On Wednesday, June 15th United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords was released from a Houston rehabilitation hospital five months after she had been shot in the head while hosting a local town hall gathering in Tucson called “Congress on Your Corner”. Representative Giffords has now returned to her home, an uncertain future and questionable return to Congress, at least in the near future. With that said, her Democratic colleagues in Congress are still raising money for her campaign. She spent her 41st birthday in a rehabilitation hospital learning to walk and talk for the second time in her life. We owe Representative Giffords a brief reflection on the events and related issues that have led up to her current situation as we wish her well in her continued recovery.
On that Saturday morning in January Ms. Giffords was conducting an outdoor meeting for constituents at a local shopping center when Jared Lee Loughner sprayed 31 bullets in 15 seconds using a Glock with a high-capacity magazine killing 6 people, including 9 year old Christina-Taylor Green and a federal court judge. Another thirteen people were injured in the shooting. This massacre ended only when Loughner stopped to reload and bystanders wrestled him to the ground. If he had used a standard magazine and was forced to reload earlier, some of his victims might have been spared.
High capacity magazines like the one used by Loughner dramatically boost a weapon’s firing power. They were prohibited from 1994 until 2004 by the federal assault weapons ban. That law placed a prohibition on the sale of 19 different types of military style semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity magazines until 2004 when Congress failed to renew the law. In Virginia, a recent investigation has revealed that during the last year of the ban in 2004, just 10 percent of the crime-related guns seized by Virginia police were equipped with high-capacity magazines, a 10-year low.
Although Loughner’s community college required a mental-health examination for readmission, gaps in the national background check system allowed him to get his hands on that Glock. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System for gun purchases includes criminal and mental health information, but only for those committed to an institution or found mentally deficient in court.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has compiled a list of over 160 shootings that have occurred since Harold Glover shot and killed Cecil Herndon while 250 four year-old children watched in Tulsa, Oklahoma on January 31, 1997. Glover used a .357 Magnum to open fire at the Bunche Early Childhood Development Center.
The Brady list also includes the shooting in Littleton, Colorado on April 4th, 1999 when two students, Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, killed 15 students and a teacher and wounded 23 with two sawed-off shotguns and a TEC-DC9 before killing themselves at Columbine High School. Another incident on the list occurred at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, then 23 years old, opened fire with two guns, armed with nineteen 10- and 15-round magazines and almost 400 rounds of ammunition before taking his own life.
At gun shows across the country, buyers can completely avoid background checks otherwise required by law. The Columbine High School shooters obtained their weapons at a gun show. Gun traffickers also patronize the shows, buying weapons that ultimately surface at crime scenes across the country. A background check is not conducted every time a gun is sold. This makes it possible for people like Loughner to get their hands on lethal firepower.
Recently it has been reported that 247 people suspected of ties to terrorism bought guns in the U.S. last year legally. Those people who were allowed to buy weapons did so after going through required background checks. Incredibly, it’s not illegal for people listed on the government’s terror watch list to buy weapons. A video released recently by a member of Al Qaeda, shows that weak U.S. gun laws create significant risks to homeland security and thus opportunities for terrorism. Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey is attempting to amend the law to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) was enacted on October 22, 1968 by President Lyndon Johnson. It’s a federal law regulating the firearms industry and firearms owners and administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. Thanks to GCA, foreign made assault rifles and machine guns such as the AK-47, the FN FAL or the Heckler & Koch MP5 can no longer be imported into the United States for civilian ownership. However, semi-automatic models of the same weapons are still permitted.
Since 1968 various organizations have expressed opposition to the GCA’s provisions. Organizations such as the National Rifle Association have been noted to oppose only some of the act’s restrictions, while supporting others such as those forbidding the selling of firearms to convicted criminals and the mentally ill. Still other organizations oppose the act altogether, arguing that it is excessively restrictive on law-abiding gun owners, while failing to prevent crime.
Despite the objections, the GCA doesn’t go far enough as demonstrated by Brady’s list of 160 shootings.
