Gabby Giffords Pushes Gun Control, Launches Anti-Gun Group

On one hand, you can’t blame her. On the other hand, she’s using her experience to attempt to infringe on Constitutional rights

(USA Today) In response to a horrific series of shootings that has sown terror in our communities, victimized tens of thousands of Americans, and left one of its own bleeding and near death in a Tucson parking lot, Congress has done something quite extraordinary — nothing at all.

Democrats have submitted 8 pieces of anti-gun people control legislation in the House, Republicans have submitted 2 pro-gun pro-people bills. Diane Feinstein plans to introduce a big comprehensive bill in the Senate.

Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.

So, first insult people. Good start. Second, there is no “balance between rights and regulation”, not when it comes to Government. We’ve heard this same argument about the TSA and about government surveillance. Rights are rights. Once the government starts infringing, they are lost, and the average citizen can’t stop The Government. No one saw it coming as the government started infringing on gun rights in Nazi Germany.

As a result, we are more vulnerable to gun violence. 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. And gun owners are less responsible for the misuse of their weapons than they are for their automobiles.

If you live in a big city, which tend to be Left leaning, yes, you are more vulnerable (to the tune of double the violent crime and murder rate), because you fools tolerate and coddle criminals.

Americans for Responsible Solutions, which we are launching today, will invite people from around the country to join a national conversation about gun violence prevention, will raise the funds necessary to balance the influence of the gun lobby, and will line up squarely behind leaders who will stand up for what’s right.

No, they will stand up for what their far left politics tell them, and to hell with the Constitution. What we aren’t really hearing, and we do not see at ARS, is any way to deal with the lunatics that use guns to commit mass murder ‘n suicide. Or how to deal with the criminals that use guns, particularly in metropolitan liberal areas, and especially liberal gun free zones, like Chicago.

When you have real solutions that don’t involve infringing on my rights and when all you liberals have given up your own guns and armed guards, come see me then. Until then, you have no right to force you anti-Constitutional viewpoint down my throat. And if you want my guns, bring bigger guns to take them.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Gabby Giffords Pushes Gun Control, Launches Anti-Gun Group”

  1. Anne says:

    Who is surprised that Gabby Giffords claims martyrdom; the God-given right of every woman, and the birthright of every Democrat.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    ….will invite people from around the country to join a national conversation about gun violence prevention,

    That “conversation” will actually be a lecture on how they have to destroy people’s God given / natural rights.

    Lectures are not conversations.


  3. Anne says:

    The ventriloquist with her hand up the dummy’s ass: Gabby Giffords has always been a shill for her slimy and slippery mentor, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Just say’n.

    Speaking of martyrs, I can’t wait to see Hillary Clinton’s portrayal of herself as a martyr when, during the forthcoming Congressional hearings, she weasels out of her complicity in the Benghazi tragedy.

    Democrats sure do love their con artists.

  4. Anne says:

    Comment by gitarcarver— January 8, 2013

    Excellente, Senor.

  5. john says:

    All “rights” have limits. Gun rights have been limited in the past. Guns were banned from Dodge City by Earp. Machine gun ownership has been limited for decades and has done very well in keeping that type of weapon from falling in to the wrong hands. You have a”right” to own a dog, but you have to have a license for it. You have a “right” to get on a plane, but not with a loaded gun. Liberals don’t want to take everyone’s guns nor everyone’s dogs. But both need some controls. Should felons be allowed these “rights” so they can defend their children ? Teach what about their kids???? Do it for the kids.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    All “rights” have limits.

    A better way of putting this is “rights are not absolute.” I would agree with this sentiment. However, the government must show an overwhelming reason to restrict a right.

    Guns were banned from Dodge City by Earp.

    Such a ban was illegal then as it is today. It is interesting to note that you say “liberals don’t want to take everyone’s guns” and then use as an example Dodge City where everyone’s weapons were banned.

    Machine gun ownership has been limited for decades and has done very well in keeping that type of weapon from falling in to the wrong hands.

    I am unaware of a single gun owner who does not understand the limit on automatic weapons and supports it. So the liberal meme of “gun owners want all types of weapons” isn’t true, is it?

    You have a”right” to own a dog, but you have to have a license for it.

    Please show me where this “right” is. And by the way, courts have ruled licenses for dogs are required if the dog is off private property – not in general ownership of a dog.

    You have a “right” to get on a plane, but not with a loaded gun.

    No, you don’t. This is part of a conversation that has been going on for sometime. You have the right not to be restricted in travel, but there is no right to all means of travel. You can go from point A to point B, but how you get there is not a right.

