Gabby Giffords falsely implies that her shooter evaded a background check

Former congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ op-ed piece  is getting a lot of praise on Twitter. This is the part of the piece that caught our attention:

What they will do is create one fair system for all gun buyers, instead of the giant loophole we have now. Right now, we have one system where responsible gun owners take a background check — my husband, Mark, took one just last month, and it took 5 minutes and 36 seconds. I remember waiting a lot longer than that for the subway to take me to my office when I lived in New York City! And then we have a second system for those who don’t want to take a background check. Those people — criminals, or people suffering from mental illness, like the young man who shot me — can buy as many guns as they want on the Internet or at a gun show, no questions asked.

That doesn’t make sense. We know how to fix it — by establishing a universal background check system. And yet some of our elected officials are not listening. Some even say this legislation shouldn’t get a vote in the United States Congress.

[Emphasis added.]

Giffords seems to be implying that her shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, didn’t undergo a background check. This is not true. Loughner obtained the gun legally, and he passed a background check.

If our background check system doesn’t flag mentally ill people like Loughner, Alice Boland, and Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, something is obviously wrong.

Before expanding the existing system, wouldn’t it make more sense to ensure that our current background checks are implemented properly?


Hashtag hijack: Libs trend #DoItForGabby; Conservatives respond with hard truths

  • Maxx

    This isn’t an oversight. They simply lie. As many times as they can and as often as they must.

    • Mary Elizabeth Bowman

      And Fox News is scrupulously and rigorously honest

      • TugboatPhil

        More so than any other network reporting “news.”

        • E Quilibrate

          I echo your thoughts.

        • Sonny Brewer

          OK Smugboat, you name the lies also.. You made the allegation, show us some proof..Or could it be you’re just another Democrat liar…!

        • JT

          HA! Scientific studies prove otherwise! LOL!

        • raybeale37

          Don’t you mean, more than any other network MAKING UP news? That’s what I thought!
          Faux Noise – Fairly Unbalanced!

      • carla5731

        When the left-wing media outlets finally admit their bias the playing field will start to level. Arthur Brisbane took a tiny step forward in his final column as NYT ombudsman when he wrote, “developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”

        • Joanne Epperson Deist

          Do they really need to admit their bias? I don’t think so and I think many of the useful idiots they target know and don’t care.

        • JT

          That must be why you right wing chumps got smackdowned in November. Yup, that’s the story, Mr. Isuzu.

          • carla5731

            What should I say to all the people who call me looking for work? Maybe I should remind them that it’s too bad they voted for the “economy smackdown” last November.

            Also, it’s funny how you’re not smart enough to stay on topic. I guess that means you can’t refute the argument at hand.

          • JT

            I don’t have to call you. I work for myself and have had an excess of work since 2005. No recession for me. In addition, the fact that you can’t keep up with the thread’s natural motion says a lot more about your brain capacity than any need for me to refute the stupid premise of the article. Shoo. :)

      • RedSoloCup

        Yeah, that MSNBC and ABC is sure honest. Moron…

      • Colonel Travis

        Another proud graduate of the Pee Wee Herman School Of Logic at the University of Leftist Claptrappery.

        • RedSoloCup

          AKA Harvard.

        • E Quilibrate

          Colonel, “Leftist Claptrappery” has a really nice ring to it . Thank You.

          • Honu425

            I rather preferred the “Pee Wee Herman School of Logic”!!

          • E Quilibrate

            That offers some really difficult choices. Thanks, they’re both great.

        • R0nin

          The Department of Redundancy Department has flagged “University of Leftist Claptrappery” as an unnecessarily redundant label.

          • Carey H Snyder

            I think the phrase should be “superfluously and extraneously unnecessarily repetitively redundant label”

          • Katherine Noel Mumford


        • JT

          OMG, he found a dictionary made up his own word. Channeling Dubya? LMAO!

      • Rodney Brungardt

        More honest than the state run media outlets!!!

      • Rulz

        So if they were not, that would make it okay for the rest of the media?

        You gotta love progressive morals! Why, if the right does something wrong, the left has GOT to be able to do it over and over and over as much as their hearts desire!

      • Kingofthehill

        I can give you videos of CNN and MSNBC blatantly FAKING the news and creatively editing videos about Romney and the “Heckling” lies of the sandy hook father. You want some credibility, submit a video of FOX doing that. We’ll wait.

      • Ofnir

        Fox might be biased, but at least they haven’t reported my best friend’s unit taking “heavy casualties”, like both CNN and MSNBC did*, when all they’d had in the past few months was a bruised rib from taking cover too hard. This was just before The Surge in Iraq. They started tracking how often they were reported wiped out or having taken casualties when they hadn’t, and got sick of it at about 100.

        *They usually didn’t name the unit, but the AO. His unit was the only non-spec ops unit operating in that AO at the time, and they were the support guys for the spooks, so…

      • IceColdTroll

        Stupid (unt.

        • $23293071

          Whoa…whoa…….whoa……….where’s my Batman cup?
          Seems to me you really need to take care of yourself, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

          My unreserved apologies to Peter Griffin.

      • Lisa Dean

        @facebook-1654036501:disqus – unless you’ve been to a gun show or tried to buy a gun on the internet please don’t act like you know what Gabby Giffords is spouting as fact. Because if you’ve ever done either, you would know it’s a lie, flat out, without a doubt, a lie.

        • the_bat

          Either a flat out lie or massive egregious misinformation. Either of which is to be frowned upon.

          • Denver Goddess

            Giffords has past experience with guns – there is a picture of her smiling with an AR 15 in front of a bullet-riddled paper target.

      • the_bat

        Waaaay more so than CNN, ABC, CBS, and especially NBC/MSNBC.

      • richard

        Mary…your delusional…

      • James Smallish

        So, you’re saying a lie with which your beliefs agree is okay if someone YOU disagree with also lied (which you didn’t prove, anyway). Really? Pitiful.

      • alvin691

        Strawman alert

      • Mickey O’Brien

        This isn’t about Fox News. It’s about promoting an agenda at all costs because they believe the ends justify the means. They pull information and statistics from out of their a$$es and it becomes group think.

      • Rafael

        More than MSNBC and CNN. Right?

      • Tea Party Jimmy

        Ummm the main stream lap dogs could not report Pres contenter Edwards’ illegit / bastard baby. Had to make up a story about Bush’s war service just before his election. They create false stories. Fox does not make up stories. But you dem zombies are just like Hitler zombies. Just marching to your feurer’s drum.

      • Joanne Epperson Deist

        Ever watched Fox News?

      • Ted Strecker

        A whole lot more so than your leftist lying talking heads.

      • Denver Goddess

        @Bowman – You can always spot a lib by their selective outrage against media bias, having Fox and ONLY Fox on their radar. And btw, ad hominem tu quoque is not an argument. Just saying.

      • Sonny Brewer

        Mary Elizabeth, why don’t you list 3 lies told by FOX News..Just 3 that’s all. And don’t quote Democrat talking points. I’ll make it easy on you..List 2 lies… OK, that’s still too hard on you, well then list one lie…

      • W Randall

        You “=” bandwagon types are just “useful idiots”. How about trying to generate one of your own thoughts and stop towing the progressive line.

      • Karen Cianci

        Mary, don’t even dignify what goes on here. Stay off the site.. It’s brutally broken.

        • 1CatEye

          Take your own advice and get lost.

      • Kerry Bowden

        well Fox approaches things with fact checks not create their own figures and the left does it all the time” don’t let a tragedy go to waste” just ask old Rahm

      • Tony Chaney

        A hell of alot more than you.

      • raybeale37

        HAHAHAHAHA! That’s the funniest thing that I’ve ever heard/

      • John Lynch

        The article is misrepresenting what Gabby Giffords said . . . she said that people LIKE Loughner can evade one under present law, once again proving that a lot of right wingers and gun advocates aren’t really mentally and morally fit to own or possess guns.

    • E Quilibrate

      It becomes a way of life, regardless of the consequences.

      • angeleyez

        ▲ Y E S
        ▼ N O

    • SDN

      They’re leftists. It’s what they do.

    • JT

      Right wing excuses are like the exit ports on all mammals. You all have them, and they all stink.

      • Maxx

        …and yet here you are, conveniently NOT addressing her declaration in error. The excuse for ignorance should be YOUR problem, not ours. We actually know the difference between a magazine and a clip.

        On another note…’s amusing that of all the animals the left could have chosen for its symbol, you choose an animal commonly known as an ass, which you seemingly have a fascination with.

        Gotta love how I wrapped your imbecilic comment in a nice tidy bow and brought it all home for ya.

        Care to try again Puff? I eat exit port trolls like you for breakfast.

        • JT

          Zo zad for you that her alleged declaration in error just means that the threshold for mental illness in Arizona is about the same as for retard in Texas, as you have so easily demonstrated. As to animals, where exactly did your little elephant land after the November asswhooping? :)

          And stop breathing on my heels, little boi, before I use your hide to wipe it clean. Next time, bring something to the battle of wits that resembles a weapons. :)

          • Maxx

            Oh, little Huffy, did you get your feelings hurt? BTW, who art thou from Texas? Good grief, you can’t even get that one right. Try again Tesla. Surely you must be capable of ascertaining the origin of your ass kicker. That’s two strikes. Let me guess, you play for the Marlins?

            Got errands to run so I don’t have time to continue kicking you from one side of Twitchy to the other but rest assured, with someone who apparently is fond of a man who died from a drug overdose, I have little doubt I’ll see you trolling here in the future and so I look forward to exposing your party’s hypocrisy and impotence of governance at every turn and your subsequent Pavlovian whining which no doubt will follow.

            Now kindly run along Puff. Arianna is calling you on your Obama phone.

          • JT

            Texas? LMAO! Way to go, Captain AntI-Obvious? And put down that dictionary and Book of Lame Comebacks, it won’t improve your below-body-temperature IQ, little boi.

          • Maxx

            What is this obsession you have with little boys? Lol

          • JT

            So much for the lame story about the errands. I own you, little boi. LMAO! I mean, seriously, I know you’re still nursing that huge chunk of your rear that got bitten off last November, but this just means you were just as pathetic -before- the election. 😛

    • Guy Bennett

      but Obama said it was a fully automatic assault rifle with an assault clip full of cop killer bullets at newtown!.. He wouldn’t lie to me would he??? He is the anointed one!!

