. I have read his book and have had the honor to meet him very briefly and hear him speak. I believe him to be an honorable man.

I would believe what he says in a statement where he has time to choose his words carefully above an off the cuff remark on a TV interview which has been edited, for time if not for content.

Who among us has not misspoken in a public setting or even privately to a spouse and regretted the choice of words, or the impression left which might have been at odds with one's true sentiment? I know that I have had to 'clarify' to my wife more than once in our 27 years of being married. The clarifications were to more accurately explain my true meaning and to apologize for having expressed myself poorly. Heck, even my wife has done it.

In regard to my opinion of his status as an honorable man, I believe that he would not have 'clarified' falsly. I will choose to believe the written statement and appreciate the posting of it as I had not seen it. I was relieved to read it.

Any, or all, of you may disagree with me. I can understand and respect your opinion. Your exercise of the First Ammendment is part of what is protected by the Second Ammendment.

45ACP wrote:The NRA working to repeal NFA'34? GCA'68? FOPA/MGB'86?.

You want the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) repealed!!? You can't be serious.

46ACP wrote:I had a friendly chat with Larry Pratt of the GOA once. He said he wished the NRA would stick to the things it was good at (firearms safety and marksmanship training), and stay out of politics. I agreed with him.

That's in the top 3 most ridiculous statements I've ever read. GOA and Pratt have never accomplished anything -- nothing whatsoever!! All GOA and Pratt do is preach to the choir and stir up the NRA-bashers. When Schumer, Feinstein, Brady, Soros, Gore, Clinton, and any other anti-gunners complain, they complain about the NRA; GOA is never even mentioned. Why? Because they are ineffective and no threat to the anti-gunners' agenda. When McCain lead the fight for passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act on the Senate floor, he referred to it as the "get the NRA bill," not the "get the GOA bill." Look at the website for the Brady Campaign and you won't find a call to stop the GOA, only to stop the NRA. Why? Because GOA doesn't have to be stopped -- it's not doing anything!! When Rebecca Peters wanted to debate the leader of the most powerful American gun lobby, she asked to debate Wayne LaPierre, not Larry Pratt. Every time a Castle Doctrine Bill passes in a state, Sara Brady decries legislators selling out to the NRA, not the GOA. The Brady Campaign created a StoptheNRA.com website, but you won't find a StoptheGOA.com website. Former President Bill Clinton didn't credit the GOA with costing Gore the 2000 Presidential election, he credited the NRA.

NRA stay out of politics? Give me a break.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: That's in the top 3 most ridiculous statements I've ever read.

Would you expect any less from Pratt? Someone associated with a "political" organization founded on a "no-compromise" philosophy? The fact that an organization that fancies itself a political force would be based on a principle antithetical to politics is, well, it would make for good satire.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

45ACP wrote:The NRA working to repeal NFA'34? GCA'68? FOPA/MGB'86?.

You want the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) repealed!!? You can't be serious.

It's not just FOPA: it's FOPA/MGB. The same law that tosses us a bone (the right to transport firearms that are unloaded and securely cased) also imposed the very first ever federal gun ban.

For that reason (amongst others), the 1986 law is unconstitutional, and should be overturned.

No, I don't want to return to the days when travelers were thrown in jail for having an unloaded, securely cased, firearm in their trunk. But I do want to return to the Constitution.

I know, it's a quaint notion, enjoying little favor these days. Ron Paul seems to be the only current politician who understands that the Constitution is binding, even when it's not popular.

Maybe be election time, there will be a shuffle..

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

longtooth wrote:I want to hear from Charles.

Sorry guys/gals, but since I'm on the Board of Directors, I cannot comment about another Board member. In fact, none of us can speak for the NRA in our individual capacity; this has to be done collectively through resolutions passed by the entire Board.

I'm not trying to dodge the issue, I simply cannot violate my duty as a Director. You will note that I haven't even responded to the anti-NRA comments and quotes as I normally would have done. Yes, this is a belt and suspenders approach, but I try to avoid even the hint of impropriety.

BTW, this duty isn’t unique to the NRA, members of any board of directors have the same limitations and restrictions.

Chas.

Thanks, sir. I appreciate your position......

...but, in your capacity as a Board Member, could you perhaps arrange a way that Mr. Jackson & Mr. Nugent would have to take a long car trip somewhere together?......

...that should make things right pretty quick.

seeker_two wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

longtooth wrote:I want to hear from Charles.

Sorry guys/gals, but since I'm on the Board of Directors, I cannot comment about another Board member. In fact, none of us can speak for the NRA in our individual capacity; this has to be done collectively through resolutions passed by the entire Board.

I'm not trying to dodge the issue, I simply cannot violate my duty as a Director. You will note that I haven't even responded to the anti-NRA comments and quotes as I normally would have done. Yes, this is a belt and suspenders approach, but I try to avoid even the hint of impropriety.

BTW, this duty isn’t unique to the NRA, members of any board of directors have the same limitations and restrictions.

Chas.

Thanks, sir. I appreciate your position......

...but, in your capacity as a Board Member, could you perhaps arrange a way that Mr. Jackson & Mr. Nugent would have to take a long car trip somewhere together?......

...that should make things right pretty quick.

Or at least an interesting instructional video...

Joaquin's attempt at follow-up on NRA news recently was incredibly silly as well... I've known Joaquin here in Texas for 10 years, and literally got nauseated with watching the original interview. The follow-up damage control on NRA News only made this admirable lawman look even worse. He should step down, IMHO. No room in this political climate for such missteps. We should not expect Joaquin to be a Wayne when he speaks, but he should at least tow the party line, especially when talking to a bunch of communists like the ones at Texas Monthly.

For those of you who can and want to vote, Louisville 2008 is your opportunity.