Everytown for Gun Safety, a prominent gun control advocacy group, donated a hefty $200,000 to a Virginia Democrat whose past text messages show a chilling inclination toward violence against a Republican lawmaker.
As reported by Breitbart News, Jay Jones, a candidate for Virginia Attorney General, received a substantial contribution in August 2025 from Everytown, despite having sent texts in 2022 that entertained the idea of shooting a former GOP lawmaker. The story doesn’t stop at campaign cash; it exposes a deeper clash of values.
Jones, in messages uncovered by the National Review on October 3, speculated about harming former Virginia Speaker of the House Todd Gilbert and even wished death on Gilbert’s children. This isn’t just political sparring; it’s a window into a mindset that seems at odds with the very principles of public safety Everytown claims to champion.
Let’s unpack this further: a group dedicated to reducing gun violence funneled serious money to a candidate who casually mused about using a firearm against a political opponent. If the irony isn’t lost on you, it shouldn’t be; the contradiction is glaring.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen didn’t hold back, openly mocking Everytown’s decision to bankroll Jones. His reaction underscores a broader frustration with organizations that preach safety while seemingly ignoring red flags in their own endorsements.
Knudsen’s critique isn’t just a jab; it’s a valid question about accountability. How does a group so focused on curbing violence justify aligning with someone whose words suggest the opposite?
On October 7, 2025, the Free Beacon noted that Everytown quietly removed Jones from its ‘Gun Sense Voter’ endorsement page on their website. This silent retreat speaks volumes about the group’s discomfort once the texts came to light.
Scrubbing an endorsement isn’t the same as owning a mistake, though. It’s a quiet sidestep, avoiding the harder conversation about why Jones was backed in the first place.
The move suggests damage control rather than principle. If Everytown truly stands for safety, shouldn’t there be a louder disavowal of rhetoric that flirts with violence?
The $200,000 donation isn’t pocket change; it’s a deliberate investment in a candidate whose past statements clash with the supposed mission of reducing gun-related harm. This isn’t about one bad apple; it’s about a pattern of progressive groups prioritizing political wins over consistent values.
Jones’ texts, as reported, aren’t just heated words; they’re a hypothetical threat against a fellow public servant. That’s not the kind of leadership anyone should bank on, regardless of party lines.
Everytown’s initial support, followed by a stealthy backtrack, only fuels skepticism about the sincerity of their agenda. If safety is the goal, vetting candidates for more than just their talking points should be step one.
This situation with Jones and Everytown is a stark reminder that campaign funding often overshadows character in today’s political arena. It’s not enough to wave the flag of a cause if the people carrying it undermine the message.
Virginia voters deserve better than a candidate whose violent musings were brushed under the rug until public scrutiny forced a response. And they deserve advocacy groups that match their dollars with discernment.
Ultimately, this isn’t just about one donation or one text thread; it’s about ensuring that those who seek power, and those who fund them, are held to a standard that prioritizes civility over expediency. Let’s hope this sparks a broader push for integrity, not just optics, in the fight over gun policy.
