How many times have you seen a pro-gun lawmaker described as being "bought and paid for" by the so-called gun lobby?

I've seen it time and time again, and to prove it, gun control advocates will cite how much money has been donated to the person by groups like the NRA or NSSF, if not both. It seems that if you get money from someone, you're a paid-for shill, and nothing you say can be taken seriously.

Except that it doesn't work that way for the other side of the debate, which is a problem for me.

Why?

Because this year, they're outspending the pro-gun side.

The major gun-control groups have pulled back ahead of their opponents in the 2024 money race.

The top three organizations pushing for new gun restrictions outpaced the largest gun-rights groups in June, according to Federal Election Commission records released this week. Giffords, Everytown, and Brady combined to raise $588,386 for their respective Political Action Committees (PACs). Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund brought in $513,913 and none of the other gun-rights groups who report monthly totals raised more than twenty thousand dollars.

That reverses the outcome of the previous month, where the NRA alone managed to outraise the gun-control groups for the first time this year.

June’s fundraising totals highlight the NRA’s continued decline as a political force more than a surge in fundraising by the gun-control groups. The slipping number from the NRA coincides with a drastic downturn in the group’s membership, largely driven by its ongoing corruption scandal, because its PAC can only solicit NRA members. The failure to improve its PAC fundraising could indicate the NRA has yet to see a rebound in membership, despite electing a slate of reform candidates who’ve spoken about bringing greater transparency to the group’s operations and use of donor funds.

And this was before Giffords announced it plans on spending $15 million to elect Kamala Harris and other anti-gun Democrats.  

Now, this is a month-by-month sort of thing, but what irks me isn't that they're spending more than the NRA. Well, that irks me too, but for different reasons.

What bothers me is that these people are so freaking hypocritical about political donations. Pro-gun lawmakers are bought and paid for, yet they spent even more money than the NRA last month. Are anti-gun lawmakers "bought and paid for" or are they simply doing the Lord's work?

See, the issue is that the NRA and other gun rights groups support lawmakers that already support the right to keep and bear arms, just like how the Bloomberg bunch supports anti-gun candidates.

But they and their buddies in the media like to push a double standard. When they spend millions, it's advocacy. When gun rights groups do it, it's something nefarious and underhanded, proof that we need reform of campaign finance laws.

The fact is that the NRA had corruption going on, as we all well know at this point, but literally none of it related to buying politicians. After all, if there was anything like that to be found, I'm pretty sure New York Attorney General Letitia James would have found it during the colonoscopy she gave the organization. The fact that nothing like that turned up is a clear indication that nothing like that was happening.

Yet that narrative will likely continue as we continue on with the world. Why? Because it's much easier to argue corruption than accept that some people just legitimately think gun control is a terrible idea.