Rep. Giffords Anti-Gun Initiative

B

BarryLee

New member
Today former Representative Gabrielle Giffords announced a new gun control initiative she is sponsoring that plans to, “raise funds necessary to balance the influence of the gun lobby". Funny, since the anti-gun folks have the full power of the Presidency and are funded by our tax money who really needs “balancing”?

While we are all sympathetic to Ms. Giffords plight and she has definitely earned a right to participate in this discussion I hope it remains one focused on the facts and not emotions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/08/former-rep-gabrielle-giffords-and-husband-mark-kelly-launch-gun-control/
 
As I write this, her USA Today op-ed, press releases, and website contain almost nothing of substance, save this excerpt from the op-ed.
Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets. Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available... As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...rk-kelly-tucson-shooting-gun-control/1816383/

Carguychris Sentence-by-Sentence Translation Attempt, to be Taken With Many Grains of Salt: ;)
  • We back a 94 AWB-style cosmetic features ban for new firearms.
  • We support background checks on private sales.
  • We support some sort of restriction on large magazines, but we don't want to specifically tell you what it is or how it would be enforced.
  • We DON'T support outright bans or seizures of existing firearms.
BTW here's the main website: http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/

As I write this, the site contains a link for making donations, bios of Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly, and basically nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets. Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available... As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.
Click to expand...

Kind of weird that she keeps using "our" and "we" rather than "I". Reminds me of reading the novel Anthem.
 
She's become a very useful poster child of gun violence, and an emotional bargaining tool.

It's disgusting, but an effective tactic.
 
we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.
Click to expand...

I heard her say that on the news. It made me yell at the TV. I mean, can you really brag about being a gun owner if you own a whole two guns and they are locked up somewhere else? If I had been interviewing them, I would have asked them when was the last time they went shooting? I'm guessing it was before the incident. (I don't KNOW that but it sounds that way.) So you still technically own two guns... you bought them years ago... you haven't shot or touched them in years... do you really get to go on TV and portray yourself as a "typical gun owner?"

As was said, I'm sympathetic to her situation. But I get a lot less sympathetic when she wants to use that situation to take away my rights. I didn't do anything wrong. I did my volunteer time in the Army and I've got a perfectly clean legal record. But attacking me and the kinds of guns I like to own is somehow the proper response to a tragic event?

Gregg
 
Kind of weird that she keeps using "our" and "we" rather than "I".
Click to expand...
She and her husband Mark Kelly share equal credit for both the op-ed and the website. The last time I heard her speak, she seemed to be having difficulty putting complex sentences together, presumably because of the brain damage she suffered. I assume it is much easier for him to do the writing while she offers short opinions and comments.
It's disappointing that the goal seems to be to out spend the NRA on lobbying.
Click to expand...
Although I disagree with the stated goal, I'd actually call it logical. One of the main handicaps that the gun control movement has is a near-total lack of a coherent, credible, and well-funded counter-organization to oppose the NRA. The current groups have taken so many extreme and unpopular positions and engaged in so much self-destructive infighting that nearly nobody takes them seriously anymore. :)

As I pointed out in another recent thread, IMHO the constant editorial demonization of the NRA by gun control advocates is largely intended to mask the comparatively pathetic lack of a viable counterpart on their side. Since they can't credibly say "here's why you should join our side, help us out, and give us money", their only alternative is to loudly screech "DON'T listen to THEM! They're EVIL! BAD!! BAD!!" :rolleyes:

OTOH whether the Giffords/Kelly group can actually attain their goal is another question.
 
Last edited:
So you still technically own two guns... you bought them years ago... you haven't shot or touched them in years... do you really get to go on TV and portray yourself as a "typical gun owner?"
Click to expand...

Actually, that probably is the ‘typical gun owner‘. That’s why there is little pro gun support. “They’re not going to take my deer rifle / duck gun, so why get involved?“ The ‘typical gun owner‘ gets a rifle out the weekend before deer season, wipes off the dust, shoots it two or three times at a paper plate, then hunts the following weekend. I’d bet that 50%+++ of firearms in the USA rarely if ever get shot.

The folks that frequent gun forums such as this one, are ‘non typical gun owners’. We run thousands of rounds down the bore yearly.
 
