Oliver North steps down as NRA president.

[IndyDave1776]

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?

You could argue that my truck is not a threat. Now, load up a nuclear bomb. Are you still going to tell us it isn't a threat?

Similarly. None of the central American countries were ever threats in and if themselves. As client states of the USSR how many Russian troops who could drive, not swim, to our border does it take to be a threat in your reckoning? Would Mexico stop them? Don't make me fall off my chair laughing.

 

[Dead Duck]

You could argue that my truck is not a threat. Now, load up a nuclear bomb. Are you still going to tell us it isn't a threat?

Similarly. None of the central American countries were ever threats in and if themselves. As client states of the USSR how many Russian troops who could drive, not swim, to our border does it take to be a threat in your reckoning? Would Mexico stop them? Don't make me fall off my chair laughing.

Well, they're doing pretty good stopping all those caravans so far.


...oh ...wait...

 

[GNRPowdeR]

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.

I agree with the broad stroke of your statement, however I did not specify any one or two names... I believe we have had the same faces in place for too long and it is time to shake the trees and remove some of the people in the top seats. Similarly to my views on term limits of federal and state elected officials, these positions should be held in the same regard.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

I am not going to disagree with your premise in principle, but the NRA itself reinforced belief in that dichotomy by spending the 6 years we had with a R white house, a R House, and a R Senate mumbling "enforce the existing laws...enforce the existing laws...enforce the existing laws" when they should have been reminding some people who elected them, what those people want, and that they need to get busy getting rid of the existing laws. It leads me to wonder if the NRA is no different from leftist politicians in not wanting to solve any problems in order not to put themselves out of a purpose for existing.

 

[HoughMade]

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.

I said there are some pretty effective fighters who are felons, not that criminals make good fighters.

Those are vastly different statements.

I just don't see why a felony conviction is a disqualifier.

...but as I said, North, as President of the NRA wasn't really "leading the fight" anyway. He's a spokesman.

 

[jamil]

I said there are some pretty effective fighters who are felons, not that criminals make good fighters.

Those are vastly different statements.

I just don't see why a felony conviction is a disqualifier.

...but as I said, North, as President of the NRA wasn't really "leading the fight" anyway. He's a spokesman.

The semantics are unimportant for the point I was making. It was the logic of a conclusion that I was objecting to, and not even that you were making such an argument, but that argument was implied in this thread.

 

[BugI02]

I said there are some pretty effective fighters who are felons, not that criminals make good fighters.

Those are vastly different statements.

I just don't see why a felony conviction is a disqualifier.

...but as I said, North, as President of the NRA wasn't really "leading the fight" anyway. He's a spokesman.

Respectfully, Hough; you might want to research that some more. From what I've read he was trying to do a Putin and change things so the President had real power, that coupled with trying to steamroll LaPierre (if that part is true) makes me wonder if he had a faction on the board or just hoped to blackmail Lapierre and get him out of the way. If he pumped up the President position's powers enough, he might have been able to take over day to day and start a long hunt for the next LaPierre with no intention of ever completing the task - poof, de facto coup

If everything about North turns out to be true then IMO he was up to no good, he might still be a defender of RKBA but it appears that some of what he wants/wanted to do he didn't think he could get by the board in an honest and forthright way. The two of them have put the 503c status at risk and enabled investigations by Cuomo's AG for absolutely no gain to the membership that I can see. There has to be more to it than misappropriation, otherwise no need for blackmail - just expose the excessive haberdasher expenses straight up at a board meeting. If what we think we know was correct, this was a political assassination

 

[BigRed]

I am not going to delve into the rehashing of North.

I simply want to say "thank you, HoughMade, for your comments on malum prohibitum and malum in se."

It is a distinction too often ignored in our world today.

For those that cannot draw the distinction, I wonder your position on jury nullification, nullification in general, and perhaps even secession. Perhaps that is a discussion for another day.

Thank you again.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am not going to delve into the rehashing of North.

I simply want to say "thank you, HoughMade, for your comments on malum prohibitum and malum in se."

It is a distinction too often ignored in our world today.

For those that cannot draw the distinction, I wonder your position on jury nullification, nullification in general, and perhaps even secession. Perhaps that is a discussion for another day.

Thank you again.

Very well said. In my reckoning, next to nothing should exist as malum prohibitum. Aside from a select few inherently dangerous acts which are not evil per se, like driving on the wrong side of the highway, there is no room in a free society for actions and possessions to be arbitrarily prohibited. We should adhere to the common law standard of crime which requires an actual harmed victim in order for a crime to have occurred.

