Democratic Candidate Admits She Can't Support Assault Weapons Ban or She'll Lose
SAM DORMAN | JUL 11, 2018 | 5:04 PM
A Democratic candidate said that while she supported an assault weapons ban, publicly supporting one would cost her an electoral win.

The video showed New York congressional candidate Tedra Cobb recalling an encounter in which she told a woman that an assault weapons ban was electoral suicide.

After Cobb told the woman she supported an assault weapons ban, she said, “I want you to know, Cindy. I cannot say that out loud.”

When the woman said she wanted Cobb to say it out loud, Cobb said, "I won't win.'' According to Cobb, even gun control group Moms Demand Action tells politicians to avoid losses by keeping quiet about their support for assault weapons bans.

“I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, 'Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win,'” Cobb said. As The Washington Free Beacon reported, Pleau is a member of Moms Demand Action's New York chapter.
Watch:



Cobb is running against Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) in the state's right-leaning 21st Congressional District. In an apparent promotional video, Cobb called for legislation that would reduce gun violence as well as find a balance between Second Amendment protections and public safety.

Watch:



Cobb's website's section on gun violence called for bans on bump stocks as well as universal background checks but didn't mention assault weapons.

Her comments came just before a contentious midterm election in which gun control will likely be a key issue, and gun control activists have rallied around survivors from the Parkland, Florida, mass shooting in February.

The National Republican Congressional Committee reportedly accused Cobb of trying to hide her “liberal agenda” from voters.

“Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters,” NRCC regional press secretary Chris Martin told the Free Beacon.

“First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.”

In response to the video, Cobb defended herself and seemed to deflect from her position on assault weapons.

“There are a lot of common-sense things we need to do right now to make our kids safer without getting stuck on a stalemate issue like an Assault Weapons B an (sic) that would not pass this Congress and would not get signed by this president,” she told the Watertown Daily Times.
https://ijr.com/2018/07/110900...g3iRA&_hsmi=64401195

This is the GOOD Part of NY and people like her lurk amongst you!

Love it when they outright admit it’s about retaining power and not backing up their bullshit talking points.

Gun control groups like MOMS and the cut rate Dollar Store brand Giffords are fund raising and pocket lining organizations only. They get a bunch of gullible patsies to follow them and give them money. They quote stuff like "90 percent of Americans agree with our goal to end gun violence (IE ban all guns)".

But, when it comes down to the nut cutting, they know this to be the very fact outside of major metro areas. They can't win running on gun control. So, they beg for money, throw around a bunch of scare tactics, spend 10 percent on the cause, and profit.

I hate the lying leftists who say they don't want to take away peoples' guns when it's obvious that's exactly what they want to do. But what I hate even more is the large number of dumb bunnies who can't see through their bullshit and continue to believe and parrot said BS.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
This is the GOOD Part of NY and people like her lurk amongst you!

I lived Northeast of Watertown for ten years. They don't lurk, and it's not even an open secret. There's good people out in the country, but they're largely par-boiled frogs. Watertown, Potsdam, Canton, Saranac Lake, Lake Placid, Plattsburgh are all upstate college towns with extremely high concentrations of liberals. I went to college in Potsdam, which is about a mile or so from Clarkson University, which is just a town away from Saint Lawrence University, all within about about ten minutes of driving. Liberal as fuck, the whole area. Get about a hundred yards outside of town and you're into "the good part" of New York, where they don't own "assault rifles" that aren't pre-ban, because the 1994 Federal AWB was echoed as permanent state law long before it had a chance to sunset.

In 2007, a friend of mine came back from his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. One hungover Saturday morning on his couch, smoking cigarettes and watching Blood Diamond, he randomly asked if I owned an AR. "Nope, can't afford one." He got up, went to his room and came back with six 30rd mags he brought back from overseas and handed them to me, saying "you'll probably want these some day." I told him I couldn't take them, and he insisted, saying he brought home plenty, all used but serviceable. He planned to keep enough for himself, but he specifically wanted to give some to other like-minded individuals when he got home.

There's good people in New York state. Some of the really good ones have lived somewhere else and haven't grown up par-boiled.

Intellectually dishonest.

May not say it, but will vote for it if given the chance. The best policy is don’t give them the chance.

That would be number 2 on the best 30 quotes of Thomas Sowell list.

quote:

2. “No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are
not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems – of
which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is
number three is far behind.”

Link

There should be repercussions / consequences if a politician indicates one thing during elections (ie - not a proponent of gun bans) and does something different in office (ie - votes for gun bans).

In this case, she may not be riding a platform of AWB but when asked, she needs to respond that she would vote for an AWB. Otherwise, it's an immoral and unethical misleading of the voting populace. Complete misrepresentation of her intents. Her vote shouldn't count and she should be removed from office with immediate effect.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
There should be repercussions / consequences if a politician indicates one thing during elections (ie - not a proponent of gun bans) and does something different in office (ie - votes for gun bans).

In this case, she may not be riding a platform of AWB but when asked, she needs to respond that she would vote for an AWB. Otherwise, it's an immoral and unethical misleading of the voting populace. Complete misrepresentation of her intents. Her vote shouldn't count and she should be removed from office with immediate effect.

Short of President Trump, show me ONE that doesn't do this crap....

“Assault weapons”

So tired of readin this. A rake from your yard could be an assault weapon, your dick you could be an assault weapon, your automobile, a brick in your fucking face could be an assault brick. G damn the media.

I get it - she wants to ban, but her constituents won't let her.

Isn't that the way it is supposed to work, in some sense?

Now, why they keep electing her when her policies don't line with theirs is another question.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
Intellectually dishonest.

May not say it, but will vote for it if given the chance. The best policy is don’t give them the chance.

exactly

why give them the chance - they're democrats - we know they're liars to begin with

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
There should be repercussions / consequences if a politician indicates one thing during elections (ie - not a proponent of gun bans) and does something different in office (ie - votes for gun bans).

In this case, she may not be riding a platform of AWB but when asked, she needs to respond that she would vote for an AWB. Otherwise, it's an immoral and unethical misleading of the voting populace. Complete misrepresentation of her intents. Her vote shouldn't count and she should be removed from office with immediate effect.

Short of President Trump, show me ONE that doesn't do this crap....

James Comer
http://jamescomer.com

The repercussions should be having it shoved down their throat in the next election, and getting voted out.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
There should be repercussions / consequences if a politician indicates one thing during elections (ie - not a proponent of gun bans) and does something different in office (ie - votes for gun bans).

In this case, she may not be riding a platform of AWB but when asked, she needs to respond that she would vote for an AWB. Otherwise, it's an immoral and unethical misleading of the voting populace. Complete misrepresentation of her intents. Her vote shouldn't count and she should be removed from office with immediate effect.

To me, that's too late.....

New laws for which we assumed the official was opposed yet voted for have already passed.

We can't have Dems / RINO's posing as right leaning yet voting left leaning. Hate that.