One is either for NRA/LaPierre/Guns, or for Mike Bloomberg/anti-gun side. NO middle ground.

[spin]

74. Your problem is not so much the NRA which only has 4.5 million members ...

but the 80 to 100 million gun owners, many who do not agree with gun bans.

Donations play a factor as they help get the message out, but many gun owners will vote against any politician who supports gun bans. If you can convince a significant percentage of gun owners to support your ideas you will have a chance to get gun bans passed.

Of course you could try to pass legislation that does not involve banning certain firearms and you would have a higher chance of success. Many gun owners wish to see stronger gun laws passed to help keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and those with serious mental issues.

The Senate poses a significant hurdle to your efforts. You can convince 90% of the voters in the states with a large population to support gun control and the majority of voters in the nation but your efforts can be stopped dead by the fewer voters who live in states with smaller populations who support gun rights. Each state gets two Senators.

Senators from the smaller gun rights states realize that they risk their careers if they vote for strong gun control. You can try to convince them that they should be willing to sacrifice their future in politics for the good of the nation. The problem is that they will point out that they were elected by voters in their states to represent the interests of the state. Also many of these Senators actually support gun rights.

Of course there is a risk that pushing hard for strong gun control may lead to losing seats owned by Democrats in the Senate at the midterms and beyond. This may endanger all the good we have been able to accomplish in the last four years.