Posted on 01/27/2009 8:55:08 AM PST by paltz
Incoming U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., takes office today amid criticism from gun control supporters, who say they are troubled by the National Rifle Association's endorsement and a stance favoring what she has called "hunters' rights."
During two years in the House, Gillibrand has built only a short record on gun issues, but each of the votes placed her squarely on the side of gun rights. Those votes dovetail with her campaign rhetoric, including proclamations last year that she is "a strong supporter of the Second Amendment" and "will continue to oppose legislation that will restrict the rights of responsible gun owners."
The voting record and campaign promises were enough to earn her an "A" grade and 100 percent rating from the NRA last year — and spark angry reactions from gun control advocates. who said Gillibrand's Senate appointment puts her outside the mainstream of sentiment in the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesunion.com ...
The 94’ congressional sweep by the GOP was partly a result of overreach by democRATs on guns. They will never learn.
The NRA does not exist solely for “hunters’ rights”. They also exist for the protection of the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. This amendment was inserted SPECIFICALLY to keep the spirit of the Declaration of Independence alive, and when it comes time to call a halt to the progression toward tyranny, the citizens have the right to take up arms against oppression.
And use those arms.
The nascent obama regime has succeeded in reviving interest in gun ownership. What the heck, the head of the nascent obama regime has caused a LARGE surge of interest in listening to Rush Limbaugh.
T oge telected in New York she will need the vote and cash from the big libtard run cities. Look for her to come out in favor of AWB, “reasonable” ammo laws, etc.
She’s not going to undermine her own father and brothers.
No they will let her stay as she is on guns so that eventually, when they need her, they can claim she is a baby killing version of Palin.
She will. She will change to suit the environment she is in.
We’ll see.
Especially after the gun control lobby’s reaction to the shooting deaths of Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Sean Bell, I find it silly to take them seriously.
Indeed, we’ll see. I imagine she talks about “hunters” because it makes it easier to defend the Second Amendment to moonbats.
I gather she is pro-abortion, and otherwise qualified to be a NY Democrat. So this is the issue they are pushing her on.
Her strong point is that it’s only fair to have at least one politician representing upstate NY, which has been taxed into the ground and had its economy killed in order to support the city with the welfare benefits it is accustomed to.
She announced that she would work on making sure that criminals are not able to purchase guns.
She did not say that she wanted to enforce new gun restrictions on law abiding citizens.
Time will tell what she actually does in the Senate.
Believe it or not, upstate is a massive net tax recipient from downstate. While downstate has most of the welfare recipients, downstate also has almost all of the high earners who pay most of the state income tax. Upstate also has plenty of prisons, roads, and state parks which provide local jobs and orders to local businesses, funded from downstate tax dollars.
(Indeed, you can make this even more narrow: state income taxes on people who work in Manhattan, regardless of where they live, provide an economic surplus which pays for state-funded services for those who work in every other borough and county in the state.)
This is true. Unfortunately it took 10 years to get rid of the assault weapons ban. Even then, we are still saddled with it in California and a number of other unfortunate states.
This time 'round there won't be a time limit on the AWB legislation and it will be much more difficult to get rid of.
Besides, the Republican Party was much more of a force in '94 than it is today. Who will have the vision, moral courage to and the visibility to shift the focus of the congressional election to national as opposed to district issues?
Um, probably, because like, you know?
I’m of the opinion that 51 rounds to take somebody down is incredibly stupid and unnecessary. Maybe gun control laws for cops should be instituted.
At least forcing them to qualify 4 times a year would be a start, with failure at the range leading to unarmed desk duty.
When Republicans have stances that differ from the platform and leadership, they’re “mavericks” and “moderate” and “bi-partisan”. When a Democrat has an idea that hasn’t been cleared, it’s a “cause for concern”.
I guess it’s better than nothing, but why did the price have to be 2-8 years of Democrat-socialist-Marxist tyranny?
I assume that, since she is no longer representing the somewhat conservative upstate New Yorkers, and is instead representing all of mostly liberal New York State, her positions will change. She will, after all, want to be reelected 10 or 15 times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.