  • CatHerder

    Mexico has some of the harshest gun laws in the world and look how much good it’s done them. These people act like they’ve never heard of a black market.

    • Gallatin

      A lot of good those harsh gun laws did them when the government to their north could so easily give guns to the drug cartels.

      • CatHerder

        Agreed, but even without those the cartels could have armed themselves easily. Laws only apply to those too poor to flout them.

    • Republicanvet

      …to be fair, Urkel and Holdup never did a background check on the cartels.

    • $18912735

      Considering how the Mexican drug violence is moving unimpeded over the border now, soon those Tucson folks will be regretting their efforts to remove guns from the hands of law abiding Americans. El Paso, Tucson, San Diego – watch out folks, here it comes…

      • Garth Haycock

        They won’t regret it at all. They’ll just decide that the only way to stop gun violence is to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

  • Gallatin

    Let’s see gabby says our current system of back ground checks is broken, dingy harry says our immigration system is broken and more Federal Government is the answer??????

    • Spatial Awareness

      The Irony…. Back ground check worked on her husband. ~_^

      • E Quilibrate

        More facts, You just continue, right?

    • TocksNedlog

      “We do things crappily. In order to fix this problem … we need to do MORE things!”

      • E Quilibrate

        Maybe we just need more crap.

      • Gallatin

        Why is it that every time government screws up, the answer is always more government? And more government seems to be the answer at every level, local state and federal.

    • GaryTheBrave

      The common denominator is that both are handled by bureaucrats. This is your future medical care. Government is broken,

      • Gallatin

        I gave you an up vote because your statement is so true, I would like to give a down vote as I think you would agree we don’t want our health care controlled by bureaucrats.

        • GaryTheBrave

          True dat! I don’t want my medical care handled by bureaucrats. I should rewrite that post.

  • Patrick Dennehy

    “Before expanding the existing system, wouldn’t it make more sense to
    ensure that our current background checks are implemented properly?”

    That seems to be a common theme. Democrats always want to write more legislation and add more bureaucracy, when they don’t want to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

  • Squirrel!

    Anyone have an ounce of sympathy for Gabby Giffords any more? I know I don’t. She & her husband allow what happened to her to be used, and they use it themselves for an agenda. Yes, it takes less than 6 minutes for a criminal background check…. it’s the computer age…. duh! Apparently, though, the laws in place work because, from what I’ve read, her husband wasn’t able to make his firearm purchases since he publicized his straw purchase. Thanks, Mark, for proving the system in place DOES work. In my state the purchase of a firearm via the internet has to be shipped to a licensed dealer, not to a residence. Isn’t that a federal law so would apply nationwide? I don’t know but would assume so. Very low chance of obtaining a firearm at a gun show without a background check if even possible. Sick of the lies!

    • TugboatPhil

      They’re the new Jim and Sarah Brady. They’ll do and say anything for their Democrat masters.

      • Mary Elizabeth Bowman

        Right. They couldn’t actually believe it. And you know who passed the Brady Bill? Ronald Reagan

        • TugboatPhil

          Did you write your own book on history? Did you just escape a North Korean prison camp?

          • Patrick Dennehy

            No, she just went to public school

          • TugboatPhil

            Karl Marx Elementary.

          • RedSoloCup

            That or Columbia University.

          • E Quilibrate

            There’s a difference?

          • E Quilibrate

            My guess is they wouldn’t let her stay.

        • Sam

          That was Bill Clinton, genius. You must not be able to read.

        • RedSoloCup

          Too bad your Messiah Owebama will never match the legacy of Reagan.

          • Squirrel!

            Or even Carter….

        • DrSamHerman

          November 30, 1993. Reagan was not president, or are you a full decade behind?

          Don’t you know how to search?

        • David Johnson

          Brady Bill signed into law 11/30/93 by President Bill Clinton. If you just keep repeating a lie doesn’t make it true!

        • SDN


        • IceColdTroll

          The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993) is an Act of the United States Congress that instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States.

          It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993, and went into effect on February 28, 1994. The Act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.”

          –Wikipedia entry noted above.
          Stupid (unt.

        • Bill

          Not likely, it’s officially the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. Bill Clinton was President in 93. I recall his comments after signing it claiming that he had just made America’s Streets safer. Of course a study released on March 21 2013 claims that the only handgun deaths it has affected was suicide.

        • OneNation245

          Does anyone recognize how Mary Bowman is doing drive-by comments to spark responses?

      • Mary Elizabeth Bowman

        Ronald Reagan passed gun control in 1967 as Governor

        • TugboatPhil

          And your point is?

          • E Quilibrate

            Oh c’mon Phil, must they have a point?

          • Catchance

            Under her hat.

        • S Davidson

          So your point is we do have laws in place? Why the need for new ones? Could it be current laws are not being inforced. Why do you feel it is reasonable for the rights of law-abiding citizens to be infringed upon. You’ll feel differently when it’s a right YOU care about.

        • RedSoloCup

          Go back to Daily Kos, they are short an idiot.

        • DrSamHerman

          Yes, but that was not the Brady bill and that law was passed 26 years earlier in very, very different political times. That’s like saying a law against witchcraft should be pressed against a computer hacker.

        • retro714

          You WERE referring to the Brady Bill, you’re embarrassed you were called out and now you’re trying to save face.

      • Mary Elizabeth Bowman

        Ronald Reagan passed the Brady Bill because he opposed what you are pathetically defending

        • TugboatPhil

          Bill Clinton passed the Brady Bill in 1994. Start the medicinal pot early did we?

          • Miss Clairee

            Nah, she’s just been reading one of those “history” books that’s been changed to suit the liberal agenda.

          • TL_USA_leader

            That’s because the liberals are running the education system. Until strong conservatives decide to become educators rather than going into business, our children will continue to get brainwashed, and our country will continue to veer left.

          • E Quilibrate

            Oh, Ya know, ya go from medicinal to recreational and back & forth
            all day, it really gets confusing Phil.

          • Roto

            Geezuz…. is there anything about gun control that liberals got right this week?!?!

          • Garth Haycock

            This week? Or ever?

          • Mickey O’Brien

            In fairness, Reagan supported the Brady bill. Brady was after all his press secretary. Doesn’t change the argument. We already have the Brady Bill – net effect on homicides was negligible to zero. Common thread with the mass shootings was not how the guns were obtained but the fact that someone that mentally unstable was not considered a threat to public safety. Ticking time bombs. Don’t start determining mental stability when someone purchases a firearm – Holmes was known to be unstable well before the Aurora shooting.

        • $45875941

          Yeah, that damn constitution is pathetic alright! Why do you, completely uneducated, crime experts keep insisting that it’s OUR guns that are sneaking out of our homes, jumping into the hands of criminals, aiming the person’s hand, squeezing their own trigger, and slaughtering innocent people? It’s logic like yours and other common sense lacking libs, Mary, that is pathetic.

        • Rulz
        • Lisa Dean

          @facebook-1654036501:disqus – with the facts that you’re so pathetically trying to defend you might want to check and get them correct first

          • Scott McDaniel

            Please let the progressive go on and on. What a delicious way to let them prove themselves useless. Sadly progs will not see the irony.

        • the_bat

          There’s this thing called “the internet.” You should research things like this before you blather them.

        • OneNation245

          Does anyone recognize how Mary Bowman is doing drive-by comments to spark responses? Don’t bite on the tidbits she throws out – she doesn’t back up her comments – just trolls for responses.

        • Guest

          Credibility gone….

        • Ohhailolo

          Are you stupid? Ronald Reagan was shot on march 30, 1981. he walked in the hospital without assistance and STILL opposed gun control. Get your facts straight. Ignorant people like you I swear. All liberals do is lie straight through their teeth.

        • putthehammerdown

          Why are you here, illustrating all that Progressivism shows itself to be?
          You provide no facts and the ‘one’ you do quote, is off by at least 6 friggen’ years.
          Just what is your point ?
          [Tread lightly now and ‘look up stuff’ before you tap out an answer.]

      • Mary Elizabeth Bowman

        But then, you don’t worry about actual facts. Do you?

        • TugboatPhil

          Could you list 5 or 6 of them that I should be worried about?

        • Patrick Dennehy

          Because your ‘facts’ are so cogent and reliable

        • carla5731

          I worry about facts. I worry that even though the behavior of Cho, Holmes, Lanza and Loughner raised all kinds of red flags, no one cared enough to intervene. The law protects the privacy of mentally ill people, even when experts think they’re likely to be a danger, but not regular citizens who have never posed a threat and want to buy a gun.

          • Ardell Simon

            Well said carla5731! Love it!

        • RedSoloCup

          Funny, you liberals wouldn’t know facts at all.

          • E Quilibrate

            I’m thinkin’ they don’t even know how to spell “facts”.

        • stephana

          Like the 100’s of feral urban negoes killing each other each year. Yet your liberal overlords ignore this and try to take my legal guns and turn me into a criminal.

        • SDN

          Provide any facts to worry about and I might start.

          The only fact I see to worry about is that a society can’t function with people who continuously lie (like you) in it.

        • Lisa Dean

          You want facts @facebook-1654036501:disqus – here’s some with a back story ok. My husband grew up in Newtown, CT but didn’t attend Sandy Hook Elementary because he was zoned into another elementary school that served Newtown. In Newtown, CT there was a mental health hospital named Fairfield State Hospital that was opened in 1931 was closed down in 1995 due to deinstitutionalization. Do you think if deinstitutionalization hadn’t taken place that maybe, just maybe, those people who are emotionally unstable might be in hospitals where they can get help and so can their families?

          • dzobels

            Rights advocacy does more to keep the mentally ill out of institutions than the deinstitutionalization you cite. Take it up with the lawmakers and lawsuit advocates that have made it virtually impossible to institutionalize – it’s not about Republicans defunding state hospitals – if Fairfield was still operating today it would be mostly empty because of the legal obstacles to helping the profoundly impaired.

          • Lisa Dean

            The legal obstacles are in place due to deinstitutionalization. I never said anything about who defunded state hospitals.