Since the lapse of the 1994 ban, high-capacity magazines have become commonplace in gun and sporting goods stores despite having any remote sporting or civilian value. By last year, with the ban expired, the percentage had surged 22 percent. Several legislative proposals have been introduced since 2004 to reinstate a ban on assault weapons and paraphernalia but have not gained sufficient votes. The Tucson shooting was less than a year after Arizona Governor Jan Brewer made her state one of three in the nation to allow citizens over the age of 21 to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
Other attempts have been made to close the gaps in gun regulations. Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York has proposed a ban on the weapons themselves but also understands the political realities. She sponsored the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. It was a bill that would have ultimately reenacted the ban on assault weapons by the Clinton Administration in 1994 but the bill failed in committee.
Shortly after the shooting massacre in Tucson earlier this year, President Obama called on all stakeholders in this issue to come together to figure out ways to avoid future tragedies like the one in Tucson. In March, he invited National Rifle Association officials to participate in closed-door meetings to develop a plan. NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre rejected that offer saying, “It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people”. The dialogue should focus on how to prevent gun violence. Gun violence involves people and guns.
The NRA has announced that, “There are well over 250 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., including nearly 100 million handguns and tens of millions of “assault weapons In 2008, there were more than 337,000 new AR-15s configured for home defense, competition, training, recreational target practice and hunting.”
According to the Brady Center, almost 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides, accidents, or by police intervention annually. Three thousand sixty two are children. A simple international comparison can provide perspective on America’s culture of gun violence. Together, Japan, Germany, England, Wales and Canada are home to 305 million people. Guns kill about 450 people in those countries in an average year. By contrast, the United States, home to over 300 million people, witnesses an average of 9,500 gun murders in one year. About 5,900 American troops have died in Afghanistan and Iraq during the past 10 years.
The word absolutism has been used to describe the NRA’s position on legislation and even discussions that approach the idea of reform of gun laws to limit the circulation of assault weapons, related paraphernalia or accessibility to them. Their claim has been consistent, saying that any compromise will only lead to further concessions that they’re unwilling to make.
In the aftermath of this latest shooting, the NRA has made it clear that they have no interest in finding a solution to legally sanctioned gun safety despite their claim of promoting gun safety. The American people need to call on them to work with Congress in helping us to do just that, rather than maintain its stubborn (and deadly) absolutism. As long as the 2nd Amendment exists and funders continue to bankroll their leaders, they will remain on the scene. So far, their negligence has been morally indictable.
In a reaffirmation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution , on June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that American citizens have an individual right to own guns in District of Columbia v. Heller . In that case the Court stated that an absolute firearm ban was unconstitutional. The Court further determined that its decision in Heller does not impinge upon all existing statutes and regulations, such as those that prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning or possessing firearms.
Certainly, existing laws and their current implementation need to be examined and improved to guard the public against the possibility of dangerous individuals from purchasing guns and any lethal weapons. This can be done without threatening the integrity of the 2nd Amendment . Jared Loughner and all the other individuals who have used guns to kill and wound innocent people would not have been able to do so without access to those guns. In the very least, we need to tighten regulations governing gun shows and reinstate the high capacity ban.
The local response to the Tucson shooting should include Arizona-based efforts to strengthen gun-control laws. It doesn’t violate the Second Amendment to keep semiautomatic weapons away from the mentally ill. Reasonable measures can be taken that certainly will not impede law abiding gun owners’ rights. For example, closing the gun show loophole would not prohibit anyone new from buying a firearm—it would simply make sure sellers at gun shows follow the same rules as gun sellers everywhere else.
In a particularly abhorent twist of irony, Republican Tea Party candidate Jesse Kelly is running for Congress in Giffords’ 8th Congressional district promoting lethal firepower. His motto is Send a Warrior to Congress. The online banner ad shows him in combat fatigues brandishing an assault rifle.
On the morning of January 8th Representative Giffords was exemplifying peaceful democracy in action – meeting with her neighbors and constituents outside of a grocery store in a “Congress on Your Corner” gathering. This is what participatory democracy as defined by the Constitution is all about. The First Amendment, ironically, is what Giffords read on the opening day of Congress. It has had a profound effect on her life. We wish her a full and speedy recovery.