Jury nullification not only is morally right when the law is wrong, but acceptable under the US Constitution and directly called for by the Indiana Constitution. Particularly in courts operating under the auspices of the State of Indiana, I believe any officer of the court including and especially judges who either ask the question or give instructions prohibiting it or demanding an "if we prove x, then you WILL vote y" should serve a minimum of 5 years in prison and be permanently barred from the official side of the criminal justice system forever for this most pernicious form of obstruction and defrauding the people of justice. Never mind that they swore to uphold the Indiana Constitution, not subvert it.

As for secession, I would much rather see a mechanism for a 3/4 vote of the state legislatures being able to kick rogue states out of the union.

 

[Brad69]

You guys paid me to tour Honduras and El Salvador in 1989-90 at the tender age of 20,21.
The rank and file of the Armies are ok guys but very corrupt as with everything in Central America.
The Hind helicopters I witnessed on the border were not made in Nicaragua straight outta the USSR, it was about stopping Communism that’s what I was told.
The Contras were called El Bandito’s not to be trusted with anything.

BTW
The Contras had supplies of brand new Mini 14’s from who knows where that were deemed too unreliable for use.

 

[rhino]

I think we need a double. One for each douchebag.



North is a convict. And for what he did he earned that label. That makes him a douchebag. Nugent is an idiot. He may sound like a friend to the 2A, and I believe he is sincere about that. But every time he opens his mouth, the stereotype is confirmed. The counterclaim for rabid anti-gun drivel isn’t the embodiment of the stereotype. Which Nugent is every bit of that. That makes him a douchebag.

I guess we have different ideas about what makes a real patriot.

Not a convict. Convictions overturned on appeal.

 

[bwframe]

Strangely , this resembles a political thread.

 

[Brad69]

Screw it I will run for President of the NRA

Of course I will need a staff Of INGO members and a crooked Lawyer!

 

[stormryder]

Too lazy to read through all of this.

If off subject indulge me for a moment.

I have a question, is there a Gun Rights Organisation that does not compromise on our Gun Rights?

I am aware of GOA and their stance, but is there anyone else that has the pull and is uncompromising?

Even though I am a member planning to go Life, i feel the NRA needs to stop "Cherry picking" on our Gun Rights.
The Bump stock Ban is a slap in the face to all Gun owners, we should have never let such a Law go through much less The NRA to push for it.
I personally have no desire to own one, but that should not prevent anyone who owns one or decides to get one from having it.
As my Sig line says, I believe in No compromise Gun Rights.

In other words, If you want it and can afford it you should have it. But you must take the Responsibility that goes with it.

 

[jamil]

Strangely , this resembles a political thread.

Strangely this resembles a political topic.

 

[jamil]

Too lazy to read through all of this.

If off subject indulge me for a moment.

I have a question, is there a Gun Rights Organisation that does not compromise on our Gun Rights?

I am aware of GOA and their stance, but is there anyone else that has the pull and is uncompromising?

Even though I am a member planning to go Life, i feel the NRA needs to stop "Cherry picking" on our Gun Rights.
The Bump stock Ban is a slap in the face to all Gun owners, we should have never let such a Law go through much less The NRA to push for it.
I personally have no desire to own one, but that should not prevent anyone who owns one or decides to get one from having it.
As my Sig line says, I believe in No compromise Gun Rights.

In other words, If you want it and can afford it you should have it. But you must take the Responsibility that goes with it.

Never go life. No organization deserves my support in perpetuity. They should have to earn my annual support.

And “nobody’s perfect” isn’t a proper defense for using our money to enrich themselves. What I hope for members is to demand transparency in the leadership. We should be demanding these allegations be investigated thoroughly to see if they’re true, and take action to the extent that they are true. We can’t expect perfect leaders but we can demand accountability.
isn’t a good strategy for a strong NRA.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Never go life. No organization deserves my support in perpetuity. They should have to earn my annual support.

And “nobody’s perfect” isn’t a proper defense for using our money to enrich themselves. What I hope for members is to demand transparency in the leadership. We should be demanding these allegations be investigated thoroughly to see if they’re true, and take action to the extent that they are true. We can’t expect perfect leaders but we can demand accountability.
isn’t a good strategy for a strong NRA.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one had to be a Life member to vote. So if you have no vote, how are you going to be demanding anything?

 

[churchmouse]

Screw it I will run for President of the NRA

Of course I will need a staff Of INGO members and a crooked Lawyer!

I believe all of that can be gleaned from our membership......

 

[SwikLS]

Screw it I will run for President of the NRA

Of course I will need a staff Of INGO members and a crooked Lawyer!

This gets to what I was thinking about this whole thing earlier. Right now there are probably lots of people within the NRA membership with good leadership qualities that never wanted to step up but will be willing to do so. I have every confidence this will all shake out in time.

 

[jamil]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one had to be a Life member to vote. So if you have no vote, how are you going to be demanding anything?

I thought to vote, you’re either a life member, or an annual member for at least 5 consecutive years.