(AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)
Related Articles
There's been a bipartisan victory of sorts for gun owners. From NRA-ILA:
An overwhelming, bipartisan majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have signed an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," brief supporting the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The amicus brief, bearing the signatures of 251 Members of Congress and 58 Senators, was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court today in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.
I noticed one conspicuous absence in particular among the signatories: formerly "pro gun" Kirsten Gillibrand, who abandoned her supportive gun-owning constituents to embrace the political opportunities of citizen disarmament on the national stage.
We've discussed the junior senator from New York on many occasions--see the "Related Articles" links to this column for details. The bottom line is, she no longer needs thefolks down home, and is working on a higher (or lower, if you look at things like I do) plane to secure her place at the table.
From Elizabeth Benjamin at the New York Daily News:
The upstate moderate has won the endorsement of Rep. Jerry Nadler, a former House colleague whose uber-liberal status could help her shore up support among still-skeptical fellow Democrats.
And in a follow-up report, Benjamin shows us to what extent:
...Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is scheduled to appear tomorrow with another former House colleague and onetime political opponent, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.
Gillibrand is to join the Long Island congresswoman, Mayor Bloomberg, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, the Brady Campaign and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence at John Jay College for a so-called "major announcement" (according to a press release) of a "new federal measure to combat gun violence."
The Carolyn McCarthy Show Thanksgiving Special? Gee, with an all-star lineup. And what will be on today's program?
From NewsDay.com:
McCarthy, Gillibrand team up to stop gun trafficking...
Unfortunately, you need a subscription to read the article, so I'll have more on this after the photo op. But I have seen this much: Public genuflection displays notwithstanding, Gillibrand still has not secured McCarthy's commitment for support.
And as far as gun owners are concerned, what the Republicans are thinking about offering actually has a much worse record.
------------
Another conspicuous absence
There is one other legislator who's lack of support for the McDonald lawsuit is notable: Rep. Ron Paul, who, according to Gun Owners of America, is practically without peer when it comes to the Second Amendment.
I called his office in Washington DC this morning and left a message with his press secretary, telling her who I was and why I was calling. I'll keep trying until I get an answer.
[Thanks to The Packetman for pointing this out to me.]
------------
Kirsten and the vanishing virtual 2nd Amendment
As a curious aside to all this, I noted some months ago that the "Preserving 2nd Amendment rights" page on Kirsten's website was still a work in progress, with the promise of "Coming soon" to keep us on our seats to see how much she's backtracked.
If we can take these results as an indicator, the answer would appear to be "Completely."
The link no longer works. Neither does a search on her site for either "2nd Amendment" or "Second Amendment" produce relevant results. And sorry, "sportsmen," there are no results "hunting," either, although "shooting" produces some interesting negative results, and wait 'til you get a load of what "gun" yields.
Comments
Ron Paul likely understands that "incorporation" is merely an expansion of federal power. The 14th Amendment is a nuanced area of law, the original intent of which has been lost in excessive federal meddling.
Kirsten Arnold? Benedict Gillibrand? What was her name again? What a vile piece of back-stabbing, traitorous trash.
Ah, that siren song of raw, unbridled power. She's not the first whore I've run into that would eat her own children.
CJ's right .... Mr Paul doesn't condone unjustifiable means to get a correct end.
She fits right in with all the other whores that make up the U.S.Congress
I want to know when we are going to take our country back from all the whores and communists that are running our great nation into the ground. 2010 can't get here soon enough to suit me.
William Rawle, who Washington wanted for first AG, and whose "View of the Constitution" was standard text at Dartmouth and Harvard in the early 19th Century, said the Second Amendment could be appealed to as a restraint on both federal and state legislatures.
Since rights are about the individual, I fail to see how favoring "states rights" over individual rights yields more freedom. Particularly in this case.
