What was he convicted of? How is he viewed by NRA members?
People here don’t like him. I don’t like him. But we’re not NRA’s target audience, pardon the pun.
As a convicted felon, isn’t he prohibited from possessing a firearm?
His conviction was overturned, because of Congressional immunity (or something)
You think that they’re running him for as a candidate for President of the United States, don’t you?
The “president” of an organization’s job is usually about 90% spokesperson/fundraiser and about 10% dealing with policy.
Geezus Christ you retard, get out of your mommy’s basement and fucking LEARN something before posting about it.
As Algher helpfully pointed out, his convictions were vacated. The fact is that they were vacated on the basis of findings that the circumstances leading to his prosecution made it impractical for him to receive a fair trial. However, although the convictions were thrown out on “technicalities” rather than any reason to believe that he DIDN’T commit the reprehensible acts he had been accused of (or any reason to believe that the acts were NOT reprehensible), the fact remains that they were overturned. It is the overturning that restores all of his constitutionally protected rights and privileges.
Hence, he retains his Second Amendment rights.
ETA: Procrustus and Fenris, please step aside. I’m trying to respond to MikeG.
I’m trying to image a Congressional hearing that wont include “So, Mr. North last time you were here you directly lied to congress after having enabled illegal transfers of arms to Iran…so what statements would you like us to consider?”
Their reputation is already trash, they may as well appoint this asshole.
It’s not trolling; it’s mobilizing the troops. It’s a symbol of what’s to come, which is more militarism masquerading as activism.
He’s still working on his reputation. If North withdrawals, he’s standing by as an alternative.
If Betsy DeVos, Jeff Sessions, and Scott Pruitt can make it through confirmation hearings, North can to. He’s a seasoned pro at lying his ass off and not caring if anyone believes him or not.
Yeah, it is really more of a litmus test than anything. The president of the NRA is more of a figurehead, and Wayne LaPierre and his band of mutants have long been the real organizing force that took over the organization and turned it into a lobbying arm for firearms manufacturers. But Oliver North shouldn’t even be walking around a free man.
Stranger
I hadn’t even known, or cared, that he was still alive. :dubious:
He’s proved to be great at selling weapons. (to Iran)
I think they want to send an extreme message, like “Too far is barely far enough for us!”
But I gotta admit choosing Oliver North has some troll value. If you hadn’t used the number “100%”, I’d be right there.
The NRA has spent years telling us it’s not guns that are the problem, it’s criminals.
Then it elects a criminal as its president.
The messaging here is a little confusing.
For someone who was hoping that the NRA be disbanded and its assets confiscated by the next Administration, I think the choice of Ollie North is one that should give us hope.
[Moderating]
I’ve merged two different threads on the same topic.
[/Moderating]
Crimes committed for partisanship are ok? Anyway, both sides do it [D&R]
I suspect the motives are a little more sinister than this. I meant what I said: the NRA is a group that is posing as a bunch of harmless (if not boisterous) activists. But I think they’re willing to cross a line into something else.
Consider first the recent revelations about Russian infiltration of the NRA. This is a very serious problem we have. These aren’t domestic activists; this is a foreign intervention and it’s being embraced with open arms because they and the NRA’s chief activists, who, like Putin and his circle of oligarchs, are themselves plutocratic, see themselves as having a shared bond and purpose. And that shared purpose is a contempt for an American society that is egalitarian and democratic. Russian interventions in foreign politics also quite frequently have racial overtones and regularly exploit racism and white nationalism to sow discord. And yes, they tend to advocate violence either implicitly or otherwise, which is something that the gun rights types don’t seem to fret much about.
Beyond Russia, look as well at the proximity of a guy like Erik Prince, who is very close to the current administration and others within the extreme right wing orbit. Consider a recent proposal by Erik Prince to form private armies, which received vocal support from then NRA Board member and now president, Oliver North (North also has some experience with arms sales, I hear).
This might seem like wild conspiracy talk, but what’s really happening is an increased level of openness among the political right of embracing a more militaristic approach to politics. They’re fully aware that their ideas aren’t really that popular and that the demographics threaten to alter the course of American political culture, and American culture as a whole, permanently. They’re desperate to reverse that trend, and I think people have been, and will continue to be, surprised at the lengths to which they are willing to go to preserve “their” America.
Agreed. They’re sacrificing mainstream acceptance in order to ensure a more loyal and more energized membership. Given a political structure where a sufficiently united minority can hamper political change, this serves the NRA’s interests (and its funding organizations’ interests) nicely.
Why North when they could have hired George Zimmerman more cheaply?
Like the Trump administration, the NRA provides affirmative action for white criminals.