North's second term at NRA goes south.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's the narrative as I understand it.... and I am by no means an expert on the politics of the NRA...

Olie's 'real' gig was with the Oklahoma based marketing firm Ackerman McQuinn... That's where he made his money .... much more than NRA ever paid him.

So the NRA get's in the cross hairs of a NY/NJ witch hunt and needs to audit it's sub-contractors to justify their billing and ensure they don't compromise the NRA's tax exempt status. Sounds fair enough.

Ackerman McQuinn has a multi-million dollar contract with the NRA, but refuses to disclose all of the requested information. Hmmm.... me thinks something foul resides in the state of Oklahoma.

So the NRA takes Ackerman McQuinn to court to get the needed documentation.....and...... Ollie backs his sugar daddy Ackerman McQuinn
and not the NRA?

Then he tries to throw La Pierre under the bus.

Then the BOD throws Ollie out.
 
Last edited:
I think the NRA is desperately trying to re-brand itself to stay relevant with young people, most of whom have been programmed by the liberal leaning, pro-demoncratic party, teacher's unions.

Being cool... being on YouTube... partnering up with country music icons... stoking stereotypes... portraying shooting sports as a hip, all-American cool thing to do. All of this is an effort to stay relevant with millennials.

It's probably a really smart idea, as all the libs have to do is wait until the gray haired white male NRA members die off and the pro 2A movement becomes fringe and irrelevant.

I see younger types in their 30s that seem to really be responding to this "NRA Culture" thing.
 
Here's the narrative as I understand it.... and I am by no means an expert on the politics of the NRA...

Olie's 'real' gig was with the Oklahoma based marketing firm Ackerman McQuinn... That's where he made his money .... mcuh more than NRA ever paid him.

So the NRA get's in the cross hairs of a NY/NJ witch hunt and needs to audit it's sub-contractors to justify their billing and ensure they don't compromise the NRA's tax exempt status. Sound fair enough.

Ackerman McQuinn has a multi-million dollar contract with the NRA, but refuses to disclose all of the requested information. Hmmm.... me thinks something foul resides in the state of Oklahoma.

So the NRA takes Ackerman McQuinn to court to get the needed documentation.....and...... Ollie backs his sugar daddy Ackerman McQuinn
and not the NRA?

Then he tries to throw La Pierre under the bus.

Then the BOD throws Ollie out.

That's my take as well. I'm not seeing the badness of the NRA here. Just a crooked PR firm and a greedy Ollie North.
 
I have a simple question. Is Wayne LaPierre known to actually shoot and/or collect guns? Or is he, as I suspect, several steps removed from the subject matter at hand?

This may be the problem. He may be a politician, a business executive, etc., etc., but not a "gun person."
 
I know gun people who are pro gun control.

I know business people who have never shot a firearm who (because of their political beliefs) are die hard pro 2A.

Which do you think is our ally?
 
What's that got to do with Oliver North burning the NRA?
The non-shooters in charge has been a concern expressed by some local folks. What is the emotional connection that a non-shooter would have to a large rifle association. Could it be a million a year? We have asked dozens of questions with no solid answers. How about an audit with accountability? I want everybody there to go under a magnifying glass. The Association could have been a target of opportunity.
 
North was a criminal from way back. He was always a bad choice for the NRA. That doesn't mean LaPierre still doesn't need to be replaced with someone who isn't so smarmy.
 
I want everybody there to go under a magnifying glass. The Association could have been a target of opportunity.

Target of opportunity , yes - for Oliver North.
Wayne LaPierre did not make Oliver North do what Oliver North did.
Anyone who dislikes LaPierre is well within their rights in feeling that way , but it is not his fault that North is an opportunist who is willing to harm the NRA.
 
Some of you are trying to make the case that the’bump stock’ thing is the end of the world.....What about the last 30 yrs of the NRA standing up for your rights......

So fickle....
 
This post is for you pro gun , anti NRA guys: The way our government works is through big money. Lobbying organizations like the NRA have power because they ply your congressmen, women, and senators with lots of money. This money is needed if you want to be re-elected. And if you vote wrong, these organizations give lots of money to your opponent. Then you are out of a job. The US supreme court calls this free speech.
If the NRA is gone, the pro-gun votes and maneuvering in the congress are gone. Your gun rights are gone. You may think this is not the case, and I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong. The simple fact is that if you are a gun enthusiast, and are not contributing to the NRA, then you are riding on the backs of those who do.
 
What is the emotional connection that a non-shooter would have to a large rifle association. Could it be a million a year?
Exactly. LaPierre and the current bigwigs at the NRA are invested in the process and not the result. They would like to keep the gun controversy alive -- without resolution -- because that's what brings in the money and underwrites their lavish lifestyle. That is why I ask if Lapierre has any kind of emotional connection with guns. The truth is, if the RKBA won a 100% victory tomorrow, he'd be out of a job (or at least it wouldn't pay what it does).

As for Oliver North, apparently being the unpaid figurehead president wasn't enough for him. He wanted a hefty slice of the action. But there wasn't room for two grifters at the top.
 
Wait a minute. This anti-NRA business has a bunch to do with lack of transparency and a self perpetuating ruling class in a closed system. Dark money and Russian bimbos are also included. As entrenched as those people are, there is no other way to catch their attention than a boycott. Are these turkeys, our politicians, all forsale? How about rumored manipulation of the grading system where out of favor politicians go from A to F? Audit and accountability. Anti-corruption is not anti-firearm. I'm not dough balling this bunch of gangsters any longer!.
 
