Iran

Oliver North Tapped as President of the NRA

The former Marine Corps Lt. Colonel and current Fox News host played a central role in the Iran-contra scandal.

|

Cheriss May/NurPhoto/Sipa USA/Newscom

Lt. Colonel Oliver North has been tapped to be the next president of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

A Monday press release announced that the NRA's board of directors had begun the process of naming North to lead the organization, following current president Pete Brownell's decision to resign.

"Oliver North is a legendary warrior for American freedom, a gifted communicator and skilled leader," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's long-serving CEO, in the press release. "In these times, I can think of no one better suited to serve as our President."

According to the press release, the decision to elevate North—already an NRA board member—to the presidency came at the suggestion of LaPierre, who reportedly said the organization needed a "warrior" in the position.

North, a former Reagan administration official and current Fox News host, is best known for his central role in the Iran-contra scandal. The former Marine helped establish a covert network used to sell weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran in the 1980s, the proceeds of which were then illegally funneled to the contra rebels fighting the left-wing government of Nicaragua.

North admitted to lying to Congress about his role in the affair. He was convicted in 1989 of three felonies, including receiving illegal bribes, destroying government documents, and obstructing a congressional investigation. His convictions were overturned in 1991.

Following the Waco stand-off of 1993, where 82 members of the Branch Davidian sect were killed following a failed attempt to serve a warrant on the group's leader, David Koresh, on weapons charges, North offered a full-throated defense of the feds, criticizing "arm-chair critics…second-guessing law enforcement officers on the scene."

North also ran an unsuccessful campaign for an open U.S. Senate seat in Virginia in 1994. During the campaign, North had his concealed carry license revoked by a state judge who determined he was "not of good character."

Brownell's resignation and North's appointment came as a something of a surprise, all apparently happening this morning.

Although North is retiring immediately from Fox News, where he hosts the show War Stories, he will not assume the NRA presidency right away.

NEXT: Cops Called a Helicopter to Confront Three Black Women Leaving an Airbnb

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He just got this position and he’s already been tapped?

    1. This is basically a sweaty rape joke. 2/10.

      1. Rape? I was talking about him tapping out to a submission. You have a sick mind, mister.

        1. I’m not the one making a sweaty rape joke here, mister.

  2. “During the campaign, North had his concealed carry license revoked by a state judge who determined he was “not of good character.”

    This seems more like a knock against the State of Virginia than North. Repealing someone’s constitutional right to carry a firearm at the whim of a judge?

    1. Good hit piece, though.

      1. Lol, yes, please stan for Oliver North now.

        1. I’m not defending North. He’s a warmonger. I’m just noting what this piece is.

        2. It is a hit piece. The big Rap Artist that attacked the Second Amendment at the (astrotruf) “children rally in DC turned out to have and arrest for three gun crimes last year, including an illegal carry FELONY conviction and did not have his carry licence pulled.

          north never committed a gun crime and had all his convictions vacated. This subjective denial of the right even for persons NOT convicted is one of the problems. Washington DC for example still asserts the right to deny a basic gun registrations to persons arrested and found not guilty

          1. Except for walking around DC naked with an M 1911.

    2. A whim makes it sound like the judge had no reason at all for the decision.

      1. If your conviction was overturned and then that was used by the government to deprive you of your right to carry a weapon that would be cool with you?

        1. The judge claimed that the basis of his decision was North’s admitted prevarication, and not his conviction.

          Of course, no judge has the right to deprive any person of his right to defend himself – even if the person is a convicted felon. This point is often lost with conservatives who, by definition, are cucks, Ollie North included.

          1. Berry was a Democrat judge who in fact had issued North’s permit in 1992, notably subsequent to the 1991 conviction for “prevarication” that Berry suddenly decided in 1994 disqualified North.

            What *had* changed in the interim was that North had just won his 1994 Republican primary and was up for election tot he Senate, and Berry thought a little kick in North’s ribs would be just the dirty trick.

            In 1997, General Assembly Republicans issued their own kick in the ribs by denying Berry reappointment. He was abandoned by certain influential Democrats as well, and replaced by John Prosser.

            As a person who believes that even a criminal who has served his sentence (much moreso a person who was exonerated on appeal, which North was) should reacquire all his natural rights, and that the may-issue permit process is a statist abomination, this story is pure poetic justice to me.

