(AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)
My reports on the "evolution" of "pro-gun" Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's public position on guns have struck a nerve in some quarters of the gun rights community. Accusations have included I forget this is New York we're talking about, that I am damning her with quotes of others, that, as usual, I don't know what I'm talking about, and my favorite--and this one is from an officer with a state gun rights group--that I engage in...uh...something I can't repeat here with my "fan boys" while watching "Red Dawn."
Whew. Tough crowd.
Well, there's more.
It may be Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's clearest flip-flop so far. In an interview with news 4 New York on Friday, Gillibrand said she would not vote for a bill she sponsored just eight months ago. "Not unless they fix it," She said.
Right. She had no idea what a bill that she sponsored said. I'd like one of my critics to explain how this is not either an outright lie, or else legislative malpractice due to incompetence.
The flip-flop flap is over "trace data." Regular readers will recall we discussed that here:
Aside from the fact that the Congressional Research Service has found trace data cannot be used for statistical purposes, we're not being given the straight story here. Trace data most definitely can be used by law enforcement "in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution."
And guess who opposes repeal? None other than BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police, not exactly known to be gun owners' best pals. It's entirely a matter of self-interest--they know from experience that ongoing investigations could become compromised, and officer lives could become endangered.
So why is this such a priority for the gunhaters? Well for one thing, exploiting trace data enabled New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to conduct out-of-state "sting" operations that allowed him to put the squeeze on small local gun shops.
And after their low-profile dodge on the Holder confirmation, I trust no one is surprised by this:
...NRA Spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said “It was too early to discuss whether her approval rating would drop because of her reversal on this issue...
Naturally, I'll continue to monitor and update this story as warranted. But later. "Red Dawn" is calling and my fan boys will be here any minute...
More on Kirsten Gillibrand:
'Pro-Gun Pick' pledges gun legislation (second feature at this link)
The 'evolution' of Kirsten Gillibrand
A pro-gun pick?
------------
Fraudulent Pay Claims at ATF?
That's what Lt. Col. Robert K. Brown, editor and publisher of Soldier of Fortune Magazine claims in a special report he's asking activist gun owners to share far and wide.
ATFE Special Agents were deployed in Iraq on 90-day TDY assignments between 2003 and 2008. During that time, they were paid $4,175,731.00 in unauthorized and unlawful overtime pay. They filed fraudulent claims for the overtime and ATFE senior officials did nothing to monitor the claims or review them for conformity with federal law and regulations. In other words, the ATFE Special Agents, law enforcement officers who are sworn to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, filed false time and attendance reports claiming pay for overtime which was not worked and for which payment was not authorized under federal law.
Click here to download the Word document and read more.
It also discusses SoF endorsements for the NRA Board of Directors, a topic I plan on addressing tomorrow, barring any news developments that might shove it to a back burner.
Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners: Austin: Senator Boxer’s half-truths to promote ‘sensible gun control’ (Part 3) Charlotte: Phony gun groups, Part 3: 'American Hunters and Shooters Association' Cleveland: Rifles And Shotguns At Home, Oh My!
DC: DC taxpayers will pay for City Council’s gun ban redux Denver: Granny, get your gun Los Angeles: Saturday Special: L.A. City Council composes more ineffective law, more targeting. Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns Minneapolis: The folly across the river St. Louis: Are churchgoers' lives less worth defending?
Comments
As I said long ago, she's a lawyer, democrat and in New York. Which clearly makes a huge statement about her creditability.
As far as ripping off the taxpayers by ATF agents. I do not see this as a problem because its business as usual by parasites who draw a government paycheck. The facts are clear because the jury is in with them. People in government have zero respect for the hard working Americans who are the citizen body. We are seen as dispicable fools to be cheated and deservingly so because we are stupid enough to allow it to happen. If anyone disagrees with this statement look at it like this. These very same people have no problems killing by butchering them to death, 50 million babies. This tells the truth of the core of people we have allowed to steal control of the government. They plan on disarming us and believe there are far too many useless eaters. They will put to death millions, tens of millions and have the plans in place to do so. There's no question in my mind they plan on doing this. And truth be told, you talk to anyone that's a Second Amendment supporter that not a trader and they will honestly tell you the fear such.
The only nerve you have struck with your pointless exercise in character assassination is the nerve that causes people to gag.
