Extreme Prejudice

[Harmonica]

Speaking of lever guns, have you ever seen the 1987 movie Extreme Prejudice and know anything about the short rifle Nick Nolte's character used in that film? I recently saw it on TV.

[Charles]

The character Nick Nolte played was based on the Persona of real life Ranger Joaquin Jackson. Jackson was an advisor on the film. I was living in El Paso when the moves was filmed in that area and I worked as an extra a couple of days.

Don't bother looking for me as I have never found myself in the film. I guess I got cut out. I did get some decent pay, good food and got to hang out with Joaquin.

The rifle in question was a trapper length Winchester 92. In real life Jackson totes a trapper length Winchester 94 in 30-30.

[Hobie]

I liked the note on the movie that Nolte modeled his character on Joaquin Jackson (Texas Ranger and NRA Board member).

I couldn't find a photo of any of the guns but of Nick Nolte with a M1911 of indeterminate mfg and a couple of shotguns...

PS - thanks Charles. Interesting stuff. (I was researching while you were posting)

[Charles]

Hobie... Nolte used a LW Colt Commander with Mexican silver grips on it. That and the tooled leather rig, are identical to what Jackson carried.

[nemhed]

On the cover of both his books, Jackson is holding a levergun. I can't tell what kind and I haven't actually read any of his stuff. Is it worthwhile reading?

[BruceB]

According to Jackson's book One Ranger: A Memoir, he had a standard 94 .30-30 cut down to 16 1/4". It was brushed chrome plated and loaded with 150gr. Silvertips. He carried a Colt Commander with gold and silver grips and a couple of hide-outs; a .380 and S&W .22WMR snubby.
Nolte rode around with Jackson for a few days in preparation for his movie role. Jackson helped him get outfitted; hat, guns, leather gear etc. Jackson also contributed to the script. In return, Nolte, according to Jackson, promised to help financially with one of Jackson's sons education. Nolte never made good on his promise though.

[Rexster]

Texas Rangers' carry rigs do indeed look much like that of the Nick Nolte character in the movie, though around here they are usually dressed just a bit more formally. I usually see them with 1911 pistols, which seems traditional, though they do qual with their issued SIG P226 pistols, chambered in .357 SIG, as do all members of the Texas Department of Public Safety. I have never seen a Ranger deploy a rifle, even when one met me at a motel, where I was watching (from the outside) a room containing a murder suspect. Perhaps, if we had been about to kick the door, he would have deployed the artillery, but the bad guys walked out on their own before we had the warrant drawn up.

[Charles]

The rifle Joaquin is holding on the cover of his first book "One Ranger" is his Winchester short barrel 94.

Rangers are issued standard DPS firearms which currently are the SIG in 357 Sig, plus the Ruger Mini-14. However, they are allowed to carry any firearm the wish. Some Rangers carry the SIG, others carry 1911s and a variety of other handguns.

The Texas DPS issued Win. 94 carbines in 30-30 for many years, but have not done so for quite some time.

[Ysabel Kid]

Nolte never made good on his promise though.

No big surprise. Nolte appears to be more interested in drinking than anything else.

Didn't Jackson just spout off recently about the bad "black rifle". I hope I am thinking about someone else, but I do seem to recall this...

[BruceB]

Nolte never made good on his promise though.

No big surprise. Nolte appears to be more interested in drinking than anything else.

Didn't Jackson just spout off recently about the bad "black rifle". I hope I am thinking about someone else, but I do seem to recall this...

Yes he did. There was a video of him being intereviewed in which he said no hunter needed more than five rounds. Sort of like Bill Ruger's "...no honest man needs more than ten rounds..." statement. Jackson released a statement of his support for the Second Ammendment. I kow that Doc Hudson sent to the NRA for a copy of the by-laws to see if there was a way to remove Jackson as an NRA board member.

EDIT: Video of interview : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE


Jackson's response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAX9E-er ... re=related

[Charles]

Joaquin Jackson has done more for his country and shooter's rights than anbody on his board. He has laid his life on the line for decades to enforce the law and provide people with a safe place to live and work. When he expressed a personal opinion that five rounds should be enough for a hunter, the folks want to throw him to the wolves.

Such strange and judgmental creatures we humans be.

[TedH]

I watched both interviews. Which version are we supposed to believe to be his true opinion?

[Ravenman]

Joaquin Jackson has done more for his country and shooter's rights than anbody on his board. He has laid his life on the line for decades to enforce the law and provide people with a safe place to live and work. When he expressed a personal opinion that five rounds should be enough for a hunter, the folks want to throw him to the wolves.

Such strange and judgmental creatures we humans be.

