Author Topic: Senator Gillibrand (Read 2468 times)

rebAL · « **on:** January 27, 2009, 02:34:20 AM »

Now that she represets the whole state, Ms. Gillibrand now states she may have to 'Adjust" her position regarding gun conrol. Prior to her "New" position she represented a rural hunting district and said "Hunters" should have a right to have their guns, tieing in gun ownership with only hunting. This liberal demorat only got elected due to her previous pro-gun conservative republican opponent's wife beating episode just prior to election. She is a party line liberal who will say anything to get elected.

Graybeard · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2009, 02:38:58 AM »

Yet another case of the NRA selling you out. She pretended to be pro gun to get elected in a pro gun district and the NRA pretended to believe her and help her get elected even tho it's so clear that dumocraps are really never pro gun.

In the coming months and years ahead watch for the NRA to sell you out more and more often.

hillbill · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2009, 02:49:05 AM »

jeez the truth hurts, i was hoping we were maybe getting sumone on our side up there in dc.

rebAL · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2009, 06:02:27 AM »

Quote from: Graybeard on January 27, 2009, 02:38:58 AM

Yet another case of the NRA selling you out. She pretended to be pro gun to get elected in a pro gun district and the NRA pretended to believe her and help her get elected even tho it's so clear that dumocraps are really never pro gun.

In the coming months and years ahead watch for the NRA to sell you out more and more often.

I see no evidence of NRA "Selling out". They were just wrong. Since Gilebrand had no record to stand on, all they had was her word. You & I know her word (And most demorats) is worthless but NRA had nothing else to go on. Gilebrand is another Klinton wanna be and will jump through hoops to be an insider like the Klintons.

Skunk · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2009, 06:08:50 AM »

That's very disappointing to say the least. It's becoming obvious that she had no real conviction for her stance on second amendment rights.

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2009, 01:37:05 PM »

OK, I've been fighting this battle on some other threads to support her. I think we can only go by what we know thus far. Everything I hear from folks on here bashing her is speculation. She may very well end up caving to the liberal anti gunners, but until then, let's not cast her aside just yet. There are many upstate NY democrats that are pro-gun, and many hunters that are democrats.

Graybeard - what is the basis for your claim that the NRA "sold us out"? Why will they be doing it more in the coming years? As an NRA Life Member, I am curious.

Graybeard · « **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2009, 01:50:28 PM »

The NRA caved and agreed we gun owners who they "supposedly" represent can really live with each and ever antigun measure passed so far. They bitch and moan to members then behind out back tell congress it'll be OK we'll live with it. They have compromised your rights away and until folks wake up and realize it we'll continue to lose rights.

You cannot compromise with folks taking something from you but agreeing that OK we'll give up just this one right for now and then next time saying well OK we'll give you one more of our precious rights. It's not a compromise when one side does all the taking and the other all the giving.

hillbill · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2009, 04:12:24 PM »

i dont guess ive ever met a dem that was truly pro gun, but then i dont git out much anymore.

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2009, 04:17:39 PM »

Perhaps, but where would be without the NRA and other similar groups? As outdoorsmen I think we need to stick together and even if a group doesn't completely represent you, we need to find the good that they do. For years I did not belong to the NRA because I felt they were too radical in their stance. Sounds to me like you feel they are not radical enough. I think it is a matter of picking your battles and knowing when to give a little for the good of the long term benefit. If you don't bend at all, you'll break.

Graybeard · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2009, 06:17:00 PM »

On some issues there is NO ROOM for bending. Giving up freedom and GOD given rights seems to fit that category for me. Apparently not for the NRA and maybe not for you.

Mikey · « **Reply #10 on:** January 28, 2009, 02:21:50 AM »

Boss - you posted in another thread that she was simply a party turncoat and that she had already caved into the anti gun people. Gladly, not true.

Every other anti-gun democrap on the books has twisted it one way or another. shumer has hoped for some way to twist her words to a workable party line anti-gun sentiment and has failed at every effort. mccarthy has vowed to run against her or find someone who will, due to her pro-gun stance.

The last reading on this, since nothing new has come out in the last two days was a newspaper article that measured her as going anti-gun by stating she has said that 'there is a lot of common ground' available to both views but that she represents a broader advocacy that those who seek to control gun violence in the cities. And she mentioned 'cities' specifically. Sure there is common ground - the 3 Strike program is one common ground and tougher judges are another. She continues to support firearms ownership and hunting rights and she doesn't tie ownership directly to hunting.

