Fido Posted January 23, 2009 at 03:26 PM Posted January 23, 2009 at 03:26 PM I'd post the text of the article but don't know how. Bloomberg and Schumer have got to be p*****!!!!! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/22...ns-senate-seat/
Fido Posted January 23, 2009 at 03:28 PM Author Posted January 23, 2009 at 03:28 PM OOPS! Didn't see this being discussed in another post. I was just too excited!
GarandFan Posted January 23, 2009 at 06:42 PM Posted January 23, 2009 at 06:42 PM Well, the other post was about Kennedy withdrawl. At any rate, it seems that at least some of the "progressive" "liberals" are throwing absolute sh** fits over Gillibrand being appointed Senator. Some even saying she'd be a great pick for [a redneck, knuckledragging, bubba-infested state of] Arkansas, but not [an educated, progressive, enlightened and better-than-most state of] New York. Ah well ... they have so much else to be thankful for right now, it's almost amusing to see then whine over this. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/2...3904/461/688066
gravyboy77 Posted January 23, 2009 at 06:55 PM Posted January 23, 2009 at 06:55 PM Not only is she pro-gun, but she also voted against the first stimulus bill. The hardcore liberals are really p***** that she was selected. One other positive is that her house district is heavily Republican, so we may pickup another house seat when they have a special election.
GarandFan Posted January 23, 2009 at 07:26 PM Posted January 23, 2009 at 07:26 PM She's also known to support the rights of gay people ... an individual liberty that I too support.
gravyboy77 Posted January 23, 2009 at 07:35 PM Posted January 23, 2009 at 07:35 PM She's also known to support the rights of gay people ... an individual liberty that I too support. After reading about her, thats about the only thing that she stands for thats democratic. If you didn't know what party she is from, you would think she is a republican.
GWBH Posted January 23, 2009 at 07:43 PM Posted January 23, 2009 at 07:43 PM She's pretty conservative - which I definitely like, but I'm having a hard time understanding what "Republican" means anymore...
GarandFan Posted January 23, 2009 at 08:01 PM Posted January 23, 2009 at 08:01 PM Quite true. I am not sure what republican means ... and that of course is the challenge for Republicans in the coming years. Gillibrand does seem pretty conservative .... fiscally so, and otherwise. But she's a mix. Some of her stances which resonate with me are: She's voted on initiatives to massively reduce the public debt. She's voted on initiatives to support stem cell research and access to contraceptives and abortion. She's voted to support alternative energy initiatives. She voted to block the NAFTA superhighway and the North American Union. She's voted against issuing driver licenses to illegal aliens. She voted for an aggressive strategy by which we might exit Iraq. She signed on to the hard-hitting amicus brief filed on behalf of Heller, and she voted to enact the 2A enforcement act which would have stripped DC of their ability to infringe the 2A. The "On the Issues" website lists here as "Strongly Supporting" an abolute right to gun ownership. This is a very interesting development in New York!
Slappy Posted January 23, 2009 at 08:01 PM Posted January 23, 2009 at 08:01 PM She's pretty conservative - which I definitely like, but I'm having a hard time understanding what "Republican" means anymore... Republican - Latin for "do as I say, not as I do"
ShannonG Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:52 PM Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:52 PM She's pretty conservative - which I definitely like, but I'm having a hard time understanding what "Republican" means anymore... Republican - Latin for "do as I say, not as I do" w0w I had no idea that Democrat meant the same thing as Republican in Latin
Buzzard Posted January 24, 2009 at 11:10 PM Posted January 24, 2009 at 11:10 PM She's pretty conservative - which I definitely like, but I'm having a hard time understanding what "Republican" means anymore... Republican - Latin for "do as I say, not as I do" w0w I had no idea that Democrat meant the same thing as Republican in Latin BOOM shocka locka!!
Buzzard Posted January 24, 2009 at 11:27 PM Posted January 24, 2009 at 11:27 PM She's pretty conservative - which I definitely like, but I'm having a hard time understanding what "Republican" means anymore...Quite true. I am not sure what republican means ... and that of course is the challenge for Republicans in the coming years.This really illustrates what's wrong with the GOP. And we have to start communicating much more strongly where we want the party to go and what we want it to be. I really thought that the effect Sarah Palin had on the election would have sent a very clear message. But, once again, the republicans are back to being disconnected from their base.
