Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bearing Arms

Paper Corrects Endorsement Of Candidate Over Anti-Gun Remarks

Recommended Posts


Tedra Cobb, the Democratic Congressional candidate for New York District 21, got caught on camera saying she supported an “assault weapon ban.” She said she couldn’t campaign on it because she’d get her butt handed to her, but Cobb still said she supports it.

Now, Cobb had to get a newspaper endorsement “corrected” because it said that she supported such a ban.

In its Monday endorsement, the Times Union promoted Cobb’s apparent support of a ban as part of the reason for endorsing her.

“On gun rights, she favors universal background checks, including on gun show sales and private transactions, enacting ‘red flag’ laws that would allow courts to take guns away from people exhibiting dangerous behavior, and reimposing an assault weapons ban while addressing criticisms about inconsistencies and loopholes in the last one,” the paper originally wrote, according to a cached copy of the editorial.

The campaign disavowed the endorsement’s description of Cobb’s position on an assault weapons ban.

“She did not explicitly say she supported an assault weapons ban,” Brian Phillips Jr., Cobb campaign spokesperson, told the Press-Republican, despite what Cobb said in the video.

“Tedra explained the inconsistencies and unanticipated consequences that arose from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban,” Phillips told the paper. “It did not work.”

In response, the Times Union issued a correction for their endorsement.

“Correction: An earlier version of this editorial stated that Tedra Cobb favors reimposing an assault weapons ban. She says she wants to address gun violence through widely supported gun control measures but not repeat the errors of the previous federal ban,” the correction reads.

So how did this happen?

That’s a good question. Many newspapers sit down with candidates to discuss issues prior to giving endorsements. I find it difficult to believe that one video from months ago triggered the paper to believe that Cobb supported an assault weapon ban.

Instead, I find it far more likely that she admitted the same thing again to the friendly audience of newspaper editors and asked that they not mention it. They forgot, included it in their endorsement, and created embarrassment for Cobb. She may well have also explained issues with the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, but I somehow suspect her issues with that law were far different from mine.

After all, many on the anti-gun side argue that the law didn’t work because it wasn’t comprehensive enough.

Either way, I find it fascinating that the very same candidate who was caught on film saying she wanted an assault weapon ban had something like this happen. After all, we already know how Cobb feels on the issue of gun rights. She’s not a supporter of the Second Amendment, no matter how her campaign tries to spin it. I can’t help but feel that somehow, this is yet another example of Cobb being caught saying what she really believes rather than the sanitized version she presents to the public.

The truth is Cobb is as anti-gun as any Democrat you’ll find. That much is clear based on her own words in the past. If anything, this newspaper endorsement should serve as a reminder for Second Amendment supporters in that district that Cobb doesn’t care about your sacred and protected constitutional rights.

The post Paper Corrects Endorsement Of Candidate Over Anti-Gun Remarks appeared first on Bearing Arms.

View the full article

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Who Viewed the Topic

    1 member has viewed this topic:

Who we are

We are a community of concerned patriots who are not overly confident in the current direction of our society, from the wild political climate to what can be summed up as a lack of morals or a complete void of integrity and pretty much a blatant disregard of respect..... Respect for our past, respect for our future and respect for each other. In order to protect our constitution and life as we know it, we decided to not be the silent majority anymore and pull our selves up by the bootstraps and make the world a better place. This website is to unite people like us, people who want to make a difference ... and do it the right way, Little did we know that in doing so we would create the number one militia community online. Here we are. Enjoy.


We require all members to think before they post. We understand the issues raised on this site may lead to heated debate, but we still require all users to maintain a respectful environment. My Militia website bears no responsibility for the accuracy of anyone's comments and will bear no responsibility or legal liability for any discussion postings. We reserve the right to remove posts without notice, and the right to ban anyone who willfully violates the rules. All content is posted live with no moderation. If you see something that you think shouldn't be here please report it so we can handle it accordingly. Always respect the privacy of others if something is shared with you in a private fashion such as real names, emails or phone numbers. Please keep them private.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy