Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has made a remarkable recovery after suffering a gunshot to the head during the Tucson massacre two years ago. Today, on the second anniversary of the shooting, she’s ready for her next chapter as the face of the gun control movement.

Monday night, Giffords’ husband Mark Kelly teased the launch of their “broad new effort,” an organization called Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Evidently “responsible solutions” don’t necessarily involve respecting Second Amendment rights.

The couple’s op-ed introducing the initiative appears in USA Today and ABC will air their interview with Diane Sawyer today.

The op-ed blasts Congress for doing “something quite extraordinary — nothing at all.” So, of course, the answer is to do something. Giffords and Kelly blame an “ideological fringe” that has “used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission.”

Ban Second Amendment supporters!

Giffords and Kelly complain that the fringe gun control lobby makes Americans “more vulnerable to gun violence” by being way too into those pesky “individual liberties.”  You know, the ones safeguarded by the Constitution. Oh, and that much-hyped national conversation about gun violence? You gun nuts are doin’ it wrong.

Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.

Armed guards for the politerati? Totally different! Surely you don’t expect your betters to adhere to the same rules as the hoi polloi?

  • peteee363

    which fringe are they talking about, the nuts who kill people, or the tool they used? i am all against tools figuring out how to load themself, and pull the trigger. can somebody please make me aware of a time when a gun actually killed someone without somebody pulling the trigger?

  • peteee363

    which fringe are they talking about, the nuts who kill people, or the tool they used? i am all against tools figuring out how to load themself, and pull the trigger. can somebody please make me aware of a time when a gun actually killed someone without somebody pulling the trigger?

  • edward cropper

    All caring people can feel to some degree the pain and tragic results suffered by Ms. Giffords after her shooting, but if I get run over by a drunk driver that does not make me an authority on alcoholism or the mechanics of an automobile.

    • $21367552

      “Caring people”. That would leave out most of your fellow commenters.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        Can one not feel empathy and not point out that no ideology was responsible for these murders, nor should murder be exploited to squelch the rights of the majority for the actions of the minority?

      • Catchance

        Ah, there’s the ad hominem attack that liberals use when they can’t use logic or facts. We must be uncaring.

    • $21367552

      “Caring people”. That would leave out most of your fellow commenters.

  • edward cropper

    All caring people can feel to some degree the pain and tragic results suffered by Ms. Giffords after her shooting, but if I get run over by a drunk driver that does not make me an authority on alcoholism or the mechanics of an automobile.

  • GaryTheBrave

    @RobSpicketWINK says “Bells will ring in Arizona today to mark 2 years since Rep Gabrielle Giffords was shot. She is announcing support for new gun control…”

    So the bells are not ringing for those that were killed including a Federal judge.

    Mark Kelly’s second tweet has “Gabby and I…”, which is correct, but his third tweet has “Gabby and me…”, which is incorrect. I guess being a rocket scientist isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bill.scalzo.5 Bill Scalzo

      They show no sympathy at all for the REPUBLICAN judge who lost his life. Because to these Commies, you are a non-person if you are not on board with the Commies.

      • TocksNedlog

        The bells ARE ringing for those that were killed.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

          Bill’s position was to disagree with the premise of the statement, Tocks.

          • TocksNedlog

            My apologies if I put that comment in the wrong place. Just wanted to clarify that the bells ARE for the dead.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bill.scalzo.5 Bill Scalzo

      They show no sympathy at all for the REPUBLICAN judge who lost his life. Because to these Commies, you are a non-person if you are not on board with the Commies.

    • TocksNedlog

      “watch Gabby and me discuss”
      Take out “Gabby and”
      “watch me discuss”
      He wrote it correctly.
      And he’s a shuttle pilot, not a rocket scientist .
      [“And all the science, I don’t understand;
      It’s just my job, five days a week.”]

      • Catchance

        Thank you, Tocks. That is used incorrectly all the time, as in “just between you and I”. It drives me nuts, (between you and me.)

      • grais

        Funny. That’s exactly how I was taught by my father when I was 7 years old : take out the other people. Later I learned about objective and subjective tenses. It seems lots of people were absent the day that’s taught in school.

    • grais

      Beg pardon, but his third tweet IS correct. He properly uses the objective tense. Astronauts are quite well educated.

      • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

        But not all Astronauts are very smart. I present for my argument the Depends wearing, cross country driving, psycho killer wannabe from a few years ago.

        Oh yeah, and Senator Bill Nelson from Florida.

  • GaryTheBrave

    @RobSpicketWINK says “Bells will ring in Arizona today to mark 2 years since Rep Gabrielle Giffords was shot. She is announcing support for new gun control…”

    So the bells are not ringing for those that were killed including a Federal judge.

    Mark Kelly’s second tweet has “Gabby and I…”, which is correct, but his third tweet has “Gabby and me…”, which is incorrect. I guess being a rocket scientist isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

  • Catchance

    Ms. Giffords’ ordeal caused millions of people to pray for her, and everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, were overjoyed at her remarkable recovery. However, that does not give her the moral authority to talk about banning guns or to use her suffering to advance her political agenda.

