According to a Mic analysis of political spending data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA, —often cited as the most influential lobbying organization in the country — has spent a total of $27,205,245 in support of the 50 senators who voted against background check expansion on Thursday. That amount includes direct donations to their campaign committees, outside spending in support of the candidate — that is, political expenditures made independently of candidates' committees — and outside spending against their opponents, spread across their entire political careers.
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-voted-ag … 39182.html
Senators McConnel,Blunt,Roberts,Cotton,Perdue,Cassidy,Earnst,Gardner and Tillis were named.
It might be even more interesting to see how much they gave the other 50 senators.
"Just over half of the members of the next Congress — 51 percent — have received NRA support at some point in their careers. That includes 93 percent of Senate Republicans, 88 percent of House Republicans, 15 percent of Senate Democrats and 10 percent of House Democrats. As the analysis points out, the donations are usually in the range of a few thousand dollars and are more about "allegiance than influence." In their last election 47 percent of members of Congress received NRA money." 
It is clearly more slanted towards the GOP.
 http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/sen … -donations
That makes sense - that it is slanted more to the GOP - as that's where the support to keep and bear arms comes from.
But in this day of extreme partison voting, it does seem a little strange that 15% of Democrats also get some bribe money as well. And make no mistake - that's what it is. Bribe money, to produce votes and influence to maintain the right to bear arms.
Unfortunately for the United States, ALL that "BRIBE" Money given to Congressional Republicans also BUYS an Unwavering Allegiance to the NRA versus executing Votes in the "Best Interest" of the Public & Constituents, as evidenced by recent legislation introduced by Democrats which would have DENIED Criminals the opportunity to purchase a firearm(s) ~
But WHY would the NRA NOT want to DENY Criminals the opportunity to purchase firearms? To Drive Sales of course ~ Once Again, "Greed" comes into play as it usually does here in an Un-Checked Out of Control Capitalistic Society ~
Deep Down, in Private Back-Rooms, even some Republicans would like to see Tighter Common Sense Gun Laws but if they dare to VOTE in that general direction, they would be JOBLESS shortly thereafter ~
"But WHY would the NRA NOT want to DENY Criminals the opportunity to purchase firearms"
Well, I'm not a member of the NRA, and certainly not of the upper echelon, and therefore cannot actually speak for them (unlike you, who must have a hidden pipeline into their offices). Nevertheless, I might offer that the cost far outweighs the benefits. Or that our constitution is inviolate, regardless of what you may think. I actually doubt that it has much to do with profit, though - that particular vice seems best left to the politicians pandering to those screaming to ignore our highest law and get rid of guns.
This is why I find it amusing that we (and I stress we as a collective) try to draw lines across demographics to include liberals, conservatives, Democrats , Republicans and the like. The hegemony and in many cases and the outright purchasing of votes is disgusting and will be our downfall. We are following in Rome's footsteps in many ways.
8 striking parallels between the U.S. and the Roman Empire 
1 — Staggering Increase in the Cost of Elections, with Dubious Campaign Funding Sources
2 — Politics as the Road to Personal Wealth
3 — Continuous War: A national state of security arises, distracting attention from domestic challenges with foreign wars
5 — Profits Made Overseas Shape the Republic’s Internal Policies
6 — Collapse of the Middle Class
7 — Gerrymandering
8 — Loss of the Spirit of Compromise
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". George Santayana
 http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/8_strik … an_empire/
Hot as a three-dollar pistol: Over the course of their careers in public office dating back to 1989, the 49 Republicans and lone Democrat who voted against the expansion of background checks have received $1,114,304 in direct donations, at an average of $22,286 each. (The one Democrat to vote against the measure, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of South Dakota, has never received support from the NRA
I think tying gun controls to the no fly list is a mistake. The idea of people's constitutional rights being curtailed because they are on a secret government "list" is worrying, especially when the criteria for that list is completely secret.
Several journalists, and an ACLU lawyer have reported that they have been told they are "on the list" and have experienced difficulties when they travel(1). Ted Kennedy was not in fact on the list as is constantly reported, but he was mistaken for someone who is: "[Senator Kennedy] was stopped because he had the same last name and first initial as someone who was on the selectee list, according to TSA"(2). Factcheck.org plays this down as as an "inconvenience", but the fact is a serving Senator would have been delayed every time he travelled because his name was like a name on a secret government list (his case was resolved only when an administrator called the Department of Homeland Security directly).
The DHS introduced the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program in 2007 (3) to address these issues, but a report by the DHS Office of Inspector General in 2009 found that: "Redress-seekers generally do not benefit from their participation in TRIP . . . Their cases often languish for extended periods and are handled inconsistently. Sometimes their cases are not brought to the attention of the appropriate agency. In other instances, cases are closed before all indicated agencies have had a chance to review them. Even when cases are properly reviewed, they do not usually produce meaningful results for redress-seekers."(4).
Curtailing the right to own a gun and the right to freedom of movement, without due process, on the basis of a secret list, constitutes extra judicial punishment in my opinion. I can't imagine that such legislation would be constitutional. I think it would be struck down on the first legal challenge.
