Bloomberg gun group hits a Democrat
May 24th, 2013
01:02 PM ET
10 years ago

Bloomberg gun group hits a Democrat

Washington (CNN) - A large gun advocacy group is hitting its first Democrat in their most recent campaign to increase gun control measures.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded by independent New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, announced an ad Friday criticizing Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor for his recent vote against gun legislation in the Senate, including expanding background checks.

[twitter-follow screen_name='politicalticker']
A spokesperson for the organization that includes mayors from across the country said they are putting $350,000 into 30-second spot, which features a woman who lost her friend to gun violence.

"I was so disappointed when Mark Pryor voted against comprehensive background checks," Angela Bradford-Barnes says in the spot. "On that vote he let us down. Tell Mark Pryor to take another look at background checks."

Pryor, who also knew the gun victim, said in a statement the ad is politicizing his death by "misleading people into thinking that his bill would have prevented Bill Gwatney's tragic death. The fact is it wouldn't have, which makes Mayor Bloomberg's ad even more disgusting."

The senator pointed to his support for measures that would increase funding for mental health programs and penalties for straw purchases that he said would have prevented his friend's death.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns also sent the father of a Newtown shooting victim to one of Pryor's public events in Arkansas earlier this month.

The Arkansas senator is up for reelection in 2014 and in a vulnerable position. The ad, which the group said will begin airing over the next two weeks, is the latest step by the group to promote additional gun control measures, many of which failed in Congress earlier this year. They have launched ads recently against other Republican senators, including Jeff Flake of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire for their background check votes.

- CNN's Kevin Bohn and Gabriella Schwarz contributed to this report.

Filed under: Ads • Gun control • Michael Bloomberg
soundoff (37 Responses)
  1. California Gary

    Everyone in the Senate or the House is accountable for their votes. I think Senator Pryor was on the wrong side of this one. Anyone preventing sensible gun control measures should be taken to task in my humble opinion.

    May 24, 2013 01:12 pm at 1:12 pm |
  2. Jill-IN

    Please don't forget Indiana's Senator Dan Coats voted against background checks.

    May 24, 2013 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  3. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA -aka- Take Back The House -aka- No Redemption Votes

    Tadow! This isn't a partisan issue. We want background checks. I like that Mayors Against Illegal Guns are not discriminating on who they run ads against. These politicians need to learn that you don't go against the will of the People. And if you do, you better have a good dog o reason.

    May 24, 2013 01:22 pm at 1:22 pm |
  4. jsmoulder

    A women in Kansas City saved herself yesterday by shooting one of three intruders. She practiced good gun control. She fired once.

    May 24, 2013 01:32 pm at 1:32 pm |
  5. much thunder..little rain

    pryor is getting it from both side just like lincoln did...he is a goner in ark

    May 24, 2013 01:40 pm at 1:40 pm |
  6. Hollar Back


    and since she is legally able to own a gun, she would have passed a background check and still would have been able to protect herself. No one's rights get infringed. Even though if I could have it my way I would take away all guns in the country.

    May 24, 2013 01:41 pm at 1:41 pm |
  7. smith

    Libs..give it up.. you lost bad on this issue. Bill Clinton tried to tell ya..It`s a loser issue

    May 24, 2013 01:47 pm at 1:47 pm |
  8. Jules

    This Democrat is fine with going after Dems who voted against background checks.

    May 24, 2013 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  9. WouldYouLookAtThat

    California Gary says:
    Everyone in the Senate or the House is accountable for their votes. I think Senator Pryor was on the wrong side of this one. Anyone preventing sensible gun control measures should be taken to task in my humble opinion.
    Remind me again, how was the proposed background check law a "sensible gun control measure?" It would have zero impact. It burdens those of us who choose to follow the law, all the while it does nothing to prevent anything that started this knee-jerk reactionary proposal.

    May 24, 2013 01:54 pm at 1:54 pm |
  10. WouldYouLookAtThat

    This Democrat is fine with going after Dems who voted against background checks.
    The media has done its job with you and clouded your mind with falsehoods concerning gun laws and background checks.

