"Roiling the confused Pennsylvania waters a bit more, Mayor Bloomberg announces a national buy for an ad by his group Mayors Against Illegal Guns that tries to hold the feet of all three candidates -- Clinton, Obama, McCain -- to the fire on pledges to close the "gun show loophole."
"It features clips of each candidate pledging to close the loophole, then clips of a mayor who supports each candidate chiming in about the need to close it. Then Bloomberg, labeled as an "undecided voter," closes the ad by asking, "So with all the talk of bipartisanship, why can't they work together now to pass it."
"Because they're too busy pandering to Pennsylvania voters who like guns, Mike!
"The unexpected angle currently at play: Hillary and McCain are suddenly declaring themselves as first friends of gun owners in the wake of Obama's comments about how Pennsylvanians "cling to" their guns. Hillary even said she was taught to hunt as a kid to imply cultural kinship. This ad, featuring a clip of Hillary calling for more gun control, kind of clashes with the tone. It's described as a six-figure buy, airing from NY to Arizona and Illinois, and across Pennsylvania, beginning later this week."
Click here to see the spots urging closing the so-called "loophole" yourself.
Remember, the "auto private sale loophole" needs to be closed first!
15 April 2008
Bloomberg Buys National Ad Time To Tout His Anti-Gun Message
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sorry to break "party" lines, but I'm for requiring checks on private sales, as long as the government provides parties easy, cheap access to such checks.
A- Thanks for writing. Its not about party lines. Its about what makes sense. Why checks on private sales -- because its cheap? Whats the real reason? Why not a background check when you buy a car from a neighbor? Or a steak knife from a store? Or your kid's baseball bats? Where does it end? Don't mean this to sound like a rant . . . just dialogue, my friend.
We've "diologed" about this issue on other posts, so I won't go on and on, but I am just willing to concede that guns are inherently different than bats, knives, cars, etc. I know you, and many others, reject that notion.
Heck if they weren't a MUCH more effective self-defense tool than knives and blunt weapons, I wouldn't be such an enthusiast! Of course one could kill using a #2 pencil, but that doesn't alter the fact that guns are potentially more dangerous (and designed to be so).
Ignoring the inconvenience, how many people that couldn't pass a background check would be thwarted by closing the "loophole" and of those, how many do you feel sorry for - and think they SHOULD be able to buy a gun?
Post a Comment