E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNew York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has a promise -- or a threat -- for congressional candidates: In advocating more gun control, he'll put his money where his mouth is.
Just ask the House hopeful who faced over $2.2 million Bloomberg-funded ads -- or talk to the Democrats charged with trying to take back the House majority in 2014.
The billionaire mayor spent the money attacking former Rep. Debbie Halvorson, a Democrat who had been favored to win a Chicago-area House seat, over her "A" rating from the National Rifle Association. On Tuesday, 75 days after 20 children and 6 adults were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, she lost decisively to former state Rep. Robin Kelly in the Democratic primary for disgraced Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.'s seat in Illinois' second congressional district.
"This is an important victory for common sense leadership on gun violence, a problem that plagues the whole nation,” Bloomberg said in a Tuesday night statement -- commenting on a special election primary in a district nearly 800 miles from his home. As she conceded, Halvorson blamed Bloomberg's money for her failed campaign.
Her loss is one of the first real data points to dot the political landscape facing President Barack Obama -- and the Democrats he'll need to stand with him -- as he pushes a package of new gun control laws in the wake of the Newtown shootings. The president wants to ban assault weapons like the gun used at Newtown, limit the number of rounds of ammunition in magazines, require universal background checks for gun buyers and make gun trafficking a federal crime.
It would be all but impossible for an assault weapons ban to pass the Senate — and prospects for any new laws are even dimmer in the GOP-controlled House. But lawmakers from both parties say could support requiring anyone who buys a gun to get a criminal background check. Under current law, people who buy guns from private sellers aren't required to get that check.
So why does Halvorson's race matter to the legislative and political fights? After all, skeptics note, gun control isn't a controversial issue in urban Chicago, a city plagued by gun violence and a high murder rate. Bloomberg's tactics would likely be much less effective in a rural swing district with an ingrained hunting culture.
But going after every pro-gun Democrat isn't quite the point, advocates say. Instead, it's a way of reassuring lawmakers -- particularly in swing suburban areas -- that someone will have their back if they support new gun restrictions.
And it's also about telling Republicans in similar situations -- like those who hail from suburban Philadelphia, New York and Denver -- that there's a new threat.
"The NRA has been the only game in town. That's not going to be the way it is anymore, and races like Halvorson's...are intended to send that message," said Mark Glaze, executive director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the advocacy group that Bloomberg co-chairs.
In the past, the NRA has aggressively targeted lawmakers who back new gun laws. After a Democratic Congress passed an assault weapons ban in 1994, Republicans swept back to power in the House. The ban was allowed to expire in 2004. This time around, the NRA is opposing universal background checks.
Now, though, Democrats insist Bloomberg's millions amplify a new reality: changing public attitudes in the wake of Newtown. Polls show support for new gun restrictions is higher than it's been in more than a decade. And gun control advocates have retooled their message, focusing on reducing gun violence instead of trying to litigate Second Amendment rights. It's a distinction some Democrats believe will help turn the tide on an issue they've historically struggled with -- one strategist compared it to focusing on raising taxes on the rich during the 2012 campaign, helping their party win on the broader tax issue, where Republicans had previously claimed the upper hand.
There's already evidence that suburban Republicans are staking out support for some new gun laws -- a reality that GOP strategists were eager to point out.
"I think the idea of background checks across the board, I'm not opposed to them," Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., told the Las Vegas Review Journal's editorial board. "I disagree with people who say that this is going to be the first step to gun registration, which leads to gun confiscation."
"I agree with the president that we can and should strengthen the nation's background-check system," Rep. Pat Meehan, R-Pa., said in January. Also supporting stronger checks is fellow Philadelphia-area Republican Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick.
After Newtown, polls show support for stricter gun laws is increasing even among Republicans. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out Tuesday showed 61 percent of Americans think gun laws should be more strict, the highest percentage since 2000, after the Columbine shootings months earlier. That's up from 51 percent in January of 2011, the last time the poll question was asked prior to Newtown. The shift is largely due to Obama's coalition of Democrats, African Americans and Hispanics. But among Republicans, 37 percent now say gun laws should be stricter. Just 24 percent of Republicans said so in January 2011.