GWBH Posted January 25, 2009 at 02:27 AM Posted January 25, 2009 at 02:27 AM After more research...I don't like some of her positions.Embryonic stem cell research, 'special rights' for gays, but I do like her stance on 2A issues.She's much better on 2A than Kennedy.
Ocellairs Posted January 25, 2009 at 04:41 AM Posted January 25, 2009 at 04:41 AM Not only is she pro-gun, but she also voted against the first stimulus bill. The hardcore liberals are really p***** that she was selected. One other positive is that her house district is heavily Republican, so we may pickup another house seat when they have a special election. Hey, maybe she is their version of our John McCain.
GarandFan Posted January 26, 2009 at 02:39 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 02:39 PM It seems the media is HAMMERING this woman over her stance on guns. They are literally throwing fits, and it seems the "gun/NRA issue" is always mentioned in articles regarding the soon-to-be Senator. They are demanding her to "get with the program" of urban democrat gun control. So I took the time to write Gillibrand a letter. _________________ Dear Mrs. Gillibrand: I am delighted that you have been selected to replace Senator Clinton. Delighted, in part, because NY needs balance. You can provide that balance and I wish you the very best. Tomorrow, you will be Senator Gillibrand. Regarding your appointment, the media is clearly concentrating on one "contentious" issue ... your support for second amendment rights. I applaud you for signing the amicus brief on behalf of Heller, authored by Halbrook. As the NYC media tries to denigrate and vilify you, hoping to sway you against your principles, I trust you will remember that this is a rights issue, as is the abortion issue, and the gay marriage issue. True ... some in your district would differ with you on those issues, yet I do not because I view them as individual rights issues. Same with second amendment issues. There is a vast and unconscionable divide between "shall not be infringed" and the agenda of the gun control groups and their supporters in the Congress. I encourage you to read, or have a staffer summarize for you, a recent but profoundly insightful view of the gun control issue. I find it frank and unbiased. It appears in the Wake Forest Law Review, and is available here: http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf Prof. Johnson points to a fundamentally important conversation that gun control advocates are simply unwilling to have ... that of the Supply-Side Ideal and the Remainder Factor. In a nutshell, there may be compelling reason to control guns, and there may be effective and constitutional means to do so. However, legislative acts being put forward today (eg. bans on private sales, bans on semiauto rifles, "childproofing guns, etc.) are doomed to failure (and frustration all around). Carolyn McCarthy ... as you know, she is a one-issue person and indeed is on the wrong side of that one issue. NYC has a problem with criminals first and foremost; guns are merely a tool to be used at the discretion of the good (and the bad). I encourage you to stand firm, to stand on the side of the issue backed by history, law, morality, and common sense. I hope you will concentrate on criminal control in response to your detractors. There is plenty of grist for the mill. I wish you the very best.
burningspear Posted January 26, 2009 at 02:49 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 02:49 PM SmoothExcellentWell writtenInsightful
Slappy Posted January 26, 2009 at 03:09 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 03:09 PM So its a done deal? We picked up a pro gun senator? awesome!
GarandFan Posted January 26, 2009 at 03:38 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 03:38 PM So its a done deal? We picked up a pro gun senator? awesome! She will be sworn in to the US Senate tomorrow. We did not pick her ... The Governor of New York picked her, in the same manner that the Governor of Illinois picked the replacement for Obama. What's even more interesting is that NY Governor Paterson was liutenant governor before Governor Spitzer got into hot water over the prostitution thing, and resigned. Unlike our bullheaded governor. Can you imagine what would have happened if Blago had chosen some downstate pro-gun democrat for Obama's seat?
SmershAgent Posted January 26, 2009 at 04:23 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 04:23 PM What's even more interesting is that NY Governor Paterson was liutenant governor before Governor Spitzer got into hot water over the prostitution thing, and resigned. Unlike our bullheaded governor. Not to pull the thread off topic, but I couldn't help make that comparison too. Spitzer's behavior may have been sleazy, but I find it far less offensive than what Rod did, yet Spitzer's the one who chose to lie in the bed he had made (so to speak) and leave office with at least a semblance of dignity.