        • cerpas

          Mary…Fact is Fox news is the number 1 news agency in the US…has been for years. Why do you think that is Mary? Why is Bill O’Riley the number one news person? I’ll tell you Mary…Open you eyes, clear you ears….BECAUSE THE REPORT THE NEWS! They dont play to emotions, they investigate, kinda like the Cronkite days of the past when journalism meant something. If it wasnt for Fox news, we would not know of the events in Libya, Fast and Furious would have gone unreported, over 40 Executive orders would have been slipped under the table. Mary people like you are the problem in the US, you and your kind dont want to hear truth if it dont fit your agenda.

      • Garth Haycock

        That’s a good comparison, though I’ll give Giffords a bit of a break for her gun grabbing. She was at least the target of Laughner’s act, whereas Brady was only hit because Hinckley was a poor shot.

        That said, I think Giffords is a fool because she thinks disarming the public would do anything other than disarm the public.

        • Squirrel!

          I thought a judge was the actual target in Tucson not Giffords.

          • Garth Haycock

            You’re probably right. My record of accuracy about anything lessens more and more after 3 days have passed, which is why my wife has decided tell me each morning the names of our 4 children.

          • E Quilibrate

            And you trust that she has them right, I’m not so sure around here.

          • Matt G

            Nope, she was the target. Shooter thought she had “turned her back” on the democrat party by not supporting a hard leftist party line.

          • Squirrel!

            Go figure. I know I’d heard somewhere that a judge was the intended target.

          • TC

            Is that what Fox told you? She was indeed the target.

        • E Quilibrate

          And unfortunately a fool she is.

      • RedSoloCup

        Them or the new Kennedys.

    • stuffitnow

      I hate to say it, but in All states, when buying off the internet, they are only shipped to a FFL dealer, but I don’t really hate saying it since the left see’s it as a good lie to dupe the uninformed public……

      • Squirrel!

        I thought this was a federal law but wasn’t sure. Figured it had to be. Thanks for answering!

    • E Quilibrate

      I know I would get tired of feeling that I needed a shower every time I spoke
      publicly. How do the Giffords feel clean?

    • Charles Batchelor

      Yes and a background check would be run before you would be allowed to pickup the weapons.

  • SameJerkDifferentName

    Honestly, why does it surprise anyone that a former Navy officer and astronaut with no criminal background should pass a background check? I’ve known for a long time that the left was completely unhinged, but seriously? You’re really surprised a man of that caliber flies though a background check with no hangups? Or maybe you were expecting to get caught for that child porn on your computer, eh captain? Get real. We don’t need new freakin laws. We need the ones that are already on the books to be enforced! But that wouldn’t make any of the whiners ‘feel good’ would it? This new law designed to “protect the children” will have some fanciful name that honors someone specific. That will make it more effective. Won’t it? Here’s an idea. Put eric holder in charge of who gets guns because we all know how effective Fast and Furious was at keeping the guns out of the hands of the drug cartels in mexico was. Huh?… wait…what?! Holy Crap!!! Nevermind. Let’s just disarm all the law abiding citizens so the only people that have guns are the criminals and the cops that are going to show up AFTER you’ve been shot. There, problem solved. Oh, except for the precious few that have their own armed security, we’ll let them keep their guns of course. After all, they paid for this crooked inept administration.

  • carla5731

    Preventing violence will require the government to turn their attention to people who exhibit violent tendencies. That means when Jared Loughner’s parents, Seung-Hui Cho’s teachers or James Holmes’s psychiatrist raises a red flag, someone needs to take their evaluation seriously. Treating everyone like a criminal won’t fix the problem. Just like the TSA, we’re wasting our resources on the vast majority of the population rather than targeting real threats.

  • RedDog

    A lie told often enough becomes the truth. The left uses that tactic all the time.

  • $45875941

    It’s federal; nowhere can you purchase guns on the internet without the background check at your LGS when you pick up your gun, just another lie. Gabby and Mark have truly arrived as useful idiots for Obummer, shotgun Joe, Napoleon Bloomberg, and Mario Coma.

    • Adela Wagner

      Don’t forget Benedict Holder and Tokyo Rose Napolitano.

  • disqus_e2F2oUH6C7

    Let’s enforce the laws we already have.
    More laws, one step closer to taking guns away or rendering them useless with no ammo.

  • AaronHarrisinAlaska

    You can’t make an Internet purchase without a back ground check per say. If your responding to an online add and meeting the seller and exchange money for the arm in person, that’s a private transaction and is legal as such. But most sites like gunbroker require that the arms be shipped to a licensed dealer who is required by law to preform a back ground check before handing the gun off.

    Either giffords is a liar or dose not understand how the pre-existing laws work.

    • Guest

      she’s brain dead, of course she has no freaking clue how the existing laws work.

      • TC

        What an absolute horrible and FALSE statement to make.

  • TocksNedlog

    “Giffords seems to be implying that her shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, didn’t undergo a background check.”
    — And that ‘seems to be’ part will be how they try to squirm out of this one. They’ll pull a “She said ‘LIKE the young man that shot me’; she didn’t claim that he personally evaded a background check.” Never underestimate their willingness to dive into the weeds (“it depends on your definition of ‘is'”) to get what they want.

    • AaronHarrisinAlaska

      That’s what I was about to post next. If she implied it than she chose her words with exceptional care so that if called out she can say she’d was simply using him as an example of the kind of people, not that he’s one of them.

      • TC

        Or that is what she actually meant.

    • sodakhic

      Gabby, that would be the “scumbag that shot you”

    • IceColdTroll

      Good point. Ya notice quite a bit of that around here too, try to pin down one of these weasels and they go into the “I never said tha-at,” like a six year old, and completely sideline a thread into what they meant to say.

      • TocksNedlog

        The ends justify the means. The leftists will float any lie if they think it will advance their ideology.
        Hockey-stick graph? 40% of guns sold without background checks? Unemployment checks stimulate the economy? They don’t care.

  • TocksNedlog

    Never forget this angel. Never.
    And never lose focus on the REAL problem: Mental Illness

    • Squirrel!

      In all of this talk about gun laws & what has been introduced & what some states have passed…. assault weapons bans, mag capacity bans, universal background checks… I’ve seen nor heard anything about addressing mental illness! We already have background checks & assault weapons (which is a made up term for a pseudo reason) aren’t the problem. Limiting mag capacity is def a feel good law. Nowhere is anyone addressing the real problems which are mental illness & black markets. It’s all legislate the law abiding.

  • Nathan Oaksford

    I would like to kick her in the dick.

  • Republicanvet

    Being honest and telling the truth used to be a virtue as well. Still is for many
    On the left? Hardly ever.

  • $18912735

    People who want to “uninvent” things just make me sad.

  • Guest

    Regressives don’t allow facts to get in the way of their agenda.

  • bobbymike34

    You know what happened to Ms Giffords is a tragedy as it is a tragedy when anyone is shot and injured or killed. However, that is never an excuse to have other law abiding citizens lose their rights as outlined in the founding document of this great nation.
    If gun control was important now it was important before you were shot but as we have seen before you were posing in pictures holding a ‘dreaded’ assualt rifle when it would make you look cool and garner you votes.

  • R.C.

    Last week or week before last, Beck had statistics showing thousands of felonious applicants and only 44 prosecutions across the U.S. in a recent year (’10-’11). This is the information the l.i.v. needs to understand. Current laws are being enforced only in a very small fraction of cases. Why would we write more laws?

  • Jarrod A Smith

    Put up a stand and stop the madness. The left is hell bent on gun control. Nothing less.

    • lillymckim

      The man who calls himself a US President & who also calls himself a
      “constitutional lawyer” will begin his new gun banning campaign in Connecticut tomorrow morning!

  • kateorjane

    People better be careful – Giffords has been granted the “moral authority” card and any questioning of what she says – or is said on her behalf -will be challenged as hateful piling on by haters/. /s

  • lillymckim

    I’m not giving her a pass its a lie.
    The Democratic #1 rule is just lie the low Information voters don’t read and the Democrats capitalize on it.

  • MrApple

    If there is this movement to take weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable or mentally affected then why are we, the American public, supposed to listen to policy recommendations of people like Jim Brady of the Brady Campaign or the Brady Center (shot in the head during Hinckley’s assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan) or Gabby Giffords (shot in the head by Jared Loughner in 2011). It would seem to me that their traumatic head injuries would preclude them from creating national firearms policy.

    • bfplncc

      Oh yea! Hinckley used a big, mean, ole 22 revolver with only 6 boolitts. Put it on DiFi’s banned list!!!

      • MrApple

        Where I live you can’t find 22s anyway.

    • $12942228

      It’s not Jim Brady that we are listening to-it’s his wife-Sarah Brady-

      Who is and has been using her husband as a puppet to advance her agenda-exactly as Gifford’s husband is doing with her.

      Along with all the anti-gun writers she employs-people like Dennis Henigan,mayor for life Bloomberg, Josh Sugarman-who invented the term “assault weapon” in it’s current use-back in the 80’s when Ms. Brady and co. realized they were not going to be able to ban handguns.
      Ms. Brady is still trying to push her agenda on the rest of us.

      Sugarman stated that due to the publics confusion between the fully automatic M-16 and the semi-auto A-R-15-and the public’s belief that if it looks like a machine gun-it must be a machine gun-

      that the group would be more successful if they went after “assault weapons”.

      They got the ’94 Clinton ban-it was allowed to expire because it didn’t do a damn thing to stop gun crimes-and the fact that it was never used in more than a very small percentage of gun crimes to begin with-

      Now-they are back-even Sugarman-who crawled out from under whatever rock he’s been living under since the ’94 ban was enacted.

    • R.C.

      I don’t know if Colorado rep. DeGettes ever suffered head trauma or not, but ignorant folk should shy away from making policy too.

  • RedSoloCup

    Aren’t Gabby and Mark’s 15 minutes of fame long over? Why don’t he just admit he’s only using his wife’s accident to seek political office?

    • Guest

      People were not supposed to notice.
      Comrade Kelly is as charismatic as dried dung,
      as well as so easily caught being dishonest.
      Neither disqualifies him from being a congressional Democrat,
      although he is the wrong color.

  • disqus_e2F2oUH6C7

    Now that Giffords has brain damage, shouldn’t guns be removed from the Gifford house. Nobody should be immune if this is what some people want done. It shouldn’t be do as I say, not as I do.

    • Roto

      ^^ VERY good point…. why would Mark have ANY firearms in his home where his lovely wife could possibly do harm to herself or others?

