March 12, 2013
Gabby Giffords for and against guns
Former Rep. Gabby Giffords is both for and against guns at the same time. She is actively lobbying the Washington Legislature to expand background checks to private sales, even making phone calls to representatives. [Added] And her organization is calling for limits on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons. See below. KOMO TV
Meanwhile, her husband ex-astronaut Mark Kelly bought an AR-15 March 5 in Tucson. He has to have his semi-automatic rifle and he passed the background check. He has an explanation, of course. MSN
Which to believe? Actions speak louder than words.
Giffords and Kelly have started an organization to lobby for gun control - Americans for Responsible Solutions. Their proposals: Besides national background checks they have pages for the following:
-- Limiting high-capacity magazines
-- Limiting assault weapons and
-- Stopping gun trafficking.
Is Mr. Kelly's AR-15 one of the assault rifles they want to ban? Some AR-15s were banned by the assault weapons ban of 1994. Wikipedia:
During the period 1994-2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was subject to restrictions.
So Mr. Kelly's purchase might have been an assault weapon under the 1994 law. He will want to make the truth clear.
Photo: Colt AR-15 from Wiki Commons. Click to enlarge.
Posted by Ron Hebron at March 12, 2013
08:01 AM | Email This
1. A bit hypocritical on the part of Gabby's husband, Mark, don' t you think?
How exactly is it hypocritical to favor allowing AR-15s but requiring background checks?
I personally am against allowing AR-15s for any private citizen, but Rep. Giffords' position seems totally rational.
It's not a matter of being "for" or "against" guns. Most people learn around the age of 7 that the world is more nuanced than that. It's a matter of the appropriate regulation of guns.
The 2nd Amendment refers to "arms", not guns. Does that mean that, if you are "for" the constitition, you must favor the individual's right to own nuclear and chemical weapons?
3. Bruce -- to this crowd, firearms are for showing off in the artificial, controlled, preening environment of the gun range. That a husband would buy weapon to defend his wife, after he knew full well she had already been attacked, is utterly incomprehensible to these tough-guy swagger cases. "Personal protection" is just empty rhetoric for them, and even they know it.
Bruce@2 - your ignorance is astounding, or are you just trolling. Please see District of Columbia v. Heller for what "arms" consist of both specifically and generally. Since the AR-15 and it's clones are the most widely purchased long rifle in the country it falls within the "commonly used" catagory. BTW, "extended round magazines" which are delivered with many of them, would also fall under that catagory. I just love when liberals say they want to sit down and have a "reasonable discussion" about firearms and then immediately bring up nuclear and chemical weapons - 2 things already illegal for the common citizen for clear reasons.
tensor@3 - had Mark said he was purchasing the weapon for personal defense I think everyone here would have understood - but it still would have made the couple hyprocryts since Gabby is trying to have them banned. Your comment seems more designed to throw mud at "this crowd" than to actually address the issue brought up in the post.
Jay@4, you missed my point. I was making the analogy that, just as "guns" and "nuclear arms" are different, so are "AR-15s" and "background checks". Drawing these distinctions is not "hyporcitical" (as Jim implies and @1 says), it's common sense.
And your interpretation of Heller with respect to AR-15s is wrong, according to every court ruling since then. But I imagine the Supreme Court will ultimately need to clarify this.
6. Correction to my previous comment -- it's not Jim who made the original post that I criticize, but Ron Hebron.
"Former Rep. Gabby Giffords is both for and against guns at the same time."
I take it that nuance isn't your thing. So you're either for guns or against them. Is that really how you think? Sigh! In this household, both myself and my dear mate, Mr. Detonics .451 magnum, support background checks.
"A bit hypocritical on the part of Gabby's husband, Mark, don' t you think?"
Only if you believe the nonsense you read on a wingnut blog.
There's no hypocricy here to talk about. Rather, it's much ado about nothing. Better luck next time, Hebron.
(CNN) - Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords and an outspoken advocate for new gun control measures, purchased an AR-15 assault rifle in Tucson recently as a demonstration of what he says are unobtrusive background checks.
The retired space shuttle commander wrote on his Facebook page he would turn in the weapon - which he said he hadn't yet obtained - to the city's police department.
"Looks like the judiciary committee will vote on background checks next week," Kelly wrote, referring to the Senate panel where gun control legislation is up for a vote this week.
8. On TV yesterday (I think) Gov. Ubercreep also called for universal background checks. Obviously a means for universal registration. And see Kalifornia's program for armed patrols to collect guns they feel they can justify confiscating (Drudge Report).
All of these liberals are frauds. You can tick the issues off one at a time and the list would be a mile long. Most are multiple offenders. And it all breaks down to one thing: We are more important than you. In a land of laws not men, liberals are the men/women that are above the laws that govern the great unwashed.
From Al Gore's carbon footprint to insider trading to Gabby here and everywhere in between, it's hooray for me and f**k you.
This is not just about background checks.
I added to the original post. Kelly and Gifford's new organization is lobbying for limiting magazine capacities and assault weapons. Some models of AR-15 are assault weapons under the expired 1994 ban.