    • $21367552

      She has the “moral authority” to talk about whatever she pleases, as do you. But way to take a crap on the 1st amendment.

      • TocksNedlog

        Catchance did not “crap on the 1st Amendment” AT ALL

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        How is expressing dissent tantamount to “taking a crap” on the first amendment? Catchance offered her opinion regarding moral authority yet did not call for such speech to be suppressed-not that we, as individuals, even possess that power.

      • Lord Foggybottom

        How did she crap on the First Amendment? See, what you losers don’t understand about rights is that you can’t use one to take away the other; claiming you have a First Amendment right to take away our Second Amendment right is bullshit.

      • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

        What about the second amendment?

        And what is it liberals and their recent obsession with urine and feces?

        • 1CatEye

          Recent? How about always. It’s never too late to act like a 2 year old if you’re a lefty.

      • idesign2

        Her husband does most of the talking, Mrs. Giffords not so much.

      • http://profiles.google.com/sanddog Ms Anonymous

        she doesn’t have “moral authority” to raise money to attack the rights of citizens.

      • dwok

        No, getting shot in the head does NOT give her the platform or the authority to talk about guns in the same way a scalpel in my hand doesn’t make me a heart surgeon.

        What we have going on in this country is a lot of very ignorant comments being made about non-military weaponry that are no different than the weapons they claim they would allow us to own under new gun control laws.

        Remember, Virginia Tech massacre was committed with a .22 and a 9mm handgun. More people killed and more shots fired than at Sandy Hook.

      • Catchance

        So what you’re saying is she has the right to ‘crap’ on the second Amendment, and I’m not allowed to say that she’s wrong…. Which means that you’re the one crapping on the First Amendment.

      • 1CatEye

        You must be a lefty. Your comment is incoherent and stupid.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Maliheh-Banoo/100001527498988 Maliheh Banoo

        Maybe Rep Debralee Hovey thought giffords was going to bring up sarah palin being that gabby was on her crosshair map in which influenced the
        shooter in arizona

    • $21367552

      She has the “moral authority” to talk about whatever she pleases, as do you. But way to take a crap on the 1st amendment.

    • LordElrond09

      Talk about banning guns all you want. It’s not gonna happen. Not in America

    • WheresPatton

      But…but…but… VICTIM STATUS!

      • TomJB

        Liberal “logic”:

        Victims of gun violence have unquestionable moral authority to comment on the issue of gun control, unless those past victims are against gun control; people who have not been subjected to gun violence have no moral authority to comment on the issue of gun control, unless they are for it.

        Military members have unquestionable moral authority to comment on military matters, unless they are for a particular conflict; those who have not served have no moral authority to comment on military matters, unless they are against all wars.

        The pattern is utterly predictable.

        • Ronald

          There are folks on both sides of the issue that will play the victim card and say it gives them unique qualifications that others don’t have. But this issue affects everyone, so all opinions should count. That’s how democracy works.

    • 5n4k33y35

      She is entitled to her opinion. I respectfully disagree with her opinion.

      • Catchance

        Of course she has the right to her opinion. There’s just a big difference between voicing one’s opinion and lobbying to change the laws to take away the 2nd Amendment rights of others.

      • Ronald

        I disagree with her opinion as well. But I agree she has a right to express it and to lobby for change if she so wills. That’s democracy in action. Our side has a powerful lobby too.

    • fmahoney

      Who should be able to talk about gun control???

      The head of the NRA, Maybe just maybe he has his own agenda???

      The Republicans who said nothing and waited for the NRA???

      Maybe the gun manufacturer should set policy

      Or maybe we should listen to some of the idiots on this site???

      I want to speak to the victims?

      I want to listen to the mothers who have to live without their beautiful children

      I want to speak to teachers who are interested in teaching not shooting gun men

      I want real statistics, a real conversation and common sense approach

      Stop with all the Bull about 2nd amendment rights and go read the damn article.

      Why not specifically state exactly what she has said or suggested that you disagree with!

      My 2nd Amend Gun Rights Booo Hoooo we need more guns we need more gun we need more guns!!!

      • Catchance

        The irony of all of this is that the U.S. homicide rate, including those by guns, has decreased by 50% over the past 30 years… except for one area… that of the mass murderer. So why is that? Well, one reason could be the ACLU that lobbied for years about how we were infringing on the civil rights of people with mental illness by committing them involuntarily… that’s why you see so many homeless mentally ill people on the streets and off their meds. Only a tiny percentage of mentally ill people are homicidal, but those who are cannot be put away UNTIL they do something. Everyone who knew Jared Loughner knew that he was mentally ill and dangerous, but he had to kill before they could forcibly put him away. A 2011 study at the University of California (Berkeley) found that states with strong civil-commitment laws have about a 1/3 lower homicide rate.

        In other high crime areas, such as Chicago, they already have very strict gun-control laws. The problem is, it’s only the law-abiding that follow them. The gangs certainly don’t.

