Gabrielle Giffords and Eric Schneiderman: “A New Model for Background Checks at Gun Shows”

 (left to right) NY AG Eric Schneiderman, former Congresswoman turned gun control advocate Gabrielle Gifford, ex-astronaut turned gun control advocate Mark Kelly, committing a felony by taking possession of a firearm without a NY Pistol License (courtesy nbcnews.com)

“Our country has a problem with gun violence,” former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman write at washingtonpost.com. “It’s a problem for our cities and suburbs, churches and schools. Sadly, Americans have gotten used to watching massacres occur where we work and shop and where our children learn and play. With ever greater frequency, it seems, dangerous people with dangerous weapons are inflicting tragedy on individuals, families and communities.” Note: “it seems.” Because the statistics are clear: violent crime continues to decline across America even as gun ownership continues to soar. That is what the man who invented the Internet calls an “inconvenient truth.” It undermines the gun grabbing duo’s entire argument (i.e. something must be done!). But what the hell . . .

In response, responsible citizens around the nation are delivering a simple message to Washington: Keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.

But even as we are shocked time and again by mass shootings such as those in Columbine, at Virginia Tech and in Tucson, Aurora, Newtown and, most recently, at the Washington Navy Yard, Congress has produced only stalemate and dysfunction. Our national leaders have failed to pass meaningful laws to ensure that people who should not own guns cannot get them.

Correct! So why pass more laws? If current laws don’t work why would new laws do the trick?

The antis remind of nothing so much as people suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Specifically, people who constant “check” to see if they left the gas stove on. These sufferers believe that their constant checking keeps them safe; they refuse to believe that it’s a waste of time. In fact, the more they check, the safer they feel. Not are. Feel.

Put the word “background” in front of “check” and you have the gun control advocates’ perspective. The more background checks there are, the more onerous the restrictions they place on lawful gun ownership, the safer they feel. Not are. Feel.

[Quick aside: I find the term “national leaders” in this context a bit disconcerting. At best it brings to mind Boris Badenov’s boss Fearless Leader. At worst, worse. Shouldn’t Ms. Giffords and Mr. Schneiderman use the term “elected representatives”?]

In the absence of leadership from Washington, it is up to citizens to speak out — and imperative for state and local officials to lead.

Consider background checks. They are supported by nearly 90 percent of Americans — gun owners and non-gun owners — just as vast majorities of Americans accept our constitutional right to own guns for self-defense, hunting, shooting or collecting.

Although Congress has refused to act, 17 states and the District have implemented laws to ensure that gun buyers undergo background checks. And in those places, local leaders are stepping up and creating innovative models for background checks that serve both gun owners and public safety.

It’s official: the civilian disarmament industry has decided to erase any distinction between Americans’ support for “background checks” with the antis’ desire for “expanded background checks” or “universal background checks.” The antis have also decided that the best way to attack Americans’ Second Amendment protections is to pay lip service to them.

Let me be clear: Ms. Giffords and Mr. Schneiderman do not accept the Second Amendment’s clear ban on government regulation of firearms ownership. The Amendment says that Americans’ right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Background checks, whether limited to new gun sales or extended to sales between private individuals, are an infringement. Period.

As for these newfangled state-sponsored background checks “serving gun owners,” serving them what? In fact, background checks put the “servile” into “serving.” They make Americans seek permission from the government to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Gun control serves government’s purpose (agglomerating power), not ours.

Last weekend, at the Saratoga Springs Arms Fair, one of the largest gun shows in New York, we saw firsthand a new model for background checks at such events. It would ensure that all gun purchasers get background checks quickly and easily.

It works like this: Guns are tagged at the entrances to the show. Show operators provide access to federally licensed gun dealers to do background checks before completing a sale. All guns are checked on the way out to ensure that background checks were performed.

It’s that simple.