Great input. My thinking too! It's easy to judge a man. But what he has done as a Texas Ranger is was really counts.

[FWiedner]

Joaquin Jackson has done more for his country and shooter's rights than anbody on his board. He has laid his life on the line for decades to enforce the law and provide people with a safe place to live and work. When he expressed a personal opinion that five rounds should be enough for a hunter, the folks want to throw him to the wolves.

Such strange and judgmental creatures we humans be.

Great input. My thinking too! It's easy to judge a man. But what he has done as a Texas Ranger is was really counts.

So... as long as he did a job he was paid to do for a number of years, it's OK for him to direct those who predjudicially lobby to create laws which deny firearms to veterans who seek couselling to deal with PTSD or that limit law abiding citizens to less than a half-dozen rounds in their plinking firearms on their own property?

He's now some kind of big authority on what's best for the rest of us, right? Because he was a Ranger?

I'll have to disagree.

[Ravenman]

FWiedner
There are jobs and jobs. Some jobs I would do for money and others that I would not do! The payment is only one thing. I do not know him but he was a Texas Ranger and there are not so many Texas Rangers out there. He must have been a good honest man to do his job.
It was his thinking and a free man has the right to say what he thinks.

[Hobie]

Nolte never made good on his promise though.

Why am I NOT surprised?

[Rexster]

I would like to hear the WHOLE first interview; whoever chopped it off at 01:56 was obviously trying to spin it to their agenda. I do know that old-time Texas lawmen tend to find insault, er, I meant assault weapons to be distasteful on some level, and a bit of that rubbed off onto me, as I was mentored by some of these guys. South Texas was still much the "Wild" West into the 1970's, and I entered law enforcement in 1983. Being downrange of some idiots "plinking" tends to make anyone want to restrict magazine capacity. My main mentor was in just such a situation, and felt compelled to return suppressive fire. Of course, he used an FN FAL, the one black rifle he deemed fit for human consumption.

Just to be clear, no, I do not advocate outlawing insault weapons and norm-cap magazines.

[Modoc ED]

Joaquin Jackson has done more for his country and shooter's rights than anbody on his board. He has laid his life on the line for decades to enforce the law and provide people with a safe place to live and work. When he expressed a personal opinion that five rounds should be enough for a hunter, the folks want to throw him to the wolves.

Such strange and judgmental creatures we humans be.

That's just a load of stuff!!!! Jackson hasn't done more for his country than any Vet or active duty military man/woman on the board or done anymore for shooter's rights than an Vet or actuve duty military man/woman on the forum.

Screw his "five round" comment -- it's his "Jim Zumbo" copycat statement that shows his true colors. He and Zumbo ought to turn on a hot spit in hell for eternity for their statements.

[PaulB]

I have to agree. Anyone in that position must exercise judgement, no matter what his background is or how worthy his past actions. Comments like that do tremendous damage to our cause, and give aid and comfort to the enemy. In fact the more worthy and important the person's background, the more damage such statements make.

The folks on the battlerifles.com forum were looking for a rope and the nearest tree. I don't blame them.

But then, what can you expect from NRA? Jackson is just a symptom of a much larger problem there.

[BruceB]

Joaquin Jackson has done more for his country and shooter's rights than anbody on his board. He has laid his life on the line for decades to enforce the law and provide people with a safe place to live and work. When he expressed a personal opinion that five rounds should be enough for a hunter, the folks want to throw him to the wolves.

"As far as assault weapons to a civilian, it's alright as long as you have that magazine capacity down to five rounds."...Joaquin Jackson
Joaquin Jackson's credentials a service are unquestioned. His ability to represent the NRA membership in light of the above statement is highly questionable. Doc Hudson told you that when this first came to light a few months ago. Jackson's explanation that he was really referring to full auto weapons makes no sense unless he was trying to claim he meant that it's okay for a civilian to have a five shot full-auto weapon. Jackson was a great Ranger, but isn't so hot at being a board member. Rather like Grant was a good general but lousy President and businessman.
Your defense of your fellow Texan is admirable, but face it Charles, he screwed up.

[Griff]

Saving my place. To be commented on later, when I'm not driving. Be prepared to flame out!

It is now after 2AM CST and I sit in Calexico, CA to attempt putting in words how I feel about the myriad opinions posted here.

I am truly ambivalent on the subject of EBRs. The closest I come to having one is a Garand. It is, and will remain, in my opinion, a military weapon. Which is the reason I own it. While mine is a rebuilt WWII weapon, it currently wears National Match sights, trigger group & barrel. It is far more accurate than the one I qualified "Expert" with in the Navy. However, I fervently believe it has no place in the pursuit of game.

