| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: Politix | ||
| Gillibrand Switches Stance on Guns | ||
| 2009-02-28 | ||
| Senator Kirstin Gillibrand is under fire from conservatives for changing her positions on several major issues since being chosen by Governor Paterson to replace Hillary Clinton. Gillibrand had earned a reputation as a moderate Democrat from upstate, but this week she frustrated the NRA by changing her mind about a bill to make it easier to trace gun purchases. The National Rifle Association used to love Kirstin Gillibrand, but on the day she was selected to join the Senate, downstate politicians predicted she would change positions on guns. "I'm confident that as Kirsten comes to see the cities of the state, and sees the problem of gun violence, her views will evolve to reflect the whole state, and that is part of the process," Senator Chuck Schumer said.
Mike Centola of nyfirearms.com was disappointed. He'd welcomed the selection of Gillibrand, but now he wonders if she ever truly valued gun rights. He said, "I think it should be very important to her...if she's claiming to represent upstate gun enthusiasts, that she stick to that and not say one thing and then do something different." According to Gillibrand's spokespersons, she didn't understand the gun legislation she sponsored last year.
Freshmen Congressman Eric Massa says he will not change his mind on guns. In his statement Friday, he said simply, "I will not support new federal gun control legislation." | ||
| Posted by:Fred |
| #5 Gun owners as a group cannot be content to hold a static defense on gun rights. The have to be assertive in improving and increasing their rights. For example, if a group of parents created a gun club for children, I have no doubts that the anti-gunners would accuse them of "child abuse", and try to stop it. This is an outgrowth of schools having a zero tolerance policy to even mentioning guns--which should also be challenged. Another example would be to encourage judges to *require* training and the carrying of weapons in public by people who are at risk for violence, especially abused women. There is incredible demand for protection for such women, far beyond the ability of the authorities to provide. Therefore, they must protect themselves. A court order to be armed is an effective "nudge" to get them to do this. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-02-28 17:58 |
| #4 as GH9014, either she's reversed her lifelong take on the Constitutional protections of the 2nd amendment, and the slippery slope, or she's an opportunistic political whore. It would be different if she said: "I support gun ownership, but my mind could be changed if polls told me otherwise to get reelected". At least then, she would be truthful. But then she wouldn't be a Democrat, would she? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-02-28 17:00 |
| #3 She swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. THAT is what should guide her in how she votes. |
| Posted by: Gleath Henbane9014 2009-02-28 16:50 |
| #2 As a representative of an upstate district she 'represented' their position by voting in favor of gun owner rights. Now she is a Senator and 'represents' the whole state, and as a whole the state opposes gun owner rights, so that's how she votes. Is she supposed to vote her personal preferences or to vote representing the preferences of her constituency? It is a fundamental question of how our system works. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-02-28 13:41 |
| #1 "I have strong principles, that I will change often" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-02-28 13:09 |