I get so tired of hearing "without the NRA, you'd have no gun rights." That is the kind of fear mongering that has kept them in business, and actively lobbying against gun rights for a very long time. They have supported, or endorsed almost every major piece of gun legislation to date. The NFA, 68 GCA, background checks, red flag laws, bumpfire stock bans, and more. They have tried to interfere and stop cases like DC vs Heller, McDonald vs Chicago, both cases won by small groups who have rolled back more gun control than the NRA has managed to do in a century.

I'll never send money to a gun control organization, the NRA won't get a dime out of me.
 
I get so tired of hearing "without the NRA, you'd have no gun rights." That is the kind of fear mongering that has kept them in business, and actively lobbying against gun rights for a very long time. They have supported, or endorsed almost every major piece of gun legislation to date. The NFA, 68 GCA, background checks, red flag laws, bumpfire stock bans, and more. They have tried to interfere and stop cases like DC vs Heller, McDonald vs Chicago, both cases won by small groups who have rolled back more gun control than the NRA has managed to do in a century.

I'll never send money to a gun control organization, the NRA won't get a dime out of me.
We can agree to disagree on most points you have made. Without the NRA, we'd look like Au or England. You can believe what you want. Why do you say the NRA did more to stop Heller and McDonald? What do you know that we don't? How much money did the NRA put into those cases in all levels of the process to get from the trial up to and including the SC? Can you support your claim of the NRA trying to interfere in these cases or is it just internet hyperbole?

You can choose to not put your money into the NRA. That is your choice. We all have choices.
 
I get so tired of hearing "without the NRA, you'd have no gun rights."

Funny thing is the supporters of the handgun gun bans in DC, Chicago, and reinstating the 1994 AWB also say "without the NRA, you'd have no gun rights."
 
Jeb Stuart: "Bumpstocks are a IN YOUR FACE statement. It would be feeding the FIRE of Hatred of the anti gun people like jet fuel."

In my not so humble opinion bumpstocks are like the Sputter Gun ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputter_Gun ) or the Hellfire trigger device -- a cute game of "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" with the technicalities of the National Firearms Act definition of machine gun.

Playing end-run games around the definition of machine gun is not a viable strategy to get the Hughes Amendment repealed and the National Firearms Registry reopened for new registrations of legal machineguns. I see those games as contributing to keeping the registry closed.

I do not see the work-arounds as a practical substitute for a machine gun. They definitely lack the historical or collectible interest that made me consider buying a WWII Reising Model 50 in 1985. The bumpstock, like the old hellfire switch, is a range toy for simulating full automatic fire. From what I have seen of these gimmicks, I would not chose one for self-defense either.

I am on the record on the other thread as stating that the Menace of the Bumpstock is grossly exaggerated. Statistically (FBI UCR homicides by weapon used) I am far more likely today to be murdered by an unarmed assailant than by an assailant with a rifle period, much less by an assailant with a rifle with a bumpstock. The ban unnecessarily criminalizes ban resisters and by driving bumpstocks underground is less control not more (no one reports stolen contraband).

I think the old line anti-gun "This Very Day a Gun May Kill You!!!" crowd would love to have us defending bumpstocks in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting. Tactically and strategically it is not a good hill on which to defend the 2A.
 
This post is for you pro gun , anti NRA guys: The way our government works is through big money. Lobbying organizations like the NRA have power because they ply your congressmen, women, and senators with lots of money. This money is needed if you want to be re-elected. And if you vote wrong, these organizations give lots of money to your opponent. Then you are out of a job. The US supreme court calls this free speech.
If the NRA is gone, the pro-gun votes and maneuvering in the congress are gone. Your gun rights are gone. You may think this is not the case, and I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong. The simple fact is that if you are a gun enthusiast, and are not contributing to the NRA, then you are riding on the backs of those who do.

Thank you for that dose of reality.


...Russian bimbos are also included

- And now it's tinfoil hat time.
 
A lot of people don't seem to understand that the problem with the bump stock ruling has nothing to do with bump stocks. It has to to with the reinterpretation of an existing law by a regulatory agency simply because the President tells them to. When President Harris or President Swalwell tells the ATF to reinterpret the NFA so that your Marlin 60 or Ruger 10/22 is an illegal machine gun, the NRA will have no legs to stand on because they sat idly by and let Trump establish the precedent.
 
Personally I have been underwelmed and put off by LaPierre as exec and was Wadd-Da-Hay? about Oliver North as pres.
I would like to see an executive director and president at NRA to hammer points:
(A) Legal restrictions on legal ownership by the law-abiding is not effective in curtailing gun violence.
(B) People as individuals have right to keep and bear arms for traditional and lawful purposes under over forty state constitutions and (as clarified by the Supreme Court in DC v Heller 2008) under the 2A of the federal constitution.
A. As the sunset of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban approached, independent reviews of research on gun violence that could pass as working papers at the American Society of Criminology or be published under peer-review under JEL Subject Code K42 (Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law) were done by the Centers for Disease Control (Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws (2003)) and the National Research Council (Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004)). Neither the 1994 AWB nor any of the other gun laws and policies examined had a measurable impact on criminal or reckless use of guns.
B. Anti-gunners are willing to ignore the unconstitutionality of banning guns because they believe legal restrictions on guns contribute to public safety. Constitutional arguments are wasted on utilitarians.

Ultimately there is a lot at stake. This is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people, defended by volunteers raised from the people (militia). It should never be allowed to become a Hobbesian absolute state justified by a state monopoly on force: government of the people, by the government, for the government, enforced against the people by state-only arms in the hands of Hessians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top