Bruce, Jay is correct about the Heller case. Commonly used is the standard that federal courts will apply regarding choices of firearms and equipment including magazines.
If you disagree, back up your opinions with citation of court decisions decided since Heller.
12. Who is Gabby Giffords, and why should I care what this woman run's her pie hole about if she's not a representative of Washington State? Just another liberal nut that doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution.
@7 ~The retired space shuttle commander wrote on his Facebook page he would turn in the weapon - which he said he hadn't yet obtained - to the city's police department.
Which only proves that a shuttle commander is not necessarily a rocket scientist. Buy a firearm only to turn it in to the police is beyond inane, but hey, his wife's 15 minutes of fame are almost up, so I understand the desperate measures taken ro remain in the spotlight no matter how ridiculous you look.
"I added to the original post."
Of course you did. You'd look like an idiot if you didn't.
"Which to believe?"
For your information, Mark Kelly is a retired American astronaut and a U.S. Navy Captain and pilot who flew combat missions during the Gulf War. Any Real American would consider him an American hero.
"He will want to make the truth clear."
Truth? How dare you speak of truth? Even after revising your post you couldn't bring yourself to post Kelly's remarks as to why he bought that weapon. Your post abuses truth just so you can snidely insinuate that an American hero is a liar. What does that make you, Ron? It doesn't make you an American hero, I can tell you that much for damned sure.
"A bit hypocritical on the part of Gabby's husband, Mark, don' t you think?"
That's what you wanted, isn't it, Ron? Another foolish reader swallowing your BS hook, line and sinker.
"15 minutes of fame are almost up" "I understand the desperate measures taken ro remain in the spotlight"
Besides being a real nasty piece of work, you're damned delusional. Both are easily treated with the proper application of voltage, RickyD, in case you didn't know.
17. I cannot for one minute understand what you people object to in these very sane proposals. I grew up in a family who used guns, my husband has a collection. WTF is it you object to? Please don't spew any propaganda about Obama and black helicopters and a coming government takeover. Try to be rational.
18. I'd say getting shot in the head and spending the rest of your life trying to prevent that from happening to other people is a little more pithy than " five minutes of fame ."
Pru@17 - A requirement for background checks for ALL firearm purchases would, out of necessity, require a national firearm registry. As current federal law stands, that would be illegal on it's face.
Those of us that oppose gun registries - whether national or state - have no need at all to conjur up boogie men. We need only look to New Orleans after Katrina where police used ownership lists to illegally seize guns. In point of fact, they didn't just use the lists, they went down streets kicking in doors looking for the guns of law abiding citizens and taking them (stealing them), this in the face of not one but two federal injunctions to cease. I might also point out that videos taken of these actions show jackets marked not only with "NOPD" and "SHERIFF" but also with "DEA" and "FBI".
Now if you want to call that an outlier since there was a hurricane - as though that should be an excuse for ignoring the constitution and the courts - perhaps you would like to look at the state of Connecticut. A state registry was maintained and when they decided to ban rifles that had previously been legal, the state police went door to door seizing private property, again in violation of the US Constitution.
We don't have to imagine government agents kicking in the doors, it's already happened!
To you, these may be "very sane proposals" but as even their sponsors have said, they will not solve the problem they are being touted to solve. If that is the case, and I just can't imagine you would want to call VP Biden a liar, then there is no valid reason for the law in the first place.
20. What i don't understood is actually how you are not really much more well-liked than you might be now. You're very intelligent. You realize therefore significantly relating to this subject, produced me personally consider it from numerous varied angles. Its like men and women aren't fascinated unless it is one thing to accomplish with Lady gaga! Your own stuffs great. Always maintain it up!
Jay@19 writes, "as even their sponsors have said, they will not solve the problem they are being touted to solve"
Huh? Obviously their sponsors are not touting them to solve these problems because their sponsors say they won't. So apparently you're saying that some other people -- at least one human on earth -- is incorrectly "touting" these proposals. Well, duh, of course. That's not an argument for opposing the proposals.
Gun control won't eliminate all gun violence, and Obamacare won't eliminate all illness. But both will help.
22. Our individual right to bear arms is a right we HAVE, not a right that the government should grudgingly dole out only to those it deems "acceptable". I understand that right can be revoked if you abuse it, much like other rights have responsibilities. (I do take issue with the broad "felony" restriction as I do not see a reality based nexus with all felony convictions and the assumption of armed violence propensity. Another day for that discussion perhaps.) The severe problem with "universal" checks is that who ever is in power can increasingly restrict acceptability and force compliance using the foreseeable available data base through draconian confiscation as is actually now occurring. It's common sense, just as our founders saw.
Bruce@21 - As usual you pick one sentence and ignore the paragraphs that provide plenty of reasons for opposing the proposals.
