• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gabby Giffords on Senate gun vote: 'I'm furious'

JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
I am niether pro or con when it comes to the issue of guns.
Yet I am of the opinion that she has a right to her opinion but that`s it.

I was sorry and still am that she was injured.....but we live in a society IMo where crapola is going to happen and we need to live with it or we need to give our rights up as Americans...take your pick......


http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/04/18/giffords-guns-senate-background-checks/2093001/

Gabrielle Giffords is angry, too.

In an emotional op-ed column for The New York Times, the former congresswoman and now gun control advocate blasted the U.S. Senate for rejecting a proposal to expand background checks on gun purchases. Giffords stood with families who lost loved ones in Newtown, Conn., in the Rose Garden on Wednesday as President Obama denounced the Senate vote.

"Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I'm furious," Giffords wrote. "I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep our children safe."

read on....http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/04/18/giffords-guns-senate-background-checks/2093001/
 
She can be as furious as she wants, there was no actual mental health records against Jared Lee Loughner, the man who shot her. A more through background investigation would not have stopped him from legally buying a gun. Perhaps a mental health screening at the time of purchase, but that the logistics of that are laughable.
 
Ironically she was a Second Amendment supporter before being shot, although admittedly that may have been mere political convenience. (See Gillibrand, Kirsten.) After having part of her brain violently ripped away, she now toes the progressive line that there are no evil people, only evil objects. Sad on a personal and a political level, she was one of the relatively few Democrat politicians I actually liked.
 
So was her husband with her holding the AR-15 he bought?

Oh wait, I forgot the store told him to fuck off and refused to sell it to him😀
 
werepossum said:
Ironically she was a Second Amendment supporter before being shot
Click to expand...

Even Gabby couldn't help but smile when fondling an evil black rifle.

21657713_BG1.jpg
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
She's still a second amendment supporter. This lady, shot in the head, still has a better grasp on reality than you bunch.
Click to expand...

Pretty sad in my opinion. It's funny how they attack a second amendment supporter who wants tougher legislation that doesn't restrict any law abiding citizens rights. It couldn't be their defective thinking that is the problem, nope, it must be political or some other ulterior motive.
When you have no valid argument attack the person. Typical MO of the brain dead right.
 
ivwshane said:
Pretty sad in my opinion. It's funny how they attack a second amendment supporter who wants tougher legislation that doesn't restrict any law abiding citizens rights. It couldn't be their defective thinking that is the problem, nope, it must be political or some other ulterior motive.
When you have no valid argument attack the person. Typical MO of the brain dead right.
Click to expand...

bolded for lols

seriously?

that's like telling protestors they can only be on on the street for 5 minutes per hour.....and they can only say 25 words when they're protesting. Hey look, i'm not restricting your first amendment rights! You can still use them!

Are we doing background checks on people? Do the guns' serial numbers go on there? There is the registry right there. And what comes after registration?. . .
 
Last edited:
Gonad the Barbarian said:
She's still a second amendment supporter.
Click to expand...

Seems like this point was overlooked by some, so perhaps worth repeating.

She still supports the rights of gun owners. She was just with the 90% of the population that supports background checks. AND she is someone who was shot in the friggin' head.
 
jackstar7 said:
Seems like this point was overlooked by some, so perhaps worth repeating.

She still supports the rights of gun owners. She was just with the 90% of the population that supports background checks. AND she is someone who was shot in the friggin' head.
Click to expand...

see, you throw that number 90% around as if you know what it means. i doubt you do. I doubt the people who were polled knew what it meant. If you ask me, i'm for SOME sort of background check.... but nothing like they had in this bill. it's dishonest to use numbers and figures like that.

90% polled also said they support 'standard capacity magazines for guns', yet 90 also were against "high-capacity magazines for guns".

what's standard capcacity? depends on the gun, the calibre. For an AR-15 standard capacity is 30. For a 9mm handgun, it could be 15.

they've defined "high capacity" as 10 or more.. .. .. .. ..um...

don't let them control you with language and vague statistics
 
jackstar7 said:
Seems like this point was overlooked by some, so perhaps worth repeating.

She still supports the rights of gun owners. She was just with the 90% of the population that supports background checks. AND she is someone who was shot in the friggin' head.
Click to expand...

Closing the gun show "loophole" won't fix where the majority of criminals get their guns: friends / family, drug dealers and gun traffickers. And guess what? None of those people care about laws stating who they can and cannot sell to.

Also, I believe the gun show "loophole" is established and revoking that would be the federal government regulating intrastate commerce. That should be left to the states. So, this is really a states rights issue, not a gun issue.
 
jackstar7 said:
So because some people won't obey a law means we shouldn't have it?

Come on.
Click to expand...

so because some people don't play by the rules we should punish everyone and apply blanket assumptions about all of them?

Come on.

Votor Fraud?
Welfare Fraud?

It's because the people that are going to ignore the law are the ones it's supposed to affect! instead of passing feel-good emotion based legislation that only superficially affects the REAL problem, but negatively affects millions of people.... yeah.
 
Lithium381 said:
so because some people don't play by the rules we should punish everyone and apply blanket assumptions about all of them?

Come on.

Votor Fraud?
Welfare Fraud?

It's because the people that are going to ignore the law are the ones it's supposed to affect! instead of passing feel-good emotion based legislation that only superficially affects the REAL problem, but negatively affects millions of people.... yeah.
Click to expand...

Explain the punishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top