48 Comments

This is a review of events leading up to her release from the hospital this week. I’m sure we all wish her well.
“How many times do you have to get hit on the head before you realize you’re being hit on the head?”
–Harry Truman
My God, it is people like you that make me fear for the future of my country. Don’t you get it that most of the infamous mass shooting incidents are in fact government-sponsored covert ops?
This spot is for progressives and liberals. Sounds like you’ve lost your GPS.
Rep. Giffords should sue the federal government for creating an unsafe workplace for her to do her work.
You can’t do public service if the public space in at the mercy of anyone who can get their hands on an automatic weapon, which is practically anyone!
Five prior times to that Saturday morning in January, the sheriff of that AZ county refused to prosecute Loughner on five documented occasions, several of which were verified death threats.
Last we looked death threats were felonies. So another example of the government failing to do their job.
The numbnuts at Columbine had a friend make a straw buy and violated over 10 laws in acquiring their firearms. Last we looked, straw buys were illegal. So explain again why the BATF didn’t catch the straw buyer?
Cho, wow, a doctor failed to follow up and report the mental illness diagnosis so who again failed, oh that’s right not the 80 mil law abiding gun owners. Hey, Cho lied on his 4473 form so why didn’t the BATF catch Cho eh Einstein?
Funny thing, the US Government acknowledges that 80% of all violent crimes are committed by career criminals/gang members USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2009.
Then even funnier, all those lovely suicidal people (hopefully progressives) that account for over 50% of all deaths where a firearm was the tool used CDC Database. That means over 95% of all deaths where a firearm was the tool used, are committed by those two groups. What are you progressives doing to address those two groups?
Oh that’s right, just like the Germans in WW2 Europe, you prefer to demonize, propaganda, lie and harass an innocent group of people. Tell everyone how that turned out for the Jews in WW2 eh?
Oh yeah, we see many studies, especially that 2001 Congressional study where congressional agents went to five states and using fake identifications successfully bought firearms.
Oh wow just like Loughner and Cho and all those other times the government agency FAILED to identify and STOP a violent crime.
Wow, when Loughner fumbled with the clumsy 31 round magazine because he had not practiced his reloads, the bystanders were able to tackle him. But hey, professional practiced shooters (like me) take 2.9 seconds to reload a 15 round magazine on a slow day wouldn’t have been tackled so what again do you know about shooting? Oh that’s right, NOTHING!
Wow, USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer report 2008 shows that of 99 mil check, 1.67 mil rejections less than 1% were prosecuted. That even though over 50% were felons, who last we checked, just attempting to buy a firearm committed a prosecutable felony. So why aren’t you slammin the judges, prosecuting attorney’s, police and all those government agents for failing to prosecute all those bad people eh? Oh geez, sorry, throwing logic and facts at progressives just confuses them.
Hey you do realize that another government study DOJ Firearms use by offenders 2001 report shows that referencing the 68% reduction in felons even attempting to buy from a licensed source data from the Background Check report 2008, we see that over 95.52% of felons don’t even attempt to buy from a licensed source.
But hey, since less than 1% of those are even prosecuted, yeah we see how the GOVERNMENT REALLY SUCKS at their job.
Oh wait, just google and you will see over 10 separate rulings by state & federal courts that the police are not legally liable to protect the individual citizen. Progressives do know how to google eh?
Wow, referencing FBI UCR databases and USDOJ National Victimization report 2008 show that the police on average solve only 8.75% of all violent crimes committed each year. See the 1.38 mil reported violent crimes, the 49% solved rate, the 80% successful prosecution rate. But hey don’t forget the 4.8 mil violent crimes the government acknowledges are not reported each year. You do the numbers.
Oh wait, these are not my numbers, they are the governments numbers, so if you don’t like them, we suggest you go complain to the responsible agency and prove they don’t know what they are doing, ROTFLMFAO. This we got to see, progressives telling the their pseudo demi god da GOOBERMENT they are WRONG, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO.
