Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is running for president. Now, I’m sure some of you are asking yourself “who the heck is Kirsten Gillibrand?”
Don’t feel bad for not knowing. Gillibrand’s polling numbers are lower than the wind chill in the Arctic. If it were possible to have negative polling numbers, Gillibrand would likely be in negative double-digits right now.
She is desperately seeking attention. It was apparent on the debate stage in Miami when she kept shouting over the other candidates to be heard or calling Joe Biden sexist for an op-ed he wrote years before.
She may well be a nice person, but she is a nasty politician.
You may have guessed by now that I don’t care much for Kirsten Gillibrand, and you’d be correct.
You also might be wondering why I’m spending any time on her if I dislike her so much.
The answer is that she is a perfect example of how politicians in the Democrat Party feel they have to pander to the radical Left to stay relevant. In Gillibrand’s case, she is trying to win the presidential nomination (I have as good a chance of winning the nomination as she does).
She is the most annoying kind of politician: spineless and lacking any political principles.
A History Of Flip-Flopping
For example, over a decade ago, Gillibrand represented a center-Right district, and she won by appealing to moderates and was highly rated by the NRA.
She was pro-gun when it suited her.
However, she has radically changed her stance on guns since then.
She now supports full confiscations of so-called “assault rifles” and wants to prosecute those who don’t want to voluntarily hand over their guns.
In an interview on CNN, Gillibrand was asked about her stance on gun control. Here’s an excerpt from her exchange with CNN’s Poppy Harlow:
“On the assault weapons issue, you have talked openly about being in favor of an assault weapons ban. I’m interested if you are supportive of a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons. Some have gone as far as to say not only should it be a mandatory buyback of assault rifles, but there should be criminal prosecution for those who don’t sell them back. Is that something you support.”
Gillibrand responded by saying, “I think we should ban assault weapons as well as large magazines, and as part of passing that ban, do a buyback program across the country so that those who own them can be compensated for the money that they spent. But I think both of those ideas are strong.”
How generous. At least she’s willing to PAY people to turn over their guns instead of just taking them.
A Hard Truth
The good news is that the Dems’ radical position on guns will likely hurt them at the polls. A recent Fox News poll showed that 57% of Americans are against banning guns. Do the math: those numbers don’t add up to electoral success for the Dems.
Gun buybacks don’t work.
Australia implemented a temporary gun buyback of 650,000 guns following a mass shooting at Port Arthur in 1996. According to a 2008 study performed by researchers at the University of Melbourne, the buyback made no discernable difference in gun-related violence.
The researchers concluded that “Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun- buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”
I doubt that Gillibrand and her fellow Dems have taken the time to do their research on the topic; they are more concerned with garnering votes than protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
In Gillibrand’s case, she won’t get many votes anyway. It’s a waste of her time.