NRA Seems to be Preparing a Serious Campaign Against Nevada Ballot Measure

Local news is reporting NRA has hired a campaign manager to run the campaign to stop Bloomberg’s Question 1 on the November ballot. A few days ago they were promoting a new infographic:

The fight in Washington State seemed to be mired in strategy disputes, but hopefully we’ll have a unified front in Nevada and at the least trim Bloomberg’s margin if not outright beat him. Remember that Bloomberg also has a ballot measure up in Maine as well.

Ballot fights are hugely expensive, and while Bloomberg has the money to keep doing this, he might be reluctant to blow a lot of money on a risky proposition. We have to make these ballot measures risky for him. As long as it’s a sure thing, he’ll keep doing it. Bloomberg is already back in Washington State for another slice of the cake in 2016.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Sheriffs Oppose Bloomberg Ballot Measure in Nevada
  2. Nevada Being Primed for More Bloomberg Funded Ballot Initiatives
  3. Big Money Going to Maine Ballot Fight

4 thoughts on “NRA Seems to be Preparing a Serious Campaign Against Nevada Ballot Measure”

  1. The fight in Washington state was mired by Gottlieb’s ego, & his misunderstanding of some focus group results as well as what a Right actually is.

    You’re correct though; we have to make things costly. In Colorado, taking Bloomie the Hut’s coin cost 3 senators their jobs, & flipped the senate back to republican control. Ever since then he’s been using ballot measures (except in very secure dem strongholds). That shows that like most bullies he responds to being punched in the nose (or at least his thugs do).

    I’m uncertain of the extent of the NRA’s commitment, but if they really want to turn things around they have to oppose background checks. Not just “universal” background checks, but all background checks, even the ones they like & supported. If you’ll pardon some seemingly shameless self promotion, here’s a post of mine giving a few ideas on how to do that.

    But we can oppose all background checks (even in gun stores) & have a chance at fighting our way out of this, or we can try to just oppose UBC’s & have our asses handed to us. From the tweet you screenshotted above (“law abiding” & “criminal” aren’t words ya use when trying to protect a Right) it looks like they’re going for the latter.

  2. I like how they are highlighting that it criminalizes private transfers, but I’d rather see it be the large point text rather than “does nothing to stop criminals” line. I’m afraid that low information middle ground people have become immune to hearing the NRA say “it doesn’t work”, and let’s face it, these are the people who are going to decide a ballot measure. More focus on saying “this is crime creation- and doesn’t change the background check system at all, just the penal system”. The antis want to see us in jail, but low information middle ground voters might balk at good people going to jail.

  3. In WA state, the NRA didn’t turn out the vote in the eastern and other more pro-gun parts of the state. Many were just not aware of that there was something important on the ballot in that election.

  4. Bloomy can’t do that here in South Carolina. Residents cannot put forth a ballot measure.

    South Carolina currently does not allow any form of citizen initiated ballot measures, so all ballot measures must be referred by the legislature.

Comments are closed.