Wow, you have changed our legal system to be guilty until proven innocent right Einstein?
Oh that’s right, you just want to arbitrarily accuse people and call them guilty without due process based on some political hacks political and unsubstantiated fears. Hey you do have the data on how many of those people committed a crime? Wait for the drum roll……………….. NONE!
Hey, you do realize that the US Supreme Court ruled in Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 that no person had to follow a law that required them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination. But hey since over 85% of all the 20,000 gun control laws require the person to identify themselves, those 85% don’t apply to felons.
Why is it, that no study, government or anti has ever proven that any ban accomplished anything ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, oh that’s right, cause they NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL!
Australia 1997 Banned guns 629 Violent Crime reported per 100k, 2009 1,024 VCR and no reduction in murders. Reference their government database AIC.GOV
Canada 1997 Banned handguns 980 VCR per 100k people, 2009 1,324 VCR per 100k people and a 10% increase in murders. Reference their government database STATCAN
England 1997 Banned guns 820 VCR per 100k people, 2009 1,667 VCR per 100k people and no change in murders.
So much for less guns equals less violence.
Since 1997 to 2009 US Census & average of NSSF & PEW study a 9 million household increase in gun ownership.
FBI UCR database shows a 30% reduction in violent crime, a 20% reduction in murders.
12 to 15 more states implement concealed carry to 48 total.
34 states implement concealed carry in eateries serving alcohol.
3 states and 71 universities implement concealed carry.
All without the bloodbaths predicted by the anti’s. Glad you guys don’t make a living as soothsayers, you would starve.
So much for more guns equals more violence.
The word absolutism IS the accurate description of the ANTI’S position on legislation and even discussions that approach the idea of reform of gun laws to limit the circulation of assault weapons, related paraphernalia or accessibility to them.
Their claim has been consistent, saying that those not responsible for over 95% should be made to pay for their unsubstantiated fears and lies.
In the aftermath of this latest shooting, the Brady Bunch and their few supporters have made it clear that they have no interest in finding a REAL solution to violence and gun safety despite their claim of promoting gun safety. The American people need to call on them to work with Congress in helping us to do just that, rather than maintain their stubborn (and deadly) absolutism of disarming the innocents. As long as the 2nd Amendment exists and anti gun financiers led by George Soros and his cabal of billionaires funders continue to bankroll their few anti gun zealots, they will remain on the scene. So far, their negligence has been morally indictable.
“This spot is for progressives and liberals.”
Yeah? Commie-light?
Lissen. This country is NOT about ‘progressivism’, it is about individual freedom with the government keeping out of our way. You know, Enumerated Powers?
May your server crash.
The all-too-predictable (because it’s been mindlessly parroted a thousand time already by a thousand other clueless liberals) stupidity of these sorts of rants is nothing if not endlessly amusing. For instance, a popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. And in spite of the so-called “Assault Weapon Ban”s proven ineffectiveness at having ANY statistically significant positive impact on violent crime reduction (as concluded by an in-depth study commissioned by a Dem-controlled U.S. Congress), those who base their views on nothing more than their own ignorance insist that the ban (which primarily prohibited nothing but scary-looking cosmetic features from some firearms) must be reinstated. Because…well…just because.
Irrational knee-jerk reactions are the poorest sort of foundation for public policy. And yet that is all the author employs here (which is SOP for his side of the issue.) But, more on the ignorance on disply by the author:
“For example, closing the gun show loophole would not prohibit anyone new from buying a firearm—it would simply make sure sellers at gun shows follow the same rules as gun sellers everywhere else.”
First off, there is no “gun show loophole”. There is simply a law that not only does not require *private* sellers to perform background checks on buyers, it actualy PROHIBITS them from doing so. That law applies universally, regardless of where the transaction is taking place, be that a gun show, a garage or on the side of the road. Licensed dealers selling at gun shows must perform the same background check that they would when selling at their own store. There is NO difference between what is required at a gun show and what is required anywhere else. The auther has absolutely no idea what he’s babbling about. Finally, I was particularly amused by this little bit of hyperbolic silliness…
“In a particularly abhorent twist of irony, Republican Tea Party candidate Jesse Kelly is running for Congress in Giffords’ 8th Congressional district promoting lethal firepower. His motto is Send a Warrior to Congress. The online banner ad shows him in combat fatigues brandishing an assault rifle.”