    • TC

      What a disgusting, disrespectful and ignorant statement.

  • Gregg Hammerquist

    I’ll give her a pass; she WAS shot in the HEAD. But why does it matter how long the background check takes? Electronics no longer take ages to process stuff, honey. Welcome to the 21st century.

  • 7PastorCarmine7

    Democrats Lie because most Americans are plain dumb to them vote for them for they think they will have free everything A Government that gives out free can take in back All Liars will have their part in the lake of fire.

  • Pedro

    It appears whatever was left of Giffords brain leaked out after she was shot.

  • DrSamHerman

    In both cases (James Holmes and Jared Loughner), authorities were warned and did not act. In Loughner’s case, by the community college he attended and in Holmes’ case by the University’s own psychiatrist. If their names were not included on a “no-sell” list making them ineligible during the background process, it was clearly a fault of those who failed to act on the original warnings.

  • sablegsd

    That woman isn’t writing any of these things. She’s a BRAIN DAMAGED PUPPET.
    While I am sorry she was shot, and I’m sorry people die in these incidents, that does NOT give these insane, control freak commies the okay to strip me of my RIGHTS.

    • TC

      No one is stripping you of your rights. I love how people interpret the Constitution to serve their desires.

  • David Johnson

    Lets see it took over 5 minutes to confirm that a ex military/nasa could legally purchase a rifle. Thing they leave out is he couldn’t take possesion for I think 2 weeks because the gun was being sold on consignment and had to pass a Tuscon check to make sure no crimes had been committed with it.

  • stephana

    What do you expect from somebody who was lucky to have half a brain before being shot in the head.

  • cristo52

    Typically, buying a gun through the Internet requires a background check. You can purchase the gun and pay for it and then the seller will ship it to a dealer with a federal license (FFL) and then you go pick it up from that dealer. Before you take possession, however, the dealer will run an FBI background check on you. If Ms. Gifford or her husband have experience buying a gun on the internet without a background check, they have violated the law, just as Captain America violated the law when he lied on his paperwork when attempting to purchase an AR-15 in Arizona recently. Criminals, on the other hand, always violate the law and even a super-duper Captain America background check will not prevent a criminal from getting a gun.

  • Martin Rettig

    All these gun control freaks drooling over background checks, yet we elect a President with zero background checks. Until Obama is put under a microscope, fuck off.

  • Surn

    Here is the FBI and CDC data compared to the Brady Center rating of gun law strength by state
    Conclusion: Gun bans drastically increase violent crime.
    Share this with all you liberal friends…We included graphs so even they can comprehend.

  • Guest

    If gun bans worked…
    there would be no gun crime in Progressive Socialist sewers,
    such as Chicago, Noo Yawk and L.A.

  • Rodney Brungardt

    Wow, last time I went to a gun show, (last month) all vendors were requiring background checks for firearm purchases. Please show me where this fictitious “gunshow loophole” is again!!!

  • Rulz

    Brazil bans guns.

    They have about 1/2 US population, about 3 times as many murders.

  • Sven79

    Where can you buy guns on the internet “no questions asked?” The guns I’ve purchased were required to be sent to a FFL, and a background check was necessary. Background checks are also required for the great majority of gun show purchases, as well, in my experience. Herr Goebbels would be proud of the anti gun big lie propaganda that is being repeated on a daily basis.

  • jack_k1

    Loughner is mentally ill. Mentally ill people “LIKE” Loughner can use the gun-show loophole to avoid background checks. Gifford’s language is exactly correct. Any misinterpretation is entirely the reader’s fault.

    • $12942228

      “Gifford’s language is exactly correct”

      No-it’s not-it’s 100% INCORRECT-

      the vast majority of guns sold at gun shows are sold by licensed dealers-they have an FFL-and do the EXACT SAME NICS background check as if they were selling a gun in their gun shop.

      It’s obvious that YOU have NEVER been to a gun show-at every gun show I’ve ever been to there are agents from the FBI,BATFE,DEA,ICE, and state,county,and local aw enforcement-not exactly the type of place criminals and mentally ill people hang out at.

      Multiple studies have shown that fewer that ONE% of criminals get their guns from gun shows-if you had ever been to a gun show-you would see very,very few private sellers-it costs money to rent a booth or table at a gun show-it’s not worth it to sell one or two guns.

      Anyone who is selling multiple guns to make a profit-and does not have an FFL-(federal firearms license)- is violating federal and state laws-there is NO “gun show loophole”-it’s a term made up by the anti-gun nuts.

      any gun bought online must, by law be shipped to an FFL-then the buyer must fill out form 4473,then the info is called in to the NICS background check system-the buyer only takes possession of the gun IF he or she passes the NICS check.

      • Ofnir

        I go to gun shows with my uncle and friends from time to time. I can’t remember the last time I saw a transaction at one that didn’t use the NICS system.

        Also, apparently it works well enough that it flags that I was born overseas in a place that’s had some terrorist activity in the past 20 years (I’m a citizen because both my parents are and were deployed there) and the seller and I have to talk to an ATF agent on the phone every time I buy a gun.

    • IceColdTroll

      Furthermore, it is not a “loophole.” Rather, the SAME rules apply as at any other transaction between two private parties.

    • Lisa Dean

      Somehow @jack_k1:disqus – I don’t think you’ve ever been to a gun show if you believe that. Any misinterpretation of actual facts is entirely you’re fault.

  • Guest

    Geesh… Grabby really is brain dead. She’s just a puppet in all this and her Dba g “Husband” is ACTING as the puppet master when Doomberg is truly the puppet master behind all this.

    its disgusting how these bastards can get away with such blatant lying but when you have the media in your pocket you can say whatever you want.

    And now they are quoting the “Bull Moose” association as gun owners… they are a shill group that refuses to give up any info on themselves but found out they donated to Obama. They “Claim” 5k members but between 6 REAL groups who sent a lettter to congress last week who represent 8 MILLION hunters on the east coast are not in agreement with new laws.

    Im so sick of this. I can’t wait for the GOP to take over again and try and undo all this crap they dummycraps got us into and watch the gun grabbers just cry every day.

  • gekkobear

    ” my husband, Mark, took one just last month, and it took 5 minutes and 36 seconds”

    So how long would you expect a background check to take for a US NAVY CAPTAIN?

    Is there anyone who would give him command of a warship but not allow him a pistol? What sense would that make?

    However that doesn’t exactly show that the average Joe off the street can get the same response does it? What good is that?

    I can rebuild and reinstall everything on my computer in 3 hours… so it should only be a 3 hour process for everyone? Or is it possible I’ve got a bit of an advantage here?

    Grab a dozen random guys and gals off the street and see if their checks take less than 6 minutes… then you’ll have something impressive. Right now, not impressive.

    • Roto

      I guess Gabby lied, since Mark’s purchase of his Sig Sauer M400 was pulled after **20 days** when they found out he lied about his intent for personal use.

      • TC

        Those aren’t lies. He passed the background check at the store and it would qualify as personal use. Also, it was the gun shop owner who decided to refuse to sell to him.

        • Roto

          No, it’s a lie about Kelly’s “AR-15 assault rifle” transaction. It was cancelled BECAUSE Kelly said his intent was for “other then for his personal use” and he DID NOT pass a background check for the SIG M400 transaction.

          The statement by Douglas MacKinlay, Owner/President, Diamondback Police Supply said, “… his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm rifle from us was for reasons **other then for his personal use** ” and “… it was in my company’s best interest to terminate this transaction **prior to** his returning to my store to complete the Federal From 4473 and NICS background check…”

          So Kelly lied when Wolf Blitzer asked him, “So what was it like going out to a store and buying an AR-15 [sic]” and Kelly said, “You know it’s pretty easy…”

        • Roto

          It’s a lie about Kelly’s “AR-15 assault rifle” transaction. He DID NOT pass a background check on the SIG M400 transaction, and it was cancelled BECAUSE his intent was “other then for his personal use.”

          The statement by Douglas MacKinlay, Owner/President, Diamondback Police Supply said, “… it was in my company’s best interest to terminate this transaction **prior to** his returning to my store to complete the Federal From 4473 and NICS background check” and “… his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm rifle from us was for reasons **other then for his personal use**.”

          So Kelly lied when Wolf Blitzer asked him, “So what was it like going out to a store and buying an AR-15 [sic]” and he said, “You know it’s pretty easy…”

        • Roto

          No, it’s a lie about Kelly’s “AR-15 assault rifle” transaction. He DID NOT pass a background check on the SIG M400 transaction, and it was cancelled BECAUSE his intent was “other then for his personal use.”

          The statement by Douglas MacKinlay, Owner/President, Diamondback Police Supply said, “… it was in my company’s best interest to terminate this transaction **prior to** his returning to my store to complete the Federal From 4473 and NICS background check” and “… his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm rifle from us was for reasons **other then for his personal use**.”

          So Kelly lied when Wolf Blitzer asked him, “So what was it like going out to a store and buying an AR-15 [sic]” and he said, “You know it’s pretty easy…”

        • Roto

          No, it’s a lie about Kelly’s “AR-15 assault rifle” transaction. He DID NOT pass a background check on the SIG M400 transaction, and it was cancelled BECAUSE his intent was “other then for his personal use.”

          The statement by Douglas MacKinlay, Owner/President, Diamondback Police Supply said, “… it was in my company’s best interest to terminate this transaction **prior to** his returning to my store to complete the Federal From 4473 and NICS background check” and “… his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm rifle from us was for reasons **other then for his personal use**.”

          So Kelly lied when Wolf Blitzer asked him, “So what was it like going out to a store and buying an AR-15 [sic]” and he said, “You know it’s pretty easy…”


    Their dog is a killer

  • Dandapani

    You just can’t buy firearms on the internet without the gun passing through a local dealer who will, WILL, run the background check after you fill out the yellow form (it’s still yellow, right?).

  • Dave G Marshall

    That’s it, lie to get your way. Just like a Democrat. I am sorry this woman got shot but you don’t have to lie or embellish to make things worse than they are. Your lies are as harmful as a person with an illegal gun. But wait,,the guy that shot you did not have illegal guns.

  • R.C.

    Wow. After reading so many ignorant, or just plain stupid, anti gun posts over the past several months it would behoove some twitter user to initiate a hashtag #LiberalLexiconForGuns to clear up some of these “misconceptions”; magazines, clips, loopholes, assault rifle, military style, fully automatic, gun shows…..

