The National Rife Association, with approximately four million members, is beginning to flex its political muscle with the Democrats in control of both Congress and the Executive. The NRA threatened to show its influence when the measure to give Washington, D.C. a full-voting representative in the House passed in the lower chamber of Congress. Suddenly, the bill was stalled in the Senate."The National Rifle Association's lobbyists made it clear to lawmakers that they believed the bill should include a measure to overturn the capital's gun control laws. Left mostly unsaid, but well understood by all 535 members of the House and Senate, was that failure to do so would unleash a barrage of political pain on resisters."
The NRA's political action committee spent $15.6 million in the last two election cycles, donating money to candidates who are "pro-gun" and more to the challengers of others who oppose them.
With the NRA readying itself for a battle against those in Congress who oppose them (regarding lifting the gun control laws in DC):
- Do you think this is a situation meant for compromise? Is public safety going to take a back seat to politics?
- Do you feel this is the perfect situation for the two parties to fully distinguish themselves from one another (the need for a clear divide and definition of what each party represents/stands for)?
- Can Democrats maintain their majority status while taking on such a controversial issue? Would taking a "Democrats are for certain gun restrictions" stance damage the party, or make them look stronger?
No comments:
Post a Comment