The headline says it all, “Gun-control advocates losing ground in the states despite mass shootings“:
“Nine months after the horrific mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., advocates of stricter gun-control measures have had little luck in state legislatures across the country. In fact, if the gun debate is reignited after another massacre claimed 12 victims Monday at the Navy Yard in Southeast Washington, it will take place in a country with fewer restrictions on firearms than were in place a year ago …”
This was to be expected. The gun control movement has been in a downward spiral for over a decade. By no coincidence, so has the “mainstream” media.
“… Gun-control advocates had hoped to pass new legislation in states where Democrats control the legislature and governor’s office … In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) signed legislation that would ban the sale of assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips and close the “gun show” loophole …”
Yep and that has worked out really well for the Governor too.
The question I have yet to find an answer to is who exactly gave Cuomo the idea that pushing gun control would be a good way for him to kick off his presidential bid? Anyone who objectively looks at it has to conclude the issue is a stinker. Cuomo must have advisors counseling him so I have to believe someone looked at the issue. Were they afraid to tell him the truth? Were they over-ruled? Is Cuomo’s ego so big he thought he could revive the issue?
“… If gun-control advocates could see any silver lining in their losses in Colorado, it’s that a new set of allies with deep pockets is beginning to engage. New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) and Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad both sent six-figure checks to help the two Democratic candidates …”
Cuomo did try shifting the blame for SAFE into Bloomberg which he didn’t appreciate so I don’t believe the promise of Bloomberg bucks was the driving factor.
I wonder if he was set up, possibly by supporters of Hillary and/or other Democrat interests who would benefit by his greatly diminished stature? I haven’t seen anyone try and claim credit for knocking him down (yet.)
Interesting hypothesis with your last paragraph Jacob. My question would be what these and other demorat supporters have to gain by taking Cuomo out? Also, if his own advisors were in on the plot, then why didn’t they just go for the jugular and finish him instead of doing the SAFE ACT route. Time will tell….I wonder how his ego is going to be fill either the NYSPRA and/or Tresmond lawsuits finally put the final nail in the Safe Act coffin. Cuomo is probably going to go off the deep end so close to his reelection year of 2014 IF and I do mean IF the Safe Act goes down in flames…time will tell!
Democrats in the legislature, especially Shelly, gain by having a weakened Cuomo. They would be more likely to get their way, push issues, pork projects, etc.
Hilliary & Biden supporters gain by pushing him out of the way in ’16.
I think it can be adequately explained by two things:
1. Andrew Cuomo has always been anti-gun. Remember, he was the one who, as Clinton’s HUD secretary, negotiated the failed Smith & Wesson agreement, and he supported nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers as an end-around to legislation.
2. He recognized once elected that gun control was a non-starter. He thought that changed after Sandy Hook, but seeing that his window of opportunity was very, very small, he did an end-around of the legislative process.
I don’t think it was necessarily anything more than a bad miscalculation on Cuomo’s part, with his NYC-centric viewpoint. It’s the sort of thing that goes over well below Westchester county, but only in very urban pockets upstate.
The answer is simple – total civilian disarmament is the end game of the Socialists. Cuomo saw an opening and he took it. The unSAFE Act was likely written years ago. All it needed to see the light of day was an opportunity. The murder of children is a tragedy to some and a political opportunity to others.