Slappy Posted January 26, 2009 at 04:29 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 04:29 PM I know the gov picked her, but we still get a pro gun senator so I'm happy...
Kaeghl Posted January 26, 2009 at 05:12 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 05:12 PM Is there any way we can swap NY Burris for her? How about we kick in a semi-pro baseball team to sweeten the deal? Chicago has an extra one...... (Oh, the Cubs and Sox fans here are gonna wanna have words with me.....)
BShawn Posted January 26, 2009 at 05:41 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 05:41 PM I know the gov picked her, but we still get a pro gun senator so I'm happy...+1
Air Commando Posted January 26, 2009 at 06:13 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 06:13 PM +1 on the basketball team and great letter GF, I'm reading the opinion in the law review right now and that is a great read also.
GarandFan Posted January 26, 2009 at 06:35 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 06:35 PM I'm reading the opinion in the law review right now and that is a great read also. Yes, it's very, very interesting. And upon consideration of the passages I paste below, nearly all of the offered gun-control-as-crime-control legislation is laughable and ludicrous on its face. And yet it exists ... and yes, they are serious. The conclusion that some horrible gun crime would not have happened if we had prevented the scoundrel from getting a firearm is straightforward and quite natural. This calculation is the foundation for views that advance supply-side gun regulation as a recipe for crime control. It conforms to simple tests of logic.Consider two scenarios. In the first, we are sitting in a room with a gun in the middle. In the second, our room is gun free and sealed— the supply-side ideal. The risk of gun violence is obviously higher in the first scenario. Indeed, absent creative cheating, it is zero in the second. Projecting this dynamic to society generally allows the claim that laws limiting the supply of guns in private hands will dramatically reduce gun crime. The supply-side ideal remains the philosophical foundation of the modern quest for restrictions on access to firearms sufficient to thwart gun crime. But there is a problem. In our political skirmishes over new, more aggressive supply regulation, the supply-side ideal has receded into the background. We have not talked candidly about what is necessary for the supply-side formula to work. We have not confronted the reality that the existing inventory of guns is vast. As a consequence, supply-side controls, often implemented prospectively, without explicit commitment to disarming ordinary Americans, have affected only a tiny fraction of the inventory. It is as if we are in the sealed room, but now everybody has a gun or two tucked away, there are piles of them in the corners, and we are debating reducing gun violence with laws that allow only one more gun a month or no more guns with high capacity magazines. Our results have been disappointing because supply-side rules depend, ultimately, on cutting the inventory close to zero. And that, in America, is a problem.
cowboyflyfisher Posted January 26, 2009 at 07:51 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 07:51 PM I'm reading the opinion in the law review right now and that is a great read also. Yes, it's very, very interesting. And upon consideration of the passages I paste below, nearly all of the offered gun-control-as-crime-control legislation is laughable and ludicrous on its face. And yet it exists ... and yes, they are serious. The conclusion that some horrible gun crime would not have happened if we had prevented the scoundrel from getting a firearm is straightforward and quite natural. This calculation is the foundation for views that advance supply-side gun regulation as a recipe for crime control. It conforms to simple tests of logic.Consider two scenarios. In the first, we are sitting in a room with a gun in the middle. In the second, our room is gun free and sealed— the supply-side ideal. The risk of gun violence is obviously higher in the first scenario. Indeed, absent creative cheating, it is zero in the second. Projecting this dynamic to society generally allows the claim that laws limiting the supply of guns in private hands will dramatically reduce gun crime. The supply-side ideal remains the philosophical foundation of the modern quest for restrictions on access to firearms sufficient to thwart gun crime. But there is a problem. In our political skirmishes over new, more aggressive supply regulation, the supply-side ideal has receded into the background. We have not talked candidly about what is necessary for the supply-side formula to work. We have not confronted the reality that the existing inventory of guns is vast. As a consequence, supply-side controls, often implemented prospectively, without explicit commitment to disarming ordinary Americans, have affected only a tiny fraction of the inventory. It is as if we are in the sealed room, but now everybody has a gun or two tucked away, there are piles of them in the corners, and we are debating reducing gun violence with laws that allow only one more gun a month or no more guns with high capacity magazines. Our results have been disappointing because supply-side rules depend, ultimately, on cutting the inventory close to zero. And that, in America, is a problem. That's an excellent few paragraphs. Now once she reads it, can she translate what that means for the rest of her colleagues? If she used sock puppets she just might get through to the rest of them.