Oh, the humanity!!!! A U.S. Marine pictured holding (not “brandishing”) his combat weapon?!!!! Have these combat veterans NO shame?!!!!
Are you fools even genetically capable of feeling embarrassment?
Oh, but wait…there’s more…
- “At gun shows across the country, buyers can completely avoid background checks otherwise required by law.”
As already explained, this is 100% false.
- “The Columbine High School shooters obtained their weapons at a gun show.”
This is also 100% false. Harris and Klebold bought one rifle and two shotguns from Robyn Anderson, an acquaintance who herself had bought them from a gunshow (this is known as a “strawpurchase”, and is already a violation of federal law.) They also bought a handgun from another friend (but NOT at a gun show). Don’t you clowns ever do ANY research before shooting off your mouths (pun intended)? It’s not like this stuff is difficult to find. Have any 12 year-old teach you how to use Google.
Oh, by the way…Harris fired his 9mm carbine no fewer than 96 times, all from standard 10-round magazines. Almost twice as many shots as Klebold got out his TEC-9 and it’s evil “hi-capacity assault clips”.
Review? No. It’s an ill-informed rant.
What automatic weapon was used eh einstein?
LOL, Not many of you unenlightened ones left.
Funny how the internet, and individual access to research the full context of ALL the facts has contributed so greatly to people ignoring your fear mongering position of unsubstantiated fears and outright lies.
Keep on though, that way we know where to send the men in white with their butterfly nets.
Thank you all for your comments. I see I struck a nerve by calling attention to the fact that we need to take another look at how we can avoid a repeat of the tragedy in January and all the others.
I don’t recall anyone acknowledging the fact that a Congresswoman has been shot in the head. Gabrielle Giffords was shot with a real gun bought by an insane young man. The issue is to prevent a repeat. This seems to threaten some of you who are apparently easily frightened. Those of you in that group might even own guns. I can see why in view of the fact that you’re scared off by a suggestion that does’nt even remotely threaten gun rights as embodied in the 2nd Amendment.
No informed voter would vote for someone posing with an assault weapon in fatigues, much less want to send a warrior to Congress unless they had cement for brains like you apparently do.
Most of you have missed the real issue here that Congresswoman Giffords was shot and several others were killed and injured. This needs to be prevented in the future. It’s at least worth a try. A combination of screening purchasers, examining existing laws, and the possibility of new ones. I agree, that our mental health laws need to be re-examined to prevent mentally deficient people from purchasing guns. But the kinds of guns that circulate need to be regulated as well.
I invite you to tell the survivors of the January 8 attack that any lingering fears they may have are unsubtantiated.
Let’s start with two deaths and several serious injuries on January 8. Please limit your response to that statement before we move on. Where’s the misinformation?
By your own admission, private sellers do not perform background checks. This loophole needs to be closed by prohibiting these vendors from selling guns until they become licensed dealers.
In this case about equal protection under the 14th Amendment to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Individual freedom is what empowered Loughner to shoot 31 times.
Were you dropped on your head as a child (or more recently perhaps)? HE’S A U.S. MARINE’S COMBAT VETERAN! It’s a part of his background that he’s campaigning on. Only a complete moron would be horrified to learn that service men/women carried…GASP..weapons when they served.
You can’t even keep your own B.S. straight. You claimed that there was some “gunshow loophole”. The fact that private sellers are not required to perform background checks (and indeed are prevented by law from doing so) has NOTHING to do with gunshows, as that law applies REGARDLESS of where the transaction takes place. There is no “loophole”. Have an adult explain that word to you, as you clearly have no idea what it means.