Obama and Democrats want to act fast on gun measures to maintain that momentum. In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy wants to start the process of writing new gun laws on Thursday. Republicans could push that another week.
In advance of the hearings, Democrats are scrambling to hash out a deal with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, on a background check bill. Coburn has been negotiating with Democrats for weeks, but talks have stalled in recent days over how to keep track of private gun sales so police can later track guns used in crimes. Democrats and gun control advocates say gun sellers need to keep a record or the law will be toothless, while Republicans argue that could lead to the federal government tracking gun owners.
"There absolutely will not be record keeping on legitimate, law-abiding gun owners in this country," Coburn said on "Fox News Sunday."
The slowed negotiations with Coburn have prompted Democrats, led by West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, to ratchet up what's been ongoing outreach to other moderate Republicans who might be willing to sign on. Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that he's been involved in working on legislation.
Leahy's committee is also going to take up the likely doomed assault weapons ban, which California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is sponsoring. Democratic leaders have pledged a floor vote on the measure -- a move Obama urged at his State of the Union address, when supporters in the chamber erupted into chants of, "vote, vote, vote."
Holding the vote is a significant part of the political calculus: It would allow Democrats in red states or swing districts to say they've opposed Obama's plan to ban weapons while still giving them an opportunity to tout support for other measures to reduce gun violence.
"I want it on the floor," Feinstein told NBC News on Tuesday.
NBC's Domenico Montanaro and Carrie Dann contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
I live on the Iowa/Illinois border and Illinois has just passed the concealed gun law. The state has 6 months to tweak the law to comply. They are the LAST state to adopt a concealed weapon law. How can Bloomberg can declare victory ? Stupidity reigns...
The only reason they have 6 months to tweak it is because they were sued and lost in a federal court. Essentially the court reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that cannot be infringed. The only gun control that these Statists can push are the gun control laws that we are willing to abide by, because the courts have ruled over and over again that the right to keep and bear arms exists and applies to the individual, they have no authority on these issues.
The City of Chicago was forced to pay over $1,400,000 to the NRA. Chicago is as crooked as they come.
http://www.examiner.com/article/city-of-chicago-paid-nra-legal-fees-1-4-million
Liberals are only against big money in campaigns if it is Republicans who are spending the money.
As long as the big bucks roll in to support Democratic causes, they suddenly don't have trouble with money in politics and we never hear their usual "campaign finance reform" talking points.
I wonder if any Illinois citizens are offended by Mayor Bloomberg sticking his nose in their affairs. I guess state lines are only important to pass Obamacare.
Nah we like Republicans spending money, after all it is most of the time wasted. About the only way they will put money back in the economy.
If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Remember when liberal George Soros threatened to leave the USA if Bush got re-elected? Well he's still here and proving that liberal will lie in attempts to get their way.
Saw a great post early on ---- let the first background check by into why the President won't release any information about his college years.
Bloomberg is a blithering buffoon, he has lots of money but that doesn't make him right. We need to kick his a** to England. As long as these clueless liberals have money and control they are tearing the heart out of America. It is good Illinois has passed the concealed gun law, after all its not the legal gun owners at fault, it's the gangs, and criminals but the liberals don't see it that way. They are encased in their own mental fog.
obamas hidden agenda is that he wants all guns banned, but he doesnt have the balls to say so. he hates white people, especially rich white people. he also does not like the fact that gun owners protect themselves he thinks the government should do that. socialism 101.
So whens the ban coming on those evil 2 liter bottles as well?
Gun owners beware! Michael Bloomberg and his group are in the process of buying gun control in America. They have WAY more money than the NRA and history is on their side. Watch for them to fund gun control candidates (Oops, Citizens United coming back to bite you) and flood the media with their message. You all may want to remain in denial about this, but be honest with yourselves and think rationally about it. This isn't hyperbole, it's the future, and you ain't gonna like it.
Outrage to follow.
