Oliver North steps down as NRA president.

[foszoe]

As long as they use the same standard for the NRA reporting as they did for the Southern Poverty Law Center, we will be fine.

I have a vivid memory of the Iran/Contra hearings . . . of Fawn Hall.


If W LaP has done some really bad stuff and there is actual evidence that sees the light of day, it's going to be bad for all of us in the short term. No matter what, the mainstream media and other NRA haters are going to impugn all of us with whatever they can. In the long term, whatever emerges when the dust settles will probably be a stronger and hopefully healthier organization.

 

[BugI02]

https://newsok.com/article/5628800/nra-sues-okc-advertisement-agency-ackerman-mcqueen
NRA sues OKC advertising agency Ackerman McQueen

Hometown newspaper where Ackerman-McQueen is based. Rated as "Right-Center" with accuracy of reporting rated "High"

There are a lot of moving parts, here; and I don't yet see all the connections, so I'll wait for more information. But as I've said in another thread, both President and CEO of the NRA should be staffed by true believers and not opportunists

If the financial improprieties turn out to be true, they both need to go and the relationship with Ack-McQ needs a lot of sunlight. The NRA's charter as a 501c has been put at risk for no good reason (that I can see). I am uncomfortable that North apparently saw no conflict of interest in being an officer of the NRA and a paid employee of a sub-contractor. I am also seeing ink that Ackerman-McQueen was attempting to push issues that it felt strongly about rather than serving the needs of it's client in what may have been an attempt to piggy-back their advocacy on the coattails of the NRA

There is more here than meets the eye, and the quicker we get to the bottom of it the better we'll all be for it

 

[jamil]

Well said. Had we not been blessed with patriots who were willing to operate outside the law I am satisfied we would all be living at the subsistence level in the shadow of the hammer and sickle waving in the breeze.

I can’t agree with you on this. There is a time when this could be true. The real ass revolutionary law breakers, to form a better government, had what I’d say was a just cause for breaking the laws of the crown.

If the Democrats broke the same laws would you be cheering them for it or wondering why they’re not in jail? Is it only cheer worthy when the “patriotic” law breakers are on our side? Is it just the end result that matters? And **** everything else in between? By any means necessary?

Nah. **** all that. Patriots believe in the rule of law, unless it breaks down into tyranny. North is no hero, neither did he save the US from jack ****, nor was there anything that could be construed as those laws being tyrannical or justifying breaking them. If in the normal preservation of our free Republic, we need to execute such actions that he performed, they should be legal.

 

[jamil]

How far back do we go with that? Dec 1773 perhaps.

If the law is tyrannical, a person who values liberty should act accordingly. The Revolution is in no way an equivalent to this. If you think so, I guess I understand the basis for our disagreement.

 

[jamil]

https://newsok.com/article/5628800/nra-sues-okc-advertisement-agency-ackerman-mcqueen
NRA sues OKC advertising agency Ackerman McQueen

Hometown newspaper where Ackerman-McQueen is based. Rated as "Right-Center" with accuracy of reporting rated "High"

There are a lot of moving parts, here; and I don't yet see all the connections, so I'll wait for more information. But as I've said in another thread, both President and CEO of the NRA should be staffed by true believers and not opportunists

If the financial improprieties turn out to be true, they both need to go and the relationship with Ack-McQ needs a lot of sunlight. The NRA's charter as a 501c has been put at risk for no good reason (that I can see). I am uncomfortable that North apparently saw no conflict of interest in being an officer of the NRA and a paid employee of a sub-contractor. I am also seeing ink that Ackerman-McQueen was attempting to push issues that it felt strongly about rather than serving the needs of it's client in what may have been an attempt to piggy-back their advocacy on the coattails of the NRA

There is more here than meets the eye, and the quicker we get to the bottom of it the better we'll all be for it

I agree pretty much with all of this. For the healthy future of the NRA, this stuff needs light of day.

 

[bwframe]

People want to sleep safely in their warm beds at night and have their creature comforts, burgers and fireworks on 4th of july (whats that date for again anyways?), and they are content to be ignorant, until they find out the dirty details of what it takes by brave men and women to make that possible and suddenly they stand erect out of their zombie like state and become an expert on war fighting and bad guy killing and politics and international laws and negotiating and diplomacy and enhanced interrogation...

