i dont think it is so much who the nra supports.

[mopinko]

their dollars, really, are paltry when you look at it. those kids w their price tags made that clear.
it is the way they go after those who oppose them.
many dems who voted for the clinton assault rifle ban knew they were gonna be defeated in the next round. and they were. defeated by the dirtiest of dirty campaigns.
there are limits on what you can donate to a candidate. sorta.
but there are no limits on what you can spend sliming someone. they operate in the spaces that are hard to track.
you can see how much they gave their friends.
how much they spent to trash their opponents is a lot more opaque. and ugly. the ugliest of american politics.

[flamin lib]

1. It just takes courage. They all talk about heroes, about selflessness and sacrifice but not one of

them can show one tiny bit of any any of it.

Australian pols took a stand. Many sacrificed careers. Many were heroes. Many acted selflessly.

But we're supposed to be the best.

At what?

[mopinko]

3. we are the best at less and less.

and heading downhill fast.

[J_William_Ryan]

2. Agreed.

We’re in the tiny minority on this, of course – but yes, if the NRA didn’t exist, if there was no money from gun organizations and the like, Congressional Republicans would still be voting against necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

[Progressive dog]

4. $55 million in 2016 (as publicly claimed by the NRA)

is not paltry when I look at it. If we trust the NRA, it's still a big number; if we don't trust them, it's probably higher than the $70 million claimed by inside leakers. I look at that number as even less paltry.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article177312006.html