I mean, can you really brag about being a gun owner if you own a whole two guns and they are locked up somewhere else?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with owning two guns and locking them in the safe when you are not using them? In you opinion, how many guns does it take before you are a legitimate "gun owner"? 3....7.....20? If you want to alienate folks in American with two guns and less my friend, you are alienating a good portion of folks we need on our side. Last thing we need to do is to divide our ranks. As Mike38 said, once you get away from folks that frequent gun forums, you'll find a large portion of gun owners out there that don't have a different gun for every day of the month.
 
Gun Owner? Certainly...

owning 2? Gun owner. But not an enthusiast.

And she is, in a way, a good representation of a gun owner. BECAUSE there is no "typical" gun owner. Gun owners run the gamut from the serious enthusiast with several dozen or more, to the street punk with a stolen .25auto shoved in his pants. TO the anti's, we are all gunowners, and all EXACTLY ALIKE!

ALL they see is the one single requirement to be a "gun owner", that is having a gun. Willingness to obey the law, personal responsibilty, even mental stability, none of that matters to the anti gunners. If you have a gun, or want one, you MUST be all the same. And, predictably, they always choose the worst possible example of mankind with a gun to use as their chosen archtype.

Many of the right deniers do see shades of grey, that is where their talk of "reasonable" measures comes from. Others are dyed in the wool, foaming at the mouth (although seldom literally) true believers, and nothing less than complete confiscation will ease their "pain".
 
Shut up, Stand up

Its disappointing how people use resources that were victims of violent crimes by individuals that are not us, to legislate us. Just in the amount of firearms sold in recent weeks (most stores and gun shows are sold out) it would appear there are ample people in fear of this legislation. Why are we in fear? Why don't we mount campaigns and stand up and put boots on the ground at offices, and every place else that is a forum to lose our rights. I personally intend to support financially and in person the efforts to protect our rights. Buying up ammo, clips and guns is not the only means we have to defend what is given to us by the 2nd Amendment. We have votes, we have rights, we even have the constitution to protect and support us. Let's stop playing the victim to this assault media campaign.
 
It seems too convenient to me that Giffords has "seen the light" only after she is no longer a public official and thus no longer beholden to the will of her constituents. I also find it interesting that the media is now trotting out her and victims of other mass shootings such as Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Columbine more and more frequently as time passes.

While what happened to Giffords and the other victims of violent crime is tragic, her experience makes her no more an expert on crime or constitutional law than the catching of a cold makes me an expert on infectious diseases. Just like other gun control advocates including Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, and to some extent Dianne Feinstein, Giffords seems to be attempting to politicize her own tragic experience and that I can neither sympathize with nor respect. I, like most other people, have been wronged at some point in my life but unlike Giffords, Brady, McCarthy, and Feinstein, I do not attempt to garner sympathy in order to abridge other people of their rights.

That being said, this may actually be a good sign. The fact that the media is resorting to digging up what is, in essence, old news indicates to me that the emotions stirred by the Newtown shooting may be beginning to fade. In order to pass new gun control, the anti-gun crowd needs an emotions to remain raw until the votes are counted. Trotting out the victims of older shootings seems like it may be a desperate attempt to prolong rapidly dwindling emotions.
 
Last edited:
While what happened to Giffords and the other victims of violent crime is tragic, her experience makes her no more an expert on crime or constitutional law than the catching of a cold makes me an expert on infectious diseases.
Click to expand...

Thank you for saying it, and for putting it so well.
 
Webleymkv said:
...I, like most other people, have been wronged at some point in my life but unlike Giffords, Brady, McCarthy, and Feinstein, I do not attempt to garner sympathy in order to abridge other people of their rights.
Click to expand...

But there's good money in it if you would try. At least if you have a good emotive appeal.

While I too have admired Gifford in her recovery, I question everything with my typical jaundiced curmudgeonliness.
 
Wrothgar:

Somebody in Texas will know how to discretely contact Suzanne Gratia-Hupp.

Have the rest of you watched her government testimony on Youtube, about how she was not allowed to be legally armed for the massacre (including her parents) at Luby's, and the total nonsense behind such laws?
 
My thoughts are that we the folks in the good old U.S. of A. need to take a good look at our Israeli friends for airport security and for firearms in schools. They do what is necessary to protect themselves and there people and don't care whose toes they step on to do so.
 
We support background checks on private sales.
Click to expand...

Is she talking about places like gun shows? I've never bought anything there but they do not perform background checks there, right? I would support gun show sellers having the same requirements/restrictions as gun stores.

If she is talking about one on one sales then no I don't agree with her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top