Furthermore, you asserted that background checks are not required to be performed at gunshows in general, which is patently false. All sales of firearms by dealers (which account for well over 90% of all firearms sales at gunshows) are subject to the same background check requirement as sales made at gun stores, or any other outlet. In fact, if you purchase a firearm from an on-line dealer the gun must by federal law be shipped to and picked up from a 2nd local licensed firearm dealer, who then performs the required background check before the firearm is tranfered to you.
You flapping your jaw with nothing but abject ignorance to go on.
The 14th Amendment? What the hell are you babbling about now? What does Loughner shooting people have to with Amendment XIV?
I’ve already explained, in-depth, the multiple instance of ignorance-base misinformation in your rant. Perhaps you should have someone more literate read the comments to you and help you with the big words.
You struck no nerve, and are grossly over-estimating your abilities. What you did was offend our sense of integrity and respect for the truth.
As for acknowledging the fact that a Congresswoman was shot, we’re all well aware of it and didn’t think the obvious required acknowledgement. Was did require attention however was your ill-informed B.S.
Curious though that the woman who survived seems to be your repeated focus, rather than those who did not. Were the little girl, the federal judge and the others of lesser importance?
- “…much less want to send a warrior to Congress…”
ROFLMAO!!!!! So you think U.S. military veterans are not fit to hold Congressional office? Holy crap. What color is the sky in your world?
Fine. It’s completely irrelevant to campaigning for office. In fact, putting it front and center makes it a liability. If he were campaigning in my district I wouldn’t vote for him on that reason alone.
You seem to be about as brain dead as some of the other folks on this thread. Let me explain this slowly – People were shot and killed on January 8. The point is we need to work together to find a solution.
This issue is that Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Do you not understand English? Let’s work to figure out how to prevent this in the future.
You’ve all flattered me with numerous tantrums. Unfortunately, I’m not hearing any solutions. Certainly you must think it’s worth the effort.
Let’s start with two deaths and several serious injuries on January 8. Please limit your response to that statement before we move on. Where’s the misinformation?
We aren’t talking about their fears, we are talking about your unsubstantiated fears and recognizing the probabilities based on facts, not your manipulations or inferrences.
As for those who survived, their survivors should be suing the sheriff and the county who failed 5 times previously to do their job. Were those government agents to have performed their job correctly, Loughner would have FAILED THE Background Check. There definitely should be some crimnal if not civil liability the government owes Giffords and the other victims eh einstein?
Not to mention since we still pretend to be a constituional Republic, those who were injured, like all mature adults still have a choice, pay for protection, or protect themselves as again, the government proved INCAPABLE of defending those people, or did we miss something here eh einstein?
We are talking about how because someone else caused harm how your solution is to punish and infringe on the majorities rights using fear mongering, partial truths and outright lies to achieve your agenda comrade.
We are talking about how the government completely fails to enforce the existing laws and you progressive putzes have done NOTHING to fix the broken legal system. Yet you declare more laws will solve the problem, ROTFLMFAO. Only the insane keep attempting to use the same failed solution over, and over again like you few unenlightened ones
But hey, since doctors are 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely to kill you than a person licensed to carry concealed, we should also ban all doctors eh? JAMA Medical Malpractice report 2001 where 700k doctors kll 44k to 98k per year or .065 to .14 deaths per doctor. Then we have your own data from the VPC in 2009 where they claimed over a 3 year time period how the 8 mil cpl licensee’s supposedly killed 45 people per year or a .00000562 death per licensee. .065 to .14/ .00000562 = 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely a doctor is to kill so you should be voriferously declaring all doctors should be banned.
Based on your absolutist position, since multiple police commit murders, rape, assault, drug dealing, all police should be disarmed as well eh?
Hey since a couple priests have abused their position and commited pedophilia, all priests must therefore be pedophiles and treated the same eh?
AID’s a deadly virus first recognized publicly in the Gay community scares the bejesus out of me. Therefore based on your position, we should make all homosexuals come out of the closet (just like all cpl licensee data should be public knowledge). Then since we need to be able to easily recognize these homosexuals, you should make them wear some kind of mark, like a star of David eh? Then for the public safety, you should organize those homosexuals into separate living camps away from everyone else, all based on public safety right? Yeah, that follows your illogic so you must agree that would be a good solution eh einstein?