        • fmahoney

          Why not tell the truth when it comes to NYC and other major cities. These illegal guns are being purchased in states live Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina etc. Maybe if you guys told the truth we could have an honest conversation. Nobody is suggesting taking away guns for hunting, sporting etc. However, not one of you have come up with any real solution and actually suggest the answer is more guns!!!

          • Catchance

            I keep a 12-gauge shotgun in my house, and it’s not for hunting. I keep it in case of a home invasion.

            You obviously did not read my post above. Our discussion is over.

  • Catchance

    Ms. Giffords’ ordeal caused millions of people to pray for her, and everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, were overjoyed at her remarkable recovery. However, that does not give her the moral authority to talk about banning guns or to use her suffering to advance her political agenda.

  • Elizabeth

    I would like to know why no one is talking about mental illness, when that is the true reason these mass shootings are happening. Instead, people who obey laws, must be punished. Thing are backwards right now in America. What kind of America are we going to have if this is not corrected ?

    • Catchance

      The ACLU is partly to blame, pushing the agenda that mentally ill patients’ civil liberties were violated by committing them… one of the reasons we have so many mentally ill people out on the streets. Only a tiny percentage of them are violent, but we can’t do anything about them until they go on a rampage. Everyone knew Loughner was mentally unstable, but it took the killings in Tucson to get him committed.

    • Catchance

      The ACLU is partly to blame, pushing the agenda that mentally ill patients’ civil liberties were violated by committing them… one of the reasons we have so many mentally ill people out on the streets. Only a tiny percentage of them are violent, but we can’t do anything about them until they go on a rampage. Everyone knew Loughner was mentally unstable, but it took the killings in Tucson to get him committed.

    • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

      Because that doesn’t advance the Giffords/Democrat agenda.

    • TomJB

      Very interesting article in WND about not just the mental illness, but the drugs used to treat and how an alarming number of people coming off these drugs are prone to violence. But looking into that would be going against big pharma and no way Congress wants to do that, their lobbying dollars make the NRA look like a lemonade stand. (disclaimer: I am not against “big pharma” as they have done a lot of good, just an interesting read with conclusions that may need to be studied)

      http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/

    • 1CatEye

      Because you can’t ban the mentally ill. Why, that would be UNCARING or something. Besides, so much more fun to try to stomp on the Constitution.

  • Elizabeth

    I would like to know why no one is talking about mental illness, when that is the true reason these mass shootings are happening. Instead, people who obey laws, must be punished. Thing are backwards right now in America. What kind of America are we going to have if this is not corrected ?

  • Lord Foggybottom

    These two pinkos are the ideological fringe; most Americans want to preserve their right to keep and bear arms.

  • Lord Foggybottom

    These two pinkos are the ideological fringe; most Americans want to preserve their right to keep and bear arms.

  • Jack Deth

    After reading these tweets and being aware of the overall anti-gun strategy and campaign of the left and DNC.

    Is anyone else hearing Judy Collins singing “Send in the Clowns” in the backs of their heads?

    Or it just me?

    So very, very sad.

    • mickeyco

      You make some of the most thoughtful comments. Thanks.

  • Jack Deth

    After reading these tweets and being aware of the overall anti-gun strategy and campaign of the left and DNC.

    Is anyone else hearing Judy Collins singing “Send in the Clowns” in the backs of their heads?

    Or it just me?

    So very, very sad.

  • TEXANONLY

    Screw them , I am so sick of all these damn liberals, touch my gun and I touch you.

  • TEXANONLY

    Screw them , I am so sick of all these damn liberals, touch my gun and I touch you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bill.scalzo.5 Bill Scalzo

    Freedom-hating Statists. They’re everywhere.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bill.scalzo.5 Bill Scalzo

    Freedom-hating Statists. They’re everywhere.

  • traffic_robot

    Sad. Can’t imagine what their lives are like now, but it breaks my heart to read this. We are not the ideological fringe. We are hard working Americans who comprise the bulk of NRA members. So tired of being persecuted for my belief in my rights.

  • traffic_robot

    Sad. Can’t imagine what their lives are like now, but it breaks my heart to read this. We are not the ideological fringe. We are hard working Americans who comprise the bulk of NRA members. So tired of being persecuted for my belief in my rights.

  • reshas1

    He wants 15 more minutes of fame.. I just tweeted him, what about psychiatric drugs & violence??? And I am sorry, but is poor Gabby Giffords just being dragged around as a prop? You can tell she still has major problems, with a head injury like that, she will never be the same. http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/

    • Elizabeth

      I am sorry too, but I feel that Gabby Giffords is being dragged by her husband Mark for his ideological agenda. No longer has a job with NASA now, so he has to be in the public arena once more for his own ideology. Stop trying to punish people who obey laws! I am getting very tired of all this stuff about never letting a crisis go to waste.

      • TocksNedlog

        Despite her injury, I’m thinking that it is she that is dragging him around for the sake of pushing her ideological agenda.

