There used to be pro-gun Democrats the NRA would give “A” ratings to, that’s true. But your reasoning about the demise of pro-gun Democrat politicians doesn’t m

There used to be pro-gun Democrats the NRA would give “A” ratings to, that’s true. But your reasoning about the demise of pro-gun Democrat politicians doesn’t make much sense. First, all else being equal, of course the interest of gun rights would side with the politician whose party is less hostile to gun rights. Again, all else being equal. Not sure how far you want to go back but as long as I’ve been alive the major federal gun control agendas have always been initiated by one party in particular. It may be fine to give an “A” rating to Democrat Dan’s record in support of gun rights, but if his election turns control of a legislature to a party openly hostile to the 2nd Amendment, Democrat Dan’s election on the balance isn’t going to be good, is it? To be honest, the NRA rarely goes beyond issuing their report card on a candidate’s voting record and public statements. I don’t recall seeing them “endorse” a politician where their opposition has a strong pro-gun record, though ai wouldn’t be surprised if it did happen if the election was high-profile enough. I’ve just never seen it happen. As to why there aren’t outspoken pro-gun democrats, I hardly think you can blame the NRA for that. The NRA just doesn’t matter all that much, bogey man reputation aside. Realistically, how much of a chance does a Dem candidate have in a primary, all else being equal, if they are an outspoken advocate of gun rights? It impacts their funding, their volunteer support. The reality is that the DNC’s official platform is anti-gun, and a politician who doesn’t support a party’s platform (on either side of the aisle) is increasingly rare these days. It has more to do with the lack of opportunity for nuanced political positions.