  • Lawlessness Brings Destruction

    What gets very LITTLE press is the fact that Loughner had been threatening public officials on the level of committing a FELONY. The county “sheriff” WOULDN’T do his job and charge him. He kept insisting that Loughner wasn’t a threat.
    IF Loughner had been charged, that FELONY would have kept him from passing the background check.
    The person who is at least a co-owner of this tragedy, is Sheriff Dupnik.

  • 45JD44

    It is sad that she got shot, but punish the asshole that shot her, not the millions of law abiding gun owners.

  • Ken

    You are correct, Gabby Giffords’ is lying. The problem is, the Sheriffs
    Department of Pima County didn’t do their job. They received from various
    Mental Health Professionals statements that Loughner is mentally unstable and
    they were to get an order to confiscate his weapons and take away his license.
    They didn’t do it and Sheriff Dupnik blamed Sarah Palin. That is what we should
    harp on. Sheriff Dupnik did not do his job. Sheriff Dupnik failed to protect
    the people. We should spend more time on that. We now even have proof that the
    Aurora Shooter was diagnosed as mentally unstable and dangerous, but nobody
    wants to point at yet another issue of existing laws being ingnored. We will
    never win against the Liberal Left with the current strategy we are using. We
    spend more time pointing the finger instead of simply pointing out facts and
    ignoring the rest.

    This is why we lost to Obama in the Presidential election. There were more
    commercials pointing at Obama, giving his name more air time, and less time
    pointing at our policies and explaining how they work.

  • Robert Olschlager

    First, she is a liar. The shooter obtained the gun illegally. Second, most illegal gun buys happen in urban areas, out of a car trunk, under a bridge or in a dark alley. Here’s an idea for all of you pseudo-intellectuals, if you want to really do something about illegal gun sales, then get to the urban hellholes and stop it there.
    It is horrifying that someone like Giffords would use something like this to forward the death of the Constitution. Sick!

  • disqus_mo8ewPYVck

    She also lied about the time it took to check on her sneaky-pete husband.

  • Deborah Johnson

    In North Carolina, if you have been institutionalized against your will, even if a person lies it will come out in a background check even buying a gun at gunshow. We have to show background check. If a woman had postpartum depression 20 years ago and she voluntarily sought treatment, she could get a gun.

  • dmbatten

    Giffords / Axelrod should be touting this instead of their ‘gun control’……

  • Jay Nistetter

    It’s very sad that she (or rather her puppetmaster) is using the 1st Amendment to attack the 2nd. And it’s equally sad that the Adminstruation is using someone who could not complete a firearms transaction form on her own in order to push his agenda.

  • MommyK1
  • Donald Koller

    Hey anything to promote an agenda, and they will say if you criticize her you are an evil person.

  • Larry Miller

    ‘Sure, I lied, but what does it matter’ Debbie W. Schultz—or words to that effect.
    She’s right because people voting for the George Soros/Obama party don’t read, can’t read, can’t understand what they read, only interested in who’s performing on some damn screech show……….They are ignorant & the dumbest in America

  • Deryl Willis

    All Libs lie most was born that way.

  • Dottie Bowman

    This is a dangerous argument trap to fall into; namely, if you posit that Loughner obtained the gun legally and with a background check, the left can reply saying that guns should then be banned because background checks don’t work. The argument MUST remain that we have the RIGHT to bear arms and (like Switzerland) the more law abiding citizens trained and CARRYING weapons, the SAFER we will be. Don’t fall into that Andy Stern trap of limiting the choices in the debate to achieve what THEY want as the ultimate outcome.

  • Gregory Lowe

    They should take away politicians right to free speech. If she hadn’t of been making a speech, nobody would of had the opportunity to shoot anyone. I’m using liberal logic to take away law abiding peoples Constitutional rights to prevent a tragedy.

  • Rafael

    Wow, 5 minutes and 36 seconds, so easy! I wonder how long does it take to get an ID, so you can show who you are when you vote. Oh no, that’s inconvenient and discriminatory

  • Tea Party Jimmy

    For Dems: the end jutifies the means. Disarm them, then seize their personal savings so they can spread the wealth. Arleady happening in Eurpoe. Americans are soo naive.

  • Mongo

    While her comment was misleading, I do support her 100% in that we need to improve the conduit between law enforcement and mental health institutions on background checks. I worked firearms retail from 1994-2001 and I can tell you the conduit is virtually non-existent. Question is, how will current HIPPA laws effect this?

  • Larry Bavaro

    Hey Gabby…God let you live. It is time to live for him, lying is an abomination. You didn’t heal, you went through a Re-birth, now you are foresaking God, Maybe if you had died on that day, You may not have had any defense when you stood before Him, I think maybe he is giving you time to repent, a second chance to do the right thing…Not to Sin, and you just stay on a road that takes you away from God’.

    • TC

      Wow, wow wow

  • Joanne Epperson Deist

    And the gun store where Mark Kelly attempted to buy an AR-15 cancelled his application because his intentions were suspect. Did she mention that in her op ed piece?

  • NC77

    Right now, we have one system where responsible gun owners take a background check — my husband, Mark, took one just last month, and it took 5 minutes and 36 seconds

    Yep, and he didn’t receive the AR-15 he was attempting to buy even though he had a background check done. Since he confessed he was a straw buyer before he took possesion of the firearm, the firearms dealer refused to sell it to him. Duh.

    Your husband is not a responsible gun owner.

  • Belva Carlisle-Bushman

    But the problem with background checks is that many mentally ill people have never been diagnosed. And the other thing, are they really mentally ill? Or are they just evil people. The problem with legislating gun safety is that it is impossible to do so period. We need to prosecute fully and de-fame those who commit these crimes. Many do these things because they will get publicity and be noticed. Why are we making them famous?

  • Keith Scott Williams

    There is no GIANT LOOP HOLE.
    Why do people lie when they want to gain power to screw other people over ?
    If you can not state your case and prove it will solid facts then there is not a problem. You just want to push your agenda.

  • Kenneth James Abbott

    The reason they want to make the background check universal before they worry about making it accurate is because they CARE about getting every gun buyer on record, while they don’t really care about how accurate it is.

  • Shawic

    For one thing, it is NOT legal to order a gun from the internet. For another, if you buy a gun from a dealer at a gun show, you have to have a background check or a license, which has already had a background check. This woman does not know what she is talking about.

  • Keith Scott Williams

    Here are the lies people live. watch Mr. Giffords buying an AR-15. But he claims nobody else should own one:

  • GPD12292

    Do you believe that Giffords wrote this???? I have seen her speak. She can hardly put together two sentences. So who wrote this under her name? Someone using her injuries to EXPLOIT her. The part about Mark Kelly is a out right lie, he did get approved but he was required to go back and bring in proper ID because he first showed an out of state ID, and why shouldn’t he WASN’T A CRIMINAL. I would classify him as a criminal now because HE LIED ON A FEDERAL FIREARMS FORM…. LIES, LIES AND DAMNED LIES. Shameful exploitation, just as Sandy Hook parents are being paraded around Senate offices by anti-gun liberal gun-grabbers so they can cry for the Senators, while the liberals cheer in the background.

    • alanstorm

      To be fair, there is a difference between speaking and writiing. Writing allows one to put down thoughts more slowly, to think about them more, and to re-edit until you have crated the message you want. I much prefer writing to speaking for these very reasons.

      It doesn’t change the fact that she’s lying her a$$ off, but still…

    • TC

      If you knew anything about her injury, you would know that she is able to think, she has a problem with speech that she is working hard on everyday.

  • Glitter

    I’m getting sick of Gabby Giffords.

  • Guest

    So when her husband got his background check it only took 5 mins because he has no criminal history, wasn’t he recently employed by NASA only several months ago as an astronaut? At best the op-ed she wrote is skewing the truth, but I’d rather call it what it is, a flat out lie.

  • TexasMeow

    Twisting the truth (or lying) to the public is how the Obama administration has always operated. This is no surprise. What does continue to surprise me, is how openly and numerous the lies are becoming. Other countries are even starting to notice.

  • Bryan

    Doesn’t Gabby owe her life to an armed law-abiding citizen? Who was it, again, who stopped Loughner?

    • Patriot

      Right! Now we need to make the stupid left quit lying about it,and inform the ignorant!

  • Scott L. Simmons

    And……buying a gun on the internet, requires a gun to be shipped. When a gun is shipped, it must be shipped to an FFL holder, and the FFL holder must then transfer it to the buyer……THIS REQUIRES A BACKGROUND CHECK.

  • Bob Clark

    Eliminating all morals has been the tactic for Socialist and Communist factions all along. Lie , cheat, murder or “the end justifies the means” was written often by Marx and Engles and is summerized in the book “The Naked Communist” written in 1958

  • Navygunner

    Her Op-Ed was disingenuous at best, skewing the truth by ignoring or omitting facts doesn’t seem to be a problem for the left so that they can push their agenda through. Her husbands background check only took 5 mins due to the fact that he has no criminal history, wasn’t he employed by NASA as an astronaut only a few months ago? Not too many of those folks running around with a criminal background.

  • Amber Adkins


    • Patriot

      Especially the likes of m s n b c,or c n n! LOL!!!NO F—–g way!

  • Bill White

    It is also incorrect what they say about Gun Shows, yet they continue. If you buy from a dealer they have the background check there. The only none background check purchases are from people walking around with a gun trying to sell it. Why this may be an issue the solution our communist social engineering apologatics leaders of background checks for all purchases sounds logical, they fail to mention it includes giving your guns to your son or daughter…your brother..or willing them into your family. This would also in fact be a universal gun registration since to implement it you would have to register all your firearms. The reason for this is simple, for them to enforce universal back ground checks they would have to be able to check if you had one for the guns you have no matter when you got them.

    • Patriot

      You’ve got it!

  • PatriotRG

    Its an old leftist ploy one Anne Coulter pointed out re the 9/11 Widows. One can’t really call a woman who has been shot and almost killed a liar or the fact she is muddling the truth. Its like attacking a cripple – the optics are terrible. So even if we prove her wrong 10 different ways – we will look bad doing it. The games those leftists play….

    • Patriot

      Like I said….”mr kelly is now speaking for her”

  • Dadya

    Fox manufactured outrage. The only thing she is insinuating is her shooters mental illness. Get a grip people.