        • Catchance

          I do, too.

          Does anyone remember her wacko questions to General Petraeus?
          Direct quote:

          “You know that a major part of the upcoming Kandahar offensive will include some serious repairs and upgrades to the energy system, which will include mass-scale power and hydro-power systems, and also some solar powered street lights. I’m just curious whether or not it is planned to use any of those same technologies at our bases around Afghanistan, and wouldn’t that greatly reduce our need for fuel?”

          Typical liberal ideologue views: green energy, gun control, gay marriage, animal rights, and abortion-on-demand.

  • reshas1

    He wants 15 more minutes of fame.. I just tweeted him, what about psychiatric drugs & violence??? And I am sorry, but is poor Gabby Giffords just being dragged around as a prop? You can tell she still has major problems, with a head injury like that, she will never be the same. http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/

  • FilleGitane

    90 million people is s an impressive number for an “ideological fringe.”

  • FilleGitane

    90 million people is s an impressive number for an “ideological fringe.”

  • tredglx

    Pity that her husband is using her as a prop to try and curtail the rest of our Second Amendment rights.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      That’s what Sarah Brady has done with Jim for 30 years.

      • tredglx

        Indeed, and just as reprehensible.

  • tredglx

    Pity that her husband is using her as a prop to try and curtail the rest of our Second Amendment rights.

  • ceemack

    Yeah, that “fringe” element that believes in the Constitution.

    I can feel my sympathy for her and my admiration for him evaporating into thin air.

  • ceemack

    Yeah, that “fringe” element that believes in the Constitution.

    I can feel my sympathy for her and my admiration for him evaporating into thin air.

  • NRPax

    Dear Gabby, your injuries do not give you the right to demand that I give up my rights. I wish you a speedy recovery as I would anyone injured by a lunatic. Beyond that? Kindly go to hell and leave us in peace.

  • NRPax

    Dear Gabby, your injuries do not give you the right to demand that I give up my rights. I wish you a speedy recovery as I would anyone injured by a lunatic. Beyond that? Kindly go to hell and leave us in peace.

  • Garth Haycock

    If Kelly and Giffords want to talk about dangerous products, they ought to look at the tobacco and alcohol industries. Each of those products individually kill more Americans each years than AIDS, TB and violence combined.

    Why is it that the gun grabbing progressives in this country fail to recognize that it isn’t the gun that kills, but the person using the gun? I’ve tried to understand their thought process in regard to gun violence and the only thing that I can come up with is that they don’t believe in accountability. Leftists need to stop infringing upon our 2nd Amendment right and focus on the real problem…people. Punish the law breakers, not the law abiding.

    And speaking of legislation of dangerous products, does the even know that prohibition doesn’t work? They tried to outlaw alcohol – the government even passed an Amendment (18th) to ban the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol. How did that work? Oh yeah, they passed another Amendment (21st) to repeal that Amendment because not only did people still get alcohol despite it being illegal, but in a rare instance of common sense, government realized that infringing upon individual rights is wrong.

    Restrictive gun laws don’t work. They’ve never worked and never will work. Wake up, lefties. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the right to bear arms is what differentiates the United States citizens from every other alleged “free” citizen in the world. If you don’t want to own a gun, fine. But stay the hell away from my guns. You have no right to restrict my exercise of the 2nd Amendment.

    • LordElrond09

      Personally, I don’t smoke or drink but I don’t want them outlawing tobacco or alcohol (again). We need to start developing a healthy sense of personal responsibility for our actions and choices and stop blaming the bad choices on someone or something else. If you acknowledge that your vices have a downside, that’s your business as a living breathing FREE person.

      • dwok

        Here is another comparison, promiscuous gay sex has resulted in the deaths of over 600,000 people in the United States far exceeding the deaths of those from the barrel of a gun. And yet we continue to promote the gay lifestyle.

    • Guest

      “Why is it that the gun grabbing progressives in this country fail to recognize that it isn’t the gun that kills, but the person using the gun?”
      That’s simple, if they were to admit it’s the individual and not the inanimate object, their goal to disarm Americans would be that much harder. You’ll notice they aren’t screaming for breath-testers on all cars, (but that’s coming) or the ban of knives, bats, hammers or poisonous substances. The left isn’t so much concerned about violence, if they were they would see that guns save many many more lives than they take. This is a way to use a tragic shooting to advance their agenda. The complete and total disarming of American citizens. It won’t happen in my lifetime, but that is the ultimate goal. If you’ve read some of the proposed laws, that is the only inevitable outcome. Of course, there will always be those that refuse to comply but if this nation survives another 100 years, it will be almost completely gun free due to the laws they’re looking at screwing us with. Thank God I’m nearly dead and don’t have any kids. This country is about to be F#%&ed.

    • Hiraghm

      They do know what does work, though. A decades long demonization and propaganda/multi-generational brainwashing effort. As they did with tobacco.

  • meeester

    By “Special interests advancing interests of ideological fringe” does she mean people who take our Constitution seriously?

