If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   You may want to sit down for this but it turns out that 42 of the 45 senators who voted against keeping criminals from getting guns are being paid by the gun lobby   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 35
    More: Obvious, gun rights, Mark Begich, Gun Owners of America, guns, crimes  
•       •       •

2063 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Apr 2013 at 11:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-18 07:59:08 PM
6 votes:

ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?


I've always wanted to get my students to put together a who owns your congressman website. It would take some manpower but would be a fun resource at election time. Basically stockpile all the corporate and lobby donation records and then have a list about how it impacts his/her voting record. You could put up a record about how many times the person votes based on what they were paid.

The thing I can't figure out how to control for is the usual party politics side of things. A R who is going to vote pro-gun anyhow is going to be likely to receive money from NRA while a D who is going to vote pro-union is likely to receive money from a union. I guess you could really just chart the amount of times someone is willing to cross who pays them or only monitor things that aren't traditional R vs D fights (like say the piracy issues). Anyway, just figured I'd throw the idea out there if someone had good ways to do it.
2013-04-18 08:02:01 PM
5 votes:
Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose
2013-04-18 07:04:48 PM
5 votes:
And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?
2013-04-18 09:31:48 PM
3 votes:

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: doglover: jake_lex: UberDave: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Damn.  I read this not wearing my glass and had to read that twice to make sure it didn't say "tranny"...which oddly would have also fit.

The Republican Party seems to be more interested in protecting us from trannies than from tyranny.

The illusion of two parties is killing America. The Republicans and the Democrats both want to take away our rights.

The Rs don't want you to have sex or science. The Ds don't want you to have fun or drugs.

It's a turd sammich and a giant douchebag every time.

wat

The Democrats are against danger. They pass all the "for the children" nanny laws and spearhead things like partcipation trophies. If they had their way they'd wall up everything with a sharp edge and take away anything medicine that could even give you a buzz.


again: wat

Who they hell told you this and why the hell did you believe it?

I think a significant number of Republicans have proposed to change the Constitution to stop homogays from marrying...you know, for kids.  And they want prayer in school...for the kids.

The sharp edges thing is just retarded.  I could just as easily say that Republicans want big busineass to hide razors in their breakfast cereals if they thought it might turn a profit.

And am I to understand that you think Dems are lamer that Repubs on drug policy?  Well, that's new.  Next you're going to tell me that liberals are trying to close abortion clinics.

Again, who told you this, and what sort of traumatic brain injury led you to believe this?
2013-04-18 08:42:31 PM
2 votes:

TheManofPA: I've always wanted to get my students to put together a who owns your congressman website. It would take some manpower but would be a fun resource at election time. Basically stockpile all the corporate and lobby donation records and then have a list about how it impacts his/her voting record. You could put up a record about how many times the person votes based on what they were paid.


Opensecrets.org is your friend. But I agree that it's a very chicken-and-egg problem with campaing donations. Do you vote a certain way because you received donations? Or do people donate to you because they know you will vote a certain way, and therefore want you to win? Don't know how you could possibly tease those two apart.
2013-04-18 08:37:04 PM
2 votes:
There is an easier explanation for why this happened:

We are living in the age of megahyperpartisanship. Anything that Obama likes the GOP fights tooth and nail to stop it.

/Gun Lobby is probably funding those who voted yes as well
2013-04-18 07:51:36 PM
2 votes:
Wasn't there ever some kind of law the prohibited the buying of politicians and legislation?
Or was it just a really good idea that was beaten and strangled to death?
2013-04-19 11:06:54 AM
1 votes:

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose

A Glock 9mm with a 30 round magazine is going to be very effective against Predator drones and M1 Abrams tanks.


I greatly despise this line of thought.  Whereas a successful uprising of US Citizens against the US Govt would be a very steep hill to climb.  The thought that the US Govt would use MBTs against the US population on US soil is just nonsense.  There will be 3 sides to this if it were to ever come out.  The Gov't vs US Rebels vs The general population who doesnt want to be involved.  To think that any rebel force in the US would establish singular bases of operations in order to be targeted by teh US Govt is stupid.  No they would sit in the home and pretend to be part of Group 3.  The US Govt isnt going to roll an M1 Abrams MBT down Main Street, USA and start blowing up houses.  You risk significant collateral damage and also risk moving people from Group 3 into Group 2.  And when you combine Group 3 and Group 2 you have a HUGE manpower difference over Group 1.