        2. No. I was merely critiquing your word choice.

      2. it as on a whime, denial of licences for persons who have no violent crime arrest and no conviction (and north has no conviction since it was vacated) are exceptionally rare and usually political bias.

        Just like David hogg and Emily Gonzalez were standing up on stage with Vic Mense — when was arrested for three gun crimes, has a gun crime FELONY conviction but who did not have his carry licence pulled when he should be a prohibited person altogether.

        1. anyone know whatstate failed to pull his carry Mother May I Card? ANY felony conviction is supposed to get that pulled, and any indictment for a felony will at least get it pulled till the matter is closed.

          That VIrginia judge was out of line puling his card… without a conviction, he’s being subjective.. and I’ll wager he’s got some connexions or a hand in his pocket.

          1. The State (in general) is so incompetent that Massachusetts actually argues this fact as a major rationale why they require that their firearms licenses be renewed twice per decade: re-performing the background check will disclose whether this person has become disqualified in the meanwhile. The fact that they have total control of all processes of disqualification and yet fail to act at the time that it happens, when pointed out to them, elicits blank stares.

  3. It’s as good a time as any to drag out this classic tune.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWFv-uRu1js

  4. North, a former Reagan administration official and current Fox News host, is best known for his central role in the Iran-contra scandal.

    WRONG. He was best known for Fawn Hall.

  5. Baffling pick by the Board, given how people in the gun world are still upset about the handling of Waco (at least he wasn’t defending Ruby Ridge?).

    But they wouldn’t be the NRA Board if they weren’t kinda dumb like that, and generally out of touch.

    1. Got that right. The only thing saving the NRA leadership from the members is the media constantly reassuring us that they really are the blood drenched extremists we members long for, instead of the moderates always looking for a chance to compromise they so often prove to be.

      That, and the fact they repealed most of the Cincinnati reforms, and retired the NRA forum so that we have trouble coordinating against them.

      Yes, a very baffling pick. Either of Neal Knox’s sons would have been better picks, or a half dozen other people.

      1. I think the rational is that in these troubled times the NRA needs a dynamic public spokesman more in the Charleton Heston model. One thing Oliver North isn’t is a wall flower.

      2. The NRA deep state pulled Heston from total obscurity and railroaded him into the presidency just to deny the top seat to Neal Knox, who was next in the scheduled line of secession. They never forgave him for the Cincinnati reforms. Knox family members have as much chance of being appointed to the NRA presidency as Chelsea Clinton has of being appointed to the Supreme Court by a Republican majority congress.

        1. True. I was about 10 feet from him when they cut his microphone off at the Philly convention. Got so made I went out to the hotel parking lot and tore the NRA sticker off my truck before driving home.

          They’ve never forgiven him for (temporarily) returning control to the membership. Even if it did save the NRA from obscurity… They were on track to become an historical society, when he forced them to seriously fight gun control.

          I was serious about the current NRA leadership being dependent on media depictions of themselves as the extremists they’re not, to maintain their grip on power. The leadership is much more moderate and compromising than the members.

    2. There is no rational defense of Ruby Ridge.

  6. “North admitted to lying to Congress about his role in the affair.”

    Lying to Congress is no worse than lying by Congress.

    Which happens repeatedly on a daily basis.

    1. His conviction might have stuck except for Congress’s decision to force him to testify about his conduct, which according to the appeals court tainted his trial because witnesses could have been influenced by hearing about his coerced testimony.

      So a good result, but it would been even better if Congress hadn’t grandstanded and tainted the trial.

  7. So your conviction can be overturned and the state of Virginia can still use the alleged conduct to justify taking away your 2nd amendment rights?

    1. This is what happens when you copy and paste objections raised by Media Matters

  8. When did these guys from the 80s get so old? Except Reagan who was old already.

    1. Maybe Hinckly should have used the zombi excuse.
      he was clearly dead and shooting him still wouldn’t stop him

  9. I must say that is some relevant work experience.

  10. The NRA might have a massive financial advantage over us scrappy underdogs fighting for common sense gun safety legislation, but all the momentum is on our side. They can make as many personnel changes as they want, and it won’t matter. The reign of the gun fetishists is coming to an end.