There is nothing they can do. What people fail to realize is that court decision after court decision has reaffirmed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. We are hearing them stir the pot on "universal background checks", they have no authority to require background checks for individual citizens to buy or sell personal property. Bloomberg knows this, Obama knows this, Feinstein knows this, they all know this. If they could legitimately require background checks for private sales of personal property then they would have included it in the NICS system when they formed it. They know that the NICS system only applies to FFL dealers, those who import firearms or are licensed to facilitate transactions across state lines, because this system falls under their ability to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. If they ever passed a law requiring background checks for all transactions, the SCOTUS would strike the whole system down as being an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
DNA has proved again that those democratic liberals such as Bloomturd has ties to Hitler. Bloomturd will spend his last dollar on his push to control the people, socialism and Communism is his agenda, along with his buddy Obozo.
By far guns save more lives than take them. Over 2.5 million times a year guns have been used to successfully thwart crime and violence.
Drs. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime" The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
Hmmm....17 year old data, very relevant.
Look at the FBI violent crime statistics, over the last 20 years gun ownership has steeply risen, meanwhile violent crime has been cut in half. Meanwhile in the major cities gun ownership has been all but eliminated and violent crime is through the roof.
But the FBI is a govenment agency, how can we trust them?
So you are saying that we can't trust the government to accurately report statistics, but we can trust them to determine who should and should not have a gun?
Flip that. Are you saying the opposite?
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in goverment.....when the people fear their goverment there is tyranny, when the goverment fears the people there is liberty" Thomas Jefferson [ when we had good presidents]
Awesome. So now there will be no more gun deaths in Chicago!
Oh wait, its already illegal to kill someone there, isn't it? Well now all these new gun laws will keep it from happening with guns.
Wait, what? They already have the most restrictive gun laws in the country and people are still getting shot there?
Who knew that Chicago, of all places, wouldn't already have learned that prohibition doesn't work?
Hardly:
We The People are tired of seeing these shootings and also hearing the selfish complain about their gun rights over our children's rights to become adults. Your legal guns that aren't assault rifles aren't in danger with the new legislation. "We" are the majority that want gun reform and those that don't want it will have to get used to a U.S. that cares about their "children" more than their "guns". Real Americans don't bad mouth their President to the extent some have. The Patriot Act has a "thin" line about when freedom of speech is perceived as a terroristic type threat or speech. Unless you want the Secret Police taking you in for questioning, learn to respect our President. When he leaves office, feel free to exercise you opinions but until then, watch your tongues. We voted for him, he won and the juvenile sore losers need to get over that and get a life.
Huh? I thought the article was about Bloomberg using his money to control an Illinois election...
No, you're simply a vocal minority.
FACTS:
The RKBA is an individual right.
Guns are an integral part of American History
There is no way to keep criminals from having guns.
I have all the guns I want, and there's NOTHING you can do about it.
.
I respect the Office of POTUS. Obama currently holds that office.
You know what you can kiss, don't you?
Obama is POTUS, not Fuhrer or King, despite your myopia. I will say whatever I like, and you can do NOTHING about it.
How's that make you feel?
.
Freedom of Speech does not kick in when someone leaves office. It is one of those other RIGHTS you lib's want to use only when it suits you.
We have the right to express our opinion with anything or anyone we want just as you do. I have not had any respect for Obama since he started so why should I change now. The office of the President has been violated by him and holds no value anymore except for what you deem necessary.
I have never and will never threaten anyone. Threats are only used by cowards that can't back them up. I would never assault anyone that has not assaulted me (physically). I will stand up for my rights and voice tmy opinions just as anyone else can. You don't have to agree with me. It is okay if you are wrong.
Respect is earned, not doled out because of what office you have. Politics destroyed that long ago. When the office holder treats their constituants with respect and keeps their Oath to the people and the Constuitution, then they will receive the respect they deserve. Not before.
Think, you should really, and I mean really look at Feinsteins gun bill. It affects handguns, rifles, and shotguns. One of then is a semi-auto shotgun that can hold 5 rounds with an adjustable stock. Thats a few MILLION hunters right there. Our current president is an idiot. The gestapo gonna show up now? Oh no's! The patriot act is in itself, a terrorist act. Illegal wiretaps, calling people terrorist, etc.. So take your nazi propaganda back to 1930s germany where it belongs.
I am sick of this bs argument that your right to "become an adult" trumps another person's right to own a gun. Someone owning a gun does not affect your right to live, never has anyone been suddenly died because someone bought a gun. The only way that your right to live can be put in jeopardy is if someone USES a gun, which is why we have laws against homicide.
