It was billed as a brave milestone in the political evolution of Democratic Senate President Stephen Sweeney.
The burly ironworker, who represents a semirural South Jersey district where hunting is popular and Second Amendment rights are venerated, was now switching from powerful foe to fierce advocate of reducing the capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds rather than the 15 allowed under state law.
“I gotta tell you, when you meet families that have lost their loved ones, it’s pretty hard to explain why you can’t do a simple thing like this,” Sweeney said at a Feb. 24 news conference, his eyes welling with tears as family members of children murdered by a lone gunman at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., stood nearby.
Yet there was nothing simple about Sweeney’s announcement, and to the Sandy Hook family members and gun control advocates, nothing all that surprising. In April, when Sweeney publicly declared his opposition to the lower capacity limit — dooming any chance of passage in the Senate — he privately endorsed the idea in a meeting with the families and gun control advocates.
“He said it was a good idea and at the appropriate time he would introduce it and now he has,” said Mark Barden, whose son Daniel was among the 26 victims at Sandy Hook.
Now, it seems the appropriate time has come — for Sweeney’s political career.
Freed from having to worry about antagonizing gun rights groups after winning reelection in November in what was likely his last legislative race, Sweeney announced his support when it was safe. And given his ambitions of running for governor in a pro-gun-control state, the switch was a pragmatic pivot to the left.
No, you snivelling politician, it's easy to explain to anyone why you shouldn't do a stupid thing like this: My magazines haven't harmed anyone. But if you think New Jersey has the money to waste on fighting this in court, by all means, spend it. You won't be getting any higher in national politics than whatever office you can buy from your state.
ReplyDelete"Freed from having to worry about antagonizing gun rights groups after winning reelection in November in what was likely his last legislative race, Sweeney announced his support when it was safe."
DeleteSee how it works. Even those who are normally beholden to their constituents, when freed of those obligations, know what's right.
So, are you admitting that there isn't the landslide support for gun control you've been claiming? That politicians might be voted out for supporting your proposals? I thought gun control was a winning issue and that the NRA was dead and this was the time of Bloomberg...
DeleteGuess it was all bluster.
So, Mikeb, you don't really support following the wishes of constituents? Or is it just when those wishes disagree with yours? As I've said before, a free society really does annoy you.
DeleteSweeney is a lying snollygoster. He and forcible citizen disarmament advocacy are thus made for each other.
Delete"Now, it seems the appropriate time has come — for Sweeney’s political career. Freed from having to worry about antagonizing gun rights groups after winning reelection in November in what was likely his last legislative race, Sweeney announced his support when it was safe. And given his ambitions of running for governor in a pro-gun-control state, the switch was a pragmatic pivot to the left."
ReplyDelete"But they did not include the 10-round magazine proposal, frustrating some Assembly Democrats, who had made that measure a key feature of their own sweeping legislative package. Sweeney, running for reelection in a competitive district, faced a political dilemma. While pro-gun groups were unhappy with his gun-related bills — he earned an F grade from the Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs of New Jersey — many of Sweeney’s bills were viewed as relatively “innocuous,” said Frank Fiamingo of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society. Not so with the magazine limit, which almost certainly would have ignited a fierce backlash. Gun rights groups viewed it as an effective ban on certain guns, namely .22-caliber rifles with built-in magazines equipped to handle 15 rounds."
Always remember the two rules of politics, Rule one, get elected. Rule two, get reelected. Pretty cool how he took the moral high ground by avoiding a contentious issue until he was reelected.
Yes, pretty cool. And when applied across the country, it makes you wonder how many really favor gun control but cannot admit it.
DeleteThe problem is that the gunsuck gunwacks vote according to their beliefs, but the rational gun restriction side does not. There is a clear majority for reasonable and constitutionally consistent restrictions - limits to the ability of gunsuck lunatics to kill more than 10 children without reloading, limits of the ability of NRA gunsuck criminals to sell guns to lunatics. But unless the rational majority votes that way, the gunsuck lunatics will continue to have an overly influential place in this discussion.
ReplyDelete"The problem is that the gunsuck gunwacks vote according to their beliefs, but the rational gun restriction side does not. There is a clear majority for reasonable and constitutionally consistent restrictions "
ReplyDelete"But unless the rational majority votes that way, the gunsuck lunatics will continue to have an overly influential place in this discussion."
If the rational majority doesn't vote, they aren't the majority.
He should be banned for making pistols out of his fingers.
ReplyDelete