    • TocksNedlog

      Yep. That’s what they mean.
      Scary.

  • TocksNedlog

    It will be interesting to see if the subject of mental illness is discussed AT ALL during their Diane Sawyer interview.

  • TocksNedlog

    If Loughner had stabbed her in the head with a kitchen knife, or hit her in the head wih a baseball bat, WHAT action would she and her husband be calling for now?
    That’s right — they would be calling for increased attention to the mentally ill, and nothing else.

  • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

    “Pick up your @USATODAY tomorrow morning to read our op-ed on our broad new effort – and how you can be involved.”

    No thanks. You and your wife are not only going to make us less safe by your politics and your party’s big spending will ensure total collapse of the space program.

    I wouldn’t even bet on the USA beating China or India to land on Mars first.

  • ClinkinKY

    Well, it has been 30 years since James Brady and his wife did the same. New generation and all that…/s

  • Gallatin

    USA Today–Don’t read that libturd trash.

  • Conservaguy

    Ummm, hey Mark and Gabby. You aren’t getting my guns. End of story.

  • Joe W.

    Hey Mark & Gabby: Go to Hell. K??

  • Neil

    I think people have to do a better job at reading their article but this issue is delicate. I know first hand in my family the loss associated with gun violence and my family are proud gun owners and republicans. For the recent mass shooting my question is how to legislate family members who have access to homes with guns who are mentally ill? Its a tough issue and our guns will never be taken by the government but I think there should be a greater conversation on our society, the role of violence in all sources to our youth and power of these tools. Coming from a family of police officers, I was always taught about guns and never allowed to treat them as toys, my Dad never even allowed me to purchase toy guns that looked “realistic.” I don’t know if there is a one way solution to this but I respect and can feel the pain that some who are trying to pass more background checks and standards to purchase weapons. It remains an issue that hits home to many.

    • NRPax

      I love how folks like that advocate for new approaches that place additional expenses on the law-abiding just for the “privilege” to exercise their rights. Maybe if the government actually bothered to enforce the numerous laws already on the books instead of trying to add more, they would be a bit better off.

      • Neil

        Additional expenses is calling on parents and families to have a better approach to guns and violence in media and other sources? I want a conversation, to talk and bring attention for the need to reconsider how some people approach this issue.

        • NRPax

          I looked at your second to last sentence: I respect and can feel the pain that some who are trying to pass more background checks and standards to purchase weapons.

          OK, so where does the money come from for those background checks? Where does the expense for those new standards get passed to? (Answer: The person trying to buy a weapon in the first place). So yes; folks are calling for additional expense for other people to exercise their rights. I have no sympathy. Get back to me when these people call for actual and consistent enforcement of existing rules. Let me know when they are more interested in discussing mental health and going back to when dangerous and mentally unstable individuals could be detained.

          A conversation would be nice but the gun grabber types view this as “We are going to lecture you and you are going to give us everything we want so we can feel safe.” My compassion, pity and mercy are pretty much non-existent with them. And appeals to emotion stopped working on me when I was in my mid-20s.

          • Neil

            Appeals to emotion? Really? This is a reality of serious loss in my I family and that changed my life forever because a felon out of prison shot and killed someone extremely close to me. There is NO reason why a felon or anyone otherwise restricted from buying a weapon can walk into a gun show and purchase a weapon or any other loophole. Cost of Background checks? Most people can do a criminal check for a small fee, usually around $30-20 for personal checks depending on the region. Most are instant and only take a few minutes for what is already in place for most gun stores.

            The cost should be passed to the person purchasing with the weapon, I have no problem with that. If they can consider the Obamacare issue a tax, why not this? A “I am not a crazy convicted felon with three restraining orders against me so I am going to pay this SMALL fee to do a background check” tax.

            Consistent enforcement of what laws exactly? The Brady Law with all its loopholes? I feel safe with the weapons I own and all the members of my family owns, responsibly. I will never give them up and my brother just purchased another one because he like I, are worried about the extremists out there.

          • Hiraghm

            It’s already illegal for a felon to even try to purchase a firearm. So, the only people you’re restricting with this violation of the Constitution are law-abiding citizens.

          • Neil

            Why is congress trying to pass laws that make buying guns at gun shows more in line when you go to a normal gun shop? I’ve never been to a gun show but I can only assume it is because there are no real regulation. The Brady law from my reading has some serious loopholes that can’t seem to be closed, again only from briefly reading and not on msnbc. Nrpax, I think we agree on most things and conversation is limited online, (would absolutely buy you a drink for your service and thank you.)I want to ensure people who buy weapons are like the majority of people(you and me), but back to my original post, there is no way to lesgislate mentally ill people who live in the homes where guns are available such as the case in newtown. I think we agree on that, the main reason for my post was reading people take an extreme approach in their responses and to give just a tempered response from someone has seen first hand what gun violence does to the family but still firmly stands by the second amendment. I believe that law abiding citizens should never be denied a gun but extreme left and right yelling at each other doesn’t solve much of anything.

