Ammo For Sale

« « NRA Polling | Home | Gun Porn » »

Speaking of NRA

If you read just a bit of this, the implication is that the NRA is somehow tied to Russian election meddlers. But, basically, she’s a member and met a few NRA folks at a gun rights festival.

10 Responses to “Speaking of NRA”

  1. Ron W Says:

    How many foreign nationals ILLEGALLY voted in our elections? That would certainly constitute foreign meddling and interference in our elections. But it seems that concern has been met with accusations of wanting “voter suppression” against minorities of which Russians would be one.

  2. Lyle Says:

    Ah, theatre.

  3. SPQR Says:

    The indictment is absolutely ludicrous. She arrived on a student visa, talked to a couple of people and sent some emails soliciting a meeting.

    Wow. A real crime spree.

  4. Ravenwood Says:

    It looks like she donated or was a member of the NRA proper, which is a 501 3c organization that doesn’t do any lobbying. The NRA ILA is the official non-tax exempt lobbying arm of the NRA.

    Thus there is no link between the funds, nor can there be, by US tax law.

  5. Sigivald Says:

    Implications are the entire point of such pieces.

    Make an impression on people who see a headline, job complete.

  6. mikee Says:

    Interesting that the only nongovernmental “collusion” story being played is with the NRA. Where are all the Unions, all the lobbying firms, all the PACs, and any party other than Democrats who are being infiltrated for mayhem or malfeasance by the Russians? Or the Chinese, North Koreans, Indians, etc., whose hackers go straight after industrial and governmental computer targets.

    The Dems got phished. And refused to allow government investigation into the attack. So how is all this new info suddenly available, so long after they got played so hard?

    Did the Dems change their minds and let the FBI counterterrorism teams, or perhaps Mueller’s investigative team of dedicated Clinton supporters, access their actual servers and computers, finally? When? Nobody has reported that they did that. Hmm.

  7. Patrick Henry, the 2nd Says:

    > Implications are the entire point of such pieces.

    Yep yep.

    As far as I’m aware, no actual meetings took place.

    And according to the indictment, its implied she is working for someone who wanted to get rid of Putin.

  8. Kasper Says:

    Read that they’ve known about her since 2014 and let it go on the whole time…

  9. Scott in AZ Says:

    I wish the NRA was the big bad boogyman the left thinks they are.

    Personally I think they reached their high water peak of badness with their “jack-booted thugs” ad (which I have a copy of).

    Since then their continued fidelity to “only ones” being allowed to have guns in schools and enforcing “intolerable acts” has soured me on their actual commitment to bearing arms.

    And then their throwing bump stocks on the alter of gun control without getting anything in return really fried me (not that I have one or think there is any point to having one).

    Still, I just wrote a ck for $500 to buy a nephew a Life Memberbership (as I have been for 45+ years now).

    I’d like to think that if there were 10M Life Members the organization would be more aggressive, but probably just a bigger bureaucratic mess (not unlike the UN).

  10. Kevin Baker Says:

    Im old enough to remember when the only group who thought there were Russians under ever bed was the Birchers. And I also seem to recall that the Democrats were oh so friendly with the Russians about the time Reagan got elected. And even more recently when President Obama told his Republican rival during a debate – after Romney identified Russia as our current greatest threat – that the 80s wanted their foreign policy back. Hell yes its all theater and narrative.