This article seems to switch between attacking the owners of gun companies and the companies themselves when accusations cannot be leveled against the owners. There are some valid arguments that the article makes, but I have a hard time seeing the comparison to Bond villians. Except for Glock and Lüke. That's some crazy stuff.
And honestly, most of these individuals and corporations believe that firearms ownership is an inherent right. Mother Jones definitely disagrees, and it shows. But I'd be more surprised if the people named in the article acted against their personal beliefs and economic incentives.