A normal sensible person would wait to see how Senator Gillibrand actually votes before starting this kind of crap.
" . . . that I engage in...uh...something I can't repeat here . . . "
Maybe you can't repeat it here, but I bet you could, unlike your detractor, at least spell it correctly ;-).
Thanks for the plug, by the way.
Quoting her is a "pointless exercise in character assassination"?
And you consider yourself "normal and sensible" by gagging over that, Roberta?
I see you're commenting on other sites carrying the Gillibrand standard, and you have the same chip on your shoulder there, too.
Keep it up, please. You have no idea how helpful people like you are.
Ms. Wickham, if telling the truth about what a person says and does is "character assassination," it would seem that the only way to avoid being a "character assassin" would be to not say anything at all . . . or to lie.
For somebody who likes to take potshots at public figures, you're far too sensitive. And for a so-called journalist, you are waaaay too literal. I'm a Gillibrand supporter, so, yes, I comment on stories about her when I think it's called for. Nice that you researched me, Thin-Skinned Guy. How about expending the same effort on Gillibrand herself, instead of continuing to engage in foolish, tendentious speculation?
Speaking as a reporter, Hoffman, I know that it's easy to take facts and selectively present them so they add up to character assassination.
An example of this is that many of the Latino groups are saying that Gillibrand is "anti-Immigrant" when what she really is is against ILLEGAL immigration.
Another example of misusing facts was a column that appeared a few days ago which tried to use Gillibrand's representation -- more than a decade ago -- of Philip Morris, as evidence that she is somehow in tobacco's "pocket" despite the fact that she has twice voted against tobacco interests during her short career in Congress.
So, Ms. Wickham, what facts would you have Mr. Codrea present in order to "balance" out the verifiable fact that she is now repeating Mayor Bloomberg's line about H.R. 4900, and that she has promised to work with the citizen disarmament advocates in Congress.
What, in other words, would Mr. Codrea have to add to make his presentation more accurate, in your assessment?
Roberta, When a politician specifically says something is it wrong to take their words for what they mean?
Is it wrong to wonder what The F Obama meant last summer when he said "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Tell me, is that character assassination by asking what the F thats supposed to mean?
Those are his words. And here he says about 'just words,' "Don't tell me words don't matter...JUST WORDS?!?"
youtube.com/watch?v=SgMcht-EW6I
Its not character assassination if its true.
The Fraternal order of Police aren't sympathetic to guns rights? This is something I didn't know.
In 2004, Birmingham police responding to if I remember right, a domestic disturbance (?), were shot with SKS rifles and three policemen were killed. I suppose I can see why the police might think there should be some gun control laws.
Let's see, Karen. So, policeman are shot in Birmingham with an SKS. How is confiscating MINE going to change that, or stop it from happening again?
When the police actually spend their time and effort finding the violent CRIMINALS, instead of confiscating inanimate objects from non criminals, maybe we can all get somewhere.
Or, if that's too much to ask, maybe they should go get safer jobs. Maybe construction workers? Nah, more of them are killed each year than cops.
Oh yeah, MamaLiberty I know about that death rate. We died in far greater numbers at a much higher pace. Funny, though, we accepted our risks and I can't recall any of us ever whining. Of course we didn't belong to a club with all the advantages, like cops do. Perhaps that membership weakens character?
As for Roberta, she reminds me of someone. He too is upset because Gillibrand turned her coat. But not a Gillibrand, at the people who acknowledged her words about her new intentions, now that she no longer must rely on her former constituency for her seat. Roberta, all I can say, is that Gillibrand herself, is the one who said those things. She is the one who foreswore her allegiance to what she claimed were her principles. Nobody invented the words she said. Just acknowledge that she said them. You, of course, are still free to support her, just don't try to claim it is on principle. We know better.
Karen, it doesn't matter what the police might want. They can't have it when it is against the law. The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land. That custom of finding a problem and punishing everybody not involved is not a solution to the problem, it is step on the stairway to totalitarianism.
Karen, The police took an oath to uphold my rights by the forfiture of their life. So that means in every circumstance they have agreed to give their life to protect my Rights, including their death by my hands should they breech that contractractual oath.
So when they raid a home and they THINK I have a gun and shoot and kill me and reality turns out that I wasn't armed or wasn't the intended house to be raided the police officer has gone back on his oath and broken true faith by violating my rights by putting his life in higher value than them.
