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

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
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.

Really!?!?

I got hit by a car in High School. I spent weeks in the hospital recovering from a head injury and subsequent TIA that I suffered. I DEMAND that we abolish all cars and motorized vehicles from the face of the Earth. By your logic, based on my experience I am perfectly qualified to make this statement and morally justified in my cause.

Cars are for selfish people with no better idea on how to get around. Drivers lead pathetic lives filled with self-righteous justification for their freedom to travel. If you can't figure out how to use your own two feet to get from point A to point B and rely on a vehicle, you might as well hang it up because you're too stupid to live.

Cars are for lazy people!

See, I can do it too! And guess what... I look EQUALLY as stupid for having said it!!!

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

 

No, the second amendment is there to establish an American military and quickly became obsolete once the national guard was formed and the country established a standing army.

The second amendment isn't worth the paper it's written on anymore.

I normally don't have a battle of the wits with those who are unarmed. So, instead of blindly tackling your wild ignorance, I will instead point you to some points of reference that will simply illuminate how wrong you are. I suggest you begin first with the Federalist Papers.

The 2nd Amendment is in fact the OPPOSITE of what you stated - to PREVENT the need for a standing army. Our founding fathers recognized the danger in having a standing army and how this would a.) bankrupt the nation, b.) threatened sovereignty of its citizens and c.) lead to eventual tyranny by those who would control such an army.

The goal here is to DENY ignorance. However, I am disappointed to see that not only have you fully embraced it, you've take the time to share it with all of us on ATS. I think we are all a bit dumber for having read it!

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.

Nope not in the least. The 2nd is there to allow citizens to protect themselves from THE GOVERNMENT. You want to whittle gun ownership down such that when heavily armed and armored government agents show up you'll have absolutely no defense? You're misunderstanding what The Founding Fathers were trying to do by having The Second Amendment.

ETA Futhermore, I think its entirely possible that the whole Giffords shooting incident was staged and quite possibly 100% fake.

While Giffords and the rest of the anti-gun lobby DO have the right to the 1st admendment, even that attention whore brit fugitive piers morgan as guest in USA, BETTER TIME and funds should be use for more constructive purposes such as mental illness research, access and treatment.

Mental illness is largely, if not wholly, the cause of ALL mass slaughters, in peace and war. No all mentally ill will become mass murderers, but no civilised human would consider a mass murderer as sane.

Giffords and the anti-gun lobbyists had distracted and wasted ENOUGH time and funds to strip lawful and responsible americans of guns, leaving them undefended, untrained and at the mercy of the insane and desperate criminals.

It is HIGH TIME they get to the root of the problem - mental illness, if they truly desire to help end mass slaughter and violence.

It is a tough and difficult process, dependent on social, economic and political issues to be resolved, but it has to start somewhere. Blaming guns is just plain utter stupidity, if not moronic and absolutely IRRESPONSIBLE.

reply to post by beezzer


Love this post. Everyone is so concerned about guns as weapons, which I can understand; their only purpose is hurting living creatures, whereas knives and such have legitimate, nonviolent uses. But here's another point: My body is a weapon. So what are we gonna do after we ban the guns, ban Jiu Jitsu and weight lifting?

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.

This argument is so faulty it's ludicrous. The FF weren't foolish, stupid people to suggest they didn't image anything remaining the same into the future. The documents they penned were genius as to be written in a way that accounted for the future of this nation and of Mankind. But the koolaid drinkers use it for the consumption by the uninitiated and low intellect masses who are more interested in Beyonce's appearance at the Superbowl than their inalienable rights granted by the Constitution.

I read the title as "Giffords battle against the anti-gun lobby"....

Guess I was being optimistic...

As a Canadian I can say that our long gun registration program has been an utter failure, the whole process became a giant bureaucratic bottleneck. Crime didn't go down, the illegal guns still were there, and most people who registered there guns were simply left with a feeling of being cheated. Since then they have dropped the gun registration, and once again nothing has changed, except maybe the huge loss of money we were suffering from these illogical gun laws.

The most comical part of all this for me, is that the U.S., and Canada are some of the largest exporters of firearms in the world. Just one day before last month’s elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn, the Canadian government lifted a ban, and allowed the export of assault weapons to Columbia!! One of the most violent, and criminally negligent governments in the Western hemisphere, and we are shipping them weapons that our government doesn't feel is safe in the hands of its OWN citizens???

What is wrong with this picture?

Another example of the clear hypocrisy, is the U.S./Canadian military aid to Israel, and the weapons that are sent there. These weapons/money, is KNOWN to be used to murder innocent people, and yet that is perfectly justifiable under the Fascist doctrine of our governments. While at the same time they are clamoring around like rats trying to take the weapons away from THEIR OWN CITIZENS!!!!

Further illuminating that the reason for this tactic is NOT safety, but CONTROL....

I curious as to why the average citizen needs an assault riffle?

To hunt? I suppose if you were a piss-poor shot
Home Defense? I suppose if you wanted to nail a couple of bothersome neighbors too

Can some one tell me how a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines would affect someone with a Shotgun, 9mm and 30-06 used for hunting and home defense?

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

I'd like to deny people their right to want forced labor camps and dictators.

