Osler's Razor

Yes it does. Pay to Play. More senior members of Congress generally receiving more $$$ than junior members. They also carry more clout in committees and will open their doors or personally answer then phone regarding gun issues while the rest of us call and clog the phone lines and in boxes of these same people, our voices being disregarded on this specific issue unless we are vocal enough.

We have shown our voices were heard on health care but then the insurance industries and hospitals were on our side this time as they also stood to lose in the proposals recently before Congress.
 

The fear of being opposed by the NRA in a primary or general election is as much an influence in our representatives votes as their limited direct contributions.

I like this Onion Headline. "N.R.A. Says Mass Shootings Just The Unfortunate Price Of Protecting People's Freedom To Commit Mass Shootings.



 

And gerrymandered districts help to ensure that the NRA money is backed up by votes that drown out more moderate voices.
 

The numbers just don't back this up.

In the 2016 election cycle, the NRA wasn't even one of the top 50 political donors for a group/entity:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=2016

When you look at the same data for the past 30 years, the NRA comes in at 92nd, giving 1/5th as much money over that time as the American Federation of Teachers has:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=ALL

So, if this was ALL about money, teachers would all be making $200,000 a year, and schools would be plated in gold. The NRA also gave about 1/3rd as much as the AFL-CIO, but last time I checked, steel workers aren't flying around on private planes. The NRA barely gave more than Akin Gump, a large international law firm. So, we better start trying to figure out what devious plan those lawyers have for us with all of that money.

The reality is that some people (I'm not among them) care very deeply about guns. And those people vote. The reason the NRA has a lot of power is because they are supported by a lot of people, who are passionate, and who show up on election day. Their real power is in numbers, but not dollars.

If people truly want to implement meaningful gun control, they would be wise to stop pretending that people are being duped by the NRA's deep pockets, and start working to win the argument that guns, or certain guns, should not be generally available to the public. And that argument will be difficult to win with those that view guns as a birthright and a family tradition, but, it may very well be an argument worth winning.
 

@RRL is exactly right. And just like the top 50 political donor list RRL points to, the NRA does not feature into the top 50 in lobbying dollars either. The NRA's influence and power is not in its pocketbook--contra Jimmy Kimmel--but rather in the fact that a vast swath of the voting public agree with the NRA. Basically, it's democracy.

And that's the rub. The gun control debate is strong on rhetoric but largely bereft of facts. Every time the NRA's base hears the terms "military assault weapons" (in the context of AR-15s, and the like), "ammunition clips," "gun show loophole," "enhanced background checks," etc.--all of which play a large role in the gun control debate but signal efforts at disinformation to 2d Amend. adherents--the reaction is "us versus them." If gun control advocates want to accomplish change, the "balls in a money clip" narrative is not going to help. There's no amount of NRA spending, or Everytown counter-spending, that will change that, and this issue is too serious to let it continue.

 

RRL came back! Hi, RRL!