I grew up with the children of mafioso. “Just because it’s organized doesn’t mean it’s complicated,” one of them told me. “You do what I say or I’ll hurt you. You disobey me enough times and I’ll kill you. Simple.” Background checks may be just as simple, but they’re just as sinister. They enable firearms confiscation. When guns are confiscated from a free people, bad things happen, on a scale that would make Giffords and Schneiderman’s opening lament seem like a description of paradise.

These procedures do not infringe on anyone’s constitutional right to bear arms. Rather, they recognize that responsible gun laws go hand-in-hand with the free exercise of gun rights. They recognize that protecting the rights of responsible gun owners, vendors and gun-show operators means ensuring that people who should not own guns can’t get them.

What’s more, this new model for responsible gun ownership was drawn up in cooperation with gun-show operators after undercover investigations revealed several years ago that vendors were illegally selling guns to anyone who wanted one. Show operators agreed to work with the New York Attorney General’s Office to close this dangerous loophole — and now nearly every known gun-show operator in that state has signed on.

Yes, these background checks do infringe on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms—although it’s great to see gun control advocates talk about Americans right to “bear” arms—in a state whose main city denies that right to its residents. Great in the sense that it reveals the utter hypocrisy of their position.

A position that requires torturing the English language in ways that would make George Orwell shake his head in dismay. For example, what definition of the word “free” fits the authors’ contention that “responsible gun laws go hand-in-hand with the free exercise of gun rights.” And what, pray tell, separates a “responsible” gun law from an “irresponsible” gun law?

Hey! I’ve got a definition of “irresponsible,” at least when applied to government. A government is irresponsible when it uses its power to force free enterprise to curtail its legal activities for what it, the government, considers the greater good. The idea that gun shows signed on to Schneiderman’s background check system willingly, gladly even, would be laughable if it didn’t fit my mafia buddies’ definition of simple.

That sort of cooperation is unheard of these days in Washington, especially around contentious issues such as gun safety — but it doesn’t have to be. All it takes is for both sides to recognize that gun ownership is part of American culture and that people on both sides of the debate are responsible citizens worthy of respect and protection under the law. From that respect can come thoughtful and productive dialogue.

By finding common ground and crafting creative solutions, responsible gun owners and state and local officials can take the lead in reducing gun violence.

The people who want to restrict my gun rights—-putting myself, my family, my community and my country in harm’s way—deserve respect and protection under the law?  I don’t think so. OK, sure, they have a First Amendment protected right to argue for civilian disarmament under the guise of “responsibility.” But if they think The People of the Gun are going to respect those who would enslave them, then they really are nuts.

Heads-up! There is no common ground here. Either you are for firearms freedom or you are against it. No matter how many times Giffords and Schneiderman repeat the word “responsible” they’re not going to convince intelligent people that they respect that which they are working to destroy. That is, as we all know, their ultimate goal: civilian disarmament.

Anyone who doubts their end game should consider a simple question: why does the New York Safe Act (which both Giffords and Schneiderman consider “responsible”) require that gun owners load their firearms with seven rounds? Why seven? Why not five? Three? One? Why have a gun in the first place? Well exactly.

Americans deserve to live in safe neighborhoods, and they have the right to own guns. If law enforcement, elected officials and responsible gun owners work together, we can make both happen.

Let’s all join hands and sing Kumbaya while we’re at it. Either that or let’s recognize the fact that a responsible gun owner is one who uses his gun responsibly. Not one who supports the degradation and eventual elimination of their right to do so.

comments

  1. Something they don’t mention in the article (but IS in one of the links within the article):

    “The dealer performing the NICS shall complete and file the ATF Form 4473 and maintain the forms for inspection by law enforcement agencies for ten years, per the Gun Show Law.”

    Which, as we all know, is defacto registration.

  2. avatar the ruester says:

    “…responsible gun owners and state and local officials can take the lead in reducing gun violence.”

    What are WE supposed to do, exactly? Drive through the ‘hood and adopt the first kid we see?
    Marry the first hood rat?
    I’m sorry, Gabs, but this responsible gun owner is only willing to do so much for the “greater good.”