Think Wise - Life is not guaranteed. That is a reality. Children die everyday from violence and accidents. If you educate yourself, you will see that almost every gun violence incident that has occurred has been in "GUN FREE" zones. Ask yourself why? Could it be that there were no guns to shoot back at the killer? Obama has said that if it saves one life it's worth a try. That's BS. More people die in car and home accidents than firearms every year. Obama said they deserve a vote. That's BS. Every perosn who dies as a result of violence, of any kind, deserves the same opportunity then. But you don't see Obama trying to stop the cause of violence. That's because he and Biden have already aditted that violence can't be stopped.
@thinkwise - Where do you get off telling us who to respect? That BS is reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and other tyrants.
People EARN respect and IMHO Obama has NOT earned it.
Unless you selfishly abort them into a sink, right?
.
drink wise
WTF are you smoking?
"After all, skeptics note, gun control isn't a controversial issue in urban Chicago, a city plagued by gun violence and a high murder rate."
After all, as people with the ability to reason note, since Chicago hasn't a single gun store and has gun laws as strict as another city with rampant gun violence, Washington D.C., within a state with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, apparently criminals don't pay any attention to LAWS! So, more of them aren't going to do any good!
Ya think maybe those guns are coming into Chicago and DC from other states?
So by the same argument, if guns were illegal in the whole US, you would just replace "states" with "countries" and have the same problem, just ask Mexico.
The northwest corner of Indiana must be a slum with massive gun crime since they dont have a ban and are so close to Chicago! Oh, wait...
So now Bloombooger isn't satisfied with being the dictator of New York: he's going after Sickinois - er - Illinois. He'll likely be trying to buy the presidency when Obama is out. He may find a little resistance in OK, TX, WY, MT, ND, SD, UT, AZ, AL, MS, SC, NC, IN, MO, KY,...
Although many will view these events as gun related they are far more serious than the gun issues. Money from outside an area has been used to influence events in an area, elections that are intended to reflect only those in that area. This also occured in the national Presidential elections. Money from outside the USA. Money from outside a state used to influence political elections inside the state. We need to bring laws into place to restrict this type of activity or at least make it transparent.
Trashing Bloomberg, using nasty name characterizations, dictator, turd, idiot, moron--meanwhile the guy's a billionaire and here we sit pecking away at a keyboard giving a few convoluted opinions. Its obvious that Bloomberg is not stupid, his business expertise belies that opinion. Lets really be honest, Bloomberg took on the NRA and won, showing the NRA influence is not infinite--can oppose some policies and win a primary. Match dollar for dollar in influence and Bloomberg will bury the NRA--he's got the bucks and public opinion.
Bloomberg gains nothing on a personal level with his agenda whereas Koch Boys et al have everything to gain financially from their continued efforts to buy local and national elections. Bloomberg at least is up front about his goals and the Koch Bros. are what.......?
Who cares about the NRA? Even if he outspends them 2:1 it doesn't change the law. Bloomberg has as much authority over the guns of people in Illinois as I have control over the bowel movements of a unicorn.
First of all the President does not want to repeal the Second Admendment to the US Constitution. The President is strongly in support of the Second Admendment to the US Constitution. The President is never going to support drastic/severe gun control laws. If one has been paying attention to what the President has made clear. This would not be a mystery. Anyone who is 'spewing' that the President is going to take our guns is Cognitively Disabled. The GOP/Teabeggers are ragging 'paranoids' who deal in no facts. Again! The President does not want to take away all the guns. This is a lie! The President is sponsoring common sense gun safety laws only. Now the "Mentally Ill" so-called leadership of the NRA base their insanity on no facts. Again! The NRA Leadership is sponsoring no commons sense ways to lesson gun violence, and their donors/lobbyists are grinning with greed ear to ear. Again! The President and the US Justice Department are very aware of this fact.
Hitler was never going to oppress any of people. Hitler was never going to disarm the population. Hitler was never going to intentionally murder over 5 million Jews. Hitler was never going to try and dominate the world by killing anyone that wasn't a 'superior race'.
