Bloomberg's gun control group spends $15M on campaigns in eight swing states

Status
Not open for further replies.
hso

hso

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
65,989
Location
0 hrs east of TN
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...spends-15-million-on-campaigns-in-eight-swing

Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control organization funded by Michael Bloomberg, announced Thursday it is spending $15 million on a digital ad campaign in eight swing states to help boost former Vice President Joe Biden and Democrats in competitive Senate races.

The ad blitz is the opening salvo of the $60 million it has pledged to spend during the 2020 campaign. The targeted states are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Florida, where the group will spend $5 million, is the only state where Everytown is advertising in the presidential contest. The group is also spending $1.5 million in the North Carolina Senate race to unseat Sen. Thom Tillis (R) and $1.25 million each in the Arizona and Iowa Senate races.

ADVERTISEMENT
Another $3.5 million is going toward targeting six House races in Texas, and $500,000 is being invested on behalf of Rep. Lucy McBath (D) in Georgia, who used to work as a spokesperson for the group and whose son was killed by gun violence.

Everytown is spending on state legislature races in all eight states.

“Gun safety has gone from a political third rail to the first thing many voters think about when they step into the voting booth,” John Feinblatt, head of Everytown, said in a press release. “Everytown is going all-in to make sure voters in battleground states know exactly where the candidates stand on this life-or-death issue.”

“As we head into the final stretch to November, this investment will allow us to meet voters where they are — and we're going there earlier and better than our opponents,” added Charlie Kelly, a senior political adviser to the group.
Click to expand...
 
CDW4ME said:
Additional evidence that if one values their gun rights voting republican in Nov. election is it.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't that simple. One can value gun rights, but also vote on a host of other issues. Whatever the results, it's not going to be an Armageddon for gun rights. Nor, conversely, will it be the "Promised Land" for gun rights.

I don't see Bloomberg's campaign gaining traction. It's his right to waste his money. He's not adding to the numbers of already-convinced antigunners. The record sales of guns and ammunition indicate that there's a groundswell of interest in guns. But that's not translating into Republican votes.

What we need to be doing is planning for "the day after," whatever that is.
 
Maybe so, and I am aware that this is dangerously close to being political, but how America votes sends a message to the politicians as to the desires of the people. If one party builds their entire campaign on gun control, and loses, it shows how well-regarded that position is. It has happened before, where a party lost control completely for 8 years because of one piece of legislation. Maybe party affiliation isn't everything, but, at the moment, one party is talking about taking all of the guns, while the other isn't. The other isn't promising to leave them alone, either, but they definitely aren't swearing to take everything.
 
badkarmamib said:
Maybe so, and I am aware that this is dangerously close to being political, but how America votes sends a message to the politicians as to the desires of the people. If one party builds their entire campaign on gun control, and loses, it shows how well-regarded that position is. It has happened before, where a party lost control completely for 8 years because of one piece of legislation. Maybe party affiliation isn't everything, but, at the moment, one party is talking about taking all of the guns, while the other isn't. The other isn't promising to leave them alone, either, but they definitely aren't swearing to take everything.
Click to expand...

How does that happen? Taking all the guns? 'About 400 million guns in the US....??
 
AlexanderA said:
No, it isn't that simple. One can value gun rights, but also vote on a host of other issues. Whatever the results, it's not going to be an Armageddon for gun rights. Nor, conversely, will it be the "Promised Land" for gun rights.

I don't see Bloomberg's campaign gaining traction. It's his right to waste his money. He's not adding to the numbers of already-convinced antigunners. The record sales of guns and ammunition indicate that there's a groundswell of interest in guns. But that's not translating into Republican votes.

What we need to be doing is planning for "the day after," whatever that is.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is that simple. It didn't used to be, but those days are in the past now. That is unfortunate but true.
 
AlexanderA said:
No, it isn't that simple. One can value gun rights, but also vote on a host of other issues. Whatever the results, it's not going to be an Armageddon for gun rights. Nor, conversely, will it be the "Promised Land" for gun rights.

It did in Oregon, Washington and Virginia.

Steve

I don't see Bloomberg's campaign gaining traction. It's his right to waste his money. He's not adding to the numbers of already-convinced antigunners. The record sales of guns and ammunition indicate that there's a groundswell of interest in guns. But that's not translating into Republican votes.

What we need to be doing is planning for "the day after," whatever that is.
Click to expand...
 
