Last April, New Jersey State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D), representing one of the state's more rural, gun-friendly (by Jersey standards, anyway) districts, handed the state's forcible citizen disarmament zealots a rare defeat, when his opposition to banning 11-round and larger magazines effectively killed a magazine ban bill. And according to NorthJersey.com, it was all an act:
Yet there was nothing simple about Sweeney’s announcement [last month, declaring his support for precisely the legislation he had killed less than a year previously], 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.
In other words, to refer to his earlier opposition as "an act" is perhaps giving him too much credit--perhaps "a lie" would be a more accurate assessment.
So what made last month "the appropriate time"? According to the NorthJersey.com article, with Sweeney's reelection last November, he has probably faced his last need to serve the interests of his constituents in his relatively pro-gun district. Now, evidently, he is expected to pursue his gubernatorial ambitions in a state that, unlike his district, is dominated by an electorate largely receptive to draconian "gun control" measures. Seen in that light, even calling his earlier opposition to a magazine ban "a lie" might be letting him off to easily. Perhaps it should be called a cynical, self-serving, snollygoster's lie.
In fact, even with the article's obvious anti-gun bias, starkly illustrated by its characterization--twice--of New Jersey's extremist enthusiasm for draconian gun laws as "moderate" (is there such thing as "moderately tyrannical"?), it refers to Sweeney's "evolution" as coming at "the appropriate time--for Sweeney's political career," and describes his adjustment to a different electorate as "a pragmatic pivot to the left."
And this is far from unprecedented. Remember when then-United States Representative Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) was an NRA darling, when she represented a largely rural, pro-gun electorate in upstate New York? She then became a U.S. Senator, with a political imperative to pander to the very anti-gun electorate of the state as a whole, and would now be hard-pressed to find a piece of anti-gun legislation not worthy of her enthusiastic support.
Such is the reality of "pro-gun" Democrats, it would seem.
- A pro-gun pick?
- The 'evolution' of Kirsten Gillibrand
- The turning of Kirsten Gillibrand
- For Kirsten Gillibrand, breaking up isn't hard to do
- Sotomayor Supreme Court confirmation divides 'pro gun' senators
- Kirsten Gillibrand ramps up abandonment of gun owners
- ‘Pro-gun Democrats’ AWOL from ‘Project Gunwalker’
- A-rated, endorsed ‘pro-gun Democrat’ shows true colors as NRA stays silent
- Senate confirms Jones to head ATF following Heitkamp delay on cloture
- NRA silence gave pass to ‘pro gun Democrats’ who voted for ‘nuclear option’
- NRA failing members by ignoring immigration threat to gun rights
- 'Gun loving liberals' are welcome to the debate, but who can they vote for?
- ‘Pro-gun Democrat’ once more places Obama administration over gun rights