Yes Group 1 (US Govt) has a significant advantage with a lot more cool toys to play with, but the destructive ones are pretty much off the table.  This leaves you with surveillance drones/aircraft and moving APCs into areas to keep your soldiers safe, but then engaging is conventional firearms warfare.  Where Group 2 is going to have a problem is in logistics, Group 1 is just far better at moving poeple and supplies around.  However, Group 1 will lose poeple to Group 2 or 3...and some of Group 3 may end up joining Group 2.

This isnt anything close to simple or one sided.  Both sides have their advantages/disadvantages.  But seriously, stop with the "But but but TANKS!" because they wont matter.
2013-04-19 01:02:39 AM
1 votes:

remus: gun rights


See, the fact that we even think about the problem in these terms is in itself a problem.  You don't have a right to own any kind of object except guns, and that is only because of an accident of history and our country's rampant and unhealthy obsession with guns.  I say we should let states and local governments make their own gun laws, so we don't have to have a constitutional crisis every time a community decides that it would rather outlaw gun ownership than put up with all the turmoil that comes with having guns circulate like currency.
2013-04-19 12:58:10 AM
1 votes:

coeyagi: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?  Sorry, but just because someone doesn't support treating everyone like a criminal, doesn't mean they support criminals, they're supporting our constitutional rights.  If the risk that comes with our rights frightens you so much, feel free to move.

Background checks: because owning a firearm should be at least as difficult as getting a job.

But tell me again how getting a background check means getting treated like a criminal, because I don't hear the tens of millions of people who get jobs complaining about that little trifle of an obstacle.


Ok, here are my honest questions:

1)  What, exactly, is the definition of mental illness wherein a person's gun rights would be blocked?  Sure, the guy chewing his pillow and quacking like a duck probably shouldn't own firearms.  But what about the guy that was just upset after he lost his job and had an anti-depression prescription for 2 weeks?  Where is the line?  I didn't see this last law actually defining precisely what conditions would qualify.  If it's not set, then I can see where people were worried it might be a set of moving goal posts that could move whenever somebody wanted to.  I note that many people who are advocating gun restrictions refer to their opponents as "gun nuts".  This implies they believe the people who want to own a gun are, therefore, "nuts", which implies a mental condition.  Can you see where they might not trust this provision?  You call them nuts and then say you want to restrict crazy people from owning a gun.  Probably not the best tactic to use when trying to convince somebody of your point.

2) If it's a "background check", why do they ask to list each firearm being purchased including make, model, and serial number?  That has nothing to do with the purchasers "background" at all.  If they are prohibited, then it's a complete prohibition.  They don't say, "oh, you can't buy guns, but it says here you are buying a smith and wesson model 10 in the serial number range xxx-yyy, so hey!  you can buy that!".  Can you see where gun owners are concerned?  Why ask for a detailed list of the guns and serial numbers if you don't intend on keeping the information and creating a de-facto registration?  Why not just ask name, DOB, SSN, and DL number?  If the name is flagged, then perhaps some follow up to be sure.  No need for any other info.

3)  I was told during the voting ID debates that it's not right to require voters show an ID to vote because some people live too far from offices where they could get an ID issued and it's not fair for them to have to drive 100 miles, so it's unconstitutional.  You do realize that gun shops with FFL licenses are not on every street corner to do these background checks?  There are plenty of people that live 100 miles from the closest dealer.  So, you expect them to drive 100 miles and PAY a fee to run the check to exercise their constitutional right, but you refuse to make citizens drive 100 miles for a FREE ID to exercise their constitutional right.?  I'm sorry, I don't understand this.

So, if you want this to pass:  Define the conditions that disqualify a person from gun ownership exactly so that there is no room for interpretation or changing definitions by whoever is in charge.  Define how they might be able to get back their right to own a gun if they eventually are "ok" again (some things are temporary).  Change the background check to just be a background check and not gather any info on the gun(s) being purchased.  Make the background check free and easily available.

I think my points are pretty reasonable.  I'm trying to get you the background check you want and respect that we all agree mentally disturbed people should not have guns and that criminals shouldn't be able to buy one either.  But, I'm noting the fact that mental issues are not all the same and plenty of people see doctors and psychiatrists who are not a threat to humanity.  And, I'm noting that some conditions are transitory; when the person is "ok" again, they should not be further restricted and have a clear path to regaining their rights.  I'm noting that a background check doesn't need to know what gun(s) a person is buying so that a registry can't be created.  That allows a genuine background check without worrying people about a registry.  If you claim you won't take away guns, then you don't need a registry, and therefore don't need to know the serial numbers of the gun(s) being purchased.  Don't ask questions that aren't needed and you'll avoid worrying people that you have ulterior motives.  I'm also advocating that it be free and easy to do for people who live out in the country so they are not unduly burdened.