    • Patriot

      I believe she said mr loughner,avoided a background check.
      It was widely reported,that (he) bought the gun legally prior to the shooting.

  • tenndoug911

    Lying libs (sorry about the redundancy) will say anything to forward their sick misguided agenda.

  • DixieAngel_76

    Left out of the argument from the beginning is the sheer stupidity of Gabby Giffords for staging such an event out in public without proper security in the first place. No one so far has ever called her on that, she just gets a free pass, and I have always wondered why. If it had been Sarah Palin who’d pulled such a bone-headed stunt, and several people had been killed the media would have demanded she go to prison, or at least pay the surviving family members of those killed. Don’t think I’m excusing the gunman, because I’m not, but it’s leftists of Gabby Giffords’ ilk that have fought to keep violently insane people like Jarred Loughner from being institutionalized by doctors, or from having their medical records accessed by authorities, or prospective employers, landlords, etc.

    • Patriot


  • Sue Copeland

    Better yet, forget the background checks, because they don’t work. Do empower mental health officials to raise red flags and have them be taken seriously.

    • Patriot

      Unfortunately they can declare anyone mentally ill. We must be VERY careful,putting these decisions in the hands of corruptible bureaucrats.

  • Charles Batchelor

    f you buy a gun either at a store, on the internet, at a gun show, or on the street for that matter and the person you are buying from is licensed gun dealer, you must do a background check. Only private person to persons transactions don’t require one. In some states, the state law may require it thought.

  • vsdgrandma

    This is not about news stations or reporters…it is about a another lie a liberal democrat stated and tried to pass off as true/fact to get thier way. Wish you could say it is because of her horrible ordeal….but unfortunetly it is simply the way the left operates.

  • dzobels

    I hate to say this, but the op-ed is so well crafted and precise that I have doubts about authorship. Are we to believe that her rehabilitation from a gunshot to the head has gone so well as to leave her without cognitive deficit? Arguments on either side of the issue aside, this question, seemingly uncommented upon, troubles me.

    • Patriot


  • James

    Blatant lies by a brain damaged puppet.

    • Patriot

      It’s extremely sad ,that the left,set this and others like it up,to further their agenda for control!

  • celsma

    Alice Boland is a perfect example of the stupidity of our politicians. Wake up, they don’t care about the actual problem, they care about control. They are trying to gain control over everyone by not letting perfectly good tragedies go to waste. Despite the fact that mental health is more complicit than the guns themselves. Aurora or the Giffords attack would have happened with fertilizer bombs if guns were not available to those loony toons and guns simply should not have been available to the kid in CT who played FPS games all day and night.

    • Patriot

      Nail on the head…..”they care about control”!

  • disqus_4mk3E81bzF

    To me, the problem seems to focus on the “doctor/patient” confidentiality that gets in the way of reporting those who are mentally ill to the system setup to insure they are not allowed to purchase a firearm.

  • jba

    Hey Gifford… and all “Libs”.. it is not, and never has been… legal to purchase modern firearms on the Internet without going through the same checks the rest of us do. The sites selling these guns are required to send the gun to an FFL licensed dealer..period… where you will have to undergo the same checks as if buying it over the counter… period… Federal law… look it up… you CAN purchase a black-powder muzzle loader… in most states that way, and pellet guns… but not any gun with “cased” ammo…. including shotguns.

    • Patriot

      As usual,Bruce. If they tell the same f—–g lie long enough,FOOLS start to believe it! It’s simply a matter of fooling some of the people,some of the time.
      Sheep head to the slaughter with very little resistance,I refuse to listen to communist lies! Great post!

  • Phil

    There are Liars, and DAMN LIARS. It seems that she fall into the second class of Liar.

  • Becci Springer

    Just more lies and never let crisis go to waste. How pathetic that she is using herself to promote crap that will do nothing in this country for anyone except criminals.

  • Denver Goddess

    Giffords is flatly lying. You cannot “buy a gun on the internet” without passing a background check. Federal law requires transfer from one federally licensed firearms dealer to another (FFL to FFL). Once that gun is recieved and the buyer wishes to pick it up, he has to pass a background check ( and fill out ATF form 4473) and all information about the buyer, seller, and weapon itself is kept in records per federal law by the gun dealer that recieved the delivery. This is NOT new.

    • Patriot

      I truly think she is incapable of thinking on her own,at this point,and what we’re hearing is Mr kelly speaking for her.

    • ride2live

      Yes, she is lying about gun shows as well. The vast majority of vendors at a gun show are FFL’s who run NICS checks with every firearm sale. The “civilian” with a private firearm sale is a rarity. I’d put the percentage of private sales at any given gun show under 3%, and that’s being generous.

  • Sandra Trusso

    The Newtown gunman stole his mother’s guns, and killed her with her own guns. Her guns were registered. Will a background check include family members and anyone who visits your home, who could possibly steal your guns an kill you with them before committing mass murder somewhere else?

    • Patriot

      Hey Sandy! We all know it’s simply a ploy by barak HUSSIEN obama,and the communist regime he and croneys are forming, to completely enslave Americans!
      loughner,and the idiot who went on the murderous rampage in Co. were in-fact registered “progressives” (communists)
      In fact the goon in Co. actually worked on the obama campaign.

      • Isahiah62

        A chief goal
        of SSM is to teach students that American capitalism is a racist,
        materialistic doctrine that has done incalculable harm to societies all
        over the world. One of the more infamous students to attend
        an SSM school (Mountain View High School in Arizona) was Jared Lee
        Loughner, the gunman who — on January 8, 2011 in Tucson — shot Rep.
        Gabrielle Giffords in the head, leaving her in critical condition.
        Loughner also sprayed gunfire at others in the vicinity, wounding thirteen and killing six.

        indoctrinated by OBAMA friend AYERS

      • TC

        Good grief, people are still using “HUSSEIN” in their rants? What is this? 2008?

  • American.Vet

    While all attention is on the AR-15, people forget that 1 week earlier he purchased a 45 semi-auto handgun, and both he and Gabby have, according to published news stories, gun collections. They want to complain about the need for UBC to keep firearms away from mentally ill people, but here you have firearms owned by and readily available to someone ( Gabby ) who it is publicly admitted has mental cognitive issues. Why haven’t all their firearms been seized?

    • Roto

      Mark’s SIG M400 request was held for **20 days** before the dealer pulled it.

    • TC

      How about the fact that she does not have a mental illness and she is not a danger to herself or others?

  • Katherine Noel Mumford

    poorly structured sentence..i believe she actually means “or people suffering from mental illness, like the young man who shot me.”

  • Patriot

    Amazingly,I heard an interview with Ms. Giffords prior to the Tucson shooting,in which she stated….”I’m a blue dog democrat who does NOT support cap,and trade,or ANY FURTHER GUN -CONTROL legislation”!
    Now unfortunately,since that shooting,she and “Mr.hero” are touting “reasonable restrictions” on gun purchases,and the type, WE as Americans will be (allowed) to own…. Pathetic!
    We must NEVER forget about the “reasonable” gun restrictions,brought on by hitler!

  • Dee McWilliams

    I’m sorry Gabby Gifford was shot doing her job — I do wish her hubby would please stop using her for photo-ops and to lie about guns since he was caught out buying guns.

  • Craig Jacobs

    Regardless of where I’ve purchased a gun in AZ I’ve had to get a background check done. Unless he bought the gun on the street from a criminal he had a background check – even at a _gasp_ EVIL GUN SHOW! Of course the checks are basically checking criminal records – basically what any cop can get in a police car.

    The current system cannot check medical records. See also HIPAA.

    Outside of these rare, if horrible incidents, the overwhelming issue is criminals getting stolen / illegal weapons. The number of crimes commited by legally purchase weapons is but a fraction of the crimes commited by illegal weapons.

  • Mic

    Don’t know if she’s just a prop of the lying leftist vermin or if her faculties have returned and she is consciously acting like a normal Democrat. Whatever the case the amoral statists will sink to any low to achieve the tyranny of their socialist utopia dreams !

  • Debra Ann Bonneau

    I read the same thing everyone else did, and I take it that she was referring to mentally ill people like the person who shot her in the head…………everyone else is putting words in her mouth. Like children who only hear what they want to hear, how can anyone be so quick to villify someone who went thru so much AFTER BEING SHOT IN THE HEAD!!!!!

  • Renny

    It’s always about the meme.

  • Sheldon Berberian

    They dont see it as a lie (The voices in their heads tell them so)

  • Isahiah62

    A chief goal
    of SSM is to teach students that American capitalism is a racist,
    materialistic doctrine that has done incalculable harm to societies all
    over the world. One of the more infamous students to attend
    an SSM school (Mountain View High School in Arizona) was Jared Lee
    Loughner, the gunman who — on January 8, 2011 in Tucson — shot Rep.
    Gabrielle Giffords in the head, leaving her in critical condition.
    Loughner also sprayed gunfire at others in the vicinity, wounding thirteen and killing six.

    indoctrinated by OBAMA friend AYERS

  • Mario Elia

    And she is wrong. At the gun shows I go to the gun sellers are all FFL dealers and you have to go through the background check right there at the show. They have all the wire and wireless connections like at a dealership store! And when buying a fire arm on line from
    gun websites they only will send it to a FFl dealer near you and he performs the background check before he turns over the gun to you!

  • JT

    Oh please… as if Arizona were competent in reporting mentally ill people to the federal government for inclusion in the database. Estimates show that the database is missing about 1 million people who should be in it. The fact is that Loughner was expelled from a state institution, Pima County College, for mental instability. He was told not to come back without “a mental health clearance indicating that, in the opinion of a mental
    health professional, his presence at the college does not present a
    danger to himself or others.”THIS ALONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR HIM TO BE INCLUDED IN THE “NO SELL” LIST, PERIOD. If states run by right wing ïdïöts like the Raisin-head Jan Brewer don’t do their JOB, we will find better ways of doing the job for them.

    • sharinite

      Gee JT, it would help immensely if you were competent too….see my response to Karen above…get a clue for goodness sake!

  • Mike

    So, what happens when the world’s best and most sane police officer, who has years of training and weapons safety experience, loses his job, wife leaves him, son dies tragically in an unprovoked gang fight, and then absolutely loses it when his neighbor is caught stealing his newspaper? That background check done a few years ago won’t mean much then, will it?