    #BlueWave
    #GunSense
    #BanAssaultWeapons

    1. Gee, where does NRA get all that money?

      1. From its several million members, mostly.

        What “massive financial advantage”? The NRA’s lobbying budge is chump change by Washington standards.

        1. Kendeda, alone, not one even in the top five of anti-second a amendment lobby/advocacy funders puts $40 million a year in.

          NRA is in fact vastly outspent. But NRA is the largest civil rights group by far in the US in genuine grassroots.

        2. Mostly not. In 2016 the NRA reported $433.9 million in income, of which only $163.5 million was from member dues. So member dues only provide about a third of NRA income. (Unless you assume that “contributions” were all from members — $171 million).

          http://www.guns.com/2017/05/05…..s-in-2016/

          1. As a 20-year member, I would suspect that almost all contributions are from members.

            So dues + contributions = $163 + 171m = $334m = 77%

            But hey, if you want to imagine that these contributions all came from nefarious Russian gun makers, feel free to imagine!

            1. Got you beat. I’ve been a lifetime member since 1973. I assume that “contributions” include those from firearms manufacturers, advocacy groups, etc. And, of course, contributions from members. A report from the NRA in, I believe, 2009, indicated that just under 50% of its income came from members in any form, so the claim that it’s income is “mostly” from members is a bit suspect. I challenged this only as a matter of fact — I would very happy indeed to see large contributions from the industry, from advocacy groups, etc. And, of course, from members.

              And as a matter of fact I don’t imagine that any contributions come from nefarious Russian gun makers, and even if some contributions so, I could not care less.

      2. The NRA is so financially powerful because it is basically a lobbying organization of, by, and for rich gun manufacturing companies. That’s why they’ve been so successful in buying off enough politicians to prevent sensible gun laws from getting passed.

        Whereas gun safety advocates tend to be regular people without “big money” behind them, like David Hogg and Shannon Watts. It’s a real David vs. Goliath story.

        1. NOR gets 80% of its funds from rank and file members. NRA has 5.5 million members and 58% approvals among all Americans int h latest gallup

          gun ban lobby does not get ANY money from rank and file members, NO gun ban lobby group has more than 1,200 members. virtually all of their funding from eight large donors.

          1. The last NRA figures that I have seen indicate that the NRA gets only about a third of its funding from rank and file members — about $163.5 million in dues out of total income of $434 million in 2016…

            http://www.guns.com/2017/05/05…..s-in-2016/

            1. Trying to reason with gun nuts? Using elite establishment facts and fancy educated numbers?

              Good luck with that.

              1. Why would I reason with a person like you, Arthur, when you can’t even read the goddamn source material and see that that the NRA gets the majority of it’s revenue from member dues and private contributions (i.e. donations) as laid out below and in the source material at hand? Are you just so up your own ass that you’re pretending to be retarded or are you like every other religious zealot in the world (whether it be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish or Christian) and have a sub- 70 IQ?

            2. As a 20-year member, I would suspect that almost all contributions are from members.

              So dues + contributions = $163 + 171m = $334m = 77%

              But hey, if you want to imagine that these contributions all came from nefarious Russian gun makers, feel free to imagine!

              1. As a 20-year member, I would suspect that almost all contributions are from members.

                I’m betting there’s lots of overlap in the Venn diagram. All my instructors were civilian members of the NRA because the program was laid out by the NRA. You paid for your certification and you got a membership and range time folded in thanks to 4-H or whatever community activity organization was requesting your voluntary services. Community organization money? Private/personal money? Voluntary member donation? Yes!

                1. In any case, it’s all coming from people who believe in protecting gun rights.

                  The gun industry has its own lobbying organization, the NSSF. Which, by the way, just kicked Dick’s Sporting Goods out. Good for them!

                  Anti-gun organizations are all astroturf, fronts for a handful of rich donors. Even when they start out legit, they rapidly get taken over and converted into sock puppets. As usual the left accuses the right of what they themselves are doing.

        2. Here’s the rule: When you say that the NRA is in the pocket of gun manufacturers, you lose all credibility automatically because you have revealed yourself as an ignoramus.