Hey, we should also see you validate your position that to plan and prepare is insane. So that means you will publicly acknowledge and prove you have no health, life, car or homeowners insurance as to do anything like having those insurances and being prepared is absolutely insane in your unenlightened opinion eh einatein?
Then again, you have not disproven a single bit of GOVERNMENT DATA presented yet, LOL, your kind never can.
We then invite you to prove gun control has ever worked eh Comrade!
Dasvadanya Comrade
- “You seem to be about as brain dead as some of the other folks on this thread.”
LOL! Oh, the hypocritical irony. This coming from the moron who has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about, but keeps doing it anyway.
So…in your opinion, military service is a disqualifier for holding public office? I’m sure the countless former military members who have honorably held the highest of offices throughout this country’s history would be surprised about that.
All we have heard from you is the same old failed solution of gun control is the solution.
When you present soemthing a person with some degree of intelligence could present, you will get different responses.
But apparently your head is up your backside and you refuse to listen.
Get back to us when you recognize and acknowledge all those facts you completely fail to acknowledge exist and present actual root cause solutions to reducing violence.
Something like what occurred during the repeal of prohibition. Did that not reduce the power and reach of the mob, yeah it did. Yet to legalize illicit drugs and put them under the government control and taxation would only reduce the $200 bilion spent in interdictin activities by how much einstein? Oh but thats immoral, lol. Mankind has been getting high in some fashion since the dawn of mankind, so get over any false sense of morality as 65% of the revenues that support those gangs/career criminals are derived from illicit drugs.(80% of all violent crimes are comitted bycareer criminals/gang members as recognized in USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2009)
Cripple that and you have a start at reducing violence.
How about all those pharmacuetical companies playing lab rats with our brain chemistires eh? They have no liablity for ANYTHING EH?
What are you doing to recharge and fix the lack of family values and adult supervision so necessary for developing kids into level headed mature adults less likely to devalue life eh?
No your solution is to promote more useless and unenforceable laws.
You really do need to grow up!
What are you…12 years old? We know she was shot. We know lots of people get shot. Lots of people are killed in all sorts of ways every day. The point is that mindless running around like a chicken with it’s head cut off calling for pointless legislation because you don’t have even the most basic understanding of the issue is not a rational basis for public policy.
So, here’s a start (actually, it was already mentioned above, but like every other substantive note you’ve ignored it in favor of your little girl-like hissy fits):
Start enforcing the existing laws, and oust worthless law enforcement officials like Dupnik who have the opportunity to stop these sorts of things, but fail to act.
So in addition to being ignorant and childish, you’re also pathologically dishonest.
No, we have not missed a thing. We clearly recognize again the sheriff failed to do his job and the end result is Loughner was able to go a killing spree as a result.
We do not dwell on the one instance, or the small number of instances you progressives harp upon. We recognize the big picture and do not buy into your absolutist position that because there is a law, that it is infallible and will prevent ANYTHING!
We do not believe that more legislation is the answer as history has proven legislation to only control the law abiding.
We do not believe you can legislatively control morality and history has clearly proven that belief correct.
Sufficient regulation exists today, so how about you be a mature adult and focus your energies on the government who fails to enforce the background check less than 1% of the time to begin with eh einstein? Afterall, that would eliminate 30,000 to 40,000 felons a year to begin with!
By the way, I note you praised Carolyn McCarthy’s effort to resurrect the AWB with a new version. Unfortunately, much like yourself, the woman is an idiot who has absolutely no idea what she’s talking about. She (also like yourself) just wants to pass laws banning things that scare her, based on nothing but her own fear and ignorance. Here’s her now infamous “shoulder thing that goes up” in which she demonstrates that she doesn’t even know what her own proposed legislation is banning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
Would you agree that ignorance is not a solid foundation on which to base legislation? Yes or no.
Here are some more elected idiots putting their ignorance on display:
“Incendiary rounds are heat-seeking devices that can cook a deer.”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&NR=1
“Many people are shot by unloaded guns.”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHsX7STHqNg&NR=1
These are the fools you’re siding with.