GarandFan Posted January 26, 2009 at 08:06 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 08:06 PM It baffles my feeble mind how the preceeding paragraphs could NOT make sense to the average person, let alone a congresswoman or man.
cowboyflyfisher Posted January 26, 2009 at 08:18 PM Posted January 26, 2009 at 08:18 PM It baffles my feeble mind how the preceeding paragraphs could NOT make sense to the average person, let alone a congresswoman or man.Its the inclusion of a 5 syllable word. More than a few 4 syllable words and their brains get disheveled. Throw in a 5 syllable word and you risk their head exploding.
TTIN Posted January 27, 2009 at 12:31 AM Posted January 27, 2009 at 12:31 AM Is there any way we can swap NY Burris for her? How about we kick in a semi-pro baseball team to sweeten the deal? Chicago has an extra one...... (Oh, the Cubs and Sox fans here are gonna wanna have words with me.....) Now now,we know the Sux Sox are terrible,but they try! :lips sealed:
anonymous too Posted January 27, 2009 at 01:21 AM Posted January 27, 2009 at 01:21 AM January 26, 2009 What Chris Matthews Should Have Said On "Hardball" About Firearms Issues On "Hardball" last Thursday evening, Chris Matthews' comments about the appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate, the Tiahrt Amendment and the Supreme's Court ruling in the Heller case last summer prompted this response from NSSF: Dear Mr. Matthews: A few of your comments regarding Kirsten Gillibrand’s appointment to the U.S. Senate show an unfortunate lack of understanding regarding Rep. Gillibrand’s votes on firearms issues. You stated that she “voted to make it impossible for law enforcement to trace guns and stop gun trafficking.” This is incorrect. The Tiahrt Amendment, which Rep. Gillibrand voted for, specifically permits law enforcement to trace firearms and to share such data with any other law enforcement agency for the purpose of law enforcement investigations, including prosecutions for firearms law violations by individuals and dealers. And they do so. There isn’t a single law enforcement agency in the United States that has been denied trace information by ATF. The amendment prohibits public release of such law enforcement-sensitive data, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—the federal agency which enforces gun laws—specifically supports this amendment. Rather than stating that Rep. Gillibrand was “voting with the NRA,” you could have—and should have—stated that she voted with the ATF and law enforcement. You then stated that she voted against the Washington, D.C., gun ban and signed on to a brief supporting the Supreme Court’s striking it down. And again, you characterized that brief as being “with the NRA.” As you know, a majority of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including the majority leader, supported this challenge to a law which the highest court in the United States invalidated as being unconstitutional. So you could have—and should have—more accurately characterized this action as being on the same side as the U.S. Constitution and Sen. Harry Reid. You finished with repeated statements that these positions have nothing to do with hunting. True enough. But the Constitution and laws which underpin these and other issues involving firearms ownership also do not reference hunting. Our individual right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution is much broader than that one purpose, just as the right to free press applies to more than just news programs. These items are matters of public record and can readily be fact checked. Thank you for your attention to this topic, which is so important to many of your viewers. Respectfully, Stephen L. SanettiPresident and CEONational Shooting Sports Foundation
BShawn Posted January 28, 2009 at 01:53 AM Posted January 28, 2009 at 01:53 AM It baffles my feeble mind how the preceeding paragraphs could NOT make sense to the average person, let alone a congresswoman or man.Its the inclusion of a 5 syllable word. More than a few 4 syllable words and their brains get disheveled. Throw in a 5 syllable word and you risk their head exploding.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.