    May 24, 2013 01:55 pm at 1:55 pm |
  11. Me

    Thats funny, because in Newton the shooter did not obtain his guns legally, nor did he pass a background check. So explain to me how expanding them would have mattered. If I remember correctly criminals do not follow laws, hence why they are criminals. So explain to me how adding more laws would stop them? Most shootings occur with weapons that are not obtained legally anyways. How about enforce the laws on the books now instead of trying to add more. How many people that were denied on background checks due to various reasons including straw purchases were actually prosecuted for trying to illegally possess a firearm?

    May 24, 2013 01:56 pm at 1:56 pm |
  12. Necronn99

    I all i can say is America has spoke and you F678in add wades should listen.

    May 24, 2013 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  13. CB FL

    Want until 2014 when the mayor's against illegal guns and the people from New Town start showing up while you are trying to get reelected. Don't think these people are going away.

    May 24, 2013 02:05 pm at 2:05 pm |
  14. billy

    the background checks only target law abiding people. This is why its all wrong

    May 24, 2013 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  15. billy

    We need to be targeting the criminals in the inner citys

    May 24, 2013 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  16. California Gary

    @WouldYouLookAtThat......tell me again why it is necessary for the average person to own an assault weapon? And why they need magazines that hold 30 rounds? And why they should be able to purchase weapons with no background check whatsoever? Are all of these things needed in order to shoot a deer? Or to defend your home from an intruder? If not, then the measures put forth do meet the definition of "sensible" gun control.

    May 24, 2013 02:14 pm at 2:14 pm |
  17. California Gary

    Many drivers choose to break the traffic laws......does that mean we should have no traffic laws? The argument that laws have no impact on criminals because they don't follow the law anyway doesn't hold water. Lets just abolish all rule of law and let every man fend for that really what some of you are proposing?

    May 24, 2013 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  18. Gurgyl

    This nation needs GUN-BAN LAWS. Period.

    May 24, 2013 02:29 pm at 2:29 pm |
  19. thomase

    "It burdens those of us who choose to follow the law, all the while it does nothing to prevent anything that started this knee-jerk reactionary proposal."

    Tell me exactly how it burdens you. Then I'll tell you how that small burden saving lives is worth much much more.

    May 24, 2013 02:30 pm at 2:30 pm |
  20. Data Driven

    That's right, California Gary. Hey, murder's illegal too, but people still do it, so why have laws against it?

    The sophistry from the gun-nuts would be hilarious if the results weren't so deadly.

    May 24, 2013 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  21. andi lee

    GUN OWNERS are being treated like criminals, and you people don't have a problem with that? Sex offenders have their picture taken, fingerprints taken, and have to register. And you want me to say "yes" to treating gun owners like sex offenders? We have "bullying" laws in this country, and we should exercize our right to use it. That is how I see it. BULLYING. All the studies I have read proves gun violence has dropped to levels twenty years ago, ANYTHING ELSE IS PROPAGANDA. So this push is about destroying the rights of American citizens, and nothing more. I, for one, refuse to treat someone as a convicted criminal, until proven, in a court of law. You should yourself, are you willing to give up one of your rights that you believe in, just because someone else doesnt believe in it?? It is that simple.

    May 24, 2013 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  22. Norma jean. need to wake up ..""...they only target law abidibg people??....That statement defies logic!!

    May 24, 2013 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
  23. bill

    california gary,
    use some common sense..if you go and purchase a new weapon, there is already a background check in place, even at gun shows, all FFL dealers do a background check, the criminals are not buying guns legally, they either steal them or buy them from someone who stole them. instead of wasting money trying to get a national gun registry ( for later confiscation) the lawmakers should make gun crimes have stiffer penalties and we should make hardened criminals jail time less cushy and more of an old style chain gang, if they had to go out and work and sweat and labor for years to pay for thier jails stays, they might not want to be repeat offenders, our lawmakers are all self serving sissies and do not want to offend any race, gender or illegal immigrant, that is what is wrong with our country and why so many people have no respect for the laws or lives of Americans

    May 24, 2013 02:40 pm at 2:40 pm |
  24. Ace

    Driving is a privilege given by the state. Gun ownership is a constitutional right. Not even remotely close to an apples/apples comparison.


    May 24, 2013 02:41 pm at 2:41 pm |
  25. Bootz Mercer

    I'm a bit mystified as to what you found immoderate or uncivil about my rather bland and boring comment on the President's forgetting to salute?

    May 24, 2013 02:45 pm at 2:45 pm |
1 2