Kirsten Gillibrand’s ascendancy to the Senate has been a good lesson on how gun control thrives. This New York Times piece indicates she’s softening her support of gun rights a bit.
Understand that these articles have a purpose, a political purpose. They are intended to cajole Gillibrand out of her previous gun rights positions by limiting her range of action. If the New York Times comes out and says Gillibrand is softening her position on guns, with a new state-wide view, well, then she better do it. The paper of record now has her on record.
And this, my friends, is how gun control thrives. A media willing to guilt politicians out of positions they find unsavory, and a population who doesn’t have enough experience with the issue to know differently. Will Kirsten Gillibrand hold strong? I hope she does. But I would be reluctant to count her as a reliable vote in our favor should something come up.  A lot of that will depend on what gun owners are willing to do for her if she angers the New York Times.
UPDATE: Bitter suggests in the comments that the NYT is trying to characterize her as sofening, but doesn’t believe she’s given any indication that she’s changing her position. I should be clear that I think this is the case, but I still think it’s difficult to say whether she’d be a reliable vote at this point. I’m honestly just not sure how much gun owners in New York State have to offer her if she votes on a bill in a way that will piss off the New York City political elite. Right now she’s under a lot of pressure to cave on this issue, and remember, she has to win a Democratic primary in one of the bluest states in the country. What incentive are gun owners going to offer her to stay a favorable vote?
I think it’s misleading to say that “Gillibrand [is] softening on [the] gun Issue.” I think it’s more accurate to say that the NYT is trying to pressure her to change her positions.
What specific proposals did she cite in the article? “…expanded access to after-school programs, job training and other alternatives to joining gangs.” That’s hardly “softening on [the] gun issue.”
She also said she wants to crack down on already illegal activity, again, that’s not really taking a softer stance.
Every other proposal in there was mentioned by someone else, not her.