FFGColorado said:
How does that happen? Taking all the guns? 'About 400 million guns in the US....??
Click to expand...
Biden's official position on guns (as reported in this month's American Rifleman, which certainly isn't trying to make Biden look good) is as follows:

1. Nationwide one-handgun-a-month rationing. We had this before in Virginia, and we have it again now, and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

2. A moratorium on "assault weapons" and over-ten-round magazines, going forward. This is basically a re-enactment of the 1994-2004 AWB. Not good, but obviously ineffective in achieving the antigunners' ends. Again, we have experience in living with this.

3. Now here is where it gets interesting: Biden would bring existing "assault weapons" under the NFA. This is obviously unworkable. Sen. Feinstein proposed it before, and even she dropped it when the difficulties were pointed out. But let's suppose that Biden goes ahead with this idea. That would involve a free registration amnesty, and since semis would now be NFA items, that means that all NFA items (with a bit of lobbying) could be subject to the same registration amnesty. Not only would that be the practical end of the Hughes Amendment, but everybody (that registered) would register their semis as machine guns, with a view of converting them later. That would be the practical end of the NFA as a whole, especially since the ATF wouldn't have the resources to administer it.

The way I read this, Biden is not proposing any sort of blanket confiscation. And even if he did, he wouldn't have enough support in even a Democratically-controlled Congress. There are too many Dem senators from gun-friendly states, for one thing.

Let's not get unjustifiably alarmist.
 
AlexanderA said:
The way I read this, Biden is not proposing any sort of blanket confiscation. And even if he did, he wouldn't have enough support in even a Democratically-controlled Congress. There are too many Dem senators from gun-friendly states, for one thing.

Let's not get unjustifiably alarmist.
Click to expand...

Hmm.... I guess saying he's going to put Beto in charge of gun control means nothing? Both Biden and Beto want scary black guns confiscated. Remember "hell yes we're coming for your AR15"?
 
Color me old fashion, I support the party of my beliefs, accept the candidate regardless of their popularity. The 2nd is paramount but as it happens the GOP platform suits me. Charisma of the candidate doesn’t come into play. The sitting President isn’t charismatic I’ll agree and fence sitting conservatives may tip the balance.
 
CDW4ME said:
Additional evidence that if one values their gun rights voting republican in Nov. election is it.
Click to expand...

AlexanderA said:
No, it isn't that simple. One can value gun rights, but also vote on a host of other issues.
Click to expand...

Yes, sometimes is that simple.
I've been able to vote for over 3 decades and I have always voted for the most pro 2A candidate; I do not recall that ever being a D since 1990.
I was a teacher for many years, at the state level this can mean picking most pro 2A versus most pro teacher - I voted most pro 2A every time.
If the candidates are equal on the 2A then I will look at stance on other issues. Call it a one issue vote, but I see it (2A) as more than one issue.
 
AlexanderA said:
Biden's official position on guns (as reported in this month's American Rifleman, which certainly isn't trying to make Biden look good) is as follows:

1. Nationwide one-handgun-a-month rationing. We had this before in Virginia, and we have it again now, and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

2. A moratorium on "assault weapons" and over-ten-round magazines, going forward. This is basically a re-enactment of the 1994-2004 AWB. Not good, but obviously ineffective in achieving the antigunners' ends. Again, we have experience in living with this.

3. Now here is where it gets interesting: Biden would bring existing "assault weapons" under the NFA. This is obviously unworkable. Sen. Feinstein proposed it before, and even she dropped it when the difficulties were pointed out. But let's suppose that Biden goes ahead with this idea. That would involve a free registration amnesty, and since semis would now be NFA items, that means that all NFA items (with a bit of lobbying) could be subject to the same registration amnesty. Not only would that be the practical end of the Hughes Amendment, but everybody (that registered) would register their semis as machine guns, with a view of converting them later. That would be the practical end of the NFA as a whole, especially since the ATF wouldn't have the resources to administer it.

The way I read this, Biden is not proposing any sort of blanket confiscation. And even if he did, he wouldn't have enough support in even a Democratically-controlled Congress. There are too many Dem senators from gun-friendly states, for one thing.

Let's not get unjustifiably alarmist.
Click to expand...

A gun owner voting for Democrats is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
 
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It is a mistake to blindly support any one party and give them untethered power. I support the positives of our current administration, but there should be accountability there too. If we as shooters don't hold pro gun politicians accountable for their actions they will be replaced whether we like it or not. And maybe with politicians who are not pro gun.

We enjoy far, far more gun rights today than at any other time in my life. Laws change, and always have. It wasn't the end of the world when Clinton pushed through the 1994 AWB. If anything it led to many laws giving gun owners more rights than ever before.

If Biden wins the sky isn't going to fall. One of the unintended consequences of the 1994 AWB was the huge number of weapons sold both during the ban and after it expired. In 1994 those type of weapons were quite rare. Today they are by far the most commonly sold. Any sort of similar ban would simply be impossible.

Realistically the only thing that I see would be tougher restrictions on who can purchase and own firearms. And there are a lot of folks out there who aren't responsible enough to own a firearm. It comes back to the accountability thing. We as gun owners need to be sure that we are holding ourselves accountable, or someone else will.
 
jmr40 said:
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It is a mistake to blindly support any one party and give them untethered power. I support the positives of our current administration, but there should be accountability there too. If we as shooters don't hold pro gun politicians accountable for their actions they will be replaced whether we like it or not. And maybe with politicians who are not pro gun.

We enjoy far, far more gun rights today than at any other time in my life. Laws change, and always have. It wasn't the end of the world when Clinton pushed through the 1994 AWB. If anything it led to many laws giving gun owners more rights than ever before.

If Biden wins the sky isn't going to fall. One of the unintended consequences of the 1994 AWB was the huge number of weapons sold both during the ban and after it expired. In 1994 those type of weapons were quite rare. Today they are by far the most commonly sold. Any sort of similar ban would simply be impossible.

Realistically the only thing that I see would be tougher restrictions on who can purchase and own firearms. And there are a lot of folks out there who aren't responsible enough to own a firearm. It comes back to the accountability thing. We as gun owners need to be sure that we are holding ourselves accountable, or someone else will.
Click to expand...
With regard to the last paragraph;
The issue is which group will we give the authority to determine who is and isn't responsible enough to own a firearm. I don't want the left making those decisions.
 
If you think, that if the Dems/left/commie/socialists (all the same in my book) gained power, they wouldnt go full bore for guns, you are a fool.

They will, hardcore, and while they were at it, they would add Justices to SCOTUS to counter the conservatives, so when any gun grabbing made it way to them...its a give me for them.

Beto, he was just one dumb enough to spill the beans.

Biden? He is an empty shell. He will be a figurehead, rubber stamp...nothing more.

Yes, other issues are in play too. As a reformed Democrat, I understand that. But, at least for me, all those issues are either against my beliefs, or not worth the damage giving the D party power.

Guns are their top priority, dont be fooled. Armed opposition must be eliminated before their real, true colors can be shown. It's far thinking generational planning here. Not by Biden and his crew (he cant remember yesterday, nevermind planning the next 40 years), but by those behind the curtains.

The 2nd Amendment is the prop that supports all the others...not the first, not any of the others. The 2nd gives us teeth. Pull those teeth, we are sheep.

Guns are THE issue. All other pale in comparison.
 
jmr40 said:
If Biden wins the sky isn't going to fall. One of the unintended consequences of the 1994 AWB was the huge number of weapons sold both during the ban and after it expired. In 1994 those type of weapons were quite rare. Today they are by far the most commonly sold. Any sort of similar ban would simply be impossible.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Biden is a cipher. He was selected to be the Dem nominee because he does them the least harm. People are not voting for Biden; they're voting against Trump. As for gun control, I don't see that happening despite what outliers like Beto O'Rourke say. (Remember that he lost after his "Hail Mary pass" regarding gun confiscation.) If the Democrats take control of the Senate (and that's the only way they could possibly enact gun control), they would do so by winning in a bunch of gun-friendly states, such as Montana, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Kansas. These newly-elected senators would never support draconian gun control. Even Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords and currently leading in the Arizona senate race, has backed away from confiscation of "assault weapons." He would bring them under the National Firearms Act, a position that reflects that of Biden himself. If we're talking about NFA amendments, there's a lot of scope for changes that would be beneficial for gun owners. (If we played our cards right.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Bloomberg is going to be a huge threat when he's done being mayor of NY
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
4K
GambJoe
G
U
  • Locked
Why isn't there a Pro-2nd Amendment equivalent to Bloomberg?
Replies
8
Views
660
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
A
  • Locked
Anti-gun groups disarray is 2nd Amendment's gain
Replies
10
Views
940
hdwhit
H
O
  • Locked
Levi Strauss getting in bed with Bloomberg
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
hps1
  • Locked
Levi Strauss Sticking with Gun Control Push Whether Customers Agree or Not
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top