Does that even matter? Would you condone fraud by a party because they have stronger competitors? For me it wouldn't matter, I think that if the people in charge of this organization do something that is against the law and then use tricks to escape the consequences then they fully deserve to have the book thrown at them.

I just wonder if that is the case here or not according to US corporate law.

The NRA served as a financial conduit to force the GOP to take more and more extreme positions on gun rights by threatening to fund primary challenges to any republicans who “stepped out of line.”

The have successfully wielded this power to great effect for the last three decades.

The "step out of line" problem in the GOP is real. It allows the extreme voices in the party to consistently target an individual politician while corralling everyone else. Meanwhile it also encourages the notion that the GOP has internal discussion and isn't very unified while voting on all issues as a unified block.

Every republican I know can name a few GOP platform positions they dislike or even find alarming, but never the less they vote for politicians who are forced to adopt every position.

The problem is even worse for the Democrats on abortion, there are no pro-life Democrats allowed at the national level. The GOP is tolerant on guns in comparison.

Nice whataboutism. You got some ammo to back up that claim? The GOP is nothing if not unified to a fault. They're strong because they will tow the line to hold power. (Mitch hates trump and Cruz got in line even after the mud slinging about his wife.) It's fractured now but they've historically been in lock step, even when it was against their personal, publicly stated, beliefs. Democrats have been weak because they don't require the same level of kool-aid consumption.

The issue is most people agree that people can own arms, but with limitations. For example, the vast majority of people think universal background checks are a good idea, but the NRA did not.

https://iop.harvard.edu/get-involved/harvard-political-revie...

BTW, using a term like "Gun Grabbers" might appeal to those who agree with you, but isn't going to convince anyone on the other side or in the middle of a topic.

Most people i know own firearms or support firearm ownership or both, and no one i know is a part of the NRA.

most people i know that are for gun reform also own firearms (also not in the NRA, if that needed saying).

I have guns. I like them. I even have an NRA membership that I can't get rid of. The NRA is not just a bogeyman, they're also the real problem. I'm with you. Sensible gun owners want (and should want) sensible gun ownership requirements.

The problem is what is "sensible"

To many gun owners the rules on the books today are already to repressive, or in many cases pointless (i.e banning "scary looking" guns for cosmetic reasons)

Then there is a whole host of ignorant reforms that will do nothing to lower crime or victimization but will just punish responsible gun owners.

Then there are the crazy reforms like banning all Semi-Automatic weapons.

So what "sensible" gun control do you support, and are you self aware enough to understand your personal use case for a firearm may not match everyone's? Most gun owners that stake claims like you have want to bann all uses for firearms they do not personally use a gun for. So a Hunter will push for reforms that do not impact hunting, a person that only uses handguns will push for long gun prohibitions, etc.

You phrased this as if the only gun owners are NRA members. This may come as a surprise, but Democrats in the south hunt too.

I did?

Funny because I clearly said "The NRA actually only accounts for a very very small percentage of Americans that support Gun Rights. "

and

"vast majority of Americans support Gun Rights, this includes both Democrats and Republicans."

So it seems I phrased my comment exactly opposite of your straw-man, did you even read my comment before replying?