          • NRPax

            When you buy a gun at a gun show, you are still buying it through a dealer which means you are going through the same hoops that you would in a gun store. The mythological “gun show loophole” refers to the transfer of property between private citizens. Sort of like how you can sell your car by putting an ad in the paper. Given the sheer number of police at the gun shows, criminals will typically go elsewhere to find their weapons. As for sales like this, a lot of states are cracking down on them. I disagree with it for various reasons but I don’t want to write an essay.

            My anger over this issue is that every time something like this happens, the immediate reaction is to punish law-abiding gun owners who had nothing to do with the shooting. It would be like a Congresscritter calling for Muslim registration when a Muslim murders a serviceman like what happened in the Little Rock Recruiting station. In my eyes, there are already enough laws on the books regarding guns. It’s now time for us to focus on the rest of the issue such as dealing with mentally ill individuals.

          • NRPax

            Felons aren’t buying their weapons at gun shows. They are either using stolen weapons or having people buy the weapons for them.

            I feel safe with the weapons I own and all the members of my family
            owns, responsibly. I will never give them up and my brother just
            purchased another one because he like I, are worried about the
            extremists out there.

            As a former Marine, I’m perfectly safe and quite capable of handling even scary black assault weapons but I still have to submit to a background check to own such things in the People’s Republic of Maryland.

            As for the laws? How about going after felons and mentally ill people when they are arrested? Why not forbid any deals from being made when such people use a gun to commit crimes? And why not punish them for buying weapons they aren’t supposed to have? The laws aren’t being consistently enforced (For instance, David Gregory’s stunt) and that is part of the problem we are having.

          • Hiraghm

            I don’t see in the 2nd Amendment the requirement that someone pass a “background check” before being able to purchase a firearm.

          • NRPax

            It’s probably next to the “Separation of Church and State.”

  • LordElrond09

    I get that someone in her position wants to prevent something similar from happening to anyone else but the guy who shot her was a lunatic. You aren’t EVER going to stop that. Just recently in Georgia a woman saved herself and her kids from a home invasion by putting 5 shots in the guy. She could have been raped or beaten or killed. Is this what the gun control crowd wants to stop? Because you weren’t going to prevent what happened to Ms. Giffords with more gun laws. You are only going to make certain that law abiding citizens can’t defend themselves if/when the time comes.

  • uofazwildkitty

    and yet, she owns a glock…

  • NCRelite

    How about they just ban mass shootings instead? Problem = solved

  • Jaynie59

    Don’t discount their power. Giffords was shot in a place that was NOT a gun free zone and the Left needs them to be the face of “gun safety”. Get used to that term because it’s going to replace “gun control”.
    And stop with the accolates about her “remarkable recovery”. The woman is brain damaged and her husband obviously has no problem using her as a prop. Oh, don’t get me wrong. She was a Left Wing nut before she was shot so it’s no surprise she married another Left Wing nut.
    But stop all praise and sympathy for her. You don’t have to trash either one of them, just stop this need all conservatives have to be compassionate to their enemies.
    Trust me. Gabby Giffords and her husband hate you. You’re conservative. They hate your ancestors. They hate your children. They hate your dog. Don’t ever forget that.

    • wwbdinct

      I didn’t know anything about her until she was shot. Are you from Arizona? Was she really that far left? Obviously, after what happened, all of the MSM did nothing but praise how evenhanded and bipartisan she was in Congress so I never questioned it.

  • An American Veteran

    I will not be treated like a criminal because of what I own, I will not submit to any Government Gun Control database. I hope this nation understands how serious I and the hundreds of thousands of Americans (or more) are about this.

  • sqeptiq

    I like my liberals heavily armed. In private conservatives are open about wanting to see us slaughtered and it behooves us to be prepared to defend ourselves. The phony public avowals of sympathy for Gabby Giffords turn my stomach.

    • Catchance

      Oh, get a grip.

    • http://www.facebook.com/noah.lee3 Noah Lee

      ah, “guns for me, not for thee”.

  • Guest

    moderated?

  • George Washington Mclintock

    Loughner obsessed over, harassed, and stalked her for years. Everyone he came into contact with suspected he was unstable and dangerous, Yet, no one did, or could do, anything. The fact that Giffords and Kelly are choosing to not talk about that, and advocate for gun control tells us they are using her ordeal to advance a partisan agenda. That’s just not acceptable and no pundit should be afraid to say so.

  • AZcommenter

    Perhaps someone should inform my former Congresswoman and her husband that restrictive gun laws and even gun bans have already been tried as a solution to gun violence, and that solution has not worked. In fact, such “solutions” often make the problem worse.

    Just look at U.S. cities with restrictive gun laws: in Chicago and Washington, D.C., it’s nearly impossible to legally buy a gun, yet gun crime in both cities is out of control. In England, the government banned private gun ownership and confiscated guns from registered owners; in the decade following that action, gun crimes in England doubled.

    I’m all in favor of talking about different ideas to try to curb gun violence, but why is the left so fixated on the one “solution” that has already, and repeatedly, been shown NOT to work?