It started with the discussion of banning assault weapons, now listen to how the media is saying semi automatic weapons all the time. Does it not seem odd to anyone else that all this gun control talk is happening at the same time that the US government is about to go bankrupt? I think they are trying to get ahead of the ticking time bomb, cause once they implode the economy there are going to be a lot of pissed off armed people that they don't want to deal with. Funny how fast Feinstein had the gun legislation ready, kind of reminds me of the patriot act!

On topic, Gabby is just doing what the dems told her to do!

reply to post by kozmo


My own father died in a car accident when I was a teenager. I drive but I drive not just for me but for everyone around me. I watch my mirrors like a hawk. Nothing escapes me.

That's not how it works with guns. You can't predict who's carrying so that you're out of their way. Did you read the NYTimes article I linked here in my previous post? I think you should.

Life happens all around us. Death does too. Let's try to keep them in their right places. When society is so dangerous that you need to be armed even in your sleep, there are really fundamental problems that need addressing first. Having to carry deadly firepower with you to the shower is just absurd. You need to have your breakfast in peace. This is not the wild West anymore and people need to civilize themselves. You can't do that when there is this absurd level of fear. The fact that you can't see that means that you've bought into the game. It's pathetic and even worse, it's sad.

Look at what your nation is becoming. It's my nation too. Turn in around.

Originally posted by jaws1975
On topic, Gabby is just doing what the dems told her to do!

You have a right to your opinion. However, I'd like to point out that she has more of a right to talk about gun control than many people. That woman is damn lucky to be alive after that whackjob tried to kill her.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by jaws1975
On topic, Gabby is just doing what the dems told her to do!

You have a right to your opinion. However, I'd like to point out that she has more of a right to talk about gun control than many people. That woman is damn lucky to be alive after that whackjob tried to kill her.

It's the people who OWN guns that should have a right to talk about gun control.

Not just someone who was shot by a nutjob!

Originally posted by beezzer

It's the people who OWN guns that should have a right to talk about gun control.

Not just someone who was shot by a nutjob!

Not at all.... anyone affected by guns at all (which is pretty much everyone) has a right to have their say.
I would actually say those innocent victims who are gunned down and who have their lives turned upside down, should probably be respected a little more or at least humoured like they are.

Originally posted by blupblup
Not at all.... anyone affected by guns at all (which is pretty much everyone) has a right to have their say.
I would actually say those innocent victims who are gunned down and who have their lives turned upside down, should probably be respected a little more or at least humoured like they are.

Very well said! Starred!

Originally posted by AngryCymraegHowever, I'd like to point out that she has more of a right to talk about gun control than many people. That woman is damn lucky to be alive after that whackjob tried to kill her.

I'd like to point out that this emotional effect is exactly why she needs to recuse herself from the debate. Her opinion on the topic is likely to be influenced by emotion rather than logic and rational thought.

Emotion is a good thing sometimes it motivates people and a personal story catches people's attention. However, it also clouds judgment - which is why the emotional response (via a personal impact story) is so sought after as the catalyst to advance an agenda that otherwise might have no real traction.

Never let a crisis or an popular/attractive articulate victim's story go to waste...

Both sides do it and frankly it is pedestrian and base. There can and will be no rational debate when both sides are presenting a theater of emotion to evoke a visceral response in their base.

The catch and release criminal justice system is why i say taking away guns from law abiding citizens is insane. I guess they figure "he'll go back and rob, rape, murder poor people".

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by jaws1975
On topic, Gabby is just doing what the dems told her to do!

You have a right to your opinion. However, I'd like to point out that she has more of a right to talk about gun control than many people. That woman is damn lucky to be alive after that whackjob tried to kill her.

Yet she has forgiven this crazy psychopath, and decides to create a anti gun pac. I guess it's not very sexy to make mental illness a top priority is it?

I dont care what her and her astronaunt husband think about it.
She got shot...she recovered. Carry on.

Just like I dont give rats # what Carrolyn McCarthy thinks about guns. I dont care what Diane Feinstein or Barbra Boxer thinks about them either.
They can pass all the laws they want and make all the demands for "reasonable" restrictions they can get pathetic bedwetters to swallow.
This all boils down to how many people do they want to see die?
How many gun owners,military, federal, state and local police are they willing to bury to acheive their goal of complete civilian disarmament? How many? 1 million? 2 million? 25 million? How many of us have to die to allow them a complete monopoly of force so that they can pursue their goal of a Socialist paradise?
Do you think they have given any thought to this? Do you think that they are pushing this because they WANT us all to kill each other? They think that they can hide out while the shooting is taking place and the mass graves are being filled and then come out and get rid of that pesky archaic "document" that constrains them from putting REAL government into place. Acheiving social justice and REAl equality! Well...some will be more equal than others of course I mean SOMEONE has to make all the hard decisions right? Do you think Ms Boxer or Ms Feinstein has a vision where they come out of their government shelter and step right back into power?

I got news for you thats not how its going to go down.
I will not ride their box car
I will not comply with any of their rules
I will resist
I will not play nicely
This will not end well for them.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by jaws1975
On topic, Gabby is just doing what the dems told her to do!

You have a right to your opinion. However, I'd like to point out that she has more of a right to talk about gun control than many people. That woman is damn lucky to be alive after that whackjob tried to kill her.

It's the people who OWN guns that should have a right to talk about gun control.

Not just someone who was shot by a nutjob!

Yeah and Alex Jones done A greeeat job on that didn't he . more like A hatchet job.
With friends like that supporting your cause , who needs enemy's, right.