 

[HoughMade]

I question the wisdom of the Iran-Contra plan, always have...but let's not act like the Boland Amendment is some sort of statement of revealed morality that "funding the Contras is inherently wrong". It's not. Personally, I think it would have been a closer call as to whether not helping anti-communists was immoral....but that's a matter of theory as I am not applying that to the Contras.

The whole Iran-Contra plan was not a plan to violate the Boland Amendment. Far from, it was designed to get support to the Contras without breaking the law. In other words, the end-run the Boland Amendment. If the Boland Amendment was a statement of basic human morality, I'd say that trying to find a work around was wrong. However, looking at a law and carefully figuring out how to accomplish what you want to do without breaking the law...c'mon. When it comes to malum prohibitum, "spirit of the law" has no meaning to me.

Now, when people let this get out and investigations were undertaken and people started lying and hiding evidence, I've got a problem with that. However, let's make that differentiation. In my mind, there was not a moral issue with the plan ab initio, and that's what people seem to be acting like there was. No. It may not have been a good idea, but it was not designed to subvert the Constitution or break the law. It was specifically designed to not do that.....and then it all went off the rails and the illegality was in cover up. You may say- why cover it up if it's not illegal? I say, do you ever do things that are not technically illegal but would be embarrassing or cause you other problems if it was public knowledge?

In sum, their hearts, in my opinion, were originally in the right place.....their heads may have been where the sun don't shine.

 

[Punkinhead]

People want to sleep safely in their warm beds at night and have their creature comforts, burgers and fireworks on 4th of july (whats that date for again anyways?), and they are content to be ignorant, until they find out the dirty details of what it takes by brave men and women to make that possible and suddenly they stand erect out of their zombie like state and become an expert on war fighting and bad guy killing and politics and international laws and negotiating and diplomacy and enhanced interrogation.
People just need to keep on keeping their faces in their phones while they walk so the REAL world can work around them.

You've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.

Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are and always have been impoverished third world countries with **** poor economies and no effective militaries. They were never any threat to us. Giving terrorists in those countries arms and money didn't make America safer. Calling them "freedom fighters" doesn't make them our friends any more than it did when we were supplying arms to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and look how that turned out. When is the US going to learn to mind its own business?

North violated the law, pure and simple. He's no patriot - he's a criminal. And even if you view North as a fine patriot, why pick him to lead a 2nd Amendment rights organization? What upside is there to picking such a polarizing figure? We couldn't find anyone qualified who didn't have a felony conviction in his past?

 

[Alpo]

You've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.

Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are and always have been impoverished third world countries with **** poor economies and no effective militaries. They were never any threat to us. Giving terrorists in those countries arms and money didn't make America safer. Calling them "freedom fighters" doesn't make them our friends any more than it did when we were supplying arms to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and look how that turned out. When is the US going to learn to mind its own business?

North violated the law, pure and simple. He's no patriot - he's a criminal. And even if you view North as a fine patriot, why pick him to lead a 2nd Amendment rights organization? What upside is there to picking such a polarizing figure? We couldn't find anyone qualified who didn't have a felony conviction in his past?

I pretty much agree. In general, I'd say 99% of Americans know jack **** about Central America. It doesn't take too deep a look to come up with lots of illegal activity by Americans (CIA, United Fruit Co, Ollie North yada yada yada) in that region. The Guatemalan Mayan genocides are a fine example of our unlawfulness.

The Contras, by and large, were terrorists supported by us. Freedom fighters? Not.

 

[JettaKnight]

I pretty much agree. In general, I'd say 99% of Americans know jack **** about Central America. It doesn't take too deep a look to come up with lots of illegal activity by Americans (CIA, United Fruit Co, Ollie North yada yada yada) in that region. The Guatemalan Mayan genocides are a fine example of our unlawfulness.

The Contras, by and large, were terrorists supported by us. Freedom fighters? Not.

Everything I know about Central America comes from watching Miami Vice and playing Tropico.

 

[jamil]

You've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.

Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are and always have been impoverished third world countries with **** poor economies and no effective militaries. They were never any threat to us. Giving terrorists in those countries arms and money didn't make America safer. Calling them "freedom fighters" doesn't make them our friends any more than it did when we were supplying arms to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and look how that turned out. When is the US going to learn to mind its own business?