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      We are the problem to them. Even though we know we are not the problem.

  3. avatar Ralph says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: getting shot in the head does not make anyone smarter.

    Giffords is the same social parasite she’s always been. Kelly is just a pig feeding at Bloomberg’s and The Joyce Foundation’s trough. And I expect that, sooner or later, Schneiderman will be caught with underage hookers. Or goats. Or something equally icky.

    1. avatar JaredFromTampa says:

      You slay me man. I think your comments are in the top ten reasons I keep coming back to read TTAG.

      It’s sad that such an otherwise respectable person (Mark Kelly) has become a shill for the antis. All those carrier and shuttle launches must have inflicted the equivalent damage on his brain that his lady got from that dude’s Glock. Happily, I don’t think many people take them seriously.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        There’s a lot of radiation up there in space. I think that Kelly microwaved his cerebellum.

  4. avatar William Burke says:

    My greatest beef with these a-holes is that they’re the arbiter of who’s a “responsible citizen” and who’s not.

    Nobody, to my knowledge, died and conferred upon them responsibility maven status.

  5. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Here’s responsible for ya:
    Hey Gabby, stay away from gun shows. You have brain damage. Ergo mentally incompetent to touch any firearm.

    1. avatar JaredFromTampa says:

      While I totally agree, would you have made the same comment if she got shot in the head and became totally pro 2a?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Getting shot in the coconut makes people stoopider, not smarter. Ergo, it makes them antigun wingnuts.

        1. avatar JaredFromTampa says:

          Stands to reason…point taken.

      2. avatar Herb says:

        C’mon, guys, the poor woman was shot in the head & nearly killed by an evil grinning maggot whose remorseless rampage also killed a nine year old girl. She did nothing to deserve this and has made a miraculous recovery, any of us should hope that we would do as well.

        Don’t blame Gabby Giffords; blame her worthless exploiting showboat of a husband. He’s using his wounded wife the same way Sarah Brady has used her wounded spouse for nigh on three decades now. Raw opportunism knows neither bounds nor shame.

        1. avatar JaredFromTampa says:

          I’m definitely not a blame the victim type. I applaud her physical fortitude or sheer dumb luck, or whatever. Jared Laughner is an insane POS and I hope he rots in hell for what he did to those people. On the other hand, people open themselves up to criticism when they take very public stances on issues relating to the rights of Americans.

          Mark Kelly is an ass and an shameless opportunist suckling on the teat of the civilian disarmament complex. Gabby Giffords is merely a pawn, I hold no grudge against someone who has a traumatic brain injury and the mental capacity of a five year old. She gets paraded around and is the living embodiment of a bloody shirt being waved. I feel nothing but sympathy for her. Her husband can FOAD.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          Very well said, Jared.

  6. avatar Crazed Java says:

    None of what they propose will stop the next mass shooter. That’s what pisses me off more than anything.

    Everything they propose just makes it harder for law-abiding citizens, and any gun owner who is nodding their heads in agreement to any “compromise” these or other gun grabbers are proposing are fooling themselves, or just fools.

    I used to be a big proponent of NICS and making everyone go through a background check. After the Navy Yard shooting, not to mention the whopping 44 prosections (not even convictions!) of people who attempted to illegally purchase a firearm I am convinced the system is doing absolutely nothing it was intended to do.

    At this point, what difference does it make if a hoodlum buys their gun legally at Wal-Mart or on the street corner? They will still have a gun and will get it no matter what laws we put in place while only the law abiding will bother going through with it.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Exactly. Think of the resources wasted on this system that could be better used in actually catching criminals and ending their nefarious careers.

      We hear these calls to “expand the background check system” as if the existing system justifies expanding it. Reason dictates rather than expanding it, we should be talking about dismantling it.

      1. avatar racenutz says:

        That’s what waiting periods are supposed to be for. Of course someone planning such an even will still be dangerous no matter how long they have to wait.

