the-pi-guy said:
It's not the NRA's money that's actually that dangerous. A lot of people harp on that, but really it's the NRA's members that are convincing. They have a large, extremely reliable voting block. Several million people who are basically guaranteed to vote for you, is incredibly compelling for politicians.
It's a complicated issue, but life should be preserved over the "rights" people have. Can't have rights, if you're dead. I'd rather not be armed. Avoiding the situation is easier without a gun. And even if I could be the "good guy with a gun", I'd be in danger if police didn't know who was the bad guy, I'd be in danger if someone else decided to be a "good guy with a gun" and didn't know who to shoot. I'd be in danger because the shooter would be even jumpier and more likely to shoot me than I would shoot them. |
NRA only has around 5 million members. For a presidential race or a Senate race in a purple state yeah they're an important voting block but for small house races or solid red senate races they're importance i much smaller. Their money is far more valuable because if Republicans were smart they'd push for reasonable gun control like background checks because the Democrats aren't going to change their platform to appease the NRA.
Well thats a dangerous way of thinking about it. Yeah to some extent lifes should be put over people's rights but if it means limiting someones rights that almost everyone else have then it's an issue.