Let's understand one thing - the media who reports all this crap is the same media that twists anyone's words to their approach - and you're gonna belive that crap??? This woman eats a Thanksgiving dinner with her family that was shot that morning by one of her family - do you think she is going to give up that part of her culture for someone like shumer.

paterson appointed her because he knew it would bring him upstate in the next election and this means support for the shooting sports and hunting. This woman is no klinton or pelosi or mccarthy. I don't usually curry favor with democraps because of their liberal party line and move for big government with all inclusive powers but I have found a lot more of those people joining our gun clubs before they find themselves on the losing end of being able to hunt, shoot or defend themselves. And this woman definately knows there is no way she would advocate a nyc culture upstate - like water and oil Boss, doesn't mix and she knows it. Mikey.

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #11 on:** January 28, 2009, 03:29:00 PM »

I thought the right to bear arms was guaranteed to us as US citizens by the constitution, not God. And I disagree - there must always be room for bending or else society can not evolve but will perish.

1marty · « **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2009, 03:53:54 PM »

I believe the anti gunners have given up the fight to ban firearms. What they are doing now is either to tax the the stuffing out of firearms and "finger print" all ammo to make it prohibitive to purchse.
The old saying goes politicians should only be allowed to serve 2 terms: one in congress and the other in jail.

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #13 on:** January 29, 2009, 03:28:54 AM »

1Marty,

I believe you are correct on that. That was also the sneaky tactic used by the Governor's office (not saying the Gov, because I think Judy Enck was behind it) to close the Reynolds Pheasant Farm. The tactic is to not come right out directly in opposition to hunting but rather to slowly eliminate the opportunities, particularly for youngsters. There would be slow but sure erosion of interest in hunting until we get to the point where so few kids are hunting anymore, that it would become irrelevant to the economy and will be gone from our culture. Then watch out. Different issue, similar underhanded tactic. I think sportsmen need to be vigilante for these types of tactics going forward or the antis will have slipped in while we are asleep at the deerstand.

FLNT4EVR · « **Reply #14 on:** January 29, 2009, 03:49:00 AM »

Gillibrand keeps spouting off about "hunters rights". Her beliefs don't necessairly follow along with the second ammendment which has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.She will be right there with the rest when BO pushes his new AWB.

Graybeard · « **Reply #15 on:** January 29, 2009, 04:58:07 AM »

Quote

I thought the right to bear arms was guaranteed to us as US citizens by the constitution, not God. And I disagree - there must always be room for bending or else society can not evolve but will perish.

All I can tell you is you "thought wrong".

Rights are not granted or given by governments they are given us by GOD. Governments are also NOT going to protect or guarantee rights for you that's the job of all citizens. Governments no matter how grand and noble at the beginning become corrupt over time and must be watched like a hawk to prevent them from taking from you what GOD had given you.

If you are willing to bend and give away those rights little by little then I say to you that you sir are part of the problem not part of the solution. It is opinions like yours that have us where we are today and that in the not so far distant future will have all of us enslaved to the government no less so than the folks in China are today.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2009, 05:19:52 AM »

It is a God given instinct (therefore right) to protect yourself, and protect yourself with the best available weapons of the times. Early man used fire and spears, then went to bows, then guns. Our constitution, as originally interpreted by the ones who wrote it, is supposed to guarantee that right with our new form of government, to limit government's intrusion into those rights. The rights to your opinion, religion, and the ability to defend yourself (keep and bear arms). Liberals try to twist it to get their way.

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #17 on:** January 29, 2009, 03:20:04 PM »

Graybeard - I don't think our opinions are actually that far apart. But if owning a gun is a God given right, why don't my relatives in Germany have the right to own a gun? They believe in God too. That's one of the reasons why many years ago I chose to stay here and not move to Germany when I had an opportunity to do so. I think Dixie Dude has correctly sorted out God given vs constitutional rights.

Skunk · « **Reply #18 on:** January 29, 2009, 03:43:38 PM »

Quote from: Leatherstocking on January 29, 2009, 03:20:04 PM

But if owning a gun is a God given right, why don't my relatives in Germany have the right to own a gun? They believe in God too. I think Dixie Dude has correctly sorted out God given vs constitutional rights.