        1. avatar racenutz says:

          Must have clicked on the wrong comment to reply to. This was meant for BDub’s comment further down.

    2. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      They are true believers in the fewer guns available to the entire population means fewer guns for crimes meme. All I have to say is STRAW PURCHASER. Just try and divine if someone is a straw purchaser or not.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        But you may have noticed that with only a little sleight of hand they have not given up THEIR guns. The old Jedi mind trick.

    3. avatar CarlosT says:

      All of the guns used in the shootings mentioned were purchased by people who passed background checks. Every. Single. One.

  7. avatar BDub says:

    When will people learn that Background Checks DO NOT CHECK FOR INTENT. Meaning, If I had decided I had had it with political shit-heads, paying lip service to my 2nd A Rights, and decided to do something about it, I could go down to the LGS and purchase a shinny new opinion demonstration device, and there is no background check that would stop me! Why? because I have NO Criminal History! I could have all the murderous malice you could cram into a human being, and I would still be allowed to purchase said device and render my opinion till it went click! So shut the hell up about the damn background checks, already.

    1. avatar James says:

      Wade Michael Page – Oak Creek Sikh Temple shooting. White Supremist with no criminal history passed with flying colors. Why does Gabby hate the Sikh community?

    2. avatar racenutz says:

      That’s what waiting periods are supposed to be for. Of course someone planning such an even will still be dangerous no matter how long they have to wait.

  8. avatar john says:

    they should of arrested her husband for committing a felony according to the SAFE act and show her that their new gun laws make so much sense

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/robert-farago/mark-kelly-commits-felony-new-york-gun-show/

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Democrats and statists (but I repeat myself) have one set of laws, and the peons have another. Examples: Kelly’s straw purchase, David Gregory’s 30 round mag, Holder with Fast and Furious, Clinton with Benghazi, Feinstein with assault weapons and concealed carry, IRS with conservatives, Obama with broken campaign promises, NSA vs. everyone, and Congress with Obamacare.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        You pretty much summed it up in a nice, short paragraph. Spot on, Sir.

  9. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    1. 90% of Americans can’t agree on anything. If China were invading probably 15% would be ok with it. So right away we know the poll is BOGUS.
    2. Is this OCD condition gun grabbers have enough of a mental health issue to deny them their gun rights?
    3. Regarding the “serving gun owners,” bit…I refer your dear readers to revisit the Twilight Zone episode titled, “To Serve Man”.
    That is all….

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      1.)Response should be “then run on repealing the 2nd amendment, you should win easily by 80%!”
      2.)OCD for a gun owner would actually be a GOOD thing, no?
      3.)Good one!

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      +100 for the Twilight Zone reference.

  10. avatar Taco Ninja says:

    I wonder how much of their organizations expenses are for them to travel around, stay at nice hotels, and pay for their personal expenses? I bet they take a nice paycheck too… At least People of the Gun are not trying to make a profit off those tragedies…

  11. avatar Totenglocke says:

    Why are we letting a person with brain damage try to tell us what laws to have?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Why not? Congress is filled with them.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Not to mention the White House.

  12. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    With all due respect, by your definition of the 2nd Amendment (based on what I just read), it would be legal for anyone to own and carry a SAW, a grenade launcher, or a flamethrower wherever they went. I don’t care how how pro-2A anyone is, if you see someone walking through the grocery store with a bandolier full of 40mm, you are going to have some serious concerns. My point is this: any argument, taken to the extreme, is absurd. I don’t believe that you or anyone else on this forum truly believes that anyone should be able to buy their own anti-aircraft battery, but your insistence that “Heads-up! There is no common ground here. Either you are for firearms freedom or you are against it.” suggests that there are only two options; no laws of any kind, or no guns at all. This is patently false. Living in a civilized society is predicated on the idea that you give up some freedoms so that you do not have to do everything yourself. For example, we give up the freedom to dump toxic chemicals wherever we want so that we don’t have to worry about (and forcibly prevent) our neighbors poisoning our land or water. We give up the right to part of our earnings so that we don’t each have to figure out how to pay for our own roads, policing, or aircraft carriers. The nature of living in a country means that there is a balance between personal freedoms and societal needs; it’s a grey area by definition. As a country it’s pretty clear that we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the question is how do you do that? Background checks, in some form, are the only way to ensure that your local gangbanger can’t just walk into a store to get what he needs. They don’t need to be onerous, time-consuming, or expensive, but I would argue that they do need to exist.