The King of England was never going to try and disarm the people of the colonies in America. He would never try to control the people there by taxing them to death. Oh wait, he got interupted when the people stood up and said NO WAY. Yes, armed individuals that said enough was enough.
Funny how it took three (or more) countries to defeat Hitler, but not nearly as many individuals to overthrough a King!
Good guy's with guns will alway beat the bad guy with a gun. Just curious, if hypothetically, your liberal/progressives should in fact actually get a gun ban thorugh, who is going to enforce it? How are they going to go and round up all those evil 'assault wepons' and massive magazines?
They cannot even enforce the laws they have now so where are they going to get the Army needed to round up the milloions of these items already in law abiding citizens hands?
Just curious.
The President is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment you say? Please explain this quote from an April 16, 2008 primary debate:
Q. Do you support state legislation to: ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?
Obama: "Yes"
Q: "ban assault weapons?" Obama: "Yes"
Q: "mandatory waiting periods and background checks?" Obama: "Yes."
So in his own words he supports legislation to ban handguns, in what way is that supporting the 2nd Amendment?
Or this one: "Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ Sept 5, 2008
To claim that Obama is pro 2nd Amendment is so outlandish and ludicrous that it barely merits a response. In your own post you contradict yourself, you say he is pro 2nd Amendment, but wants to get rid of "assault weapons" or as DHS calls them "personal defense weapons". How can a person be pro 2nd Amendment, an Amendment that forbids government from even "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms, when they are expressly trying to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
Progressive, read the Feinstein gun bill, the New York gun bill, and the current awb bill in ohio- sb 18. Pretty severe stuff that affects millions.
I think the news could tout Bloomberg's mighty showing if he had gotten a Republican to win that seat,it's been a Democrat stronghold since the 50s,and held by a Black since AIPAC ran Gus Savage out of town for saying mean things about Israel.
It has always been a district influenced by outside money,since the Savage thing,anyway.Three things run pretty true about that district..
the person who wins it will be a Democrat
the person who wins it will be Black
the person who wins it will probably be indicted and imprisoned for some malfeasance or other
but all in all a great victory for Bloomie,pop open the Ripple.
A white female won the primary Mr. Racist.
Halvorson is White and lost,Kelly is Black and won.
as per NPR
stick your misinformation and name calling up your wazoo,George.
On the subject of racism,all the other Black cadidates bailed out of the primary so Whitey wouldn't have a chance.
bUt but but,only White people are racist
Don't agree with Bloomberg on a lot of issues but will donate to this organization, nice to have a counter balance to the gun lobby people (not talking about hunters, marksmen and responsible gun owners).
LMAO.....what a joke.........Chicago already has the toughest gun laws in America(including universal checks) and still has been the murder capital of America........So if that is mirrored across the nation......what does Bloomberg and like minded think will happen......The opposite of reality it seems. New York, DC, and many other cities have learned that leason.........time to deal with reality and put blame on the citizens of Chicago0 as much or more than just guns. Background checks are great.....and do work to an extent......but they are by no means a lone cure for gun deaths.....a small part yes.....but no "magic bullet"......couldn't resist that.....LOL
Rep. Tom Coburn of Okla. is O.K. with this registration program?
"Democrats and gun control advocates say gun sellers need to keep a record or the law will be toothless,"
We must as Americans stop any more Politicians interference in our personal lives's or lose the Constitution and Bill of Rights's to a media whore, comedian, golfer, prepubescent arrested adolecent developmental immature group of lackeys and president! President was uncapitalized for a reason!
While I think Bloomberg has the wrong idea about gun control he does understand that whenit comes to congress there are no local elections. Every Senator and Representative has affect on each of us and we need to reachout and support candidates the support our values dno matter what state they are from.
The only gun laws i support are criminal background checks and mental health problems. also, the private sale of guns should be against the law. A brokerage system culd be setup with gun dealers to ensure the proper background checks are done. W waiting period should also be enforced.
Very well stated. You may hate me but I completely agree.
Funny that Bloomberg was in a city that has the toughest anti gun laws in America( including universal checks) but also is our nations Murder Capital. Ask Bloomberg how cities like NYC and DC got rid of that title..........Time to blame the people and not the gun. Background checks work and do limit some illegal buys......they do need to include mental health checks though. We do medical background checks for life and health insurance purchases......why not gun purchases also. Bloomberg is just out for a media ride to aid his career.