After reading what GB and DD wrote to you above, isn't the answer obvious to you Leatherstocking? Your relatives in Germany can not own a gun because they did what most of us on this forum and the rest of the supporters of the Second Amendment in America are trying so hard NOT to do - they gave up their God Given rights to their government. DD has indeed said it correctly, but so has GB. They both are equally correct in what they say.

Graybeard · « **Reply #19 on:** January 29, 2009, 06:40:05 PM »

Exactly. They elected Hitler and let him steal their rights from them and they have never since rose up and took them back. The US just elected a part black part white hitler here. He is working ferverishly to take our rights as well.

Spanky · « **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:31:58 AM »

Talk about hitting the nail on the head... GB, you got it

The NRA is slowly but surely turning it's back on those of us who it supposedly protects.

Spanky

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #21 on:** January 30, 2009, 08:37:23 AM »

Don't know, but maybe the NRA is overwhelmed right now trying to figure out which problem to fight. Like raising teenagers, can't fight every battle, you could wear yourself out. But being a member and a member of GOA both could help.

BBF · « **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2009, 08:40:36 AM »

GB: Are you writing that Germany had the equivalent of the US Second before the 3rd Reich??

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #23 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:09:10 AM »

Graybeard are you a member of GOA? Or who is really representing gun owners? I had a former supervisor several years ago who didn't own a gun, but was a member of the NRA just because they represented our rights as Americans. He was against big government and socialism.

Skunk · « **Reply #24 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:27:40 AM »

BBF,

When Hitler took office, gun registration laws were already in place courtesy of The Weimar government. After Hitler took power, the only persons who could own guns were the Nazis, Gestapo, Regular Police, the Wehrmacht (military), and regular citizens who were trusted and proven to be brainwashed in the Nazi ideology. Jews, political opponents, and any person who didn't accept the National Socialist program were forced to give up their weapons or be killed.

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2009, 02:18:16 PM »

Those who pointed out the Hitler did not take the guns are correct. Unfortunately Germany did not have a document called the constitution, which fortunately for us, our forefathers had the wisdom to write. We need to be vigilante against all attempst to erode it, but I still maintain that some kind of middle ground must be found. Otherwise extremist views will take hold and extremist positions like that is what always leads to the darkest moments in history (ie. Hitler, 9/11, etc).

We need to look at history to see why Hitler was elected. It was the extremist screwing given to Germany by the French after WWI that allowed Hitler to come to power. The people were so desperate for a better life, they would listen to anyone who promised that. Unfortunately (and this is where I definitely agree with Graybeard's last comment about Obama) we are indeed at a similar point in this country due to severe mismanagement the last few years and that is how Obama got elected. All we can do is stick together and continue the fight to preserve the integrity of the constitution.

WNY_Whitetailer · « **Reply #26 on:** February 07, 2009, 03:57:34 PM »

Quote from: Leatherstocking on January 30, 2009, 02:18:16 PM

All we can do is stick together and continue the fight to preserve the integrity of the constitution.

Is there another organization other than the NRA that we should be members of? Who else has the clout?

I guess only time which way our Senator will lean...I think I know which way it will be but I hope I am wrong.

torpedoman · « **Reply #27 on:** February 07, 2009, 05:28:02 PM »

has anyone else noticed the frequent "send money we are in real trouble" letters from the nra make you wonder if they secretely backed the dems to get more contributions.If the dems swore off gun control they would have to find jobs.

torpedoman · « **Reply #28 on:** February 07, 2009, 05:33:42 PM »

Quote from: WNY_Whitetailer on February 07, 2009, 03:57:34 PM

Quote from: Leatherstocking on January 30, 2009, 02:18:16 PM
All we can do is stick together and continue the fight to preserve the integrity of the constitution.

Is there another organization other than the NRA that we should be members of? Who else has the clout?

I guess only time which way our Senator will lean...I think I know which way it will be but I hope I am wrong.

Yes join the second amandment foundation (S.A.F) and the gun owners of america (G.O.A.) nothing says we can only belong to one. The saf in involved in a lot more court cases than the nra. the nra doesnt even have an email box were you can contact then the only way to contact them is to send money go to theiir web site and try to inform them of your views on something going on localy that affects you and your city or state.

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #29 on:** February 08, 2009, 11:27:07 AM »

Whitetailer,

In NY there is the NY Rifle & Pistol Assoc and the New York Conservation Council. I think the state level fights will be the most important anyway. Personally I am less concerned on the federal level.