Debate on gun control heats up after Giffords shooting

Debate on gun control heats up after Giffords shooting

content.usatoday.com

The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has sparked an inevitable debate about gun control.

Arizona has few restrictions on gun purchases and gun ownership. Giffords, a Democrat, was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. said "accessibility, particularly in Arizona" to guns have "to be examined."

(visit the link for the full news article)

You just KNEW it was going to be a matter of time (as it always is with these types of high profile shootings) before the words "gun control" started gracing the headlines and media outlets.

Although this lawmaker tends to not be going overboard and approaching the subject with a level head, I wonder how long it will take before we see OTHER lawmakers using this as an opportunity to zero in on gun rights?

I already see mention that the high capacity magazine used in this event by the shooter was previously banned under the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban:

www.salon.com...

I wonder if this will spark new restrictions again?

content.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


This isn't surprising at all considering what has brought up the argument in the past.

The shooting of a senator just happened to be a little more convenient to bring the issue back on the table.

Star and flag.

I have a question.

Why aren't the members of Congress armed.


David Grouchy

If I'm not mistaken, this guy had a history of mental instability. Maybe the lesson is that we shouldn't let people who are mentally instable own a gun, which seems like common sense to me. No need to ban guns and all this other stuff that will invariably be talked about at some point.

Well if the shooter used a magazine that was already illegal, I guess that speaks to how well gun control works in real life...

I hope this fact is highlighted in any public debates that surface concerning the shooting.

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
I have a question.

Why aren't the members of Congress armed.

David Grouchy

Some are but others have armed body gaurds..

reply to post by Infrasilent


No the magazine capacity WAS illegal under the Clinton ban, but that ban's time limit ran out.

Under that ban, pistols could not carry magazines with over a 10 round capacity. The ones the shooter had carried extended mags with 31 round capacities.

I get a sneaking feeling those will be brought out into the spotlight, and lawmakers will capitalize on this to re-instate the old ban. Just a hunch...

reply to post by DimensionalDetective
Why doesn't this surprise me?This and the other shootings that have happened in the past year was bound to bring up gun control,and I wouldn't be suprised either if we see more of these types of shootings again.Is there a method to their maddness?

Instead of "gun control" for the sane folks, there should be a law "requiring" public figures to hire their own security. If these public figures have enough wealth to campaign, surely there should be enough left over for protection against the nut-balls of society. I noticed, too, how events that make mainstream media seem to become a political "opportunity" for legislating more control over those who don't pose a potential threat to the government.

Originally posted by Infrasilent
Well if the shooter used a magazine that was already illegal, I guess that speaks to how well gun control works in real life...

I hope this fact is highlighted in any public debates that surface concerning the shooting.

Believe me I'm on your side, but I think the high cap magazine bans came under clinton and expired...So expect Rosie O'donnell to scream blameat the right for this crazy's actions.one way or another.
we really didn't need any more fuel for the anti-gunners fire.And now congress will start to take it personally.

How would have this have went down without a hand gun, someone please explain this to me.

Why don't we ever hear cries of "BAN CARS!!!" everytime a podestrian gets mowed down? Or "BAN BASEBALL!" when some nutbar beats someone's head in with a bat?

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
How would have this have went down without a hand gun, someone please explain this to me.

How would it have gone down with a ban on guns?

Probably about the same way.

reply to post by Lunatic Pandora


Seriously... Hand guns are banned here, but I could go to the local drug dealer, who has connections with some gangmembers in the city. For around 2 grand I can get a handgun.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Debate on gun control heats up after Giffords shooting

content.usatoday.com

The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has sparked an inevitable debate about gun control.

Arizona has few restrictions on gun purchases and gun ownership. Giffords, a Democrat, was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., saws gun laws should be re-examined. CAPTIONBy Ross D. Franklin, APRep. Raul Grijalva said "accessibility, particularly in Arizona" to guns have "to be examined."

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 9-1-2011 by DimensionalDetective because: (no reason given)

Oh boy here we go


When....when will the ignorant people in society realize that guns don't kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!! Trust me people we do NOT want to go down this road. Yes I believe what happened not only in my home state, but my HOME TOWN (the shooting occurred just on the other side of town approx 8 miles away) was VERY UNFORTUNATE and tragedy of the utmost highest proportions, and NEVER should have happened.

I will add that unlike probably many when I first heard the news break regarding the shooting instead of immediately thinking that more gun control laws/restrictions are needed, the immediate thought came to my mind that had someone else....some LAW ABIDING CITIZEN been armed in that room that day, this would have never accelerated to the point that it did and would have turned out very different (for the better IMO).

Realize that should you simply let your emotions...emotions at the moment when they are most high (like right now) and allow them to control you and scream for gun bans, more laws, tighter restriction/regulations you will be accomplishing nothing but striping away privileges from those of us that carry firearms RESPONSIBLY. Because remember...criminals or people that shouldn't own a firearm care not by any laws regarding them, they will get them in order to ultimately carry out what they had intended in the first place.

Basically this is nothing more than the NWO pitting us against each other so that in the end the less guns Americans own, the easier it will be to mop up the place in the end. And when that time comes trust me...you will be thankful for that kind neighbor who just so happens to be a gun enthusiast and armed to the teeth when he says to your family "Come with us I will offer protection" or whatever of the many scenarios you feel like. So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not let this kind of news/story have the affect (that TPTB are BANKING ON) that will do nothing but benefit the power/control structure of that organization. Tell me how many times have you already heard "The ONLY reasons TPTB have not moved completely and already taken America? It is because the number of gun owners and registered guns in this country that's the deterrent. They KNOW what they would be up against"

So please I ask you....let us not make it that much easier for them and look at this tragedy as nothing more but a mentally deranged individual that should have been intercepted WAY BEFORE it ever came to this. Thank you

NT

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
I have a question.

Why aren't the members of Congress armed.

No kidding, or have armed aides/security around to protect them. It's not like they don't each already have people working for them, probably way too many that we can already afford at any rate.

I support more people being armed to defend themselves before I would ever want to see the 2nd amendment infringed upon more than it already has been.

reply to post by TKDRL


Guns are illegal in Mexico...They've been all but taken over by narco terrorists.

Guns are all but banned in Chicago, they have more shootings than Iraq
at any point in the war.

People always wanna blame the guns, they wanna blame the size of the magazine or question the right to bear arms when this happens, but they never question the notion that on the very same day this happened, millions of American gun owners did NOT shoot someone.

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
How would have this have went down without a hand gun, someone please explain this to me.

If someone wants a hand gun to commit a crime, they're going to be able to get one.

You think hand guns don't exist illegally in countries/cities that have banned them?

Or do you think people like this, would actually respect those gun laws, while disrespecting any other laws?

Originally posted by Lunatic Pandora
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Guns are illegal in Mexico...They've been all but taken over by narco terrorists.

Guns are all but banned in Chicago, they have more shootings than Iraq
at any point in the war.

...they never question the notion that on the very same day this happened, millions of American gun owners did NOT shoot someone.

Well geez,

Maybe they should make guns double illegal.




Star for you.