    Long story short, I worry that the core truth of your message is lost when you insist that any gun law of any kind is a bad gun law.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      You’re over thinking it. There was an alternative background check bill that would have passed with most of our consent, but dems couldn’t stomach it because it GUARANTEED no registry, as opposed to their bill which purposefully left the door cracked open for that sort of thing to happen in the future. That little episode convinced most (I don’t speak for everybody) that no proposal from them can be trusted. You’ve got a common sense proposal? We’ve got a big *ss magnifying glass to go over it with.

      When gotdanned GUN BANS are being called ” a good first step,” you can have no doubt what the ultimate intentions are…

      1. avatar Kyle in CT says:

        This actually plays into my point. If you start a negotiation from an absolutist stance, it encourages your opposition to assume the same, and you get nowhere. Think WWI trench warfare. You have to be able to give ground in some areas to prove you are willing to negotiate, while still standing firm on core principles. Call it the WWII Soviet Strategy; giving up some ground isn’t always a bad thing, as long as it’s not critical, and you ultimately trap them when they outrun their supply chain.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          Kyle, actually he decimated your point.

          And look at your claim that background checks are the only way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. What does that prove except your total ignorance?

          Criminals get 8/10 of the gun crimes from STRAW PURCHASE, not background loopholes.

          Background loopholes have not even been established to be any more than 1% of gun crimes and they don’t seem to be part of any of the (ever decreasing) multiple murders in the news

          There are already laws against harming someone with a gun. There are laws against armed robbery, assaulting someone with a gun, murdering someone with a gun

          Are you suggesting we also find common ground in new laws restricting the other bill of rights?

          There are no pre harm preemptive restrictions on first amendment. Libel, copyright, slander etc are all post harm sanctions like sanctions against assault or murder with a firearm. Are you suggesting we enact some? After all about four times as many children die from certain first Amendment protected religious practices such as circumcision or limited medical intervention as die from assault rifles.

          How about limits on due process? Maybe no jury or no defense attorney after your first conviction?

        2. avatar the ruester says:

          I don’t think those soviets of whom you speak were preparing to negotiate, but OK…

    2. avatar Crazed Java says:

      Flamethrowers are already legal. Funny how no one is committing crimes with them though.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        As are grenade launchers and SAW’s

        1. avatar Crazed Java says:

          EDIT – Dangit, I thought you asked “Are grenade launchers and machineguns legal”. Missing that one little word at the beginning of your sentence totally threw me.

          Grenade launchers and machineguns are legal if you fill out the appropriate paperwork and pay the right fees. There was a review of the M79 this morning that also included instructions for procuring or making one. You probably cannot purchase an M249 without a great deal of hassle, but other machineguns made pre-1986 can be had.

          However, this is all an absurd argument. When talking about infringement of gun rights people know we’re not talking about flamethrowers. It’s taking the argument to extremes. I don’t want someone telling me I can’t have an AR and so they’ll accuse me of wanting to own tanks yet. No one said that till they brought it up.

          Tanks are technically legal as well, as are APC’s. However, they are cost prohibitive so it’s a silly argument.

      2. avatar Kyle in CT says:

        Legal, but limited, which is what my argument is all about.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          Your argument is about ignorance. Anyone advocating background checks, when that isn’t anything but an infinitesimal source of crime guns, is speaking out of abject ignorance

    3. avatar Robert Farago says:

      The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment doesn’t say what type of arms are protected because they all were. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was a private outfit with cannons. Modern civil war re-enactment companies can also own cannon. And?