Please tell me what is unreasonable about these points?  You get what you want.  The gun people retain what they want.  Everyone is happy.  No?
2013-04-19 12:49:39 AM
1 votes:

red5ish: It will be interesting to see how defying the wishes of 90% of the population plays out for these senators. I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions come election time.


Expect to see a bunch of ads with pictures of dead people from the next massacre.
2013-04-19 12:48:16 AM
1 votes:
It will be interesting to see how defying the wishes of 90% of the population plays out for these senators. I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions come election time.
2013-04-19 12:36:29 AM
1 votes:
the senators' crime is treason
greed against the common good

they should all be publicly executed at Guantanamo
that crazy lawless fortress of justice
2013-04-19 12:31:56 AM
1 votes:
I also love how conservatives shout "arm the teachers!" Out one side of their mouths and the. Gut government funding, preventing me from becoming a teacher and to those that already are, saddle them with 45 kids to a classroom.

There's a disconnect there. A wire frayed.
2013-04-19 12:31:47 AM
1 votes:

coeyagi: Yeah, small-minded. Tell me again who is trying to solve the problem and who is trying to make money and keep hicks with weapons they don't need.


You do not want to solve the problem. You just want more dead kids so you can win an argument.  Pretty sick IMO.

GAT_00: How about the argument that more guns stop crime? That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus. Well there was an armed guard at Columbine. Didn't stop anything. Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.


This isn't the first time this has been brought up. I guess you like eating canards....

On April 20, 1999, Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff's deputy who had been policing the school for almost two years, was eating lunch when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold arrived at Columbine with their deadly arsenal and deadlier intentions.
Gardner said he got a call from a custodian that he was needed in the school's back parking lot. A few minutes later, he encountered Harris, and the two exchanged gunfire. The exchange with Harris lasted for an extended period of time, during which Harris' gun jammed.
The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before SWAT teams arrived, and before Harris and Klebold eventually killed themselves in the library.


Summary: The armed guard tied up the shooter and helped to evacuate students thus saving lives.

How pissed off are you that Columbine wasn't deadlier? If only another dozen kids were dead... FINALLY maybe you'd have gotten that gun control you wanted.
2013-04-19 12:27:40 AM
1 votes:

Peter von Nostrand: Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Yup.  Pretty much.  Funny how ever since Newtown gun owners have come from all over out of the woodwork supporting things like universal healthcare, welfare and a national, publicly-funded effort to treat mental illness.

Kinda makes you wonder where we'd be as a country if these people ever gave a shiat about these things when gun control ISN'T on the table.
2013-04-19 12:25:19 AM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: Really subby?

Christ, why are gun control advocates such small-minded folks?

It wasn't a vote to stop criminals from getting guns. That's why your side sucks at dealing with the issue of crime.

colithian: I know, exactly. I always laugh at these morons like Ted Nugent who think they need armor-piercing rifles to "hurt American soldiers, if necessary".

You do realize every centerfire rifle round IS armor piercing. They're capable of piercing standard ballistic vests.


Yeah, small-minded.  Tell me again who is trying to solve the problem and who is trying to make money and keep hicks with weapons they don't need.

Not that I think gun control is particularly helpful in solving the problem, but at least their side isn't full of cold, heartless selfish assholes who think they need half the sh*t they own.  Show me one bill put forth by the gun rights advocates that addresses the problem of mass murder via firearm.  I'll be waiting.

But until you do, cry me the "2nd Amendment can't be regulated" river again.  It's a beautiful sight to behold.
2013-04-19 12:24:24 AM
1 votes:

remus: GAT_00: remus: State your case. Provide your facts. FACTS.

You're not interested in facts.  You call it emotional clouding.  Well dead kids are the facts.  You just don't like those facts because they're inconvenient.

How about the argument that more guns stop crime?  That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus.  Well there was an armed guard at Columbine.  Didn't stop anything.  Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.

And all those extra guns will cause more deaths.  When a county sheriff is so irresponsible with guns that he lets his four year old son pick one up and kill his mother with one, the argument that we'd be safer with guns is ludicrous.  That's the safety from someone trained to use that gun every single day.

And of course the argument that gun control doesn't stop crime, and the example is always Chicago.  Which is also utterly nonsensical, because the problem there is gun crime!  Apparently people walking around with guns just leads to more gun deaths, and that's the argument to have fewer restrictions on guns!

You say you want logic?  Well there is nothing logical in your own positions, so I find that statement laughable and insulting.

And I'm equally sure you'll ignore all of this as well, because those facts just aren't the ones you want to hear.  You didn't get them from the NRA.

