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

Originally posted by Dragoon01
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.

It's pretty scary to think that a large piece of the lives of 330,000,000 countrymen is in the hands of 535 congressmen/women, 12 Superior Court Judges, and one President. I don't know about you, but from my perspective, you could put the brains of all of them together and you wouldn't get a tenth of the smarts that the Founding Fathers had.

Of course, the gun magically pulled the trigger not the crazy guy.... Next ban all items that can be shanks, that will be next, like prison....

Enjoy fools!!

Originally posted by kozmo

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!!!

Ah perfect example! Cars! As you seem to have experienced, a car can definitely cause detrimental harm to a person, just like a gun. That's why we have speed limits, and laws that you must abide by to drive a car on the road. That's why you must register your vehicle, and have/renew your driver's license to operate that vehicle. We've regulated and created laws affecting every piece of technology that man has invented that is capable of this kind of destruction. Why is a gun any different?

Speed limits = Magazine Capacity Limits
License and Registration = Gun Permit/ Gun Registration

I get it you don't want to give up your guns, and I don't expect you to. But I think we can both agree that no one -needs- the ability to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading, nor should anyone have the ability to buy a gun without first going through a background check. I think most people can agree to SOME common sense reforms.

reply to post by ElijahWan


Giffords is the congress person who wanted to know what Petraies "carbon footprint" was in Iraq. Google it if you don't remember it. She didn't seem to be too worried about all the children being killed as collateral damage there.

She's an idiot.

reply to post by Happy1


How is that even a proper reply to my post? I didn't even mention Giffords in my post.... Care to discuss anything I wrote up?

reply to post by ElijahWan


Isn't the thread about Giffords? Just bringing it back to the subject.

well if i was shot in the head id hardly think it was unconscionable. rofl


but since im pretty sure she was set up by her own people, she should be asking for stronger policies against treason.

Originally posted by beezzer
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.

Slightly off-topic but ....

I posted this on another site recently and I am curious if anyone can answer this question. BESIDES KILLING MASS AMOUNTS OF HUMAN BEINGS.... what use do you as a person have for a 30 round magazine? The shooter in AZ who shot her was tackled when he was reloading because he only had a ?7? round clip..(not sure exact size) .... can you provide me a liegitimate reason (Because I want one is not a legit reason) for possessing a 30 round magazine?

Thanks.

reply to post by DoubleDNH


In the 17th century, muskets do no carry magazines. They were single shot rifles, and YET, they were so effective that in the hands of the spanish and english, they ruled the world and subjugated mankind who were only armed with bows, arrows and swords.

It was so effective that the founding fathers decided that ALL americansthen and into the future, will each have such powerful weapons, as a means of defence of their own lives, their loved one's lives, their homes and nation, and casted into the sacred Constitution that had stood the test of time for 200+ years.

As America progresses, so that must the 2nd Amendment stay true to the 'firearms' right - powerful weapons in the hands of citizens to protect themselves and nation, for the founding fathers were far sighted progressive intelligent men, whom knew and had faith the country they founded will equally progress.

If americans were to be reduced to carrying muskets or toy guns, it would be akin to having only 'swords, bows and arrows' of the 17th century, and be subjugated by others whom are MORE violent, capable of better arms and the tyrannical who obeys no societal laws, and would only dishonor the sacrifices made by the founding generation for this generation and towards the next generations.

Giffords cared not about humans, but rather the tool used. Banning the tool used is easy, but what had been done about the most critical and vital area that caused mass slaughterings and violence - mental illness?

Nothing.

There are 300 million guns in USA. If each gun was levied a one time tax donation of $10/gun to the US treasury, it would mean that there would be $3 BILLION DOLLARS to fund research, detection, access and treatment of mental illness. This is what would stop or at least minimise violence, and help the mentally ill integrate back to society, leaving none behind.