          As a 20-year member of the NRA, I have observed that the cause and effect relationship is backward. Gun manufacturers do not dare to cross the NRA and its 5 million members and tens of millions of sympathizers. You can Google for Smith and Wesson in the Clinton years to see what happened to S&W; when it decided to pursue gun control in partnership with Cuomo and Clinton. It was badly punished by its customers.

          The gun manufacturers have their own lobby, the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) that represents their interests. The NRA represents its members’ interests. Certainly, the two interests can and do intersect. But the constant insinuation that the NRA is just a lobby for evil capitalist corporations is stupid and misinformed.

          The NRA’s power and passion comes from its 5 million and growing members and tens of millions of sympathizers. The gun manufacturers, to the extent that they matter at all, are like a bug riding on the back of the 800 pound gorilla.

          1. Kevin: Well, and succinctly said.

        3. It is positively proven that shannon Watts is on Bloomie’s payroll, and that Hogg Boy is largely funded by Soros and Bloomie through their “foundations”. Don’t try and tell ME NRA are not grassroots, but HoggBoy and Whattser Name are…..

        4. Wrong, in so many ways.
          The NSSF (you look it up) is the lobbying organization of, by, and for rich gun manufacturing companies.
          The NRA is successful because its Five-Million + Members vote, as do their wives, husbands, sons, daughters, and other family members and friends. And, we have yet to be presented with “sensible gun laws” except for absolute disarmament, which is a path to society suicide.

      3. CNN: the money powering the NRA

        Quote:
        A CNNMoney analysis of federal campaign finance records shows that much of this money comes from everyday Americans. And these contributions, which the NRA uses to keep pro-gun lawmakers in office, are on the rise.

    2. Gun control lobby outspends the NRA 6:1

      Over$ 225 million a year spent attacking the Second Amendment.

      By the way biggest opponents of gun bans are the 21-30 year old cohort, second biggest opponents are 31-yea rold cohort. Only consistent supporters of gun bans like assault rifle ban are cohort 60 years old and older.

      it is the gun ban lobby that is the geexers and who are losing.

      1. By the way biggest opponents of gun bans are the 21-30 year old cohort, second biggest opponents are 31-yea rold cohort. Only consistent supporters of gun bans like assault rifle ban are cohort 60 years old and older.

        This is something that bears repeating or focusing on. For Millennials, Ollie North is just another name and/or disgraced former soldier (a la David Patreus). Neither Iran Contra nor Siege at Waco is necessarily at the forefront of their consciousness. Hell, I can remember seeing him on TV and I wasn’t aware of his stance regarding Waco.

        1. Kudos to Christian for reminding us what a statist cocksucker Ollie has always been.

          Only FOX would stoop to giving this guy a microphone.

          1. Relax will you. WACO was Clinton administration. probably 95% of people with any government background like North say they agree with it.

            1. Which is why North can accurately be described as a statist cocksucker. In other words, a loser.

              1. Which is why North can accurately be described as a statist cocksucker. In other words, a loser.

                Still, remember when the NRA took all that sweet, sweet government cash and used it to lobby judges and attempt to get firearms education taught in the public school system? No, wait, they’ve been one of the largest grass roots, privately-funded, training and education systems in this nation’s history and are still largely so. When taxpayer monies go into picking the head of the NRA, I’ll see a libertarian reason to be interested. Until then the membership and the leadership, ill-advised as they may be, can do as they please.

                1. Yet, the NRA has consistently supported restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

                  The NRA has consistently cozied up to law enforcement organizations and has lent its support to the cause of LEO hero worship.

                  The organization may appoint whomever they please, but that does not mean we can’t criticize the statist cocksucker the NRA has appointed.

                2. Why is it I don’t think you would state that to his face.

            2. “WACO was Clinton administration.”

              BS. It was Bush (the Elder) administration. Clinton just inherited the screwup and made it worse.

              Reagan had put the BATF on a tight choke chain, when Bush took office, he took the chain off and whispered “Sic ’em!” in their ear. The abuses that followed were Bush’s fault.

