Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly launch (unconscionable) battle against gun lobby

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

On the second anniversary of a mass shooting in Arizona that wounded Giffords and killed six others, the couple launched a political action committee, Americans for Responsible Solutions, along with a website calling for contributions to help "encourage elected officials to stand up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership."


Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly launch battle against gun lobby: No more 'fear'

It is with great joy that Grabielle was given a miraculous divine recovery, along with the best doctors/specialists that no other common citizen would be able to afford, to be healed.

However, for her to go against the gun lobby, and INDIRECTLY undermining the sacred 2nd admendment, she seems that she may not had been fully recovered, along with her post traumatic stressed husband astronaut Mark Kelly, with screws still lose on their heads.

What does it take to make them WAKE UP to the FACT and REALITY that it WAS NOT guns that almost killed her, but INSANITY from a human?

Even without guns, that insane creature would have used fertilizer bombs or something else to assasinate her, and would have killed FAR MORE than the six others who died at the incident before the murderer was wrestled to the ground by a bystander.

What then? Ban fertilizers? Destroy the economy? Because of the insane or criminal?

And worse, she is stupidly raising funds to lobby and force congresspersons to adopt gun control measures. Many anti-gun brain-dead numbskulls would foolishly contribute such funds, for they ignorantly believe that by removing guns from humans will ensure violence NO LONGER exists! WHAT IDIOTS THEY ARE!!!!

Only responsible humans would abide by the rule of law, but NOT the insane and criminals. To deprive responsible humans from guns IS TO ENSURE the death of law abiding citizens.

The insidious controlling of guns is but the beginning of a full ban and burning of the sacred admendment one day, for the unconscionable anti-gun lobby KNOW that they cannot win a direct ban today, but will chip at it slowly untill all americans are like other masses of the world, naked and subjugated with no power to fight back, just like the unarmed syrians and libyans, and numerous other lands filled with dictatorships.

NO. Funds will be better spent if we mankind were to study and research into mental health problems, not just at the person, but at how society treats them as a whole, if we WANT TO END further mass slaughters.

Already existing laws do not allow the insane or hard core criminals to own guns, but to listen to the mealy mouthed anti gun lobbyists, many would be fooled to believed that such laws do not exists and would support for gun bans ultimately.

Guns, fire, poison, influential words, knives, are but tools for slaughters, but serves humanity for varied useful purposes as well. The issue is with the one who welds the tools, not the tool itself.

May americans not behave like the limey fool piers morgan, a citizen from a small island state whom have easier mass control than huge states, who idiotically think guns are the problem but turns a blind eye to other forms of violence upon americans happily.




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





Ban fertilizers?


go ahead and try to purchase enough fertilizer to make an ammonium nitrate bomb. you are immediately placed on a watch list, and will probably be talking to someone from DHS within a few weeks.

So this woman is shot in the head and almost killed, and you want to deny her the right to be against guns? don't you see how assinine this all is? You want to trample other peoples protected rights to uphold one you prefer?

If this woman wants to be against guns, what right do you have to tell her otherwise? Until you take a slug to the skull, i think you should just not say a damn word about this woman and her goals.

something here is unconscionable, but it's not Giffords



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
This thing is loaded with Orwellian language.

Americans for Responsible Solutions, so if you're not in favor of their crap you're by default irresponsible.


As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.


See, we like guns!!


What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence.


Well, we assume it's what they want and they want it the way we present it of course. After all we're for Responsible Solutions.


Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets.


Which ones exactly? 1911's? Or the watered down rifles which function nothing like the military rifles which the media morons so ignorantly insist on referring to as "assault weapons?"

And of course:


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


We'll save you! Just give us your money.

I've grown tired of the call to do "something" without any details or measures for success.

Exit strategy anyone?

Every gun-grabber sounds like Bush Jr. all of a sudden.
edit on 8-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters

go ahead and try to purchase enough fertilizer to make an ammonium nitrate bomb. you are immediately placed on a watch list, and will probably be talking to someone from DHS within a few weeks.


Will they come visit me before or after I get the fertilizer home? Planted? Blown?

A few weeks you say? That'll stop'em!



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Thanks for bringing up this Info.

This is exactly what needs to Happen.

Not a removal of the 2nd, but something more in line with Modern times.

Since the Muskets were Protected with the Original Writings, Weaponry has changed, so should the 2nd.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





Ban fertilizers?


go ahead and try to purchase enough fertilizer to make an ammonium nitrate bomb. you are immediately placed on a watch list, and will probably be talking to someone from DHS within a few weeks.

So this woman is shot in the head and almost killed, and you want to deny her the right to be against guns? don't you see how assinine this all is? You want to trample other peoples protected rights to uphold one you prefer?

If this woman wants to be against guns, what right do you have to tell her otherwise? Until you take a slug to the skull, i think you should just not say a damn word about this woman and her goals.

something here is unconscionable, but it's not Giffords



If i get smashed by a baseball bat in a road rage incident, do I take it out on the baseball bat, or do i take it out on the enraged motorists who bashed me, as well as society's management or mismanagement that let to road rage incidents?

Giffords is just plainly doing the former, bashing the baseball bat STUPIDLY!!!

I empathize with her ordeal, and thank the divine for the miracle of her recovery as well as the dedication of doctors and funds by taxpayers for the civil servant to recover.