In that regard, I am very much in agreement with Mr. Zumbo. I firmly believe that military configured rifles or carbines have no place in the game fields. Maybe it's a sense of esthetics, like taking a Winchester 1897 "Trench Gun" dove hunting' it lacks style or grace. I'm not saying you CAN'T, but wouldn't an appropriate barrelled version be better suited? Same with an AR; wouldn't one with a heavy barrel & reveiver mounted scope be better suited than the issuue sights?

Again, I'm not sayin' the militay version doesn't have its uses, nor am I saying one should be preclulded from owning one. Nor did I hear that sentiment from Zumbo.

Mr. Jackson needs no defense from me. I am only sad that we seem so quick to criticize those that say something we disagree with, yet seem to forget that it is our responsibility to protect that right regardless of what's said, just as we should protect the other rights we have under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. While I do not personally know Mr. Jackson, from what I've read and heard others that do know him, say about him; I'd rather have him as a friend than some that would only be by my side when they agree with me. I'll give him the benefit of doubt until I hear his side of the entire interview. Much of what any of us say can be taken out of context and misrepresented to convey the opposite of what we truly mean.

Good nite, and God Bless.

[Charles]

"Your defense of your fellow Texan is admirable, but face it Charles, he screwed up."

Bruce, I am not going to pretend that I wish Joaquin had not said, what he said, when he said it, to whom he said it. If you want to call it a "screw up" I can live with that. I am not certain that is what I would call an honest man who expresses an honest opinion that is out of step with the majority of gun rights folks... but I am not going to argue a point of semantics.

It is not that Joaquin is a fellow Texas and that I have known him for many years. It is that he is being judged unworthy by one highly edited TV interview. He is a strong 2nd. Admendment advocate and has done more to protect those rights than anybody else on this board, which certainly includes me.

He is man of hightest integrity, who has given his life to public service and law enforcement. He stands tall as a man among men, a gun owner, a shooter and a guns rights advocate.

Did he screw up as you put it? well probably so. However which of use has not screwed up in life? Which of us is pure enough to cast the first stone? Which of us has done enough for gun rights to be elected to the NRA board of Directory?

It is the massive unfairness and hypocracy of the attacks against him that causes me much sadness. He did not need me to defend him. He can do it for himself. I don't care what position Doc. Hudson took or takes?

I take note that Doc. has lost interest in the issue, and there was been nothing more heard from him about his recall notion. It was a temporary interest and of no more import than a popcorn fanny burp.

I suppose it is human nature to want to pile on and kick a fellow who "screwed up"... but there is not a man jack among you, who would do it to his face.

Joaquin Jackson is not a perfect man, he is a flawed human being as are we all. But his contributions far outstrips anything I have done or anybody else on this board with our lives. I know that some of this board who have served in the military, think they are the absolute nee plus ultra of American patriots because the served.

So here we sit, a bunch of chest beating, aging experts on life and guns, or so we think, kicking around a true American patriot because he dared to express an honest opinion at odds with 2nd. Amendment orthodoxy.

I find the pomposity of it all, rather embarassing. We should be better men...but alas we don't appear to be.

[bigfred44]

Good Grief

[MikeNV]

Wake-up.....The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or hunting rights....it was written by people who had just fought a war against an oppressive government....their government. They wrote the Bill of Rights to guarantee their rights and forever be free from an over bearing ruler.

Here's a gal who is a survivor of a active shooting event in TX, and she has a better grasp of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment than Jackson. Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting down Jackson's service to this country but his personal option is just that..... and should not be cast upon us.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fRG2q2sknR4

[Charles]

I'm not putting down Jackson's service to this country but his personal option is just that..... and should not be cast upon us. ""

For the record his was just expressing his personal opinion in a TV interview. He was not in any way trying to force or legislate that opinion on any of us.

He just said he thought five round magazines was all any hunter needed. That has been the law in some states long before thie current "assault rifle" flap was ever though of. I can remember in the 50's seeing some Garand clips that were modified to five rounds, for hunting use in some states. For Pete's sake, the Feds have made us plug our pump and autoloading shotguns for waterfowl hunting since the mind of man rememberth not.

Unless I was hunting with a single shot rifle, I never carry extra ammo while deer hunting. I fill the magazine of the bolt or levergun and that is all I take. That causes me to think twice before pressing the trigger. I have always come back to camp with ammo to spare, even when I brought back a deer.

I don' think such a thing should be made a law. Folks should be able to stuff their pockets with ammo if they want or carry spare mags. It is just my opinion that five rounds of ammo is all any careful hunter should ever need for a day afield.

