So I take it you've either been living under a rock, or do not understand how the political arena works. #1, The PEOPLE overwhelmingly support greater restrictions on gun ownership. While the bill that Hoyle passed my prove ineffective (or not), it's at the very least a step in the right direction. Unfettered access to firearms is certainly not what the precious 2nd amendment refers to. #2, follow the money for ANY candidate and you may be surprised (or not) where that money comes from. According to the Supreme Court, the flow of money from Corps and Unions into the political arena is their American right (which I personally do not agree  with).  While I personally don't care for the money side of politics and would hope for campaign finance reform (something similar to that of Canada perhaps), it's her prerogative to accept the contribution. She may in fact need the dough to keep another wingnut (who is likely supported by out of state interests) from purchasing the seat.