The most bestest debates in America consist of two people who believe the same things,claiming that they dont,agreeing on how we should cough up our rights.
Ihateliberal versus flaming lib....very convincing
not really
try again
Automatic and high capacity guns have been around for years ever since Al Capone and the gangsters of his day. What is different is the influence of violent video games and RAP music with all the violent lyrics. This is what the children or growing up with nowadays. Parents refusing to teach their children the difference between right and wrong are leaving it up to a video game that teaches them to kill zombies(their reality could be the classmates).
There is a lot to your point. However, we export those video games and rap music all over the world and we're still at the top of the list for gun violence. How is it Americans are so much more affected by them and lash out with such violence?
Gun violence compared with total violent crimes tell a totally different story. The US actually has a fairly low overall violent crime rate. I think your question can be answered with another statistic. A teenager in the US is 13x more likely to be on a mind altering prescription drug than his peers around the world. These drugs have proven side effects of suggestibility, violent behavior, and suicide. So it is pretty easy to see why people in the US are more easily affected by suggestible stimulation than other people around the world, because we have been neurologically programmed to.
Exactly....looking at "gun violence" independent of the broader scope of violence is just foolish at best. I dont want to reduce gun violence if it means my wife is more likely to be raped, robbed or beaten. Trading more crime to reduce one specific type is stupid.
Great question flaming. If you take a look at these other countries, you will not see giant urban cesspools like Chicago, DC, NYC, Detroit, Etc. Places like this account for the majority of all homicides where guns are used. The irony is that these places also have the strictest gun control laws. This is a pattern that is repeated throughout the world. Countries like Mexico, Brazil and Honduras have some of the highest gun-related murder rates in the world. All three countries also have some of the toughest restricitons on gun ownership as well. There is a high correlation between ultra restrictive gun control and high murder rates. Why is this? It should be the exact opposite like the Bloombergs and Feinsteins of the world keep promising us shouldn't it? The reality is that criminals are a lot more savy than politicians would have us believe. They realize that an unarmed populace is like shooting fish in a barrel--a smorgasbord of easy vicitims. Corrupt governments realize this as well. Mexico is a great example of a corrupted state gone horribly wrong. The Federales are armed to the teeth and can abuse the people however they want. They are often the very same people that are involved with the sinister drug cartels. Those in authority are just as corrupt as those they are sworn to protect their citizens from. Gun control always benefits criminals and corrupt politicians at the expense of everyone else.
The NRA A rated candidate did NOT just loose, she got her clocked cleaned dramatically....this should be a signal to anyone around this country, that the majority have emerged on this issue, and it is time to fix the laws, to make every effort to stop the carnage. NO ONE wants to live in a country, where you are not safe. And in this United States, we are fast becoming a place where you are NOT SAFE anywhere, even in your own home, because of easy access to guns. Hunters have their rights to guns, and citizens have their rights to protect themselves and their family......but WHERE ARE THE RIGHTS OF EVERY ONE ELSE TO LIVE?
In 2010 the UN reports that 9,960 people were killed in the US with firearms:
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls
MADD reports in 2010 that 10,228 people were killed by Drunk Drivers.
http://www.madd.org/media-center/media-library/Drunk-Driving-Enforcement-Fact-Sheet.pdf
MSNBC reports 75,000 people killed with alcohol, the THIRD leading cause of mortality:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.US1rqDeyLYT
.
.
Your right to live does not trump my right to personal property. Me owning a gun in no way interferes with your right to live. Never once, ever, has a person suddenly dropped dead because somebody somewhere simply owned a gun. The only way your right to live can be infringed is if someone USES a gun, which is why we have laws against homicide. If you want to live in a place with no guns because you think it would be safer then move to Chicago or NYC. Better yet, move to the UK, I will gladly pay for your one way ticket in exchange for your US citizenship. Move to Canada, move somewhere, just please leave here.
A majority in the form of a single psychotic billionaire...gotta love that lib math.
This article could be just a farce the candidate may not have lost because the NRA connection but just because they were a bad candidate. Then the press and the people use that to scare people to bend their way.