Curious.  I never actually stated my position on the subject, yet you seem to believe I disagree with you on everything.  Interesting.  Without me actually stating any of the things you bring up, you're ranting about how wrong I am on all these issues.  Issues that I never said in my OP.

What I said, is don't try using http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal with me to win your argument.  It's a logical fallacy used by a person when they can't win their argument with a superior case.

I never said what yo ...


You wanted logic.  I gave you some.  Like I predicted, you weren't interested at all.
2013-04-19 12:21:33 AM
1 votes:
Really subby?

Christ, why are gun control advocates such small-minded folks?

It wasn't a vote to stop criminals from getting guns. That's why your side sucks at dealing with the issue of crime.

colithian: I know, exactly. I always laugh at these morons like Ted Nugent who think they need armor-piercing rifles to "hurt American soldiers, if necessary".


You do realize every centerfire rifle round IS armor piercing. They're capable of piercing standard ballistic vests.
2013-04-19 12:16:52 AM
1 votes:
oi47.tinypic.com

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.
2013-04-19 12:14:53 AM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?  Sorry, but just because someone doesn't support treating everyone like a criminal, doesn't mean they support criminals, they're supporting our constitutional rights.  If the risk that comes with our rights frightens you so much, feel free to move.


Background checks: because owning a firearm should be at least as difficult as getting a job.

But tell me again how getting a background check means getting treated like a criminal, because I don't hear the tens of millions of people who get jobs complaining about that little trifle of an obstacle.
2013-04-19 12:12:46 AM
1 votes:

randomjsa: No, get out of here... and next you're going to tell me that the Democrats support unions out of the goodness of their hearts and not because of the money in their pockets.


Workers rights > right to get killed because we can't have universal background checks.

Also, 0 out of 10.  But you're long gone.
2013-04-19 12:07:07 AM
1 votes:
Ah, here we go. Should have known someone would have mocked this up already.

www.buzzpatrol.com
2013-04-18 11:57:32 PM
1 votes:

remus: State your case. Provide your facts. FACTS.


You're not interested in facts.  You call it emotional clouding.  Well dead kids are the facts.  You just don't like those facts because they're inconvenient.

How about the argument that more guns stop crime?  That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus.  Well there was an armed guard at Columbine.  Didn't stop anything.  Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.

And all those extra guns will cause more deaths.  When a county sheriff is so irresponsible with guns that he lets his four year old son pick one up and kill his mother with one, the argument that we'd be safer with guns is ludicrous.  That's the safety from someone trained to use that gun every single day.

And of course the argument that gun control doesn't stop crime, and the example is always Chicago.  Which is also utterly nonsensical, because the problem there is gun crime!  Apparently people walking around with guns just leads to more gun deaths, and that's the argument to have fewer restrictions on guns!

You say you want logic?  Well there is nothing logical in your own positions, so I find that statement laughable and insulting.

And I'm equally sure you'll ignore all of this as well, because those facts just aren't the ones you want to hear.  You didn't get them from the NRA.
2013-04-18 11:46:04 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: remus: GAT_00: edmo: What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.

There is little pro-life in that movement.

But that's besides the point.  Gun activists don't care about dead kids.  They value their guns more than anyone who gets killed with one.  It's the price they are more than happy to pay, because they don't think it's a price.  Just something that happens.

Unless of course any other crime is involved, then suddenly causalities matter.  The ones caused by guns?  Irrelevant, especially when a gun is used for a crime.

You know, you're right.  I honestly don't care about dead kids.  I don't let emotion cloud my reason.  I very purposely set it aside as your emotions lie to you where your logic will not.  Whether the topic is abortion or gun control, you can't let dead kids distract you from facts, logic, and reason.  Once you do that, everybody with a sob story will rule you.  All they have to do is shake a dead body at you and shed some tears and they can convince you to do whatever their cause wants.  It's shameless and disgusting to use this tactic, but it does work on the weak minded.  Remember when Hamas was caught red handed "rescuing" the same dead baby from like 3-4 different collapsed buildings?  Shameless and disgusting to use dead kids to push your political agenda.  Give me a logic based, rational argument and we'll talk.  Shake a dead baby at me and you instantly lose whatever your cause is in my mind.

So you choose to ignore any consequences of your argument, and consider that logical.

That's not logic.  That's a cult.


State your case.  Provide your facts.  FACTS.  Not conjecture.  Explain your analysis.  I'm an engineer by trade, I'll likely challenge your assertions.  If you back up your case with solid arguments, I'll be happy to agree with you.

Not much cult here.