    Liberals don’t want to take everyone’s guns nor everyone’s dogs.

    In 1994 Diane Feinstein said her goal was to eliminate all private gun ownership. Feinstein is a liberal, isn’t she?

    The so called “assault weapon ban” was ineffective. It did not lower crime. Yet that is one thing liberals point to and say “we need an assault weapon ban.” It doesn’t matter that the ban was ineffective, what matters was that liberals felt they were doing something – even if that something was ineffective. Now we see the push to add on to the ineffectiveness of the ban by adding restrictions to weapons that do not matter to the lethality of the weapon. That’s the point.

    You want to ban fully automatic weapons? Go right….oh wait… they are already banned.

    You want to ban armor piercing bullets? Go right…. oh wait…. they are already banned.

    Most liberals don’t understand the fact (not opinion – FACT) that the AR-15 is not an “assault weapon.” It is not a “military weapon.” Yet those are the reasons people want to ban it. (That and “it looks scary.”)

    Once again, if the government wants to restrict a right, it must have an overwhelming interest in doing so.

    By most estimates, there are 10,000 people killed with guns in the US per year. Guns are used in defense anywhere from 1.8 to 2.5 million times a year. By far, guns are used more in self defense than in committing crimes.

    The liberal argument for banning guns is “we want them banned.” The conservative argument is “we have a God given / natural right to defend ourselves.”

    The conservative argument is much more compelling to the rational thinker.

  7. “All rights have limits”

    Until someone mentions abortion, then liberals go nuts, despite it not being a right.

  8. Gumball_Brains says:

    I don’t like the term “limits”. I rather like the use of the word, controls. Speech is a right and free, but has certain controls placed on where and how. Gun ownership should not be limited, but have certain controls. If I want to own 1000 guns, I should be free to do so. We have agreed over time that certain ownership control over certain types of guns was allowed.

    HOwever, I’m still uncertain why automatics need to be banned.

    Especially since, as we were told by ABC Evening News on Monday January 8, 2013, that semi-autos can shoot 6 rounds per second.

    So, either all guns will be classified as Tier 2, or we need to get rid of Tier 2.

  9. Trish says:

    Maybe Gabby and James Brady can hook up. They’d make an awesome pair.
    Knee jerk reactions from jerks. No one cares about life but the demorats. Unless the life is too small to defend itself, and then demorats say it’s the “woman’s” right to kill it.
    I care about life, and have four children and 7 grandchildren to prove it. I care about life and own firearms to protect the aforementioned. I have encouraged several of them to purchase and become trained in the use of firearms, and the adults have done that.
    Screw your national conversation, just open your eyes and stop being shocked that crazy people do crazy things. And if it wasn’t a gun, he could have done it with a home made bomb, a hatchet or whatever he chose to use. It’s the GUY not the gun.

  10. Gumball_Brains says:

    And I still don’t think we’ve gotten a strong clear definitive answer on what gun(s) he did use.

    And, it is also interesting we have not heard a toxicology report yet. Or a medical report on any treatments he may have or not have had.

  11. Trish says:

    GB is right- I’ve heard six different claims on the type of weapons he used- seems to me that the police have had enough time to investigate this crime, and since the perp is dead no reason to withold the info.
    I heard yesterday that he was prescribed anti-depressants (and whatever else) but they can’t confirm that he was taking it. The same discussion said that each person in the past 10 or so crazy acts of violence, were on a form of anti-depressant. Sounds like they are working nicely. But again, no one can make a crazy person take their meds, or monitor them for them. Thanks to bleeding heart liberals we can no longer forcibily contain our loved ones whether for their own good or that of the innocent people they may harm. Old time institutions were horrible, and needed to be updated for certain. Instead of fixing a problem, they have compounded it.
    I guess we can be thankful that liberals will defend the right of any crazy person to have an abortion. But don’t make them seek help for mental issues. that’s just crazy.

  12. Anne says:

    Comment by Trish— January 9, 2013 @ 8:24 Comment by Trish— January 9, 2013 @ 11:20

    And let’s not overlook the aesthetic value of some guns which makes them pleasing to the eye. I’m fascinated by those mechancal marvels of such aeshetic value that they could be an artform; e.g., a Lewis auxiliary machinegun mounted above the pilot on the upper wing of a Sopwith Camel bi-planel a simple, but clever innovation …, and nothing quite matches the artistry of a Bofors gun filling the sky over an ocean with flashes, booms and puffs of black smoke, and scaring the shit out of aviators in the area on an otherwise quiet and lazy Sunday morning.

  13. Gumball_Brains says:

Bad Behavior has blocked 10089 access attempts in the last 7 days.