WHY do they keep pestering her with questions on gun control when she has always expressed her belief in sensible and reasonable gun control ?

· "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
· "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
· "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
· "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
· "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
· "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
· "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
· " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
· " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
· "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
· "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
· "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
· "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
· "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
· "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
· " ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
· "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
· "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

Why do we continually look to our legislators for a solution to crime, with or without a gun? No legislation has ever been passed, to my knowledge, where the supports of a bill have ever presented a cost-benefit analysis or projected potential unintended consequences. They will spout about the benefit even if it is not real. They will provide no proof. They will ignore history. They will not tell you about the down side.

Wow Steve, that's a lot of quotes. Did a lot of internet research did you? Please tell me, how many of our founding fathers' contemporaries had handguns and automatic weapons? There is a huge difference between being allowed to possess a musket, or a hunting rifle, and being allowed to possess a 9-mm automatic handgun. Few of us want to ban muskets, but since there is no use for a handgun other than to kill your fellow man, there is no need for citizens to have them. Anyone who says otherwise has thousands of homicide victims' blood on their hands.

Law enforcement officials estimate that about 85% of murderers have previous criminal records at the time they murder. About 75% of murder victims have previous criminal records at the time they are murdered. Yet, the focus of gun control legislation is to disarm law-abiding citizens while ignoring the obvious failure of our "criminal justice" system. This isn't about guns, it's about neutralizing a socially-conservative voting bloc.

MAT,

Handguns DID exist at the time of the Revolutionary war and the writing of the constitution, but that's not the point of the 2nd amendment. The founding father did not write "musket" or "blunderbuss" or "rifle", they wrote "Arms" because they knew the term "Arms" would change over time. The point was to make sure the government always had a check and balance system, and the standing army always needed to be put in balance by a population that had the same capability. I'm not saying people should have bazooka's and tanks, but citizens SHOULD have the right to own (or "bear") Arms similar to the general infantryman. In this day and age, that's an M4 or M16 rifle, and a Beretta 92 9mm handgun. In the future will it be a ray gun? who knows, but the 2nd amendment will still be important. It's got nothing to do with hunting or "sport shooting" and little to do with crime.

Gillibrand needs to realize the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention anything about hunting. And anyone that advocates restrictions on firearms ownership needs to first answer Just One Question: "Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"

Joe H: "Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"
Too easy: "Half of Gun Deaths Are Suicides"
Factor in accidental shootings, and it's clear that a gun in your house is a bigger risk to you and your family than it is to a criminal that may never come.
Also, according to Pete, it's criminals we have to worry about getting guns, so doesn't having guns make you a good target for a robbery?

Bob, having anything of value, and that depends on how great that value is to different individuals, can make you a target for a robbery. The real problem that we have in our society is what in the blue blazes caused this young man to pull that trigger. Was he aiming? Was something said that gave cause to cause the insanity to shoot. Was it curiosity with holding that weapon, that made him pull that trigger. This will be up to the professionals to find out. Let's hope they justify the facts. The Second Amendment belongs to the people. Let's not allow it to be compromised.
My prayers go out to Officer DiPonzio for a full recovery, and a deep sadness for this young man

DJC: The hypocrisies are the point. Is protection from potential criminals worth the risk to actual family members just by having a gun in the house? Is one's right to own a gun so important that you mustn't give it up, even to prevent murder? Gillibrand said, "We need to do everything we can do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals." What if limiting the access of guns to collectors, sportsmen AND criminals is the most effective way to protect the rights to life and liberty of others (including the officers who protect us)? I certainly don't know where to draw the line, but to deny the need to compromise on an issue where basic constitutional rights collide is ridiculous.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more
than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

1. Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

2. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

3. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

4. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

5. While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

6. There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.

7. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are ‘citizens’.
Without them, we are ’subjects’.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

When guns are outlawed and only the outlaws have guns, we are all in trouble. The idea of allowing citizens to arm themselves, keeps them from falling prey to outlaws. The kid who shot that cop was an outlaw. If it wasn't that cop it might've been a citizen. Guns don't kill people, an ineffective legal system kills people. That kid should've been in a juvenile detention center but the same liberals that want to outlaw guns, let him out on the street. Get tough on crime and allow law abiding citizens bear arms and our society will be safer.

As a gun owner (including a handgun) I always have a problem with these discussions. The gun owners always state their rights and the usual guns don't kill people aurgument but what I never see is more emphasis on how these criminals get their guns. How does a 14 year old get a handgun? It took me 9 months to get my permit and I take gun ownership very seriously.
It would seem to me that all gun owners would like to see better control not less control.
When a handgun is used in a crime why aren't their more reprocutions to the people that got the pistol into a 14 year olds hands? Who originally sold the gun? To who? Where did it go then? Was it originally sold out of state and brought to NY? Personally I push for more stringent laws in southern states to improve accontability along with harsher penilties for any gun crime.

Are you joking? Those Australian gun laws were instituted in 1996. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%, the steepest drop coming in the year after the laws were enacted. "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides." This is your argument AGAINST gun control?
For the sake of argument, let's pretend gun control laws don't work. What is the non-gun-control solution to the high number of gun deaths in the US?