Attention New Yorkers: Gillibrand is an anti-freedom sellout
Posted By matt on September 18, 2009
Apparently, Gillibrand’s ascension to Hillary’s seat has resulted in massive compromises on her ideas of freedom, leading to:
- Confirmation of a supreme court justice who does not believe in civil rights.
- Statements of opposition and correlating votes against civil rights.
Specifically, she first voted to confirm justice Sotomayor who has repeatedly voted to deny incorporation to the states of various civil rights which limit what the federal government can do.
Secondly, she has recently corresponded with me where she stated that she is in favor of restricting what people can do with private property, calling the unregulated selling of private property a “loophole”, and further endorses additional (illegal) restrictions on fundamental rights of free people.
This represents a tremendous reversal from her previous positions.
I suggest that, this next election, everyone vote against her. If everyone votes against Schumer as well, with any luck we can get rid of both of them in 2010.
Comments
4 Responses to “Attention New Yorkers: Gillibrand is an anti-freedom sellout”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
She's also all for funding groups that help people violating the law avoid scrutiny from the IRS.
She's gone WAYYYY off the deep end. I have no idea how any human can change principals so drastically in such a short period of time…
Dude, what part of “sell out” was unclear? That's how principles change.
I presume by the first part you mean funding for ACORN, yes? Yeah, they're slightly special.
Of course, I do have some issue with this in that prostitution should be legal, so one could argue that this is civil disobedience. However, slavery and forced prostitution shouldn't be legal, and further is unethical, so I suppose that logic stops there.
Oh I agree, I have no personal issue with a woman exchanging cash for her company. I also have no issue with certain recreational substances being legal.
Just because I think Pot should be legalized doesn't mean I'm gonna start growing weed in my back yard. Just because I think it should be perfectly legal for me to buy normal magazines for certain guns and bring them to Massachusetts doesn't mean I'm going to do that.
It's my saying that “If you don't like the law, change it!” Otherwise it's still breaking the law.
Now the Child Prostitution bit is just plain evil and where any rational person would say “You're shitting me, right?”, but the end all of this story is ACORN was perfectly legal to help criminals further break the law. Weather we agree with all those laws is irrelevant. Just because I have a cabinet stocked full of whiskey doesn't mean I'm going to bat for Al Capone.
My issue is that, the way our legal system is set up, you basically have to break the law (or otherwise demonstrate how the law has done you harm) in order to challenge it in court. Now, if you don't think you could win by challenging it in court, and if so, then breaking the law is stupid.
On the pragmatic front, I agree with you. As asinine as it was, when I moved to NY, I had all my guns shipped in to a dealer, who re-background checked me for every single gun I already owned, which were then added to my pistol license. Essentially, I re-bought everything I already owned.
I will be very happy when the pistol license and registration requirements are found to be unconstitutional. I believe that they will be able to do a license to carry, but no longer a license to own.