[horsesoldier03]

This topic is kind of old seeing that interview was like 2 years prior to when the original stink hit the internet about it. I have no doubt that overall Mr. Jackson would be considered GUN FRIENDLY. His comments were and remain wreckless towards gun ownership and his rebuttle didnt get the same publicity as his original statement (ESPECIALLY FROM THE ANTI's) Personally I have never been into HERO WORSHIP. In the army we have a common phrase, "FROM HERO TO ZERO" basically it means that you cant live on your past successes and must continue to be a contributor everyday and that one ahhh $h#t will take away 10 at a boys!

[GANJIRO]

But seriously, was the movie any good?

[horsesoldier03]

YEP, JOE BOB BRIGGS says CHECK IT OUT !!!

[BruceB]

"

I take note that Doc. has lost interest in the issue, and there was been nothing more heard from him about his recall notion.

Doc hasn't posted here or elsewhere for quite some time, so whetther or not he has lost interest or found no means of redress is not known.
It amazes me that a person of your intellegence fails to see that, when one's personal opinion conflicts with the public position of the group he represents, one does not express that opinion in public.
BTW Charles, while you harp on the five round hunting comment. Jackson said quite clearly that only police and military should have "assault weapons". Check the video.
Were to post "Who said police and military should be the only ones with 'assault weapons'?" , Schumer, Feinstein. or Brady would be most people's immediate answer. They wouldn't expect it from an NRA Director.

[Modoc ED]

I suppose it is human nature to want to pile on and kick a fellow who "screwed up"... but there is not a man jack among you, who would do it to his face.

Joaquin Jackson is not a perfect man, he is a flawed human being as are we all. But his contributions far outstrips anything I have done or anybody else on this board with our lives. I know that some of this board who have served in the military, think they are the absolute nee plus ultra of American patriots because the served.

I find the pomposity of it all, rather embarassing. We should be better men...but alas we don't appear to be.

I've noticed that your posts in this thread seem to be based on supposition. Send Jackson out here to Alturas, CA and I'll be glad to tell him face to face that what he said was flat out wrong and than he has no business representing gun owners on the NRA Board.

Just what contributions has Jackson made that FAR OUTSTRIP anything ANYBODY on this board has done in their lives?

It was I who interjected the Vet/Active Duty Military Man/Woman to this thread and my intent was not to imply that just because someone has served that they are more patriotic than those who have not served. It was just to point out that those who have served, have served for their country. Jackson as far as I know has only served the state of Texas and maybe a plate of eggs at Rosita's across the border in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. If it turns out that he has served his country in some way, I'll be the first to stick out my hand and shake his and thank him for his service but that still wouldn't make his contribution any more important or worthy than others who have served no matter how he or they contributed/served.

I've got nothing to be embarassed about nor do I think anyone else on this forum has anything to be embarassed about. Maybe if you looked/listened to the tape again you'd see that to be true.

I'm not saying Jackson is a bad man. I'd say he is a good man and probably has done some great things in his lifetime but in my opinion he doesn't stand head and shoulders above any member of this forum just as no other member of this forum stands head and shoulders above any other member of this forum.

[Modoc ED]

I am truly ambivalent on the subject of EBRs. The closest I come to having one is a Garand. It is, and will remain, in my opinion, a military weapon. Which is the reason I own it. While mine is a rebuilt WWII weapon, it currently wears National Match sights, trigger group & barrel. It is far more accurate than the one I qualified "Expert" with in the Navy. However, I fervently believe it has no place in the pursuit of game.

In that regard, I am very much in agreement with Mr. Zumbo. I firmly believe that military configured rifles or carbines have no place in the game fields. Maybe it's a sense of esthetics, like taking a Winchester 1897 "Trench Gun" dove hunting' it lacks style or grace. I'm not saying you CAN'T, but wouldn't an appropriate barrelled version be better suited? Same with an AR; wouldn't one with a heavy barrel & reveiver mounted scope be better suited than the issuue sights?

Again, I'm not sayin' the militay version doesn't have its uses, nor am I saying one should be preclulded from owning one. Nor did I hear that sentiment from Zumbo.

Good nite, and God Bless.

I don't necessarily believe your opinions are correct Griff but you certainly have a right to your opinions and I'd be the first one to step up with you to defend them.

Sometimes, you just gotta use what you got. You're right that Garand of yours was designed and meant to be a military weapon from the git go but if that's all a guys got then there isn't anything wrong with his using it.

You and I and others on this forum apparently have the ways and means of having multiple handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. and untold ammounts of ammo for them; however, I'd bet there are some on this forum who only have the ways and means for maybe one rifle or one shotgun or maybe one of each and only enough ammo go hunting just a few times a year. They may even shutter at wasting ammo on paper.