    • Justin Levesque

      And when said officer bashes said neighbor’s head in with a golf club, do we ban all golf clubs? Or expand it to include all hand-held objects which are capable of causing fatal injuries?

      • Mike

        So, you think a person losing it for thirty seconds on a neighbor with a golf club is the same as a person killing every kid in a classroom, which took the same amount of time? Tell me, why do you think grenades aren’t legal for citizen ownership? Apparently that’s too much firepower for anyone to own? Where’s your 2nd Amendment stance on that?

        • Justin Levesque

          Violence is violence, whether it is perpetrated with a gun, a golf club, a rock, or bare hands. Penalizing law-abiding Americans after the fact does nothing to solve the problem. It exacerbates the problem, by removing the means by which tens of thousands of lives are saved every year.
          A hand grenade (or any explosive weapon, for that matter) is a military-grade weapon that has no place in civilian hands, except in the case of foreign invasion. Hence, they are illegal for civilian ownership. Of course, one can make one’s own grenades and bombs at home, but that’s also illegal. American civilians simply do not face threats that require that amount of force, unless you make a habit of enraging street gangs.
          In any case, it makes more sense for Americans who choose to be armed to be as well, or better, armed than any prospective criminal. If that means an AR-15 at home and a concealed handgun in public, so be it.
          Gun ban or not, a killer will find the means to kill regardless. Restricting the means by which citizens can defend themselves only serves to increase the pool of possible victims.

          • Mike

            Thank you for the debate, Justin. You and I are doing more talking than the senate, apparently. And, we continue…

            Similar to speed limits, the needs of a primarily suburban/urban area is different than that of rural Minnesota, Montana, etc. While criminals are universal, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume while you’re at home, you don’t have an AR-15 loaded, slung over your shoulder, awaiting a bad guy to test your 2nd Amendment rights. So why the need for that particular gun, compared to a bolt action 30.08 or a Glock with 15 in the mag?
            And because we’re not discussing police or military rights but citizen rights, if average Joe can get an AR-15, so can average Joe’s evil cousin.
            It doesn’t take an evil genius to convert a semi-auto into a fully auto, unless, of course, the AR-15 is placed next to the grenade, or mini-gun, Gatling, etc and labeled as “too dangerous for citizen ownership.”

            Personally, I’m trying to think of the last time a non-military, non-cop used an AR-15 to protect me, and I just can’t come up with a single instance.

          • Justin Levesque

            No, I don’t go about the house with an AR. One, I can’t afford one right now, and two, I don’t feel the need to be armed in my own home. However, my weapons are scattered and hidden about the house, with full magazines and empty chambers. I do carry a handgun every time I leave the house, however.

            Simply put, the AR-15 platform is one of THE most popular semi-automatic rifles in America. The array of accessories is vast, and the rifle can be customized for nearly any purpose, from hunting, to target shooting, to competition, to self defense. It is light, easy to learn, and ammunition is abundant (or rather, WAS abundant). You asked why an AR-15 over a bolt action. Simple: rate of fire. In a defensive situation, as any police officer or soldier will tell you, you need to put rounds on target. Accuracy is one factor, rate of fire is another. That .308 bolt-action you mentioned may be just fine against a single intruder. But, what if he has friends with him? What if he’s high and just doesn’t notice? What if you miss? It often takes more than one round to stop an attacker. The Glock you mentioned quite useful in the same situation; you can’t take it hunting though.
            Here’s the sticking point I see in the whole debate, and you pointed it out.
            “if average Joe can get an AR-15, so can average Joe’s evil cousin.”
            Very true. However, if Average Joe CAN’T get an AR-15 (or any other magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle for that matter) because of legislative restrictions, his evil cousin will still be able to. That kind of restriction doesn’t protect anyone. Personally, I would much rather out-gun a criminal, than have to hope I have enough ammunition or that the police arrive before he kills me or a loved one. An AR-15 platform certainly out-guns your average criminal. The only new federal gun law I would support would be to require the States to submit information to the existing NICS system. It works for the most part, though not all States are fully participant. This needs to include certain mental health information. However, in order for this to work, such medical determinations (like if a person is a danger to him/herself or others) need to be left up to doctors, not politically appointed committees. And, just because a person is taking medication for depression or whatever shouldn’t automatically bar a person for gun ownership. I know that this seems like an invasion of privacy and a violation of patient confidentiality. It works, though. And that’s the whole point: keeping guns (of any kind) out of the hands of dangerous people.
            I do have to nitpick you a little at this point.
            “It doesn’t take an evil genius to convert a semi-auto into a fully auto,”
            Depends on the weapon in question, but we’ll limit the discussion to the AR-15 platform. First, not all AR’s can be converted; it depends on the manufacturer. Second, you DO need a little mechanical know-how and, unless you make your living as a gunsmith, a really good manual. Third, the necessary parts (sear and lower receiver) are NFA items (Class III, I think), and are strictly regulated by BATFE. You can’t just go out and buy them off the shelf. And I haven’t even gotten into spring assemblies and gas systems. My point is, a full-auto conversion is not as easy as some media outlets and politicians would have you believe.
            Now, you should be very happy that you’ve never been in a situation where a firearm, of any kind, has been needed to protect you. Others have; many HAVE used an AR of some kind to protect themselves or someone else. I daresay that defensive uses of semi-automatic rifles far outnumber criminal uses.

          • Isahiah62

            if Average Joe CAN’T get an AR-15 …because of legislative restrictions, his evil cousin will still be able to. (YES!)

            That kind of restriction doesn’t protect anyone.

            …………………..worth saying twice

          • Mike

            Here are my takeaways from your last post.

            – The AR15 is very popular. It can be accessorized for many purposes. This popularity and amount of accessories has something to do with why it should be kept available for civilian purchase?

            – While *you* don’t have an AR15 for defensive purposes, its accuracy and rate of fire make it just about necessary, if there’s more than one intruder, or if the intruder is high, or if you miss, etc. So long as we’re playing the what-if game, what if more than 30 intruders are coming? Should we up the legal magazine size to 50 or 100? If we do, those will be available to the bad guys, too. Should we then up to it 150 or 200? If an intruder doesn’t feel the affect of your weapon because he’s high on, say, PCP, should we also make PCP available for civilian use? That would even the score, wouldn’t it?

            – Regarding the sticking point, you seem to think it’s important to “out-gun” a criminal, at least the average criminal. Justin, this is a difficult point for me to understand. Any gun that’s available to you is also available to *all* criminals. You *can’t* out-gun a criminal. You have the chance to pick up a Bushmaster and put the most ammo on the average criminal right now, yet you choose not to.

            – The mental health question and states submitting info into a centralized, national database… There has to be a line between “This is okay” versus “This is not okay” and I don’t think anyone knows where that line is. We could debate for generations, but until science can come up with some definitive answers, we’re stuck. See my original post? Good – no, GREAT man turns bad in a second. If a person absolutely loses it for 30 seconds, how much devastation can be done with an axe, versus a Bushmaster?

            – Converting a AR15 – if it can be done, it will be done.
            That’s one of many, many videos on how to do it. It may not be easy, but then again, we’re not debate the ease of turning a semi-auto into full auto. Or slide fire / bump fire where the recoil is enough to position the trigger and allow for the next shot. It’s not full-auto, but it sure as hell acts like it.

            What happens when one of THESE guys loses his job, wife, dog, remote control, etc? Is it too late to have a psychiatrist submit info into a national database to be reviewed and decided by a panel to hav … Uh, oh. Joe just lost it and killed 40 people in 36 seconds.

            I live in Connecticut. We have almost no hunting grounds because of the suburban sprawl from New York, New Haven and Bridgeport, even Springfield and Boston. Large game just isn’t there, and deer are the most prevalent. I don’t think a deer requires 30 rounds.

            We have criminals, too. Most carry handguns because they’re easier to conceal and, in the heat of the crime, you only get off a few shots because panic takes over and people scatter. In fact, I can’t think of the last time I heard of a criminal using a bushmaster in a car jacking or a convenience store holdup. Maybe you can help me find a few cases where criminals used such weaponry? All I can think of is the LA bank robberies which were so powerful, the actions led to the making of the movie “Heat.”

            Bottom line is, and I’ll forever yield the floor to you, personally, I don’t believe this should be a national debate. The needs of Arizonans protecting themselves against drug running illegals aren’t the same as the needs of suburban Connecticut. Just like speed limits, let the states figure out their own limits. If someone feels the 2nd Amendment issue is important enough, then move to a state where the rest of the population agrees with your stance. (Not your as in YOUR stance, but the theoretical you.)

            I saw today, some nut went beserker-mode with a knife and cut quite a few people. I’m glad he didn’t have a gun, no matter what type.

          • Justin Levesque

            Because of current state law, no one was bale to bring a gun to that knife fight. Did you see the response from one witness, who said that during the attack, all they had was God, because the students with CHL’s can’t carry on campus? Too bad the Texas legislators have yet to pass a campus carry law. It’s been introduced though. Maybe this will kick them into gear.

            -My description of the AR-15 wasn’t a justification of why it should remain legal, but an attempted explanation of it’s popularity.

            -The ‘what if’ game, in this case, is being taken to a slightly ridiculous extreme here. I don’t see a flash mob invading a person’s home as much of a possibility. Similar situations have occurred, though. For example, if another LA Riots-type of situation occurs, that AR-15 and a few 30-rnd magazines will come in awfully handy. I’m reminded of photos of Korean store owners and homeowners on the roofs of their buildings, legally-owned rifles (including AR’s, AK’s, SKS’s) ready. Incidentally, the Korean areas in LA suffered the least damage during the Riots.
            I’d personally have no issue with banning magazines over 30-40 rounds, but from a purely technical and logistical standpoint. The majority of the ‘drum’ magazines available are junk, and wasteful.
            As for the drug issue, no offense intended, but that’s just plain dumb. No remotely knowledgeable gun owner is going to compromise his/her chances with drugs. Really not much of an equalizer. The risks are FAR too high, and can compromise the safety of everyone around you, especially people you may be trying to protect.

            -I don’t ‘choose’ not to have an AR. As I said, I can’t afford one, and I will not lower myself to the level of a criminal to get one. If I had the finances to do so, I’d have one. As for out-gunning a criminal, I might not have explained myself clearly. ‘Out-gunning’ isn’t just about firepower. It’s about mind-set, accuracy, AND firepower.

