AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand used to be one of the few pro-gun Democrats in the halls of Congress. That was back when she was in the House, though.

These days, she’s beating the same anti-gun war drum that virtually every other Democrat vying for a shot at the White House is. However, unlike them, Gillibrand has words on the record defending the Second Amendment.

Over at Townhall, Beth Baumann has done an excellent job of comparing then and now.

From her website:

We need to end our gun violence epidemic.

Mass shootings and gun violence are a national crisis that threaten the safety of our families and communities. We can’t accept repeated tragedies and tens of thousands of deaths every year as normal, and we can’t accept politicians choosing NRA money over Americans’ lives. We need to pass universal background checks, stop gun trafficking, ban assault rifles and close gun sale loopholes to make sure guns can’t get into the hands of dangerous criminals, terrorists or domestic abusers. Kirsten has fearlessly and consistently stood up for commonsense gun safety and taken on the greed of the gun lobby in the Senate, earning her a proud “F” rating from the NRA.

Back in 2008, Gillibrand wrote a letter to Chris Cox, the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. In the letter, she positioned herself as a being pro-gun and someone who wanted to work with the gun rights group.

“To begin with, I want to be very clear that I always have and always will believe that the correct interpretation fo the 2nd amendment is that it applies to an individual’s right to carry guns, and does not apply generally to the National Guard or a group of individuals in a State,” Gillibrand wrote.

What’s ironic is her so-called agenda are all things she previously said she didn’t believe in.

“On the question of outright banning certain firearms for cosmetic features, bullets of an random size, or banning magazines holding an arbitrary number of cartridges, I am adamantly opposed and do not believe that laws should be based on random limits just for the sake of limiting gun ownership or usage,” she wrote. “Furthermore, the attempt to limit the purchase of firearms to arbitrary time periods – such as ‘one gun-a-month’ – will not solve any crimes and will only curtain the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. I share your concerns about these and other attempts to that could contribute to the slippery slope of government confiscation of people’s firearms based on the arbitrary whims of politics and public opinion.”

Gillibrand has proven one thing above all others. She’ll say whatever she needs to say to get elected. She may have once believed in something. I think most people who run for office start that way.

Somewhere along the way, she sold her soul.

While anti-gunners love to pretend that the only people selling out are those who take the National Rifle Association’s money, Gillibrand is a prime example that the other side has plenty who will do and say whatever they have to to win office. She was pro-gun when it was convenient and became anti-gun when that was more convenient. She has no consistency on the issue.

Much as I dislike pretty much everyone else running right now, at least they didn’t flip to anti-gun suddenly. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) have been long-time opponents of gun rights. We never counted them as allies.

Gillibrand is different.

The worry here is, what does she truly believe? If she were to be elected and pick up a second term, a time when she no longer has to worry about the next election, we’d see her true colors. The question is, what are they?