Originally posted by DoubleDNH
.... can you provide me a liegitimate reason (Because I want one is not a legit reason) for possessing a 30 round magazine?

Thanks.

So you don't have to reload so often.



It is especially helpful if you are defending your home, family, life or property. Also, you can't always be sure that the person(s) attacking you will have a smaller load capacity.

Originally posted by ElijahWan

Originally posted by kozmo

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!!!

Ah perfect example! Cars! As you seem to have experienced, a car can definitely cause detrimental harm to a person, just like a gun. That's why we have speed limits, and laws that you must abide by to drive a car on the road. That's why you must register your vehicle, and have/renew your driver's license to operate that vehicle. We've regulated and created laws affecting every piece of technology that man has invented that is capable of this kind of destruction. Why is a gun any different?

Speed limits = Magazine Capacity Limits
License and Registration = Gun Permit/ Gun Registration

I get it you don't want to give up your guns, and I don't expect you to. But I think we can both agree that no one -needs- the ability to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading, nor should anyone have the ability to buy a gun without first going through a background check. I think most people can agree to SOME common sense reforms.

You didnt help yourself here by the way. All those limits and regulations are just as wrong as firearms laws and regulations.
Do speed limits prevent accidents?
Do licenses prevent bad driving?
Does registration prevent missuse of cars?
Does a requirement to have auto insurance prevent uninsured driving?
Since auto accidents and deaths VASTLY outnumber firearm related deaths and injuries clearly none of those government regulations are worth the paper they are printed on.
Many people consider driving a privalige. Thats wrong, it is a right as an extension of the right to travel. I have a right to travel freely on common property and that means I have a right to use the most efficent means to travel. I do not need the permission of government to safely opperate a vehicle. Ask yourself this question If the government issues a license saying that I am qualified to drive a vehicle then why are they not liable if I have an accident?
Now I dont want to derail this into a debate about common property and the right of travel so please dont run us down that path. The basis for those licensing and regulations is that travel on common property. They are sold as a means of promoting safety in reality they are taxes.

No one who is a beliver in the right to arms is advocating removing the punsihment for people who misuse firearms. I am perfectly fine with regulations that proscribe penilties for someone who uses a firearm to commit a crime. Just like I am fine with someone who causes an accident in a car being held responsible for that accident. We dont need a blanket prohibition on anything to punish misuse. Possession of objects is not a crime!
Misuse of an object can be a crime.
You need to understand that Rights have nothing to do with "needs". Its not about what kind of gun I "need". Rights are about want. If I want it, provided I do not misuse it (use force or fraud to infringe on the life, liberty or property of another) then I have a right to have it. A right that shall not be infringed.

Originally posted by DoubleDNH
can you provide me a liegitimate reason (Because I want one is not a legit reason) for possessing a 30 round magazine?

Wrong, We don’t have to provide you or anyone a reason for owning anything we want to own.
Rights are about “Want” they are not about “Need”.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

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.

So if she doesn't have YOUR point of view she shouldn't speak? This victim of violence had NO right to speak? You called her an IDIOT? Do you believe in God? You think he heard you?

Originally posted by Dragoon01

Originally posted by DoubleDNH
can you provide me a liegitimate reason (Because I want one is not a legit reason) for possessing a 30 round magazine?

Wrong, We don’t have to provide you or anyone a reason for owning anything we want to own.
Rights are about “Want” they are not about “Need”.

Yes you do. The military has to protect the country fromm all enemies foreign and domestic. Thats our oath. So we have to know if you have weapons that could destroy many Americans in one blow. Assault weapons can kill hundreds if used properly. Its what they were made to do. They are meant to engage an enemy force.. The same with large capacity magazines.

Originally posted by sensible1

So if she doesn't have YOUR point of view she shouldn't speak? This victim of violence had NO right to speak? You called her an IDIOT? Do you believe in God? You think he heard you?

