Ask HN: It can't be NRA lobbying, right?
Per this Washington Post article ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/) $3.5M has been donated to current congress members since 1998. I have no idea how much has gone to lobbyists and people who aren't in congress. Couldn't we just form a super-pac and raise funding with the sole goal of giving politicians a choice of who they take their donation from?
If it's not lobbying, is it votes? Is someone's vote really going to be swayed by their representative restricting assault rifles? Do these things really serve any other purpose then being toys or "safety" against a radical government? Could we come up with some sort of straw polling app to help politicians see that it might actually help their cause?
Sorry this post lacks any sort of statistics or depth. I just don't understand what the problem is. The NRA donation amount seems so small and media continues to talk about the NRA lobby having such a stronghold.
2 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 12.5 ms ] threadI know many people personally who seem to be obsessed with gun rights. Even many people who vote Democrat have a "live and let live" attitude. In the scheme of things, the geographical distribution of votes makes gun control as a litmus test a certain way for the Democrats to be a minority party for a long long time.
Yes. Because the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for a free state, any attempt by the government to restrict access to firearms for any reason is assumed by many gun owners to be part of an agenda to undermine American freedom - precisely what the 2nd Amendment says they should have guns on hand to oppose.
This assumption of bad faith on the part of gun control advocates and legislation prevails in American politics because of the NRA's success in shaping American gun culture around that premise, and the size and loyalty of their membership in the voting booth. It's their political power that matters.