  • http://yourdaddy.net/ NotaLemming

    I suggest we ban all guns around the pResident first. A mobile wandering Gun Free Zone. Anywhere Obama goes his mobile Gun Free zone Goes. Since we have deemed it Gun Free then he will not need Body guards anymore. Hey look we are already slashing budget cost. A win for everyone….. That is as long as Gun Free Zones and banning guns actually works. We will see how it goes. Sign the petition to do just this at the Whitehouse.gov petition website. Last I checked it had about 16000 of the required 25000 to force an answer.

    • http://yourdaddy.net/ NotaLemming

      Oh I almost forgot to mention. Big Pharmy bank rolls a lot of this anti gun hate. Look at the rate of Massaceres and see how many envolved Big Pharma script drugs. Like SSRI’s.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JDFWJK7W5METRYKG4V5IWPAUEE John

    The gift of Gab. Has Gab ever thought as to the reason she was shot? She should consider that she was shot by a far left loon because she violated a law of the left: She participated in a reading of the Constitution led by the Republicans. Thus, the hate of the left. Gabv should consider: Would these laws have stopped Billy the Bomber Ayers (hey — maybe this is the way to get to be a college professor?)? Tim McVeigh? F.A.L.N. (convicted members who were pardoned from prison through the efforts of Fast and Furious Eric Holder)? Would these new gun laws have even stopped criminal Wesley Cook?

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.guiteau Paul E Guiteau

    Is it acceptable to disagree with Gabby and her retired military husband? Also I’d like to ask if they have any firearms, travel with security or live in a gated community?

  • bonnieblue2A

    Responsible solutions include taking personal responsibility for one’s own safety. Sadly, Giffords chose not to make that effort for her political appearance when as a Congresswoman, she had the ability to draw from local law enforcement resources. Her lack of responsibility in securing the scene where her appearance cost many innocents their lives.

    Now Giffords and her politically hungry husband want to absolve her lack of responsibility on that fateful day by making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Professional victimhood worn as a mantle for political gain is truly bad form fmr. Congresswoman!

  • $30423294

    Leftists have such a fetish for decorum that they suppress ultrasounds and images of the remains of aborted babies. You know, so as not to upset the dainty women in line at the abortion mills.

    But they will put a woman with a massive head wound on tour to whip up support for a pet cause.

    Despicable.

  • $35072932

    Reality Check: The “Politically Incorrect Truth” About The Second Amendment
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/04/reality_check_the_politically_incorrect_truth_about_the_second_amendment.html

    WXIX-TV Tucson reporter Ben Swann takes a look at what he called the “politically incorrect” truth about the Second Amendment. In his “Reality Check” segment for the local FOX affiliate, Swann explains the true intention behind the Second Amendment.

    “The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government,” explained Swann.

    “The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government,” Swann explained.

  • Michael Smith

    I have alot of respect for the Giffords; I was wondering if maybe as gun owners themselves that instead of infringing on good Americans 2nd Ammendment Rights; maybe use those resourses to raise awareness for gun safety; mental illness or raise money for the victims of domestic vilolence or violence survivors.

  • $38218625

    National Coalition To Stop The Gun Ban: Open Letter to Members of Congress
    http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/national-coalition-to-stop-the-gun-ban-open-letter-to-members-of-congress/#axzz2HL0j1RXm

    USA –(Ammoland.com)- In coming weeks, you will face pressure from the Obama administration and others to implement a ban on semi-automatic firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices, and to pass laws requiring private gun transfers to be processed via the National Instant Check System.

    Yet the “assault weapon” misnomer is a myth perpetuated by gun control advocates who seek to confuse the public about the difference between millions of semi-automatic firearms, which are functionally identical to hunting rifles, and military “assault rifles” which are machine guns virtually unavailable to the public since implementation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

    The Truth About Modern Rifles
    The modern rifles Senator Dianne Feinstein has, by her own admission, waited decades to ban differ from others primarily by cosmetic features such as barrel shrouds, threaded barrels, flash suppressors, pistol grips and adjustable stocks ¡V things which do not affect function. The notion being promulgated by gun control advocates that such features increase lethality by allowing guns to be “fired from the hip” is absurd: Any firearms expert will attest that rifles can only be effectively utilized from the shoulder.

    Moreover, attempts to process private gun sales through the National Instant Check System represent nothing less than a stepping stone to national gun registration; under the Clinton administration, the FBI retained NICS transaction records in violation of the Brady Act, creating a defacto national registration system.

    Most outrageous, however, is Sen. Feinstein¡¦s proposal to regulate “grandfathered” modern rifles under the National Firearms Act. Doing so would not only entail registering millions of existing firearms, but would represent unprecedented expansion of police powers through the BATFE by requiring millions of gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed like common criminals.

    Because a large percentage will refuse to comply, the scheme, if implemented, will make felons of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

    Semi-Auto Ban: No Impact On Violence

    Neither have such laws been effective. From 1994 to 2004, the previous ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines had no impact on school shootings, which actually increased during that period.