I understand the desire to do something about the issue of gun violence. Personally I would like to see a worldwide ban on the manufacture and sale of all firearms, but that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that a person shall be deemed innocent until proven guilty, and the idea that a person shall not be deprived of liberty or property without due process of the law. With all due respect, I think the President has got it wrong on this one.
(2) http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/ted-ke … list-myth/
(4) Effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (p. 107)
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG … _Sep09.pdf
You've made a pretty good case for not tying the two together, IMO. I would have to agree with you that they should not be so tied.
That your constitutional rights could be taken because someone, somewhere put your name on a secret list, without due process and virtually without redress, is more than troubling. It flies in the face of everything this country stands for.
Then, if an individual on said list was not under surveillance or annotated on a "List", then said individual committed a crime, republicans in congress would start "Crying & Screaming like little girls again saying "WHY didn't we have a LIST for these people????" ~
It's the same old tired story from conservative republicans ~
Who makes the final decision as to who gets put on the list?
Exactly what is the criteria used?
What due process is afforded to citizens before they are banned from international travel?
What independent oversight is there to ensure government officials do not abuse their authority in relation to the list?
What right of appeal does someone have in relation to the way the DHS resolve "TRIP" complaints?
Would such an appeal be heard before a neutral party?
The answers to these questions are unclear. That's an issue. And the fact that the ACLU are taking the government to court over that issue suggests it is not "the same old tired story from conservative republicans", but a genuine concern about civil liberties.(1)
(1) https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/ … s-freedoms
Now there's a SURPRISE right? More "Treasonous Activity" by CONservative Republicans, Bought & Paid for by none other than the NRA ~
Does everyone understand exactly what this means? CONTRIBUTIONS by the National Rifle Association given to CONservative Republicans take precedence over the National Security of "We the People" ~
Republicans essentially were "BRIBED" into Blocking common sense "Background Checks" which could have SAVED American Lives ~
It wasn't until after the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in March 1981 that Republicans pushed for nation background checks. "The Brady Act". The Democrats didn't like that.
Before that, people filled out a Yes/No questionnaire prior to buying guns.
Now, we're not to offend Muslims because of the jihadist Islamic terrorist attacks in America. The progressive liberals want stricter gun control laws = stricter background checks. (And, they want to bring more Syrian refugees into the US who cannot be vetted (background-check) properly because the FBI has no data on them, because they have no records of who they are. That's insane)
How it works now:
"After the prospective buyer completes and signs a Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473), the FFL contacts the NICS by telephone or Internet. When the background check is initiated three databases are accessed: the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate Identification Index (III), and the NICS Index. According to the FBI, checks are usually determined within minutes of initiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ … eck_System
As usual, Colorfulone is going BACKWARDS into the remote past like most republicans seem to wallow in ~ 1981 is NOT 2015, just like Australia is NOT the United States, and a Gun is NOT a Knife, and 1770 is NOT 2015 etc etc ~ Your lesson for the day ~
Furthermore, I always question the veracity of your links and source thereof ~ Inaccuracies are typically abundant ~ ~
Here are the most recent FACTS on Common Sense Gun Law ~
A Gun "Background Check" Initiative was recently OBSTRUCTED by your Republicans and an Initiative which would have Banned "No Fly" individuals from purchasing guns was also OBSTRUCTED by a congressional republican majority ~ Both highly suspicious acts of defiance, or questionable loyalties would seem to indicate that most but perhaps not all conservatives within congress are Complicit & Sympathetic with International Entities and or the NRA "National Rifle Association" ~
Moreover, there is conflicting data pertaining to this subject but it seems to be a fact that an individual can indeed purchase a firearm at a "Gun Show" absent a "Background Check" ~ This needs to be rectified by Unilateral Presidential Action if Necessary, the same for "No Fly" Loopholes ~ The same action must be taken to STOP Manufacturers from MODIFYING Guns to CREATE Loopholes in any given law ~
by David 8 years ago
What is so bad about background checks for gun purchases?I have seen many complaints about expanding background checks for gun purchases but I haven't seen reasons attached to the complaints.Society has to go through tests to get things like drivers licenses before they can operate a vehicle, why...
by PrettyPanther 4 months ago
March 23, 2021WASHINGTON — Faced with the second mass shooting in a week, President Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill called on Tuesday for fast action to enact stricter gun laws, a plea that was immediately met with a blockade of opposition by Republicans.In brief, somber remarks from the White...
by LauraGT 8 years ago
A lot of people are saying that the congressmen (and women?) who voted against background checks are cowards, cowing down to NRA pressure. I don't believe they are cowards. I think you have to have a basic core of humanity first and some sense of of moral/ethical compass.
by JeniferD 11 years ago
I think we should. If it's one job that a mandatory background check should be required for, it's that of a public official. Why? Representation of the citizens is a sacred trust and that trust has been violated over and over again, and speaking for myself, I am damned tired of...
by Zara Rasul 9 years ago
Do you use facebook for background checks or to spy on ex's?
by lesliebyars 8 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|