Throughout my years of hunting, I have seen full military versions of Mausers, P14/P17 Enfields, 03s, Garands, Mark I, II, III, IV, and V Enfields and others used by various guys who were deer, bear, hog, elk, whatever hunting because that was the only rifle they had. Sometimes they looked out of place but HEY, who am I to say they didn't fit. There was a time when a guy could buy an old Mauser or Enfield and a case of 500-rounds for it for fifty bucks or less.

Yep, those funny looking black (some green) ARs look awful silly to me out in the boonies and not on a range but again who am I to say they don't fit.

Funny you should mention a Trench Gun. No, I don't have one but over the years, my favorite shotgun has been the 12ga Remington 870 Pump Shotgun and I like it configured with the Remington 21", Iron Sighted, Smooth Bore, REM Choke barrel and for 80% of my shooting with them I like a Modified Choke. Yes, I've got the 28' or 30" bead sighted barresl that came with my three 870s but as soon as I get one, I order the 21" iron sighted barrel and put it on the shotgun. Heck, I use those shotguns for everything -- duck, geese, pheasant, quail and other birds along with hogs coyotes, sometimes deer (depending on whree I am) and other game. When hunting birds, I just use my front sight as you would your bead sight and for me it is just a natural thing to do. So, would a trench gun be considerd to be an ideal shotgun for most guys? NO. But that doesn't make it imappropriate to use.

My whole point in this post and in my other posts about Jackson in this thread has been meant to get ALL OF US off our soapboxes about what a guy or gal should be allowed to own or use and to get ALL OF US on our soapboxes to defend those guys and gals right to own and use what they desire. If we keep separating out certain guns from what's right or wrong for their use for various activities (hunting, target practice, etc.) , we may just be without guns in the future.

[Charles]

Oh yes.. I was a fair movie. Rip Torn did a wonderful job as an old time Texas sheriff and Maria Conchita Alonzo was lucious in her salad days.

[FWiedner]

Yes indeed, she was.

[horsesoldier03]

Yes indeed, she was.

Something i think we all can agree upon!!!

[AkRay]

Like many other WWll vets, my friend Stan's dad was in his 50s in the late seventies. He came to Alaska in the late sixties to find work, since there wasn't much opportunity in Oregon. In his youth, he was a marine in the Pacific and he helped to fight the Japanese. One of the places he fought was Iwo Jima. He told Stan stories of the snipers up in the trees and the split toe boots they wore that helped them to climb the trees.

His outdoors rifle, the one that he used for hunting and as a just in case, have along rifle was an M1 Garand. I don't know if it's the one he carried during the war or if it was a replacement, but he seemed to feel that if he got through a shooting war with a Garand, it would serve him in every situation afterwards too. As a teenager I didn't see any reason to question his thinking about his rifle and I still don't.

[Charles]

"It amazes me that a person of your intellegence fails to see that, when one's personal opinion conflicts with the public position of the group he represents, one does not express that opinion in public. "..BruceB

Bruce... I guess I fail the intellengence test, as I firmly hold the opinion that a man's duty to his conscience take precidence over other groups he may belong to or represent.

There have been more than a few times in my life, I should have kept my mouth shut or taken some party line and saved myself allot of angst. But I didn't. But alas I did not and I don't suspect that is about to change any time soon.

"This above all, to they own self be true! Then as follows the day the night thou canst not be false to any man." Shakespear.

[BruceB]

"It amazes me that a person of your intellegence fails to see that, when one's personal opinion conflicts with the public position of the group he represents, one does not express that opinion in public. "..BruceB

Bruce... I guess I fail the intellengence test, as I firmly hold the opinion that a man's duty to his conscience take precidence over other groups he may belong to or represent.

So Jackson should not have run for director, nor should he remain since his conscience puts him at odds with the membership of the NRA.

[Charles]

So Jackson should not have run for director, nor should he remain since his conscience puts him at odds with the membership of the NRA.

Bruce... If the only folks than ran for various offices in various organizations were bound to hold to the offiicial party line, then there would never be any kind of change. People elect others to use their judgment and not be rubber stamps.

[BruceB]

So Jackson should not have run for director, nor should he remain since his conscience puts him at odds with the membership of the NRA.

Bruce... If the only folks than ran for various offices in various organizations were bound to hold to the offiicial party line, then there would never be any kind of change. People elect others to use their judgment and not be rubber stamps.

Good sparin' with you Charlie. Have a good'un.

[Charles]

Bruce... Just good clean fun.. take care and stay safe! Charles