    The “Gun Free School Zones Act” increased killings What does appear to have impacted school shootings was implementation of the latest version of the “Gun Free School Zones Act” (GFSZA), which is associated with a dramatic increase in school murders. Between the first significant school shooting, in 1966, and enactment of the 1996 GFSZA, media summaries reveal 8 shootings with 134 victims killed or wounded – a rate of 4.3 victims per year. Between 1996 and 2012, the review finds 62 shootings and 367 victims – a fivefold increase to 23 victims per year. Yet, during the same period, FBI Uniform Crime Reports indicate homicide nationwide dropped by 14%.

    While media summaries may not be comprehensive, the GFSZA has clearly been an abject failure. Worse, evidence suggests it may actually create “kill zones” which attract violent predators.

    Coalition Position
    Members of the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban demand that Congress refuse to use lawful gun owners as political scapegoats and instead reduce school violence by:

    Defeating any attempt to pass gun control including, but not limited to, banning semi-automatic firearms or magazines, or requiring private gun transfers to be registered through the National Instant Check System; and

    Repealing the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996.

  • V the K

    I repeat. If you don’t like guns, then don’t own one. Why is that so hard for liberals to grasp?

  • $22091572

    mark Kelly..Im ashamed to call you my Brother.. No VET in his right mind would do this. Dang..

  • GaryTheBrave

    What anti-gunners are attempting to do is use prior restraint to effectively ban all firearms. It is so ludicrous that it is impossible to implement.

    Prior restraint arguments presuppose a criminal intent. A citizen cannot be arrested, detained, or prohibited from an action or activity just because there is a potential for a crime to be committed. We do not live in a Minority Report world.

    Efforts to create prior restraint laws have always failed. Courts have thrown out such laws. Legislatures, therefore, have turned to creating laws that make the preceding actions to a criminal act as criminal acts themselves. My favorite is being killed by a drunk driver. Since no one can predict when a drunk driver may run over or crash into someone, legislatures have made driving drunk illegal. Driving isn’t illegal. Drinking isn’t illegal. Combining the two is even though not every drunk driver has a crash.

    • Hiraghm

      Texting and Driving is another example. My favorite “preventive” law is the seatbelt law, which violates the crap out of Roe v Wade, yet no leftists whine about it.

  • TTTCOTTH

    I think we should lock up all mentlly ill people. Sure it violates Constitutional rights but it involves violating the rights of a lot less people then gun grabbing will. See what Gabby thinks about that.

    • http://twitter.com/1RandiStarr Randi Starr

      Give it up, there’s no money in it! Or head lines………..so whose crazy? The crazy shooter or the crazy denier of mental illness issues?

    • Hiraghm

      Too simplified. Make it so parents of mentally ill children have to register them as lethal weapons, and keep them locked in a vault with “trigger guards” (aka handcuffs).

      Exceptions will be made for the parents of future political office-holders, of course.

  • DANEgerus

    So a Leftist shoots Giffords in the face for being too “moderate” and she learns her lesson on gun control… so terrorism works huh?

  • 1CatEye

    Too bad she couldn’t figure out how to use her victimhoom “get out of thinking” card for a better purpose, one that doesn’t violate the Constitution.

  • doggie23

    Funny, i don’t see any veterans from Iraq of Afghanistan returning with head trauma calling for more control.

  • http://twitter.com/crazytas1 ricci

    its reasoning and logic like this and of liberals everywhere that at times makes me ashamed of ever having worn the uniform of this countries military to give these people the right to say they want to see any rights guaranteed to us by the very document I swore to uphold taken away

  • Jim Denney

    It’s becoming increasingly obvious how she managed to survive a head shot.

  • crazedPartisan

    Maybe you could paint another target on her there, Michelle. Oh, or maybe you could not moderate the comments here unlike Weasel Zipper hoping for them to be killed.

    Oh, sorry this whole site is about how awful the left is.

  • shovelhead74

    While I agree that what happened to Giffords should not happen to any one, I believe that her injuries have left her impaired and partially incapacitated. Therefore, by example, she should immediately forfeit her fiream to the state as well as those of her husband, a newly minted expert on all things firearms, in the event that she should obtain them and use them in her present state.

  • $3838536

    Giffords & Kelly just love them some face-time, that’s all. They are publicity hounds.

  • notenoughtime

    Where are the families of those in our inner cities who have lost loved ones from the use of illegal guns that have been conveniently ignored!

  • fmahoney

    It seems the right is always ready to fight and go to war but war does not determine the winner or the looser of the battle. Their are no winners or losers in war only survivors.

    For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. Sun TZU

    Wild west gun battle in the streets of America is not the answer to the problems we have.

    I remember the good old days when a fist fight ended and you became friends for a lifetime. Now kids are not fist fighting, they are simple pulling out a gun and killing each other. They are often sorry after the fact but it’s too late for the shooter and the dead individual. BOth lives and families are devastated!