ANY law brought forward by the congress or a state legislature is required to specifically address the activity that it is designed to prohibit or regulate. That is why we see the courts invalidate laws for being too broad. To ban a set of firearms ie; "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines" to reduce "gun violence" is too broad. The specific instances where "assault weapons" are used in "gun violence" is statistically insignificant as shown by studies conducted before, during and after the last "assault weapons" ban, and, as I stated in my earlier post, even the laws proponents say that these proposals, if enacted, would not have prevented either Sandy Hook or the Three Rivers Mall incidents. If the law will not prevent the violence it is designed (touted) to prevent, it is not meeting the criterion it is required to meet for passage.
Gun control is about control, not about preventing or even reducing crime. "Gun violence" is nothing more than at term created by the anti gun crowd (please note I did not say liberals as I realize there are many liberals that respect the Second Ammendment) and perpetuated by the media. We don't hear car violence or knife violence or baseball bat violence because in the instances where those items are used as a weapon we direct our attention to the person, not the object. But if it was a gun then oh my gosh, now you want to go after the weapon instead of focusing on the person.
The city of Chicago has the most rigidly structured and enforced gun laws in the nation - and the highest crime rate. Also, the highest rate of "gun violence". Interestingly, 70% of the firearm related deaths in Chicago are gang related. They don't have a "gun violence" problem, they have a gang violence problem! And clearly, the gangs don't give a darn about all those gun laws do they.
Stop wasting time and money on laws that only affect the good guys and start focusing on the bad guys for a change.
Jay@23 claims, "ANY law brought forward by the congress or a state legislature is required to specifically address the activity that it is designed to prohibit or regulate."
Wrong. But it's sort of true for laws that restrict constitutional rights, so you're on to something.
"We don't hear car violence or knife violence or baseball bat violence because ... we direct our attention to the person."
We also don't hear much of toenail clipper violence. Maybe because gun violence kills a lot more people?
"Chicago has the most rigidly structured and enforced gun laws in the nation - and the highest crime rate."
I'm gonna guess that most of those criminals got their guns in places and times when those rigid laws didn't apply -- which is precisely why we need to have rigid laws nationwide.
"Start focusing on the bad guys for a change."
Don't we try to enforce laws against bad guys? How do you propose we "start focusing" on this more than we already do? Why should gun control and enforcement of existing laws be mutually exclusive?
25. Bruce @24: What a sanctimonious load of baloney! You are going to guess most of those criminals in Chicago went to "Montana" to buy a gun? Those criminals in Chicago illegally bought their guns probably from the back of a car or a garage, totally ignoring all of the gun laws in place in Chicago. And doing so gives them a clear advantage over law abiding citizens in gun-free Chicago whom they assault, rob, and murder at will. Why do you insist on enabling these thugs at the expense of innocent people?
26. Why can't you-know-who post here?
Because Bruce is on the Left and he puts emotion ahead of reason. For people like Bruce we are always just one more law, regulation or tax away from success.
Except Chicago gets more violent, traffic gets worse and healthcare gets more expensive.
You cannot help Bruce understand.
28. Exactly right on, Leftover @ 29. I couldn't have said it better myself. Bruce and doctor Steve live in an alternate universe where reality isn't allowed to seep into their fantasy world of pink unicorns handing out strawberry scented welfare checks to all in the land.
"live in an alternate universe where reality isn't allowed to seep into their fantasy world of pink unicorns handing out strawberry scented welfare checks to all in the land"
Lordy, talk about delusional fantasies. I can only conclude that lucidity just isn't your thing, RickyD.
30. Jay@19, thank you for presenting some rational examples against a gun registry. I was not aware of the incidences of confiscation using gun registries you brought up. From your point of view, your position on the issue makes sense. Not being a gun owner, and disliking guns, and seeing them as instruments basically for killing things ( other than targets), and viewing a gun registry as a way to keep at least some of the nutcases and psychopaths from acquiring them, my position makes sense. It's like the abortion issue - both sides will never be able to agree on ths issue. Maybe we can at least try to understand where the orher side is coming from.
Lordy, talk about delusional fantasies. I can only conclude that lucidity just isn't your thing, RickyD.
Posted by Doctor Steve at March 14, 2013 10:47 AM
That's the pot calling the kettle black for sure. So, when did you stop beating your spouse ?
(Come on now, you can be unhinged like a good little lemming leftist - I know ya can...)
33. I can only conclude that lucidity just isn't your thing..
@ 29 ~You're about the last person on earth to intelligently speak about ones lucidity. Afterall, you voted for an imcompetent that blew 7 trillion in his first 4 years and you and other's asked for 4 more years of the same. Gabby Giffords has more in common with her shooter than any Republican I know of, which is the dirty little secret that democrat's tend to avoid in a serious conversation.
"Afterall, you voted for an imcompetent that blew 7 trillion"
You voted for the guy who invaded the wrong country and blew trillions doing so. Then the guy you voted for gave us a Great Recession, blowing yet more of your money. The guy you voted for gave us an unfunded entitlement drug program. The list goes on and on, RickyD, and when you're on your meds you damned well know it.
So STFU and take your meds.
35. So STFU and take your meds.
Very rational Steve.
36. @ 35 : Project much, Steve? This isn't HA where that clownish behavior is the norm. As hard as it is for you, try to act like an adult on this forum.