    3. You need to have your physician rethink the meds he has you on.

    4. I smell a troll.

  11. He is intelligent but I’m not sure he’s the best man for the job. Lots of marines don’t like what he did in the Iran contra deal and as stated a lot of us don’t like his stand on the Waco issue. He may have to much baggage to do the job without anti-gunners always bringing up his past

    1. He is far from the best man for the job.

      It’s as if kingmakers LaPierre and Cox purposely chose a figurehead that the MSM and the strident strudents could and will bash for a year 24/7 at next to no effort, while their most activist members will perpetually bridle over his blindness at Waco. The optics of this choice on both sides are horrible, whereas the job itself is such a sinecure that it could be (and has been) performed by any “safe” has-been actor, even one devoid of any organizational, activist*, or firearms chops whatsoever.

      *(Actually, Heston did have activism in his past, not that NRA will talk about it. In 1968, he was one of a small group of “quick-draw movie stars” who held a press conference to issue an “open letter” petition to their senators and congressmen to vote in favor of more gun-control laws.)

  12. If North still believes the police were right at Waco, he is not a friend of gun owners.

    1. You are acting like the NRA’s board is primarlily concerned with gun rights.

      1. NRA board definitely primarily concerned wit individuals’ second amendment rights.

        Please tell me of the top the gun control organisations/fronts, which ones have a board elected by large part of their rank and file like NRA?

        NRA is profoundly broad based. 58% national approvals among all Americans, 5.5 million members, over 500,000 lifetime members who vote. this is a massively larger empowered voting base than planned parenthood (which gets government subsidy and is doing questionable c3 deductible lobbying), aCLU etc.

        Who votes the board for Gunsdown, Everytown, Moms Demand kendeda, Bradey, LCPGV, VPC, Giffords or the dozen other >$5,000,000 a year each gun control lobby fronts fronts on their >200 million a year spending and strategy. The same dozen large funders?

        1. No. If there was a race with GOP candidate with a so-so gun record or stance and a libertarian with an excellent gun rights stance, the NRA will always endorse the GOP candidate.

          1. No. If there was a race with GOP candidate with a so-so gun record or stance and a libertarian with an excellent gun rights stance, the NRA will always endorse the GOP candidate.

            1. Do you have an example?
            2. See Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Your question has nuance because the GOP brand is more notably gun friendly than any other.
            3. As we libertarians like to point out to ourselves, even absent point No. 2, our platform ain’t exactly a winning one. Better to have a so-so gun GOP in your pocket than spending members’ money on politicians they don’t necessarily agree with and who aren’t going to win.

            1. Yes: Sarvis and Cucinelli. Sarvis was better on gun rights.

            2. He’s right, that was a major complaint when I was active in the LP.

              Having spoken to NRA leadership myself about it, their rationale is that when the LP starts electing people, they’ll start endorsing LP candidates, but so long as the LP routinely loses virtually every race, there’s no point in making sure that both major party candidates for an office will be pissed at them.

              I couldn’t actually argue that they were wrong about that.

          2. The question mark after Libertarian candidates in their voter guide was why I quit the NRA.

            1. Gary Johnson? Bill Weld? Bob Barr (Is a libertarian)?

        2. Why didn’t the NRA speak up in defense of Philando Castille?

          1. I can’t and won’t defend the NRA against all comers nor profess them to be 100% error-free. However, in both sum total and relative comparison, they are just as good, if not better than their peers. Also, in point of fact, they responded one day after the ACLU and 2 days after the incident. And, especially at this point, I don’t fault them for not being acutely tuned to the Twitter rage-mob channel. A week later when Dana Loesch said that Castille shouldn’t have been doing drugs, she was forced (presumably by the NRA leadership) to amend her statements as being personal rather than official.

          2. That said, our 2A rights would not be in a better place without the NRA, if only because of the safety and education services they make available. While I certainly wouldn’t sacrifice Philando Castille to have the protections I’ve got, the NRA didn’t shoot him and throwing the NRA under the bus won’t bring him back. The NRA isn’t an anti-policing organization and never has been, part of the education process has been in rather overt observance of existing law. If you’re more concerned about your 4th and 5th A rights, cancel your NRA membership, don’t go to their training, and sign on with the ACLU and attend whatever analogous “How not to consent searches.” classes they teach. I’m not a member of the NRA and I’ve been affiliated with other 2A rights and shooting organizations. They’re more earnest about gun rights, but nobody’s reading their amicus briefs and counting the days between any given shooting and their response.

          3. There were pots being smoked, and law-breakers don’t have a legal right to bear arms… or so I’ve been told by some “very staunch 2A supporters”.

