How ironic.

Well, that's just stupid. Of course the NRA represents a lot of Americans. It has a membership of about 5 million members.

The complaint you hear from liberals about the NRA is that the organization disproportionately represents policy based upon what the majority of Americans think about gun restrictions.

The NRA pours millions of dollars into lobbying and politicians' pockets each year to advocate for gun rights. But polls consistently show that a strong majority of Americans favor stricter gun laws, including things such as mandatory background checks, smaller magazine sizes, and etc. But many of these changes don't occur because the NRA lobbies against them and influences politicians to vote in the favor of gun rights.

This is what people are talking about when they say they want money out of politics. We are never going to remove the influence of lobbying and money completely, that's living in a fantasy land, but you hope you have a system where what the majority of Americans want on an issue is supported by their congressman and congresswomen. Well, that's not happening with gun laws, and it's for a variety of reasons, including lobbyist groups such as the NRA.

If the NRA doesn't represent a significant portion of Americans yet most Republican politicians are catering to the organization, the voters should do something about it. I think the reality is that in polls many Americans who support the NRA say they are in favor of policies the organization doesn't advocate, yet they still support the organization. Slippery slope and such.

everybody vote trump please, thanks, regards.

Im an NRA member who only pays his dues because of the small % that goes to education. I know full well the bulk % goes to lobbying shit i dont really care about but i dont have many/any other options to directly fund gun education. I have found many people to be the same, or they support their local chapter but don't support the national branch.

I understand. ISIS may do stuff I disagree with, but they have a really nice Madrassa lunch program, so I've gotta help em out.

I see this type of relationship in all sorts of organizations. I personally think Libertarians are great at running local and state governments in some cases, but are generally only a check and balance on power at the national level. While ill be voting for Johnson in 2016 if he werent as close to center as he is i wouldnt bother. Ron Paul would have made a hilarious but ineffectual president. And we're not in place where we can handle a president that wont get any legislation done.

The NRA does a lot of good work on the ground with education, they partially fund hunter's safety courses and hand gun safety courses as well as oversee concealed carry licensing courses. But on the national level they do much less education and much more lobbying of the slippery slope.

How so? The veto pen in a divided Congress would be exceedingly powerful.

Well I say that for 2 reasons:

1. He would get hardly any legislation passed, even if that's you're preference its the definition of "ineffective" even if most legislation is in and of itself ineffective.

2. As soon as he's gone the next guy wont keep the status quo he'll bring it all back. which takes both time and money to re-legislate which balances out or even exceeds the money saved by whatever Paul does.

Sure maybe he comes in and stops some useless legislation going through, but the next guy is just going to go that much harder. I'd prefer a moderate who will get limited things pushed through, it wouldnt cause as much of a reaction.

Don't know what I'm supposed to take from that; no one's saying his campaign is at risk of imploding, and no one wants it to (other than establishment Republicans). It's just a disaster, and his first 6 weeks as a GE candidate have been a total waste outside the money he raised by flip-flopping on Super PACs and big money. I honestly don't know how he can make it another 5 months if they're anything like these last 6 weeks, especially if he tries to do something crazy like refusing to debate her.