Oh, this one is good too:
- “A background check is not conducted every time a gun is sold. This makes it possible for people like Loughner to get their hands on lethal firepower.”
Loughner bought his Glock at a Sportsman’s Warehouse (well-known sporting goods chain store) – NOT at a gunshow – after filling out the required federal form AND…drum roll please…passing the background check.
So attempting to link Loughner’s weapon purchase somehow with a lack of background checks is at best piss-poor representation of the facts, and at worst blatently dishonest misrepresentation of them.
Here’s another suggestion:
Support Daryl Issa and Chuck Grassley in their investigation of the “Operation Gunrunner/Project Fast & Furious” scandal, and urge them to seek prosecution of those in the Obama administration (via the DOJ/BATFE) who are responsible for the smuggling of thousands of firearms across the border to Mexican drug cartels that were used to not only murder Mexican citizens, but at least one U.S. law enforcement agent. Are you concerned enough about this sort of thing to see those responsible prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even if it goes all the way to the White House?
You’ve all worked up a nice sweat straining yourselves to rebut the argument that we need better safeguards against gun violence. I appreciate your efforts. Thanks for joining me in reflecting on Representative Giffords injury and wishes for a full recovery along with the other survivors. Happy Father’s Day.
Not enough of a man to acknowledge that you’ve been shown to be full of crap on pretty much every claim you made? Pretty pathetic. My kids had more courage and integrity than you when they were in grade school.
Thank you, Thomas, for your insightful comments. So much more can be done to prevent gun violence, and you’ve touched on many of them.
The pro-gun extremists commenting here and leading the NRA exert a great deal of energy to attack our efforts to reduce gun-related deaths, and yet they offer nothing to help other than the disreputable suggestion that more guns on the street will scare criminals into behaving. We need to keep firearms out of criminal hands to begin with.
Keep up your voice for common sense reforms, Thomas, and I will join you.
Thank you all for spending so much time and effort in making this post my most popular one yet. As of this moment it has 68 likes and 42 tweets.
The bottom line obviously remains that there are measures to be taken to prevent future shootings. They should begin with reinstating a ban on high capacity magazines, tightening up gun show loopholes as my friends here have inadvertently supported, and tougher screening measures in general.
My pro-gun friends here who protest against these measures should have nothing to be afraid of if they are in fact law abiding citizens. They might, however, experience some difficulty getting through stricter mental health screening prior to future purchases.
Additional responses are welcome. They will continue to build the enormous popularity of this post and thus illuminate the need for improved gun safety.
You’re quite welcome. I agree that the respondents to this post have expended great amounts of energy trying to dispel the truth that we need to improve gun safety.
I agree. We need to close the private seller gun show loophole. Thanks for reminding me.
I can see I struck a nerve w/o much even trying. The only individual of lesser importance here is you.
By advocating for improved gun safety I’ve really become the center of your day. I’m quite flattered.
It’s so unfortunate that enlightened calls for responsible public policy like improved gun safety evoke such hostility. I’m always amused by the way such limited I.Q.s must resort to name calling and insults. Not only is this blog reserved for progressives, but also for the big boys (and girls). Just a reminder.
I live in Giffords district. I was in another grocery store just a few miles North of wher she was shot when I looked up and saw the breaking news on TV. In front of me in the check out line was a man in a long coat and a “gun rights” cap. I could only think about how, under AZ law, he could be just like Jared and start shooting. The campaign against Giffords by her Repub opponent was mean spirited, misleading and funded largely by out-of-state interests. And, yes Jesse Kelly did give his supporters a chance to shoot an M-16,what a wonderful way to highlight your qualifications for office.
I would like to know the source of Jarhead assertion that our Sheriff could have arrested him 5 times but didn’t. The only thing I’m sure of is that Pima Community College tried to get the family to get him mental health evaluation & help & nothing was done. I find it ironic that the same people who want no restrictions for guns want people arrested for what?, thoughts?, words?