      And laws dictating the lawful use of weapons are A-OK with me. And if they’re not, they can be changed. But the right to keep and bear these weapons—handguns, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, tanks, artillery pieces—is clearly protected by 2A.

      1. avatar Kyle in CT says:

        So where is the line drawn? Should people be able to buy Sarin or VX? You have to draw a line somewhere. This is why I argue that it is not unreasonable, at least in concept, for there to be some limits on the kinds of weapons civilians are allowed to own. The Heller decision makes this exact point.

        I guess the point I have repeatedly been making is really the same one that has been made by you and others with reference to the advertising machine of MAIG and others; message matters. It’s not just what you say but how you choose to say it, and I fear that those “on the fence” about gun rights will be turned off by an absolutist message.

        As a side note, I think it is a credit to the TTAG readership that there were no derogatory replies to my comments. I think that says something very positive about what you are doing here.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Kyle, Sarin and VX are WMDs, and thus are illegal an the ratified international treaty level. That class of weapon has been banned worldwide since the end of WWI. Entirely different from your grandpa’s 30-30.

        2. avatar Kyle in CT says:

          I am well aware of this, I am merely making the point that there is inherently a line to be drawn, the argument is about where.

        3. avatar Chris says:

          Kyle, On you go about Sarin. This is like saying Gitmo means there is a precedent for denying everyone due process

    4. avatar Ralph says:

      I don’t believe that you or anyone else on this forum truly believes that anyone should be able to buy their own anti-aircraft battery

      I’ll give up my AA battery when the G gives up drone strikes on American citizens.

    5. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      Hey Kyle – do me a favor. Look up Miller v. US (1934). SCOTUS upheld Miller’s conviction for possession of a sawed off shottie because it was NOT a weapon of war that the US Military would use. . . . hence, weapons of war are what we are entitled to have under the second.

      1. avatar Kyle in CT says:

        I would argue that the Heller decision moots that particular argument. The SC (finally) interpreted the 2A as an individual right, however they also stated that it was subject to limitations: “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”.

        1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          Hey Kyle, or Mark Kelly or whatever, Heller DID NOT overrule Miller.

        2. avatar Kyle in CT says:

          I agree, but it did clarify the Court’s position on 2A. The reality is that Miller really didn’t decide much. The case was remanded back to a lower court without hearing any arguments, and a literal reading of the decision does not make much of a case one way or the other. This is why the Heller decision was important.

    6. avatar Jay1987 says:

      Uhh Kyle just one small issue with your arguement background checks don’t stop ole gary gangbanger from getting guns

      1. avatar Kyle in CT says:

        I’m not arguing that the current structure is effective, merely that the core concept of a background check is not inherently a bad thing.

        1. avatar Crazed Java says:

          Except that if criminals skip background checks, and they do, then what good are they exactly?

          To get a secret clearance they usually delve into your background. Which means it is likely that the Navy Yard shooter’s history of violence, but no convictions, was known. They still gave him a secret clearance. That is baffling. If we’ll give a secret clearance to someone with that kind of history what good will background checks ever do?

        2. avatar Kyle in CT says:

          Indeed they do skip background checks. They also have to commit a crime even before they use the gun to do anything bad, where you might potentially catch them. And they are likely paying a premium price to a gun smuggler. By having a basic, non-intrusive background check, you force criminals into a more expensive, more difficult, illegal marketplace. The alternative is saying that criminals should just be able to go to a gun store to get their guns, and I don’t think you’re saying that.

          All this being said, anything over and above a basic check does nothing to deter criminal activities since, as you pointed out, those people have already exited the legal market.

        3. avatar Jay1987 says:

          Kyle they ain’t payin a premium to gun smugglers they are buying hi points a lot or buying stolen guns. if I got a car for free whatever I sell it for is pure profit if I happen to have a habit to support, like many thieves, I’ll sell or trade for my next hit then there are straw purchases and other means as well so that even the most frugal banger can pack a heater and stay on budget.