Nevertheless, this debate is premature. Let's see if the Paul camp responds, and then dissect HIS words, not our speculations. How about we steer this discussion back to Gillibrand, and when and if Paul replies, I'll do a post just for that?
Sean +1
Prior to 1998, Massachusetts Republican state senator Jane Swift's website said:
"My position on gun control has been very consistent and vocal. As a state Senator I have opposed measures which have attempted to ban various types of assault weapons. I have always held an individual's constitutional right to bear arms in high regard. I, and my staff, have spent a great deal of time researching this issue, and we have concluded that the banning of firearms, as cited in a recent state bill, H.5850, would not reduce the incidence of violent crime... ...if criminals continue to blatantly ignore our existing laws, the passage of another gun-control measure will not take adequate steps to ensure safety on our streets."
Couldn't be clearer, right?
(cont'd)
But when she became Lt. Gov. to Cellucci, who was proposing a statewide ban on "assault weapons," her song changed: "I do support Governor Cellucci's statewide ban on assault weapons." The media chortled that Swift had "reversed her opposition to the death penalty and the assault-weapons ban to match his position"... and of course they were 100% right.
My question for Jane Swift back then was the same as my question for Kirsten Gillibrand today: "How much for all night?"
I wonder how much cash is in the freezer? SOLD! to the highest bidder.
Lot of good those NRA "A" ratings do.
But worry not - she's undoubtedly got her own protection. Everyone else can just sit & spin.
Whores give honest value for the dollar, and don't take the money at gunpoint. Stop soiling honest businesswomen by association with things like Gillibrand.
I regard the NRA as the culprit here, many of us already knew she would stab us in the back. Anymore when the NRA endorses someone it means "beware".
ahhh, no Kent. A prostitute will enter into a contract and take her pay and deliver the goods. A whore will lay down with you for whatever she can get, with no contract, take what she can talk you out of, and then when you aren't looking she will steal your wallet. There is a difference between a whore and a prostitute. Although, you did get Gillibrand right, she is a whore, she isn't nearly as honorable as a prostitute, you gave whores too much credit.
straightarrow, excellent analysis.
David, Ron Paul is a constitutional purist the fourteenth amendment was never needed maybe that he knows something is wrong with the case.
David you quoted William Rawle didn’t Rawle say that the 2A was meant to apply to the federal and State governments as written?
Remember if the 2A is incorporated it becomes an incorporated right meaning of man and not recognized as a natural right meaning of God.
Don’t condemn Ron Paul; maybe he’s heard the whispers in the cloakrooms of DC about how they want an excuse for national registration.
Why do you think there’s an effort to repeal the Slaughter House verdict in the brief submitted by Alan Gura?
Gura understands that the immunities and protections were stripped from the 14th amendment if those are not restored then a pro-McDonald ruling could open the door to national gun registration.
Remember the NRA is not on our side.
As I said, let's see if the Paul camp will respond and then deal with their position rather than try to define it for them. It's a legitimate debate to have, but I want to conduct it in the context of what they say, rather than what we think they'll say. If I hear from them--and I'm wondering the reason why I haven't--I promise I'll give this a complete airing.
SA- What you are calling a "whore" I call a "slut who is also a thief" (which I think fits the discussion here quite well). I have no problem with honest sluts, by the way. I was just thinking in the old usage of the word "whore", not the more recent connotation.
This does it for me. DO NOT re-elect ANYONE!
Take another look at the picture. The slick looking guy in the foregound is noted statesman Chuckie "Da Weasel" Schumer. Notice Ms. Gillibrand is evidently aware that the most dangerous place to stand in DC is between him and the cameras. Somebody needs to tell her the old one about lying down with dogs & the resultant fleas.
She walks the Chuck S. goose step what more is there to say?Even at the beginning she was questionable and I felt I was going to be played.Hilllary walked the Chucky walk and now the UN walk.I see Kirsten Gillibrand being a repeat preformance.Grt rid of the head of the snake!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!