Is this the most effective political ad of 2016?

Originally published at:


Almost makes me wish I was back in Missouri so I could vote for Kander.


Looks like a d^&* swinging contest to me. Any bucket head can put a rifle back together. The test for congress needs to be better than that.


Seriously, if being “pro-gun” means I’m in favor of stupid idiots with guns who have no understanding, then I’m not pro-gun.

I like education. And as long as we have as many fucking guns as people in the US, then we need to teach our children, both how dangerous they are, and how to safe them. Because we don’t want to raise idiots in a gun-infested US.


Kander and Greitens aren’t running against each other. Greitens is just trying (ineffectively) to get attention off the back of Lander’s ad.

Kander’s ad is effective because it breaks the stereotype by showing an army national guard guy (Jason Kander) making a case for gun control. How it’s “measuring” on his part is beyond me. His opponents tried to bait his gun position the same way they try on every Democrat’s campaign … and they lost the point and hard.

ETA: I’m curious what kind of test you’d propose but based on the fact Greitens thinks firing a gigantic machine gun qualifies him for office, I suspect Kander would win even if they were running against each other.


I like the idea that there should be a test for Congress. Their power is a wrecking ball when used ineptly. We ought to have some way to ensure that they’re qualified. I’m not sure that reassembling a rifle is the best test, but it’s better than what we have now, which is nothing.

1 Like

I think that’s the point – he’s a proud “bucket head”; his opponent foolishly questioned a National Guardsmans’ take on guns. This ad shows that he knows guns inside and out, literally, and has the experience to know that terrorists shouldn’t get their hands on them.

It’s a brilliant ad, from its simple concept to staging it in a warehouse to make the gun-cocking sound awesome. I can almost imagine its inception:
PR Guy: Uh so, your opponent says you’re weak on guns…
Kander: Man, fuck that guy. I served in Afghanistan! I can put a rifle together blindfolded.
PR Guy: Say that last part again.


This ad is working among Missourians, although I trust some would prefer a quiz on French poetry.


If this is an effective political ad, all this proves to me is that the USA is a little too obsessed with guns.


Yes, exactly. :worried:


Like many statistics, this is both true and slightly misleading. While only a few people have a lot of guns, a lot of people have a few guns. About one third of American households contain at least one firearm - though this percentage is slowly declining.

As a gun owner and a proponent of effective gun control, I recommend not dismissing the hundred-million-or-so gun owners as a small group of loonies.


I have misgivings about this, the same way I feel when I see clickbait headlines like “Watch Elizabeth Warren DESTROY Trump with one sentence”. People shouting each other down doesn’t prove anything about right vs wrong, and it fuels anger, so even if the DESTROYing is being done by someone I support, I don’t feel happy about that.

This one simple ad might effectively DESTROY the guy’s political opponents, who I’m sure are assholes, but he doesn’t make any actual point; it’s just “I like guns. Look at this gun. Do you like it? Gun.” If he wins via the sort of voter who’s persuaded by that message, will that really be a victory for reasoned debate?

I’ve never seen one of those out hunting elk/deer. Never will be a practical use for a assault rifle, unless you’re hunting human beings.


It’s not that all gun owners are considered loonies (why would you be Canadian money, in any case?), but if only 1/3 of households in the U.S. have guns, why is the average 17? Because some people are very, very paranoid and think owning guns is the proper solution to that paranoia. Those are the ones to be worried about.


Yes, let’s use the fear of terrorism (especially brown people terrorism) to push an agenda. Considering Missouri has a history of Jim Crow laws, it is some how fitting.

Fun fact, Mr. Kander, and as a US Senate candidate one might want to familiarize themselves with the law, we already have background checks for all but private, face to face sales between two people who live in the same state. Also, while I don’t have numbers on where terrorists get guns, criminals get them illicitly, either circumventing the system, or having a clean person buy the guns for them.

I’d maybe try hanging your hat on a different peg.

I believe what they’re saying is that the average for the top 3% is 17. Since there’s about 125 million households in America, about 300 million guns, and about 31% of households have guns, the overall average is a bit less than 8 guns per household.

Of course a lot of this is hardly better than guesswork. Since the vast majority of states don’t have any sort of gun registration, nobody knows how many guns are actually out there, or who has them. The really paranoid folks likely aren’t responding to voluntary surveys about how many guns they’re hoarding.

And even if we assume it’s accurate, that seemingly-small “3%” is still a scary-big nine million people holding 150 million firearms. 9,000,000 Americans, heavily armed, and possibly paranoid (your words) that “the gubmint” is going to try to take their guns. You’re right to say we need to worry about them, but not in the well-just-round-them-all-up sort of way. Not only because they haven’t actually broken any laws (and are statistically unlikely to), but because going after them is certain to do far more harm than simply leaving them alone.


I doubt the number of guns a person owns is a particular cause for worry. There are many collectors who really are responsible, careful people and are not a danger to themselves or others. They keep their weapons in gun safes and employ trigger locks. There are many, of course, who are not that careful.

The ones to really worry about, in my opinion, are the many who have mental health, substance abuse, or anger management issues. The number of guns these people have is not very germane to public safety. Some have a lot of guns, some have only one; all are dangerous.


Totally agree with you there. Except, I’m not so sure about being statistically unlikely to break any laws. THEY don’t think they’re breaking laws because they have a different concept of what laws are and which ones they should follow. E.g. the Bundy group taking over Federal property.


People with very large numbers are generally people who are collectors and/or just obsessive about a hobby. I am sure people think I am nuts for having as many Boba Fetts as I do (“Why do you have so many? These two are the same.” “No, this one is the ESB paint scheme, and this one is the RotJ paint scheme. And this one is the white prototype, and this one is the early press photo color scheme the toy was based on.”) I know people who collect just ONE kind of gun, but want every variant out there - and then there are custom models. And then there are those with cosmetic differences. Its the same as any collecting hobby.

Or they have a wide rage of interests. My dad has over 17 guns and he isn’t paranoid. Hell he doesn’t really have any thing for defense, specifically. Guns are like golf clubs, they do different jobs. So one can easily get a dozen or so different kinds if you are in to different sports or different types of hunting etc.

But this reminds me when people get wide eyed about someone having a massive safe full of guns. Like they are some how more dangerous than the guy who has 2 or 3. You can only effectively use one gun at a time. So 100 guns in a safe isn’t any more dangerous than one reliable gun with lots of magazines.