        4. avatar Chris says:

          Background check is inherently “a bad thing.”

          It the CORE element in the poltical stock and trade shell game of scapegoating and diverting from real solutions concerning violent crime.

          People who advocate universal background checks are INCREASING the likelihood of crime by diverting from the real causal factors in crime.

          how about we keep criminals in JAIL and end 80% of gun murder by doing so?

  13. avatar A-Rod says:

    I once had a Jehovah’s Witness explain to me why they do not worship the Cross or use the Cross as an image. He said that it was tantamount to worshipping a weapon of murder. He further explained it in simple modern terms. He said “If your best friend ever was shot and killed with a revolver would you make an image of a revolver and wear it around your neck as a sign of worship?” Weird logic (regardless that it came from a JW) but I get his point.

    Okay Mark and Gabby. You like guns. We get it. It sucks what happened to you but be honest and drop the hypocrisy. We like guns too but what happened to you is not anyone on this forums fault. Seriously Mark and Gabby, Pick a side.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he’s gonna want to see a fvcking cross?”

      Bill Hicks

      1. avatar Jozan says:

        Jesus thought that shit was so funny he hired Bill Hicks for an exclusive engagement.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Bill Hicks is probably making god laugh right now.

    2. avatar Rikoshay says:

      The cross was just a tool it didn’t kill anything, the people that used the cross are to blame.

      1. avatar the ruester says:

        They knew not what they did…

  14. avatar Jus Bill says:

    I think the best thing that Space Captain Mark and his meat puppet Gabby could do to serve responsible gun owners is to go back to Arizona and STFU. They don’t have OCD, they have Cephalorectal Occlusion Disorder. Sorry, but you have devastated anything you have in common with ethical humans more thoroughly than the Bikini Atoll in the 50s.

  15. avatar Jeremy says:

    Part of the problem with background checks is the inherent inaccuracy in the checks themselves. In most cases, the only points of data to search on is name, date of birth, gender, and county of residence. A significant portion of jurisdictions do not record SSNs in their criminal records, plus that field is optional on the 4473, so having that is helpful only in some cases. If you have a common name, say Smith for instance, there is a large likelihood that there is some criminal somewhere with your name and close to your age.

    Suppose 2 John A Smiths were born on the same day, in the same county. Neither move away from that county. 25 years later, one of them decides to hold up a liquor store. A year or so after that, the other one decides he wants to buy a gun. Is it fair to make him prove that he’s not the one that held up the liquor store?

  16. avatar Jay1987 says:

    How is making it harder for me to buy a gun serving me?? Ms. Giffords with all due respect for a woman of your injuries and former stature among politicians please stop serving me go serve someone else.

  17. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    since Giffords now has the cognitive ability of an 8 yr old, does that make “Captain” Mark Kelly a pedophile? Just saying . . . .

  18. avatar PeterC says:

    I would feel more sympathy for Gabby had she not refused security for the event prior to her being shot. A great deal of the blame for her shooting rests on Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who had received numerous reports of Loughner making felonious threats, but did not act on them because Loughner’s mother was a County employee.

    1. avatar Crazed Java says:

      I feel plenty of sympathy for her. However, my sympathy does not translate into additional weight for pointless proposals that will do nothing to stop or reduce violent crime.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I feel sympathy for her as she has to wear a bloody shirt for the rest of her life, as the marionette for her husband and the rest of the ghouls and jackals in the Infringement Lobby. All the money and power in the world will never enable her to skip again.

  19. avatar Bob Wall says:

    The only responsibility I have to myself, my family and my friends is to avoid “Gun Free Zones” and “Gun Free Zoners”. Those places and people tend to attract trouble, wherever and whoever they are.

  20. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Correct! So why pass more laws? If current laws don’t work why would new laws do the trick?

    because doing nothing is unconscionable? What? Do we just quit? Give up? Instead of spending all our time and energy fighting the gun grabbers (which, don’t get me wrong is a good thing), why are we not leading the fight for solutions and effective answers to combating violent crime?