All I'm saying, if if you try to bait me with emotional pleas, I'm likely to turn you off and toss you out.  Just be calm, rational, and stay to the facts and avoid the good 'ole debate class tricks to win me over.  It won't work.
2013-04-18 11:43:03 PM
1 votes:
So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?  Sorry, but just because someone doesn't support treating everyone like a criminal, doesn't mean they support criminals, they're supporting our constitutional rights.  If the risk that comes with our rights frightens you so much, feel free to move.
2013-04-18 11:41:45 PM
1 votes:

remus: GAT_00: edmo: What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.

There is little pro-life in that movement.

But that's besides the point.  Gun activists don't care about dead kids.  They value their guns more than anyone who gets killed with one.  It's the price they are more than happy to pay, because they don't think it's a price.  Just something that happens.

Unless of course any other crime is involved, then suddenly causalities matter.  The ones caused by guns?  Irrelevant, especially when a gun is used for a crime.

You know, you're right.  I honestly don't care about dead kids.  I don't let emotion cloud my reason.  I very purposely set it aside as your emotions lie to you where your logic will not.  Whether the topic is abortion or gun control, you can't let dead kids distract you from facts, logic, and reason.  Once you do that, everybody with a sob story will rule you.  All they have to do is shake a dead body at you and shed some tears and they can convince you to do whatever their cause wants.  It's shameless and disgusting to use this tactic, but it does work on the weak minded.  Remember when Hamas was caught red handed "rescuing" the same dead baby from like 3-4 different collapsed buildings?  Shameless and disgusting to use dead kids to push your political agenda.  Give me a logic based, rational argument and we'll talk.  Shake a dead baby at me and you instantly lose whatever your cause is in my mind.


So you choose to ignore any consequences of your argument, and consider that logical.

That's not logic.  That's a cult.
2013-04-18 11:29:01 PM
1 votes:
No, get out of here... and next you're going to tell me that the Democrats support unions out of the goodness of their hearts and not because of the money in their pockets.
2013-04-18 11:26:28 PM
1 votes:

edmo: What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.


There is little pro-life in that movement.

But that's besides the point.  Gun activists don't care about dead kids.  They value their guns more than anyone who gets killed with one.  It's the price they are more than happy to pay, because they don't think it's a price.  Just something that happens.

Unless of course any other crime is involved, then suddenly causalities matter.  The ones caused by guns?  Irrelevant, especially when a gun is used for a crime.
2013-04-18 10:13:31 PM
1 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: U.S. Congress: The best covernment that money can buy


To be fair, that's pretty much every government, not just the U.S. Congress
2013-04-18 09:21:44 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: jake_lex: UberDave: Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Damn.  I read this not wearing my glass and had to read that twice to make sure it didn't say "tranny"...which oddly would have also fit.

The Republican Party seems to be more interested in protecting us from trannies than from tyranny.

The illusion of two parties is killing America. The Republicans and the Democrats both want to take away our rights.

The Rs don't want you to have sex or science. The Ds don't want you to have fun or drugs.

It's a turd sammich and a giant douchebag every time.

wat


The Democrats are against danger. They pass all the "for the children" nanny laws and spearhead things like partcipation trophies. If they had their way they'd wall up everything with a sharp edge and take away anything medicine that could even give you a buzz.
2013-04-18 08:56:09 PM
1 votes:
Am I really the first one to express shock that three of them apparently didn't receive those payments?
2013-04-18 08:45:21 PM
1 votes:

nmrsnr: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

Not many and very little:

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 500x495][farm9.staticflickr.com image 500x499]


Source


that is incomplete data.
TFA claims that if you receive money from a group that lists gun rights as one of their priorities, that that counts too.

"Some of the more relevant donations do not come explicitly from gun campaigners. Senator Jeff Flake, a crucial swing voter from Arizona who turned against gun control at the last minute, received $5,000 in 2012 from The Madison Project, a right-wing campaign group that lists gun rights as one of its top priorities "

So how many Senators received money from any group that cares about gun control (vs. a gun control PAC)?
How much money did they receive from those groups?
2013-04-18 08:40:45 PM
1 votes:

Peter von Nostrand: Enough gun stuff. They won again and get to enjoy the rampant gun deaths and violence. However we can all sleep well knowing that if tyranny comes to the US the Hoveround Militia will be there to save us all

Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


A Glock 9mm with a 30 round magazine is going to be very effective against Predator drones and M1 Abrams tanks.
2013-04-18 08:39:57 PM
1 votes:

ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?


Not many and very little:

farm9.staticflickr.comfarm9.staticflickr.com


Source
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report