Of course the Republicans are going to engage the NRA for support. The democratic party has staked out a political position that is contrary to the efforts of the NRA. Democrats, the liberal media and pretty much any left leaning voice with a public pulpit, consistently demonize the NRA and any conservative voice any time that a gun related tragedy occurs. The loudest liberal voices are often also the most ill-informed, or even outright dishonest. (Rachel Maddow, Rosie O'Donnell, etc.) Even here on this forum, in the short time that I have been here, it is pretty evident that many of those with even a slight anti-gun lean, are quick to show vehement hatred for anyone with even a slightly different viewpoint. With this in mind, why would the NRA not overwhelmingly side with conservatives? Why would the republican party not take advantage of the theory of "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend"? Gun owners, in general, are politically active. They vote. To many of them, the 2nd amendment is representative of core values that they will vote according to.
There are actually some interesting similarities between unions and the NRA. Members pay dues to gain a collective voice in pursuit of their goals. The upper ranks of both often do not reflect the views of the membership as a whole. Both engage in hyperbole and rhetoric to drum up support from members, and non-members alike. Both lobby at the state and federal level to forward their viewpoint within the political arena. Both have members that are frustrated with actions by the administrative ranks of their respective group. And I would bet that almost every member of each can find fault with some of the activities of the group as a whole.
I have to agree with other posters...the democrats are often their own worst enemy when it comes to the gun issue. The NRA has played an active role in many of the gun laws currently in place. The NRA certifies more instructors, conducts more safety training, and contributes more money to safety and education programs regarding guns, than any other organization in the world. They boast a membership in excess of 4 million. What political group would not like to add that large of an active voting segment to their ranks? If you have issue with the fact that they tend to lean more to the right, even far right, than you prefer, stop giving them reason to do so. Stop the outright assault on the 2nd amendment that so many democrats are focused on, or stop complaining when they back the other horse. What would you expect them to do?
Yes, there are some pro-gun democrats. Yes, some of them actively support the SCOTUS ruling on 2A, and the individual right to arms, including concealed carry, and personal protection. But, are they the ones that are most vocal? The ones that make strong statements expressing their viewpoint? Or, does that sound more like the democrats with an opposing viewpoint? Are peoples' views of the democrats opposition to 2nd amendment rights more because of what the NRA says, or what democrats themselves, say and do? The ball is very much in the court of the Democrats.
For those decrying the NRA for not supporting President Obama for his "pro-gun" legislative actions, bear in mind, that both of the pro-gun bills signed into law by Obama were not stand alone bills, but were minor parts of major bills that Obama very much wanted signed into law. He did not champion the pro gun segments of these laws. He simply took them for what they were, legislative concessions that were of little consequence, enabling more important legislation to proceed. He has not been pro-gun. At best, he has been fairly neutral, letting the courts decide the issue. Comments like claiming to work on the issue "under the radar", coupled with past actions are the type of things that will be long remembered in comparison to minor concessions.
It's our game to play as we see fit. If we continue on the same course as has been the standard approach of the democratic party, it is likely that we will lose support in this issue, and possibly votes at the polls as a result. Why not play smart, and quit pissing of the 800 pound gorilla in the corner? Why not work to actually be rational in the pursuit of firearms safety, rather than continuously reaching for the extremes?
One final thought, regardless of which side of the debate you find yourself, emotional, irrational actions and reactions will not make permanent gains in this debate. No amount of rhetoric, half truths, little white lies or outright dishonesty will not stand the test of time or public scrutiny. We continue such actions at the risk of our own peril.
= new reply since forum marked as read
But for four years MN politics were FUN 
