MNGunTalk.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 6c7074b45a
Not sure if this is good or bad.

I believe he is a warrior - just wondering if the baggage will hinder his effectiveness.

The comments are brutal and really show the character (or lack there of) of the individuals reading the Washington Post. Classless and crass...........

So I am confused. First off I have always felt they railroaded the guy and like his perspective. But to be president of the nra would you not need to be a gun owner?

I realize most stuff was dropped against him but was he not convicted of some stuff or am I misremembering that?

Maybe it was not felony level?

I don’t believe he was convicted of anything

Grayskies wrote:

He was convicted in the Iran–Contra affair of the late 1980s but his convictions were vacated and reversed, and all charges against him dismissed in 1991.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North

Got it.

Am hoping he is not a anti in sheeps clothing. This seems out of the norm. No warning he was being considered. Guess we will see what he has to say when he gets in front of cameras.

Bearcatrp wrote:Am hoping he is not a anti in sheeps clothing. This seems out of the norm. No warning he was being considered. Guess we will see what he has to say when he gets in front of cameras.

He was on the board already. It’s a figurehead position. Probably wouldn’t have been my first pick but I couldn’t tell you one thing that Pete Brownell accomplished during his time as President either so it probably doesn’t matter.

2 things. Yes it’s a figurehead position, which in reality, is without unilateral authority. Still, I’d like to know North’s positions on modern sporting rifles, high cap mags, the Hughes Amendment, suppressor deregulation and National Reciprocity. FUDDS are no longer welcome and should be eradicated from positions of power. The NRA President can’t make policy changes, but with some poorly worded statements, can do EXTREME damage to the NRA and more importantly, to the struggle to preserve our 2A rights. As members, we have a right to know those answers.

And finally, and most importantly, why after only 1 term, did Pete Brownell choose not to extend his presidency? It can only be one of 2 things, in my opinion. Either, he was inhibited from within the NRA from making the changes he anticipated/promised, when he took the position (normalizing gun ownership and modern sporting rifles in particular), or, did being president adversely effect his business, either because of the anti’s or FUDDS? I do not believe the reason he stated, that he needed more time to concentrate on his business and family. Again, NRA Presidency is a figurehead position and is not a time consuming commitment.

I heard far more from Wayne LaPierre than from Pete Brownell over the years.

Rodentman wrote:I heard far more from Wayne LaPierre than from Pete Brownell over the years.

Unfortunately

I can't imagine that the NRA would put anyone in a leadership position that wasn't hard core 2nd Amendment in all facets and passionate about defending it in this political climate. If they are installing mushy middle, go along to get along characters, then shame on them and the fight is over - the Anti's win.

It could be that Mr. Brownell wasn't as staunch or interested in the "fight" aspect of the position. The era we are in will become increasingly combative and hostile. I don't see Mr. (Rogers err) Brownell as that type of individual. He seemed to be your very nice uncle and not interested in trading blows with the media or taking a hard stance - did not appear to be enough of a hard ass for the fight that is becoming the Gun Debate.

We need hard core, ass kicking, no compromise, articulate, intelligent and informed leadership at the helm to get us through the recent onslaught. The Anti's believe they have momentum, we need someone to remind them that the gun owners in this country will not lay down, will not submit, will not compromise and will fight - with data, with guile, with intelligence, with intensity and with conviction. If Ollie North is not that guy, they need to find that guy because anyone other than that guy/gal will be crushed in the media and in the arena of public opinion. We need a scrapper not a politician. The teenagers have the stage at the moment, but the adults need to be reminded that Kids are Kids and can be molded whichever way you want to mold them - their passion and naiveté is being exploited by the left. We need someone who will re-center the debate and change the narrative in a logical, sensible, assertive way. The Far Left will always be the opposition, we need to connect to the middle who are much more sensible and logical than the Left gives them credit for. IMHO.

We really could have used someone with some personal integrity... this is unfortunate.

Bessy wrote:We really could have used someone with some personal integrity... this is unfortunate.

I don’t know much about him other than he was involved with Iran Contra and likely was the fall guy for something that went all the way to the Oval Office. Can you elaborate on his lack of personal integrity?

Ghost wrote:he was involved with Iran Contra and likely was the fall guy for something that went all the way to the Oval Office. Can you elaborate on his lack of personal integrity?

You answered your own question. The man intentionally subverted our elected officials, sold missiles to a fundamental islamic theocracy in order to fund a group of terrorists.... If that's not enough to disqualify someone for a position of leadership, then I don't know what is.