At this point the police departments become self-serving and they no longer serve and protect the people, but serve and protect the law and themselves. Granted police are entitled to an opinion because they are citizens, however they have a position in society that shouldn't be so readily trusted, considered or taken at face value.
David, thus far you have been 100% correct about Gillibrand. Contrary to the common 'wisdom,' so-called 'blue dog Democrats' and 'gun rights Democrats' are highly suspect for 2 reasons alone.
First, they are Democrats, which means they fall under the Party leadership which is decidedly Leftwing and anti-gun.
Second, the area of the country from which such a person hails is key to understanding their point of view. Gillibrand, being a NEW YORK Democrat is automatically under the influence of anti-gun bigot Michael Bloomberg and New York Senator 'Little Chucky' Schumer.
The fact that Schumer recommended Gillibrand for the seat speaks volumes. Obviously he knew something the rest of us didn't know.
Schumer is one of the most rabid gun-grabbers in the nation, and his Leftwing point of view is legendary.
Why on earth would Schumer recommend someone he thought would actually be a strong advocate for gun rights when this goes against every grain in his body? And why would he recommend someone he thought would be more conservative on issues which he has fought for decades to pull the nation to the Left?
The naivete of people who support her is astounding--sort of like the folk who supported Arlen Specter and John Murtha in Pennsylvania...hoping they would be 'conservative.'
Karen, can you please explain which law, either already on the books, or simply in the mind of the anti-freedom folks would have stopped the actions taken by the person in your story?
Murder: illegal
Murdering a cop: extra illegal
Discharging a firearm in city limits: illegal
"Domestic disturbance" if they were responding: illegal
Maybe you'd like to cite the incident so we can have a look at the facts, not just your recollection of them.
Roberta....
"A normal sensible person would wait to see how Senator Gillibrand actually votes before starting this kind of crap. "
Perhaps the concept of a representative government has eluded you. They're not there to do THEIR bidding, but OURS. By waiting to see how she votes you have abdicated your duty and responsibility as an American. You have silenced yourself. Were we all to adopt your position, well, I'd rather not watch a replay of every cult of personality totalitarian society unfold here.
I have to ask if you have worked for her? Do you have a horse in this race? As a gun owner I do because organizations and the media will use the open access to further demonize innocent gun owners by misrepresenting any information from this trace data as they do with other data they have access to.
The facts are rather clear. She met with an absolute control freak, Bloomberg, and reversed her position. Why?
Since you are such a fan of hers Roberta maybe you'd like to do some reporting. Why don't YOU contact her for an on the record interview to explain why she has? A nice unedited audio file would surely refute David's position. I'm not talking an empty newspeak soundbite along the lines of "I support the second amendment" but an in depth explanation of why SHE now believes that data should be open to the public and not limited to law enforcement under certain circumstances. How it will benefit society, how it will impact society.
So Roberta, put up or shut up. Do the hard work or prove yourself an empty headed cheerleader who just thinks she's swell. Not doing either just confirms my opinion that you are just another lazy opinionated useful idiot in the vein of those lobbing the "self abusing" yourself to Red Dawn verbal grenades.
Sorry I couldn't make it over for Red Dawn, David. There was, um, some stuff all over the DVD. Made it kinda sticky, you know?
Gotta go and shave my palms, too. Who knew you could grow hair there?
:)
Roberta Wickham: "Speaking as a reporter, Hoffman, I know that it's easy to take facts and selectively present them so they add up to character assassination."
Yep, another reporter with a very slanted view of what the people need to see and hear.
Roberta, just curious--you told Kurt you're a reporter--who do you report for? Got any links to your paid published works?
Geezus, David, help a brother out.
You talk about Gillibrand's "evolution" and her "flip flop," but (for those of us who don't get the local NY news) you never say whether she is flopping pro-to-anti, or the reverse. You say she's not voting for a bill she sponsored, but don't say whether the bill would have been good or bad for gun owners. Your link to "we discussed that here" doesn't say word one about Gillibrand.
How about a little more attention to the five W's in your articles? Thanks.
Henry,
Try the 3 links at the bottom of the story under the heading
"More on Kirsten Gillibrand:"
The only Roberta Wickham I can think of offhand is a fictional character created by P. G. Wodehouse. IIRC she was a headstrong and often thoughtless young lady whose practical jokes usually created general pandemonium.
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!