Lt. Col. Oliver North to become NRA president, organization says

The man who brokered Cocaine from the Contras (and arranging along with others to bring it into the US) and Sold Missiles To The Mullahs (trafficking arms to the avowed enemies of the US at that time, i.e. an act of treason).

Seems like business as usual to me.

Does he plan to fund the NRA with drug money as well?


It was so great how he funded the Sandinistas slaughter of civilians and ran weapons for our enemies.

How about Hell No?
See Iran/Contra.
Following unconstitutional orders is still against the law.
Even if it was GHW Bush giving them.
So is lying to Congress about it.
Guns for coke to help the Contras.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
How about Hell No?
See Iran/Contra.
Following unconstitutional orders is still against the law.
Even if it was GHW Bush giving them.
So is lying to Congress about it.
Guns for coke to help the Contras.

As opposed to guns for poppy fields to help Al Qaeda?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Nyiah

Is the 2nd Amendment in such jeopardy that we need to sell it?

Considering they want a gun runner to a enemy to run the NRA, I'd say it's already been sold & certainly not to the right audience.

It's funny how this logic works. Giving Iran their money back decades after holding it = bad. Running guns to Iran in the thick of what solidified them as a proverbial arch-enemy = good. What the actual F.

Barack and Eric running guns to the foreign #1 border security threat currently on the maps with zero benefot to the USA in the process = no bog deal. A standard plan that exchanged arms for hostage freedom, but which violated an embargo in place BECAUSE OF REFUSAL TO RELEASE HOSTAGES= OMG I am OUTRAGED! Simply Outraged.

You're right, something reeks of fetid crap here, but it isn't Col. North.

Why can't they both be bad? Because Obama ran guns to Mexico it is ok for North to have ran guns to Iran decades earlier? I don't understand why you condone one and condemn the other.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Good pick. He's a Marine, an honorable man, defender of the Second Amendment, and well spoken.

Bad pick. He was a member of the National Security Council and convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity (he was bribed), obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents, but the ruling was overturned since he had been granted immunity.

This all had to do with gun running - he was illegally buying guns from Iran with US Government money and illegally giving them to the Nicaraguan Contras against official US policy. And now he likes to flaunt his fake patriotism? North is a scumbag of the highest order.

Of course the NRA's previous owners (the Gun Manufacturers) love this - anyway to sell more guns works for them - so in that sense it works for them.

But you know that the NRA has been sold off and is now owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Russians, don't you? So it can be said with a great deal of accuracy that Oliver North is now working directly for the Russians. Patriotic indeed.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Nyiah

Considering they want a gun runner to a enemy to run the NRA, I'd say it's already been sold & certainly not to the right audience.

Why not ? We had a President and an Attorney General gun-running to the Mexican drug cartels

fair enough I hear by withdraw my previous objection because there is no rebuttal to your point.

a reply to: rnaa

he was illegally buying guns from Iran with US Government money and illegally giving them to the Nicaraguan Contras against official US policy.

Actually, the vice is versa. Weapons were sold to Iran and the proceeds were funneled to the Contras.

a reply to: Harpua

NVM

a reply to: curme

And conveniently forgetting about all the drugs imported thanks to North..but he's an honourable man..lmfao

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rnaa

he was illegally buying guns from Iran with US Government money and illegally giving them to the Nicaraguan Contras against official US policy.

Actually, the vice is versa. Weapons were sold to Iran and the proceeds were funneled to the Contras.

Ah.

Mea Culpa.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Good pick. He's a Marine, an honorable man, defender of the Second Amendment, and well spoken.

Honrable? The scumbag is a traitor.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Nyiah

To be fair, the Shah was a wee bit different than the Ayatollah.

Oops wrong decade.

I'm old, my bad.

Not really. Both believed themselves to be ordained by God. Both were in effect absolute dictators, both were incredibly corrupt, both used secret police to torture and kill their citizens, both were in one way or another placed in power by the US, both bit back at the US (the Shah was a bit more gentle) and so on.

Back to the topic: North is a horrible choice for the following reason. He is unlikely to expand the NRA's membership. Those that like him are already members, and his somewhat polarizing presence will keep middle ground people out

a reply to: rnaa

"Russia owns the NRA" keep your seashore land in Arizona, sir, I'm not interested in buying it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: rnaa

"Russia owns the NRA" keep your seashore land in Arizona, sir, I'm not interested in buying it.

That's OK, I don't think they are interested in selling just yet.