Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., voiced her opposition to the idea of having armed teachers during school hours during her interview with CNN on Wednesday. She blamed the idea being presented in the first place on the National Rifle Association’s “greed.”
“I’ve got three kids and I said very openly that I’m not particularly comfortable with teachers walking around with loaded weapons. I wonder what’s your response is to that,” CNN’s Jim Sciutto asked.
Gillibrand said, “I think it’s a dumb idea and I think it is something being pitched by the NRA because all they care about is gun sales. They are absolutely corrupted. They are focused on greed and they want to sell guns to people on the terror watch list, to people with grave mental illness, with violent backgrounds or people with criminal convictions for violent crimes, which is why they’re against the universal background check bill that people support across this country, and it’s also why they oppose the Violence Against Women’s Act.”
“It’s about greed and corruption, it’s about making sure they have gun sales in all cases. So, I disagree with that legislator and I think again, we should lift up the voices of the young people in this country, who have been marching against gun violence, marching out of their schools and marching on Washington,” she said.
[Also read: Kamala Harris wants to ban the import of ‘assault weapons’]
Like the rest of the Democratic candidates for president, Gillibrand has been vocal in her opposition to the NRA and promises to not back down to them in order to pass more gun control if elected.
Thank you @SenGillibrand for your commitment to gun safety and common sense legalization.@MomsDemand pic.twitter.com/GSbsVKGNBL
— JB (@Dreamwarrior5k) May 11, 2019
Gillibrand has been struggling to reach the 65,000 unique donor minimum needed in order to qualify for the primary debates.
She told CNN the Democratic National Committee’s number of 65,000 was “odd.”
“I think it’s random and inaccurate, but it’s their choice. They’re the DNC, so I’ll follow the rules that are given and I’ll have to play by the rules. … I don’t think it’s a measure of success. I don’t think it’s a measure of electability,” she said. “I don’t think it’s a measure of quality of candidate. I think it’s just a measurable about how many online folks like you, which is not determinative of any of the things that matter about whether I’d beat Trump. At all. Not at all.”
