Adam Winkler on the Bloomberg Ad

Professor Adam Winkler has an article in The Daily Beast suggesting that the Bloomberg/Mumbles Super Bowl ad will hurt Obama:

Gun-control proponents can only pray that Obama doesn’t take Menino and Bloomberg’s bait. Making gun control a more important issue in the election would be a terrible mistake for the president—and for the cause of gun control.

Yes, it most definitely would. Obama is playing the game smart, because the biggest threat to the Second Amendment these days is from the courts. The politicians we mostly have in line at this point. Gun issues just not being at the front of people’s minds is going to be the biggest challenge for NRA this election. Those who want to see more from Obama don’t understand just how much of a losing issue gun control is electorally.

6 thoughts on “Adam Winkler on the Bloomberg Ad”

  1. The fact that Obama will keep quiet about it until after the election should NOT be interpreted to mean that he won’t do what he can to gut the right in a 2nd term. And it does not mean that he would name a 2nd-Amendment-friendly to the Supreme Court if he got another chance with a 2nd term.

    Voters who support the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms have GOT to consider what Obama would do in a 2nd term when they vote in November.

    1. Yeah! We need someone strong on the 2nd Amendment to be president, someone who would never restrict our gun rights or nominate liberal judges who would gut them! Thankfully, Mitt Romney is running and .. oh, wait.

      This message brought to you by ABOOR 2012 (Anyone But Obama Or Romney).

      1. I have more faith (but only a little more) that Romney would choose better judges than Obama. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe we can trust Mr. Progressive Gingrich on the matter, either…maybe Ron Paul, and maybe Santorum will choose good justices, if we’re lucky.

        I’m not by any means “pro” Romney, but to believe he’s just as bad as Obama, or that he’s somehow worse than the other candidates, is quite a bit of a stretch!

  2. The illogic in that ad was quite strong. Nanny Bloomberg said something about people shot in NYC by a creep with an illegal gun and then said this served as an example of why we need more gun laws.

    HELLO! Would one more law have stopped the creep with what Bloomie already admitted was an illegal gun not get that gun?

    1. That’s the problem with this kind of argument, mostly everybody just plays on people’s emotions instead of presenting the hard facts. Though in retrospect you can punish that person harder if he was using an illegal gun.

    2. For various reasons, I cannot see the ad right now, but this is one of my biggest pet peeves: anti-gunnies will point to the violence of Chicago, New York, and Washington DC as reasons why we need to ban guns–never mind that guns are already banned in those places!

      Maybe they take pride in the high levels of gun deaths in these places, and are just bragging about how the rest of the country would just be like them, if only we passed the same gun laws…

Comments are closed.