    Surely, our only answer (and no, it ‘s not entirely bad) is not, arm everybody…

    1. avatar Chris says:

      We are already doing something. And violent crime is PLUMETING as gun ownership skyrockets.

      Non criminal homes with guns are safer. Equivalent demographic Neighborhoods and equivalent demographic jurisdictions with more legal gun owners are safer.

      And 99.9% of that increase safety never derives from anyone shooting a criminal but simply the deterrence value.

  21. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    Can she even think well enough to write? Last time I checked should could only communicate like a 2 year old. Even though she appears to understand other people.

  22. avatar Rikoshay says:

    Punish the criminals!! Even in the rough and tough state of John Wayne McCain, and Sheriff Jo Arapaho or what ever his name is. They still let the slim-bag that shot Gabs and killed the 9-year-old girl plea bargain for a life sentence. They should have fried him and Mark Kelley should have begged to throw the switch. All those laws and now the criminal gets to live at our expense til he dies of natural causes.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      I don’t know, man. You try spending just a year in there after having killed a kid. Something tells me Tyrone will convince him very soon he should have took the needle.

  23. avatar sagebrushracer says:

    Until society is willing to make the punishment fit the crime, we are just increase the knowledge, skills and abilities every time we return a criminal to society. The other side is that society needs to keep and bear whatever arms, whenever they choose to.

    In 1900, a murderer would get a date with a noose and to carry a gun was exercisable right. Murder rate per capita was lower than it was now, just sayin.

  24. avatar Excedrine says:

    Is this the same Gabrielle Giffords that stumped for gun control before she was shot in the melon?

    Is this the same Gabrielle Giffords who is married to Mark Kelly, who was stopped at a gun dealer before he could make a straw purchase to which he openly admitted to attempting?

    If so, she really needs to STFU. Seriously. She’s emotionally compromised and literally brain damaged. While I and everyone else here can certainly sympathize with her, after being viciously attacked by a lunatic who killed six other people in the same incident, she does not have a monopoly on suffering and certainly no expert on anything. Literally nothing. At all.

    She was not competent to hold office even before she was shot, let alone now.

    Mark Kelly is a baby seal clubbing anti-rights, anti-Humanist regressive hypocrite that should have been prosecuted with.. wait.. only 40-something other felons? Are you kidding me? Of all the many tens of thousands of paperwork violators in 2010 that lied on their Form 4473s, only 44 were prosecuted, and 14 convicted? Fucking Hell.

    Well, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody, seeing as how U.S. Attorney General Eric “Fast & Furious” “We Must Brain Wash The People” B. Holder was forced to admit to Congress during the F&F investigation (which he illegally stonewalled every step of the way mind you) that his office doesn’t have the resources to prosecute everybody.

    Regardless, Mark Kelly should have been one of them that was summarily thrown in prison. Period.

    But, oh, there’s a special double-standard down there in D.C., waaay down there at the bottom of the food chain where all our government officials live. You see, Herr Fuhrer Feinstein was able to coordinate with the D.C. police to gather together all the verboten goodies she always displays at her anti-rights propaganda meetings. They even go so far as to laugh and scoff that they can do it, but Republican representatives can’t when they try to do the very same thing. That is because, once again, special preference is given to liberals in all things political. End of story.

  25. avatar Nagurski says:

    Has anyone here done a background check to make sure you aren’t a sex offender? If the background checks were that easy, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I have no problem with the government creating a registry of people that can’t have guns, I just have a problem with them knowing that I do (or did before that tragic boating accident).

  26. avatar Steve says:

    I have an idea. No more background checks at all. But if your a felon or otherwise not legal to buy a gun, you have a stamp on your drivers license that shows you as such.

  27. avatar Jesse says:

    Obviously these new enhanced background checks are useless; the picture shows a Non NY resident, thus no NY permit, handling a revolver. Isn’t that a felony in NY? Or do you get special privileges if you’re politically connected?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email