            1. Sure, some people don’t think smoking pot and carrying a gun is a good idea. I’m one of them. I don’t think marijuana should be illegal and I don’t think Philando Castille, in any way, deserved to die, but I can certainly see how people might consider ‘bad actors on both sides’, especially before the dust has settled.

              Nobody noticed 2 days later when, during a BLM rally, 5 police officers were shot dead and the NRA responded in defense of private citizen’s right to carry guns. Clearly, a move to done solely to demonstrate solidarity with the fallen officers and denigrate black people.

              1. My comment was actually in reference to the Dana Loesch Show, which you mention above. I remember listening to her and her callers drag that reasoning out after Castille was killed, and it kind of steamed me. Overall, I think the NRA is a good organization, but they’re not above criticism. Castille deserved to be defended by civil liberty advocates (especially 2A).

                1. Overall, I think the NRA is a good organization, but they’re not above criticism.

                  I knew Colion Noir was an NRA spokesperson or funded by the NRA before I knew Dana Loesch was. I wasn’t aware she had a show. I can see if you were the NRA and you had Loesch on the one hand and Noir on the other it might take you a day or two to come up with an official statement. If ever, I could also see, bona fide libertarian-style, letting Loesch and Noir stand on their own merits.

                  I don’t disagree that Castille didn’t deserve to be defended. I think Laquan McDonald deserved defending. I have a hard time second-guessing the NRA on some issues, especially when critics seem to be singling out one or two incidents as a sign of some larger trend(s) that pretty obviously doesn’t exist.

                  1. I don’t disagree that Castille didn’t deserve to be defended.

                    Adding a ramp to avoid stumbling over double and triple negatives: I agree Castille should’ve been defended.

          4. For the same reason they didn’t lead the boycott of Smith and Wesson for collaborating with Clinton, didn’t speak out against the atrocities at Waco or Bundy Ranch, tried to actively sabotage the Heller (then Parker) litigation, did not participate in the boycott that bankrupted the “smart gun” manufacturer whose collaboration would have turned all “dumb” guns it had already been victorious in three states, and are not out there now campaigning against the travesty of raising the firearms-purchasing age beyond the voting age.

            It’s because NRA leads from the rear.

            Their entire lobbying strategy is to make nice-nice with the powerful swamp denizens so that they can “retain access” (contrast GOA’s more principled strategy, which is to deal out pain unto any politician who votes the wrong way regardless of any so-called “good reason”). NRA is more focused on retaining lobbying access than protecting all their members’ rights.

            When the rank and file activates on a boycott, a protest, or some other issue, organizing via the Internet, NRA hangs back with its finger in the air, until the movement is close to victory; then they run out in front and accept the applause.

            The NRA powers-that-be (not the figurehead presidents) are the folks who can print the oxymoronic phrase “right-to-carry permit” more than a dozen times in a single issue of their membership magazine without even recognizing their own cognitive dissonance and outright hypocrisy.

            1. Sorry, looks like a line of text was damaged…

              “…whose collaboration would have turned all ‘dumb’ guns into prohibited merchandise in New Jersey, entirely ignored the ‘constitutional carry’ movement until it had already been victorious…”

              In retrospect, the NRA has occasionally done the leading in circumstances like the Katrina confiscation. But it’s their job to be consistently principled in their defense of firearms rights, not just be the handicapped pig who finds a valuable truffle every now and then.

              And even when they find a really good truffle, as they did with the “jackbooted thugs” issue, their craven backpedaling to salvage their political access is inevitable and shameful, and does nothing to endear them to their own membership.

  13. North is a statist cocksucker whose biggest talent is wrapping himself in the flag.

    1. North is a statist cocksucker whose biggest talent is wrapping himself in the flag.

      You can stop singing his praises, they already chose him.

  14. It will be interesting to see how much this actually matters. The gun grabbers have already tossed aside the pretense that they just want “a few reasonable restrictions”.

    1. It’s a good thing that Reason has been dedicating space to attacking the NRA rather than the gun grabbers, though.

      1. Remember any one of the half-dozen SJW civil libertarian causes that Reason jumped all over and rode to the brink of insanity (or even past) despite overtly statist leadership? Neither do I.