Had I, only an insignificant nobody, in ANY way, stopped her from speaking? But rather, YOUR AUTHORITATIVE questioning implies that I SHOULD not even question her mental ability to make rational judgements right now, let alone the RIGHT to speak up.

And please, do leave out religion out of this as this thread is not about a religious discussion as you stupidly questioned me in the manner as if it is. The fear of God is only when one had done wrong or is attempting to do wrong, for He loved us all, and would not want us to make mistakes and suffer for it due to our own free will of handling of situations.

But by your post, I wish you no harm and that you may realize the errors of your ways in the misuse of His name for your own stupidity and ego with your seemingly innocous but crafty question meant to harm.

Originally posted by Dragoon01

Originally posted by DoubleDNH
can you provide me a liegitimate reason (Because I want one is not a legit reason) for possessing a 30 round magazine?

Wrong, We don’t have to provide you or anyone a reason for owning anything we want to own.
Rights are about “Want” they are not about “Need”.

So in other words, you don't have a good answer for my question?

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by DoubleDNH

 

In the 17th century, muskets do no carry magazines. They were single shot rifles, and YET, they were so effective that in the hands of the spanish and english, they ruled the world and subjugated mankind who were only armed with bows, arrows and swords.

It was so effective that the founding fathers decided that ALL americansthen and into the future, will each have such powerful weapons, as a means of defence of their own lives, their loved one's lives, their homes and nation, and casted into the sacred Constitution that had stood the test of time for 200+ years.

As America progresses, so that must the 2nd Amendment stay true to the 'firearms' right - powerful weapons in the hands of citizens to protect themselves and nation, for the founding fathers were far sighted progressive intelligent men, whom knew and had faith the country they founded will equally progress.

If americans were to be reduced to carrying muskets or toy guns, it would be akin to having only 'swords, bows and arrows' of the 17th century, and be subjugated by others whom are MORE violent, capable of better arms and the tyrannical who obeys no societal laws, and would only dishonor the sacrifices made by the founding generation for this generation and towards the next generations.

Giffords cared not about humans, but rather the tool used. Banning the tool used is easy, but what had been done about the most critical and vital area that caused mass slaughterings and violence - mental illness?

Nothing.

There are 300 million guns in USA. If each gun was levied a one time tax donation of $10/gun to the US treasury, it would mean that there would be $3 BILLION DOLLARS to fund research, detection, access and treatment of mental illness. This is what would stop or at least minimise violence, and help the mentally ill integrate back to society, leaving none behind.

I am against gun control, save your speech... just answer my question.

reply to post by DoubleDNH


I will not force you to accept the truth if you do not wish to see or read what you expected to see. I owe you nothing for I do not live your life, but you are free to live your own delusions and wilful ignorances.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by DoubleDNH

 

I will not force you to accept the truth if you do not wish to see or read what you expected to see. I owe you nothing for I do not live your life, but you are free to live your own delusions and wilful ignorances.

What the hell are you doing trying to deflect the conversation away from reality? I asked one question.. I think people should be able to own whatever kind of gun they want to own... buy a fully auto machine gun if you want, I could care less.. I asked what does the normal person have a use for in the 30 round magazine and no one has been able to give me an answer yet. Aim your delusional ramblings on the people who want to pry the guns from your hands.

For what it's worth I agree 110% that the problem for this is mental illness in individual people, not the weapons themselves. I think there should be a red flag for individuals who are under severe mental distress or who suffer from long term mental illness that would restrict them in the purchase of a weapon of any kind.

Originally posted by DoubleDNH

Originally posted by Dragoon01

Originally posted by DoubleDNH
can you provide me a liegitimate reason (Because I want one is not a legit reason) for possessing a 30 round magazine?

Wrong, We don’t have to provide you or anyone a reason for owning anything we want to own.
Rights are about “Want” they are not about “Need”.

So in other words, you don't have a good answer for my question?

Sometimes you need to kill more than one person at a time.
You may not like that answer but its legit.