(UTC) 
 ::Here are my issues with the articles cited. First, the Nation and Atlantic articles start with questions (their headlines). After reading the articles I am still left with the belief that both pieces are not "reporting", but speculating on the hypothesis posed by the headline. Any factual statements supplied are done with the intention of pushing a POV. Next, New York Times piece is an Editorial so there is no question that it is an opinion piece pushing a POV. The fact that all three are opinion pieces should also call into question the usefulness of the factual statements until the original sources can be checked and verified for completeness and veracity. 
 ::As for their use or suitability as RS, I would say that they serve an evidence of the hypothesis that the NRA represents the gun makers. But any statements as to what extent they represent the manufacturers more or less than other gun related interests is pure speculation. Unless the NRA issues a specific statement saying otherwise, its a non-issue and should not be part of the article.  17:36, 21 January 2013