        There’s a libertarian case for Bernie Sanders and I hear Hillary Clinton has a good foreign immigration policy but Ollie North as President of the NRA might end up with the 2nd Am. getting defended, selectively.

        1. “Remember any one of the half-dozen SJW civil libertarian causes that Reason jumped all over and rode to the brink of insanity (or even past) despite overtly statist leadership? Neither do I.”

          Really? The ACLU doesn’t count? I’m not sure what they even do anymore beside suing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions and transgender surgeries, since they’ve stopped defending just about every civil liberty except for speech (and they’ve even curtailed that). But, I don’t expect hit pieces against the ACLU from Reason

  15. This is entertaining. A store in Austin sold Ollie North for President T-Shirts many of us bought just to irritate the Soviet freeze-and-surrenderists. None of us dreamt it was prophesy.

    1. I remember “Ollie North for President” t-shirts and bumper stickers.

  16. At least North got indicted. Clapper didn’t even get fired, much less charged, for lying to Congress.

    1. The Deep State learned to have dirt on politicians, so those indictments never happen again.

  17. Brownell’s resignation isn’t surprising at all. He got the job thinking he could reform the NRA, and the bump stock thing demonstrated clearly that the NRA can’t be reformed. Since he’s not a sleazy opportunist only interested in lining his own pockets with the money of the gullible like Wayne LaPierre, there was no reason for him to stick around.

    1. If you think bump stocks are the real issue you are either stupid or a mendacious piece of shit. Let’s go with both.

      1. Bump stocks aren’t the real issue. An organization whose principles require them to defend bump stocks rolling over on bump stocks is the issue. Brownell finally realized that the NRA president is a figurehead, completely powerless to affect the organization. I look forward to the book I hope he writes.

  18. Ollie blames the “pontificating potentates in the press,” the “media luminaries,” and the “arm-chair critics … second-guessing law enforcement officers on the scene” for’ raising a fuss over Waco. If only this were true. The media’s main contribution to public discussion of the incident has been the canonization of Janet Reno. It was the media unluminaries that questioned the feds’ behavior at Waco. Liberty, the Washington Times, and Soldier of Fortune led the way in challenging the FBI and ATF’s behavior, with eventual assists from The American Spectator, Guns and Ammo, and others. These are not easily confused with the ,New York Times or Newsweek.

    Wait, so the media canonized Janet Reno and North rebuked them? Huh.

    Also, his ‘mash note to the ATF’ was written in ’93/’94 do we have anything on record since from him saying that he 100% stands by that notion? I haven’t read his note directly, but it sounds less like “I’d have done what the ATF did, twice if necessary.” and more like “Wait until the dust settles, there may be bad actors on both sides.”

    1. North reportedly backed the “assault weapons ban” too. The amusing thing about Britches link to Jesse Walker’s tweet linking to an issue of Liberty back when I actually subscribed to it is this:

      Ollie hasn’t won my support, but he has won Murray
      Rothbard’s, thanks to Ollie’s opposition to the North
      American Free Trade Agreement
      and the support his chief opponent
      has gathered from establishment conservatives like
      Cap Weinberger. This is the same Murray Rothbard who once
      denounced “Ollie and Secord and Singlaub and Abrams and
      all the rest of the war crowd.” These days he figures Ollie’s
      ’80s war-mongering is of mere “antiquarian interest,” since it
      occurred before the Cold War ended…

    2. Wait, so the media canonized Janet Reno and North rebuked them?

      No: North pretended that the media were attacking Reno and co., when in fact the press had mostly joined North in embracing the feds’ perspective on Waco.

      North basically trotted out a standard conservative script: the cops were right, the liberal media are attacking the cops, we need to defend the cops. In fact, the cops were wrong, the media were largely defending the cops, and a lot of the grassroots conservatives who North had been in tune with in the ’80s were not inclined to side with the police this time.

  19. Oliver North was the tough guy who smuggled documents in his secretary’s panties, unlawfully funded a bunch of foreign butchers because they were right-wing deplorables, lied about it, and was rescued from accountability for betraying his country because his confession (lying to Congress) was excused on appeal.

    Then he became a chickenhawk whisperer for Fox News.

    A perfect choice to lead the gun nuts.

  20. “It was You Charley”; Hunter Thompson. Who do you think supplied the weapons that killed our beloved Marines in Beirut? Ollie, it was YOU Charley.