            The mind-set being “I am GOING to survive.” Note I said ‘survive’, not ‘kill my attacker’. Self defense is about survival. No responsible gun owner wants to kill anyone. If an attacker runs away, great. If he’s injured by my shot, as long as he stops that’s enough. If stopping him means a tight shot group that deflates a lung or depressurizes his circulatory system, so be it.

            Accuracy, self explanatory. A good semi-automatic rifle or handgun can make up for poor accuracy. That, and the sound of 5-6 rounds being fired scares the crap out of almost anyone.

            And firepower: not so much having a bigger gun, but more using what you DO have to its full capability and maximum advantage. Refer to my previous post about an AR’s usefulness.

            The criminal mind-set also adds to this little equation. Most criminals are cowards. Confronted by an armed resident, the majority of home invaders flee (unless they have been rightfully shot). Also, most criminals are more afraid of an armed citizen than the police; police have more strict rules regarding the use of lethal force that civilians, and most states have fairly good legislative protection for civilians involved in a self-defense shooting.

            -The states should be required to submit ALL criminal conviction data to the NICS system. That’s what it’s for, to keep guns out of the hand of those who would do harm. This should include the names of anyone who’s been involuntarily committed to a mental care facility by the state.

            It is a slippery slope, however. You correctly point out the fuzzy line between okay and not okay. I have no easy answer. I do know the answer is NOT restricting the liberties of everyone for the actions of a few. A handful of deranged people commit some terrible atrocities with legal weapons, so we take those same weapons away from everyone? No. That’s also a slippery slope. Today it’s semi-auto rifles, tomorrow it’s semi-auto shotguns, then handguns, then…

            -Deer don’t require 30 rounds. In fact, most states (maybe all) restrict the number of rounds a hunter can have in their weapon. Commonly, this is 5 in a rifle, 3 in a shotgun. It’s a safety thing; lots of people in relatively close proximity, all with loaded firearms. One rarely hears about hunters accidentally shooting each other. Responsible, educated gun owners rarely have accidents.

            -You asked for examples of criminals using AR’s, here’s a couple:



            There are FAR more examples of people using AR’s to protect themselves; just Google “criminal ar-15”.
            In any case, criminal use of semi-automatic rifles is a fraction of the number of crimes committed with firearms. The impact of any of the current control proposals on crime would be negligible, if any at all. It would mostly serve to turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons. I present the State of New York, for example.

            Like it or not, the issue of gun control IS a national issue, for a few reasons. One, many citizens look to the federal government for solutions (too many, if you ask me). Two, the Supreme Court made it a national issue with the ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated, meaning that it applies to the states as well as the feds. Three, the disparity between states regarding gun laws. SCOTUS has essentially said several times that the states can enact whatever gun laws they want, provided they hold up to Constitutional scrutiny.

            In the end, the question I ask people is this: Why do police carry handguns, and keep shotguns and rifles in their cars and stations? Answer: to protect themselves first, the community at large second. And for the same reasons I’ve mentioned before: to out-gun any prospective criminal.

            Besides all that, picking on the AR-15 platform is just silly. A Ruger 10/22, arguably the most common .22LR rifle in the country, can easily be dressed up to look exactly like an AR-15. It can use many of the same accessories. It has a similar rate of fire. Magazines are available from 10 rounds to 100 rounds. But no one is talking about 10/22’s are they? If one wants to ban firearms based on possible carnage inflicted, why is no one going after shotguns? Many are semi-auto, several use 10 to 20 round detachable magazines, and the round is a whole lot bigger. There’s even a few that are built on an AR-15 platform.

  • Cathy_B_in_AZ

    It was MARK, not Gabby who implied.

  • JR_atHome

    Beware the troll flag is flying red with two bars. There is another term for it use your imagination FF.

  • Anderson

    I’ve always had great admiration for Ms. Giffords, until now. That was intentional, outright lie. I’m all for closing the loopholes and ensuring that the mentally ill can not obtain firearms, but this is outrageous. She is hoping that her condition and survivor status will get her a pass. Not on your life madam.

  • Karen Cianci

    The hyperlink at “this is not true” references the Portland publication article that Jared Loughner did pass the background check. So this is true. But the article goes on to say that Arizona has extremely loose gun laws. State by State, gun laws are going to get stricter. Concealed carry will be a thing of the past. Background checks will extend to college and other public systems where an individual is determine ‘detrimental to society” i.e. they may not have an arrest record outside, but at the college level on the campus they have caused grave concern. Hey, it is not violating our civil rights if a person who is of “grave concern” to someone is reported to the police department or a registry (wherever background checks will take place.) Consider this, “background checks” are not some pie-in-the-sky idea. It’s a moving concept–a system–that is evolving. It will evolve to include “persons of grave concern”. The author of this argument hyperlinked us to a fantastic piece of evidence about why gun laws should be stricter in every state. Thank you much !!

    • Roto

      A retired U.S. Navy Captain and former NASA astronaut was rejected from purchasing a tactical rifle in Arizona… doesn’t sound like loose gun laws to me.

  • Karen Cianci

    ELIMINATING the availability of high cap magazines and making gun trafficking a federal crime (guilty of life in prison) should do a world of good. Background checks won’t catch everybody but as I said, the system is evolving and will eventually include those with domestic violence issues, convicted felons, those with previous gun crimes, and now possibly those who are “of grave concern mentally”. What’s wrong with that?

    • sharinite

      Karen, here some truth:
      ​Why don’t we focus on the real problem in America? There have
      been, an average of four (4), of these crimes per year since
      l966-2010….but since 2010 the number has increased slightly. However, it is not the guns…it is the mental stability, ability or diseased
      functions of the brain brought about by parents, injury, schools,
      community, country and/or culture. Guns have become more violent
      vicious and more numerous…yet, the average has been steady until post 2010. Cars, buses and trains have killed thousands. Alcohol and drugs thousands more. And, certainly since l966 wars have too. But the one thing that remains constant is our inability to deal with what causes the brain to break. What is the physical, emotional or condition of the psyche that leads a young person or older to do this? What have we given our boys since about l960 in “drug” therapy that might also add to this? But, no! The progressives aka democrats nee marxists want citizens to have no guns…so as Rahm Emanuel himself said: don’t let a good crisis go to waste…” even better when it involves little kids. And Obama appoints the one real dog in the group that is so sullied by ideology and hate mongering, that there will be a hard push to accomplish what they tried for decades. Not to mention that the
      ​ ​progressive media will be led and prodded to do what they are
      ​ ​told….watch Diane Sawyer to get a drift. So….let us not look into the “why” of the thing…let us leave the rest of the young children and adults to harbor those types among them…let us pretend that when we have gotten rid of some or maybe all firearms there will be no more mass killings….until the next one with bombs, knives, illegal chemicals, cars, trucks or illegal guns! Who are we and they kidding?

    • Justin Levesque

      Ah, but who decides on “grave concern mentally”? A qualified physician, or an appointed committee?
      As many have pointed out elsewhere, banning magazines has no effect, period. One, with some practice, even a novice shooter can reload a magazine-fed semi-auto in a second or two, sometimes less. Two, who decides the definition of ‘high capacity’? The numbers being bandied about have absolutely NO basis in fact. The most common limit found in various state laws is ten rounds. Why? No one can ever provide a logical answer. If the purpose of capacity limits is to force an active shooter to pause to reload, providing responders with an opportunity, doesn’t that also work the other way, against an armed citizen?
      Personally, I want to be as well or better armed than any prospective criminal.

    • Mike Thompson

      Karen, it takes me, admittedly a military-trained shooter, less than 20 seconds to fire 30 rounds through a semi-automatic AR-15 using one 30-round magazine OR three 10-round magazines… It took my wife, who is not military trained, only 24 seconds. Magazine capacity isn’t an issue so why bother with a law?

      • Justin Levesque

        Exactly the point I’ve been TRYING to make. The problem is that logic rarely enters into the anti-gun mindset; or the liberal one, for that matter.

  • Steve Elliott

    Sorry that old Gabby here got shot, but getting shot seldom makes you very smart, unless you were smart to begin with. In her case, just did not help. She makes a fool of herself constantly, and is only surpassed in that by her husband.

  • 1CatEye

    Her stupid husband wasn’t able to walk out with a gun in 5 minutes, so she lied about that, too. He still had to wait days to get his gun. In the meantime, the world caught on to what he was doing, and the gun dealer cancelled the transaction because it would have been a strawman transaction (he was going to buy the gun and give it to someone else) and therefore, illegal.

  • vaquero711

    You CANNOT buy the gun on the internet ! And bitch knows that . She isn’t stupid . She purposely misled people . These idiots obamas voters .

  • Isahiah62

    Breaking news: 14 people stabbed- time for KNIFE CONTROL!! background checks for knives (j/k)
    ONE armed person could have shot the stabber and 14 people would not have been killed/wounded- guess you don’t need “hi capacity magazines” or automatic weps to do a lot of damage- PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE- countdown to lib media accusations that a gun control advocate did this to make a point- in 5,4,3,2,1………………

  • Disgruntled2012

    When you become a liar to try to deny law-abiding citizens their rights, Gabby, then you lose my sympathy. Before you were shot you were campaigning as a gun rights advocate. Hypocrite!

  • Chuck Norton

    In the case of Jarrod Loughner who committed the Gabby Giffords shooting, Loughner had multiple contacts
    with university police and the sheriff’s department. The police reports
    show that they knew that Loughner was dangerously mentally ill and
    Arizona has the law in place to have people forcibly evaluated and all
    they had to do was dial a 1-800 number to get it done. The sheriff’s
    department did not do so because Loughner’s mother is a supervisor in
    the county parks department. That same sheriff is the one who came out
    and blamed Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin for the shooting.

  • chetnapier

    To be fair she was shot in the head she probably parrots whatever she is told

  • Dianna Walker

    Like any other Progressive Socialist Democrat if you can’t get what you want the right way, then you lie cheat or steal to get it.

  • Scott Mainardy

    when she lived in New York, waiting on the subway, they didn’t have “instant” internet background checks, They also didn’t have the nation wide databases. As my Dad used to say: “you show me your charts, I’ll show you mine”.