But in NO WAY WILL the insignificant nobody me BE BLINDED BY THE REALITY OF WHO CAUSED HER ORDEAL!

May more NOT be equally blinded, and know the truth and reality of where CONSCIENCE should be siding upon.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Here's a woman who's not full of it like Giffords who suffered because of guns...


Both basically suffered the same thing yet one has gone to the I'm a coward and I want the government to protect me side (Giffords) and the other to the personal responsability side (woman in the video).

Slaves like Giffords can move to North Korea.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


You don't know much about the UK, do you?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Stop blaming the guns.... All of these recent nut jobs were on Rx mind altering drugs. One of the side effects is suicidal tendencies. the #1 cause of unnatural death is now suicide. If we relinquish our rights to keep and bear arms Democide may soon replace it.

People kill people. Knives, bats, and other weapons are used far more than "assault rifles" to murder people.

Any true liberty minded person knows if we loose our arms any chance of saving the republic is dead.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The only way things could get any worse would be if all the guns were in the hands of military, law enforcement, and criminals. Then we'd never be able to defend ourselves against those armed gangs. So when I am staring down the barrel of a gun or watch a gun pointed at a friend, I should simply beam goodwill toward them or pray to Jesus to make it stop? Sounds like a good plan if you want to get shot in the face or watch your friends die. I'm in love with the romantic notion of passive, peaceful resistance but at some point you just can't take any more pokes from the stick!



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Thanks for bringing up this Info.

This is exactly what needs to Happen.

Not a removal of the 2nd, but something more in line with Modern times.

Since the Muskets were Protected with the Original Writings, Weaponry has changed, so should the 2nd.


Show me where the 2nd Amendment mentions Muskets.
It is about meeting force with equal force.
Governments and Criminals have Full Auto Weapons, and you would deny law abiding people the right to a semi-auto weapon for self-defense?
Deny Ignorance and remove ALL restrictions on the 2nd Amendment and see how peacefull Governments and Criminals become.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Legislating by emotion is wrong, regardless of which side of the issue you are on.

Playing on peoples emotions to further a political agenda is amoral and repugnant, regardless of the side someone is on.

So says the beez




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Legislating by emotion is wrong, regardless of which side of the issue you are on.

Playing on peoples emotions to further a political agenda is amoral and repugnant, regardless of the side someone is on.

So says the beez



And you would be correct.

For my 2nd line lol I submit these.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Sounds like shes just exercising her first amendment rights to me.
But Im not American so I dont know anything.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Sounds like shes just exercising her first amendment rights to me.
But Im not American so I dont know anything.


She is.
She is also completly free to do so, primarily due to the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with her right to free speech. Do you even know what you're talking about?

And the fact that this woman is a pretty good example of why guns should be not just limited but completely removed from the face of the Earth means she has more right to comment than the rest of us. Direct experience is the difference.

Guns are for idiots with no better idea of how to handle life. Gun carriers live pathetic lives filled with fear and paranoia. If your life is in mortal danger without a gun in your hand, you might as well just hang it up because that's no life.

Guns are for the ugly.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


I've written, deleted, re-written and further deleted any comments towards your post.
So let me try this
In prehistoric times would you have banned the club?
In medieval times would you have banned the sword?
The crossbow?

Banning guns will be as effective as banning violence.

You might as well ban anger while you're at it. Weapons can and are used to protect the individual as well. We can look at it as people taking the individual responsibility to protect his/her family-life-property, or simply rely and trust that the government will provide adequate protection.

I can imagine that the time for choosing will be coming soon.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
What He said above ..............
Freedom has a price



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Source



I recently visited some Latin American countries that mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land, where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, A.T.M., restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.


So, explain again how every person was armed in the middle ages and as good old cavemen? Don't be absurd. Your tv documentaries have given you a seriously warped picture of history if you think that was the case.

Here's what things will look like if those of your ilk have their way:



As guns proliferate, legally and illegally, innocent people often seem more terrorized than protected.

In Guatemala, riding a public bus is a risky business. More than 500 bus drivers have been killed in robberies since 2007, leading InSight Crime, which tracks organized crime in the Americas, to call it “the most dangerous profession on the planet.” And when bullets start flying, everyone is vulnerable: in 2010 the onboard tally included 155 drivers, 54 bus assistants, 71 passengers and 14 presumed criminals. Some were killed by the robbers’ bullets and some by gun-carrying passengers.

Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”


After reading this article, you can easily see how your preferred vision of the future is going to end rather badly as it has in so many other places.

I don't trust the guy in the next car when I'm driving. I assume he's an idiot so I really keep my eyes open for anything untoward. How will we be able to go anywhere or do anything if everyone is armed? It's an absolutely preposterous idea on every possible level.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Some of you just wont ever get it will you? I am so sick of the I hate guns crowd but I am sure you are all for using guns to fight wars correct. Let me see all of you gun haters convince your military to put down the guns, then we can talk of taking them away from the average Joe. But for the people in the United States sure just as I can sit here and vent so can you because of freedom of speech, yes I get that, before anyone brings it up. But as many have already said you can't start picking and choosing which parts of the founding documents you want, it's a package deal you don't like it like that then leave. There are plenty of countries willing to take you in and use you just go ask anyone in China what happens when they don't follow protocol, NO Thanks I don't want any part of that...........





new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join