  21. Four day old dead fish rotting in 100 degree heat smell better than this guy. The NRA couldn’t find anyone better?

    1. They could’ve chosen Heston again but, at this point, it would be easy to pry the long rifle from his cold dead hands.

      It’s probably prudent to keep in mind that this is the same NRA (Washington and LaPierre) that, at the time of the Waco Siege and the passage of the Brady Bill called the siege “an example of black-suited, masked, massively armed mobs of screaming, swearing agents invading homes of innocents.” A move that so enraged H.W. Bush that he publicly tore up his membership card. Quoting Ollie North about the Waco siege 25 yrs. after the fact *could* probably be a bit… misleading. Once again the left likes to portray a nuanced and divided organization as being full of indecisive nutjobs so that it can impugn it and it’s principles for being both intractably indecisive and radically politically active. That an ‘alt-right libertarian rag’ like Reason continuously and willingly not just acknowledges it but actively supports it smacks of a variant of battered woman syndrome.

      1. “A move that so enraged H.W. Bush that he publicly tore up his membership card.”

        Which he’d bought only for the election, and probably planned all along to tear up at the right moment.

        Frankly, if the NRA had been paying attention to the membership, Bush would have been denied that PR opportunity, because there was a popular push among members to have Bush’s membership revoked.

  22. Anyone wanting to rag on Ollie North for the Iran COntra debacle had better FIRST, as a ualifer, rag on the US Administrations that put in place, then propped up with OUR tax dollars, three generatioins of nasty corrupt greedy Somoza dictators to pillage and rape the nation of Nicaragua for decades. That war broke out because the last Somoza murdered a national hero then tried to prevent the people who loved that assassinated guy from attending his funeral. REvolutioin broke out, but more corrupt dictators got into power in the vacuum, and many patrios rose up to try and overturn them. THAT s who the Contras were. Iran Contra was a plan to try and help the resistance behind the scenes, as going to war against the communist regime at that time would have been not good.

    It was a lot like Roosevelt’s Lend Lease programme…

    1. One bad deed does not excuse another.

  23. “Oliver North is a legendary warrior for American freedom, a gifted communicator and skilled leader,” said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s long-serving CEO, in the press release. “In these times, I can think of no one better suited to serve as our President.”

    What

    The

    Fuck

    is wrong with the NRA nowadays?

    ‘Legendary warrior for American freedom’? Seriously? a) He’s not ‘legendary’, he’s ‘infamous’. b) Fuck your ‘warrior’ bullshit. Warriors fight for the sake of fighting. Give me a professional soldier over a warrior any day. c) He wasn’t fighting for ‘American freedom’ when he was trading arms *to Iran* to get money to secretly fund right-wing South American death squads.

    1. I think his appointment is more about legendary trolling.

  24. Fuck North and all the other government drug and arms runners.

  25. Oliver North Tapped as President of the NRA

    But was it a double-tap?

  26. Oliver North is a shitbag neo-con.

    He purposely violated federal law to make Iran stronger and tried to further America’s folly of trying to pick winners and losers.

    The Contras committed all sorts of atrocities like the socialist Sandinistas did. Sometimes the serfs figure out how bad socialism is and fight back on their own.

  27. The NRA presidency is a token titular position at best. The president makes some speeches, writes a column for the magazines and that’s about all.

    That notwithstanding, I’m not a fan of Ollie North and would much rather see someone else picked as president.

  28. Hit piece or not, disregarding any lines of succession, NO ONE should be supportive of a so called liberty organization that would take on a leader as tyrannical as one like North who praises the disaster in Waco.

    The NRA certainly does capitalize off of its own misrepresentation in current media. They definitely aren’t the evil warlords the knucklehead celebs cast them to be, but they’re definitely no defenders of liberty. Every time I see a vehicle with an NRA sticker, especially combined with Gadsden stickers, I just have to shake my head.

  29. A truly corrupt man now heading the NRA who have a one dimensional and self-centered view of gun rights as a sales funnel without any conscience. Truly deplorable. I’d give up my rights to a gun to assure our youth are safe in schools and neighborhoods are safe to enter. Aside from hunting and handguns, these automatic rapid fire arms have no place in America.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.