Anti-gun Ad In Iowa?

Why would a NYC Mayor Bloomberg funded group be running an anti-gun ad in Iowa?

Ad here. It looks more like a shot across the bow of the Democrat campaigns than anything else. I doubt the people of Iowa will be persuaded.

But the campaigns haven't been talking gun control, not in Iowa, anyway. And if that's the first card Bloomberg has decided to play, his entry into the race is bound to help the Republican candidate more than anything else.

Comments

[Kaitian]

This helps Richardson alot as well on the Democrat ticket since he's the odd man out regarding gun control.

[Fred Beloit]

But Mr. Alternative Medicine (read pseudo science) needs more help than this. He needs a respirator.

[Letalis Maximus, Esq.]

Who knows? Maybe he is testing the waters on the issue? Maybe he is hoping to goad the Dem candidates into talking about the issue? Maybe he is hoping to goad the MSM to ask the Dems about the issue?

Whatever his reason or reasons, you can bet that he has thought about it a lot. None of it changes the fact that, in my opinion, Bloomberg is a dangerous nanny with a billion dollars of his own money.

[H. Tuttle]

As a native New Yorker who's recently moved out of New York City, and New York State, Bloomberg was the least offensive choice in each of his two mayoral elections. I held my nose and voted for him each time, but I'd NEVER vote for him for any national office.

He's not even a Republican in name only any longer, and his nanny-statism (which knows no bounds apparently so long as his goal is "something for your own good") is truly offensive.

[RDM]

The ad mentions that most of the murders are committed with guns already illegal under existing laws, and asks:
(1) if tougher sentences might be in order for criminals trafficking in such guns. Well, yeah. Sure, as long as there's an intent to sell illegally (and not a mistake).
(2) if the feds should be able to stop gun sales to terror suspects. Again, maybe so, if the term "terror suspect" is limited to just that. Put him in the registry along with the felons and certified nut-cases; okay with me. But pay legal fees if the suspect successfully challenges the listing.
(3) where do the candidates stand on illegal guns? Uh, let me think . . . against them?

So what's the point of these softball questions? All it illustrates is that the law isn't that effective against illegal use of guns, suggesting that an armed citizenry is the best deterrent and protection against armed criminals.

The ad's statement that the 250 mayors "represent" more than 50 million Americans is simply stupid. My mayor doesn't "represent" me; that's the job of my Congressman and Senators. My mayor is the executive of my city; that's it. Take a hike on the representation job, mayors.

R.

[rosignol]

Why would a NYC Mayor Bloomberg funded group be running an anti-gun ad in Iowa?

-----

Because Bloomberg spends too much time in NYC?

He's welcome to jump in as an independent and run on an anti-gun platform. All he would accomplish is being the Perot to this year's Democratic nominee.

[IslamoLlama]

"This helps Richardson alot as well on the Democrat ticket since he's the odd man out regarding gun control."

This and a cup of coffee will get Richardson a cup of coffee. He's barely polling past single digits.

"He's not even a Republican in name only any longer, and his nanny-statism (which knows no bounds apparently so long as his goal is "something for your own good") is truly offensive."

I always get a laugh out of Republicans who regularly cheer lead for limitless warrantless wiretapping and other government domestic surveillance and then go on to chastise people for nanny-statism. The same guys who want to let Karl Rove read their emails wet themselves at the idea of gun-locks.

Gun ownership is about as far down the list of single-issues as you are going to find this election. The idea that one candidate or another is going to rally support by cuddling up to a Smith & Wessin is delusional. Better stick with immigration and tax cuts.

[Peter]

I'd really like to know which Republicans are for unlimited warrentless wiretappings. Now some Republicans, the smart ones, know that wiretappings of foreign citizens do not figure into the United States citizens rights.

[Kaitian]

Gun ownership is down the list because of a single reason. Bringing up and advocating gun control as one of your platform will only infuriate the gun ownership base in both parties and this is a big campaign killer. Obama, Clinton, and the other Democrats knows to avoid this issue and will not make this as part of their platform. If any of the candidates make this an integral part of their campaign or part of their presidency, they will not have a chance of winning the Presidency or if elected, seeing a second term.

[Kaitian]

Peter, that issue is dead in the water now since the Protect America Act of 2007 was passed in Congress which reformed the FISA Court. So what's there to argue right now? The act demands a warrant if there's a domestic call.

http://www.odni.gov/testimonies/20070918_testimony.pdf
Foreign targets
"If the target is a foreign person located overseas, consistent with FISA today, the IC should not be required to obtain a warrant."
Domestic
"In order to conduct electronic surveillance or physical search operations against a person in the United States, the FBI, which would conduct the investigation, would seek FISA Court approval for techniques that, in a law enforcement context, would require a warrant."

[seekeronos]

Rudy the RINO and Bloomberg the Really Stretching It RINO are products of the NY GOP (the state level party branch) which is responsible, in some measure, for the evolution of the Rockefeller Republican wing which adopted many social Liberal and sought to cooperate with the New Deal government rather than the Goldwater conservatives.

It is part of the reason why there is a separate "Conservative Party" in New York State politics. In short, I see no reason to trust northeastern (Yankee) RINOs like Rudy, Romney, or Doomberg, and to in a similar vein, Huckabee.

I say, go with the consistent conservative - the hands-down clear choice for America: Fred Thompson.

[Fred Beloit]

"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." But only if those who do not live by the sword, and would oppose those who do, also have swords.