Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, October 1, 2016

New TV Ad Links Mitch McConnell With Al Qaeda For Opposing Gun Background Checks

A new TV ad that will be airing in Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state of Kentucky this week shames him for opposing universal background checks — which are supported by 82 percent of Kentuckians — for gun purchases.

But the ad goes further than just pointing out that by joining the failed GOP filibuster to even bring a debate on expanding background checks to the Senate floor, McConnell is going against the will of the people he is hoping will re-elect him in 2014. The TV spot, titled “Bad Company,” shows video footage of a 2011 al Qaeda recruitment video in which American-born al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn talks about how “you can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

The ad, which was released by progressive advocacy group Americans United for Change, ends by telling viewers to call McConnell and “ask him why he’s in such bad company.”

The Manchin-Toomey compromise amendment would close the “gun show loophole” by requiring background checks on everyone in order to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and al Qaeda terrorists.

“What should give Sen. McConnell and fellow Republicans who oppose broader background checks great pause is that their position is so unpopular that virtually the only people who agree with them are big gun manufacturers, criminals, and terrorists.  Talk about bad company,” said Tom McMahon, executive director of Americans United for Change. “Senator McConnell doesn’t even want to have a debate about gun safety in Newtown’s aftermath. Talk about a slap to the face to all families whose loved ones were taken away by gun violence – violence that may have been prevented if these common-sense gun safety measures before Congress were law. ”

Here is the ad:

  • charleo1

    Sometimes one may the make a point, but come off as such a goof, they
    lose the argument. Kentucky, like most of the States run by Right Wingers,
    can never find enough ways to line the pockets of the wealthy connected. Or,
    a spare dime to improve the lot of it’s regular citizens. Talk about that. And stay
    away from references to Al Qaeda, and Hitler. They have probably caused
    more gun purchases, than the NRA.

  • docb

    All repubs that voted against cloture for this watered down legislation should have these ads run against them!

  • option31

    And I quote…..”that virtually the only people who agree with them are big gun manufacturers, criminals, and terrorists.” I am not a gun manufacturer, criminal or terrorist and in no way wish to be a disarmed victim. However those that support these measures are in company either knowingly or unknowingly are in the company of racist – like the KKK that pushed gun control in the south after the civil war. Those that vote for this should have Star Parker Never Again ad run in their district – Star Parker is a black women that understands EXACTLY what Josh and the rest of this crowd support.

    • charleo1

      First of all, requiring a background check only if you purchase a weapon
      from a licensed dealer, is a ridiculously stupid way to deny guns to criminals.
      Yes, criminals are often horribly dumb. But, not that dumb, and that often.
      Secondly, according to a 1998 FBI study. (Congress has been loathe to
      fund more recent studies relating to firearms,) But, according the ’98 study,
      Just one, in fifty homicides committed with a firearm, resulted in the victim killing
      the assailant. So with approximately 300 million weapons and some 150 million
      gun owners, 49 times out of fifty the crook won. A gun in the home doubles
      the likelihood of a person living in that home to die of gunshot, by accident,
      or self infliction. And a firearm in the home, also triples, to quadruples the
      chance of spousal homicide. With the lady of the house at the most risk.
      So do we have a Right, as here to for, being passably sane, reasonably responsible, adults. Yes. Does more guns make us safer? The answer is
      clearly, they do not.

      • option31

        Quoting your last sentence “Does more guns make us safer? The answer is
        clearly, they do not.”

        That would explain Chicago and Washington D.C. I guess?

        So why are places like Chicago and Wash D.C. killing fields? Clearly
        they have less guns ( if gun laws work – which they do if your purpose
        is to make honest people defenseless and easy prey) It is a hollow argument to say they are coming from other states and cities as these “other places” obviously have less restrictions and MORE guns and less murders per capita.

        To use a 1998 study to justify anything today is useless. The problem with all these studies is the people doing them have a outcome they are looking for and miraculously their study proves them right. Matters not which issue or side of the issue you are on.

        Current FBI crime stats show crime is down, over 72 million guns have been purchased in the last 5 years or so. Why is crime down? more guns. Criminals are cowards and like easy targets and armed person is not a easy target and unarmed one is.

        Criminals by their very nature are LAW BREAKERS so what good is another law? Do people think if you pile laws high enough the criminals will reform? Taking a citizens right to defend him/herself makes the criminals job easier, why would anybody but a criminal support that?

        • ZenPop

          Have you ever crossed the “border” of the city you’re living in? Tough, right? What with all the border searches… dogs… fences… x-ray machines… wait. That’s right… they don’t have any of that stuff.

          What makes you think there are less guns in Chicago and DC? One can make a purchase a yard out of city limits and bring it right back… So I question your premise. If you truly believe more guns equal less crime: Canada, Great Britain, Japan and a lot of other countries would like a word with you.

        • charleo1

          Again, I’m not proscribing any measures that would violate the
          Rights of citizens of good standing, to own, and use personal

          weapons within the bounds of the law. Either as protection, or
          as firearms are used in keeping, and carrying forward traditions
          of long standing passed down, of harvesting natural game, and fowl,
          or competitions. It is not in these areas of gun possession where
          other Rights, of other law abiding citizens are being abridged.
          Such as the Right to go about pursuing one’s own goals, without
          the terror, and danger a weapon represents in the wrong hands.
          My comment was intended to point out the weapon, brought into
          the home for protection, brings harm, more often than it increases
          security. My point was, we have not done a very good job at all,
          of making sure the novice is made aware of gun safety. Or, that
          the criminal finds it harder to come by a weapon. And the penalties
          for the criminal element possessing a gun, are made much tougher.
          And, as is often pointed out, no law will, with 100% effectiveness,
          remove those millions of guns that are today in the wrong hands.
          But, it seems to me, this should not prevent us from doing those
          things, like uniform background checks for all gun sales. I’ve
          heard the concerns, that this may contain an unintended liability
          for registered owners. But, I cannot see where a reasonable law
          could be written, eliminating that possibility. The concerns of gun
          owners about their Constitutionally protected Rights, is understandable. But surely, concerned people of good faith, I
          believe represents the vast majority of these owners. Can find
          a better way to protect all in our society, from the unacceptable
          violence perpetrated by those individuals we all want to see disarmed.