Gun control doesn’t work, but let’s keep doing it anyway because, well, we’ve got nothing else. From today’s Daily News op-ed, “Get the guns: Wanton slaying of 13-year-old cries out for crackdown on firearms“:
“… Mayor Bloomberg has filed lawsuits and staged sting operations to try to halt the flood of weapons that flow up I-95 and into New York. He has mobilized mayors around the country. And still a revolver found its way to a teenager who didn’t have the sense not to use it …”
So they’re basically admitting their gun control schemes don’t work as advertised. A rational person would recognize failure, stop and try something else. Not the DN:
“… the NYPD must keep going after guns. Must keep up the stop-and-frisks that so outrage civil libertarians. Must confront suspicious-looking passersby. Because that’s the best way to try to save lives …”
Translation: Fuck the Constitution. What we need is a fascist police state. We’re going to save your life even if it kills you.
Mayor Mike is looking for some attention again. MAIG just released a report titled, “Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns.” It looks like they’re largely repackaging their same old ideas to keep their issues in the media. I don’t see this going anywhere. Neither Congress nor Obama have any desire to take up any gun control schemes right now.
- Gun control isn’t a winning issue even in NYC. Both candidates made guns a central issue in their campaigns and it did not help either of them one bit. NYC Democrats had a clear choice between the gun control candidate and someone else. They choose the someone else.
- There’s no money in gun control. Aborn got a whopping $1000 from the Brady’s, Yassky got nothing. This is insignificant in races which cost millions of dollars.
- There is no grassroots in gun control. Where were the GOTV efforts from NYAGV? Mailings, advertisements, signs, phone banks? I didn’t see any of that.
- We can play in races anywhere in the state. Most of the gun control bills in Albany are sponsored by NYC Democrats who do not think we can touch them in their districts. This proves them wrong.
The Politico ponders, “What if Reid loses?“:
“It’s a question few in the Senate will ask aloud but one that’s creeping into the chamber’s collective consciousness: What happens to Democrats if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid really does get knocked off in the 2010 midterm elections? … The two men who would almost certainly battle to succeed Reid — Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Chuck Schumer of New York — are both more liberal and more forcefully partisan figures who would alter the Senate’s equilibrium in significant and unpredictable ways …”
I don’t know if that actually would have much affect on gun rights. While we would trade an individual B+ Senator for an F rated one, I would guess the overall gun grade for the Senate will lean even more pro-gun after the ’10 elections because I’m expecting the Democrats to lose seats. Schumer would be even more insufferable as Majority Leader, but I don’t see it as a disaster for gun rights.
David Yassky is a former staffer to Charles Schumer. He’s the guy who actually wrote the Brady Bill. He moved up to the City Council where he continued to push for more gun control like strict gun dealer liability. Pat, Amy and Barry testified on behalf of NYSRPA in council hearings against these ideas. Yassky himself defended them on NRA News. Faced with term limits Yassky decided to run for City Comptroller. He has no background related to finance so he based his campaign largely on his gun control record. Both the Daily News and New York Times endorsed his campaign because of it. New Yorkers Against Gun Violence founder Barbara Hohlt personally contributed to his campaign. His advertisements loudly and proudly touted his work with Schumer. Yassky thought it was funny we were telling people to vote against him:
… “This is a badge of honor for David, who has fought for tough gun control for years in order to protect New Yorkers.” …
What did this badge of honor get him in the primary?
Unfortunately, it was a 4-way race and the winner came up just short of the 40% needed to prevent a runoff. So Yassky advanced to round two anyway and we let fly a second GOTV mailing. Now going mano-a-mano with John Liu, Democrats would have a clear choice between the gun control candidate and someone else in a citywide runoff. Yassky had something Richard Aborn didn’t: an endorsement by Charles Schumer.
And what’s Schumer’s endorsement worth?
A double digit loss. Yassky gets 44.3% to Liu’s 55.7%.
Since he had to give up his Council seat to run for Comptroller he’s got nowhere else to go so he’s outta here. For the second time in as many weeks NYC Democrats have rejected the gun control candidate and their agenda and that will further marginalize the people and organizations who promoted them.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it:
Former President Bill Clinton predicts that Democrats won’t suffer the kind of political meltdown that hobbled his administration after the 1994 elections … he says Democrats have not taken on the gun lobby, which he blames for more than a dozen lost seats in 1994 …