North violated the law, pure and simple. He's no patriot - he's a criminal. And even if you view North as a fine patriot, why pick him to lead a 2nd Amendment rights organization? What upside is there to picking such a polarizing figure? We couldn't find anyone qualified who didn't have a felony conviction in his past?

Hough brought up some points I was unaware of. Coming from him, they’re worth further consideration, though I’m not as forgiving on the spirit of the law part. Nevertheless, as to whether or not North broke the law, I’ll reexamine my judgement on that after I confirm some things. That said, I am not inclined call him a patriot. Nor nor do I believe it was wise to make him President. Surely we could do better.

 

[HoughMade]

I would say it's safe to say that North and several others broke the law....in the cover up. It can be debated whether the plan was legal, but I think that technical legality was the intention....though, as I said above, when you're right at the line, it's not anyone's opinion that matters other than prosecutors and a jury. Also, I'm a big believer in "the spirit of the law" when the law defines something more akin to malum in se​.

Also, at least 2 private individuals were convicted of crimes dealing with directing money to the Contras, but the crimes were tax related because they were using nonprofits to privately raise money for the Contras, fraudulently.

 

[foszoe]

Everything I know about Central America comes from watching Miami Vice and playing Tropico.

It ain't really worth a crap in Risk either

 

[bwframe]

The question is whether you want fighters in charge of leading your lobbying organization attempting to keep and expand your Second Amendment rights to what they should be? Or do you want meek/timid folks overly concerned for gray areas and interpretations of such?

 

[Punkinhead]

The question is whether you want fighters in charge of leading your lobbying organization attempting to keep and expand your Second Amendment rights to what they should be? Or do you want meek/timid folks overly concerned for gray areas and interpretations of such?

I want fighters with integrity who've never committed a felony.

 

[HoughMade]

I want fighters with integrity who've never committed a felony.

I get the integrity part, but I would bet some pretty effective fighters are felons.

...and North, no matter what any of us think about him, is not a convicted felon anyway. One man's technicality is, literally, another man's Constitutional right.

Oh, and as to the NRA, he was only always a face, a figurehead, PR, a recruiting poster...

 

[jamil]

The question is whether you want fighters in charge of leading your lobbying organization attempting to keep and expand your Second Amendment rights to what they should be? Or do you want meek/timid folks overly concerned for gray areas and interpretations of such?

No it's not. It's a question of whether or not, or the extent to which, North, LaPierre, and Ackerman McQueen were enriching themselves with our money.

If you're saying that corruption at the top is just the cost of having Pit Bulls at the helm, I think you're promoting a false dichotomy, as well as imagining that LaPierre or North are actually Pit Bulls. Saying things that titillate your ears may be him doing fine work, or it may be that they're taking the membership for fools. Or any points in between. The allegation of wrongdoing is out there. It appears it could be true. It's serious enough to warrant serious inquiry. If true, and the NRA members continue to stand behind corrupt leaders, it would severely weaken the collective clout of the NRA throughout the organization.

To address the false dichotomy further... I think we can agree that we want the NRA to be about the business of representing its membership, which includes fiercely defending the RKBA from the whims of rabid anti-gun zealots. To say that the only "fighters" are the ones we have now, you know, the ones being accused of enriching their pockets at our expense, OR replace them with ethical "fighters", that is indeed a false dichotomy.

 

[jamil]

I get the integrity part, but I would bet some pretty effective fighters are felons.

...and North, no matter what any of us think about him, is not a convicted felon anyway. One man's technicality is, literally, another man's Constitutional right.

Oh, and as to the NRA, he was only always a face, a figurehead, PR, a recruiting poster...

I think your first argument is a losing one. At least if it goes much past an is argument to say "criminals make good fighters". If it gets into an ought argument that asserts the NRA should benefit from such fighters, that's gonna be a bad argument.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

The question is whether you want fighters in charge of leading your lobbying organization attempting to keep and expand your Second Amendment rights to what they should be?

We need more... "New" blood, preferably...

Or do you want meek/timid folks overly concerned for gray areas and interpretations of such?

There are already too many in DC for my liking...

 

[jamil]

We need more...


There are already too many in DC for my liking...

You don't have to have corrupt **********s to get that. Whatever upsides you gain, you lose that and more on the downsides. But. It's not yet proven whether or the extent to which LaPierre or North are corrupt **********s. But that doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand so that we don't have to hear the truth if it goes badly.