Marking the second anniversary of her attempted assassination, former Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Giffords has launched a gun control PAC called Americans for Responsible Solutions. Implying, of course, that anyone opposing its agenda is irresponsible. Completely ignoring the implications of the word “solution” in this context (i.e., the “Final Solution“). As you might expect, the euphemistically named gun control org’s opening salvo is as Orwellian as its moniker. You’ll not see anything about “an assault weapons ban,” “magazine capacity limits,” “psychological review boards” or “national firearms registration” in Giffords’ usatoday.com advertisement editorial. But it’s all in there, somewhere. Waving the bloody shirt, attacking the evil “gun lobby,” setting the stage for a major attack on your Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Giffords’ propagandizing polemic is some seriously scary stuff . . .
Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.
As a result, we are more vulnerable to gun violence. Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets. Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available. And gun owners are less responsible for the misuse of their weapons than they are for their automobiles.
Forget the boogeyman of big, bad government coming to dispossess you of your firearms. 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. 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.
Which neither Giffords or her astronaut hubby are prepared to spell out—lest they have to debate specific proposals rather than garner unthinking sympathy. And non-tax deductible donations.
I wonder when negotiations with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence broke down. Or whether Gabby’s peeps simply felt they should control the narrative. Anyway, another one to watch, with 6k+ Facebook likers and climbing at high noon.
Oh, no comments allowed under the editorial. Of course.
As the American public has accepted not only “The Patriot Act” but also “Homeland Security”, Orwellian nomenclature has been proven rather successful.
+1
I prefer the more honest “Motherland Security”.
Soaring platitudes and no comments allowed. The fact that they feel the need to say “we won’t take your guns” without advancing any specific proposals is, I believe, known as “projection” in the psychological world.
It’s “Wacoing”, i.e., “THIS IS NOT AN ASSAULT!”
you missed the best part. She was recruited by Bloomberg to be the gun owner/military vet/anti gun-martyr as predicted by some posters.
“During last week’s trip, Giffords and Kelly also met with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), who is a leading gun control advocate and is spending millions of dollars of his vast personal fortune on advocacy efforts.”
You don’t think Mrs. Giffords will be drawing a salary do you? Shame about what happened to her, but once a politician…
She’s probably on federal workers comp. Pretty much continues your pay until you are fixed up.
I don’t get it. From the way this is written, it’s vague enough to where you’d think it’s actually for getting rid of gun free zones.
How’s it ever going to stop straw man purchases? We all know there’s no point banning semi-auto rifles or magazines, why are lawmakers so stupid on this?
Baby steps. At the end of the day the only ones they want to have guns at all are the police. Refer to the Final Solution RF linked to in the article.
Impressive number of lies for such a small statement. As for they not wanting to give up their gun each (and I saw what they did there), I have to say that I understand people who willingly only have one gun less than I understand people who willingly have none.
Yes, it would be interesting to know when they were purchased. It almost looks like they bought them for the expediency of being able to say they are gun owners.
My personal favorite bit of BS was “any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.“. Trying to compare having two (probably .22’s) rifles locked in a safe and never used to people who actually enjoy shooting so that they can pretend that they’re “one of us”.
Actually the congresswoman owned a Glock 19 like the one used against her at the time of her shooting, according to Paul Barrett’s book on Glock. That fact was meant to establish just how very widespread the design was; I actually wonder whether this organization is actually in favor of less stringent disarmament than, say, Feinstein. The fact that Congresswoman Giffords and Capt. Kelly are willing to act as a bloody shirt for Mayor Bloomberg to wave about doesn’t really support that notion.
We are a nation that began with the recognition that people, by virtue of birth, have natural rights that are unalienable. These rights are not bestowed by man or government but by our Creator. These rights belong to the individual and may not be infringed unless the individual uses them to infringe the rights of others. Among these are the right to life, liberty. To protect these and other rights, we have the right to arms. To defend our rights against an government that has become tyrannical, these arms include contemporary military weapons. The founders had just fought and won our freedom from a tyrannical government. They were successful because, among other things, they had access to the weapons in common use by armies of the time. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States codifies the right to arms. It does not limit the type of arms, it only limits government from infringing the right of each individual. It is not about hunting or sporting use. It is a recognition that all free people have the right to arms required to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified had the Bill of Rights not been included. There is a preamble to the Bill of Rights that many people have never heard or read. It states the purpose for the inclusion of the first ten amendments. It says, “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” Some felt that rights were self-evident enough that they need not be codified. Others knew that governments, given power, become corrupt. Even with the restrictive clauses, our elected officials infringe these rights with impunity. Of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights that has not infringed is the third.
It is time to stop tyranny. It is time to return the government to the limits of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” A tyrant will continue their evil until the become aware that their actions can cost them their life. Our Declaration of Independence rightly recognizes that we don’t change long established governments for “light and transient” causes and that history shows that mankind are “more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” It’s not our government that needs changed, it’s the elected officials. We’ve allowed them to expand the scope of government outside the bounds of the Constitution. We’ve allowed them to turn the Congress into a place where they increase their bank accounts rather than focusing on the business of the people.
We must petition our government to stop their continued infringements. We must demand they stop operating outside the confines of the constitution. However, if all peaceful attempts at stopping the tyranny fails, we must also let them know in no uncertain terms that we will stop them.
No amount of petitions or lawsuits will stop this anti-liberty tide. At best we will slow it down. We will keep filing the paperwork until we reach the tipping point. Then it will all burn. It is inevitable. All empires fall.
May it happen later rather than sooner.
Neither Giffords nor Nadya Suleman have ever earned an honest living. And “Octomom” is back on welfare, ’cause everyone’s gotta make a living. The wingnuts and the Joyce Foundation have been berry, berry good to the Bradys, so why not Gabby Giffords?
Everything you need to know, right there in Ralph’s comment.
Anyone who has read or lived under the MA gun laws ( MGL C140, S.121, and 128-131O inclusive, and MGL C269,S.10 inclusive) will know why we hate the words “reasonable gun laws”
I’m right there with you, pal. The gun laws in MA are stoopid, but ultimately the AWB is only an annoyance.
“an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission.”
Uh, yeah. That must be pretty thick fringe.
Giffords and hubby just drained my sympathy/empathy bucket for them bone dry. I had heard him make some statements that led me to suspect this kind of thing was coming, so I am not surprised. But what can you expect? They can probably make money playing on sympathy for her remarkable comeback from a devastating in jury, so why do the right thing and advocate for the Rights of the American People-ALL the American People?
Agreed. They are no longer friends of liberty.
Here are a couple woppers in the text: “…we are more vulnerable to gun violence…” Really? damn those pesky falling violent crime statistics. If you live in place that has been under long term control of the Democratic Party and have disarmed law abiding citizens that may be true but not for most of the country.
And then there is this meme: “…And gun owners are less responsible for the misuse of their weapons than they are for their automobiles….” Again, really? Let’s see, if I run a stop sign I get a ticket. If I use a gun in a crime I go to jail. If I have an accident my auto insurance premiums go up. If I use a gun in crime I go to jail. There is only one crime committed with an automobile that gets you the same kind of jail time that you get when you “misuse” gun. Killing someone in an accident where you are legally drunk. That’s call vehicular homicide.
I said late in the last Mikeb thread that the Adminstration will be using the same techinques they used in social media during the campaign for their control efforts. This is another example. Wise up, we need to counter these arguments at the source and not just talk to ourselves here.
Guns contain on violence. Violence is in the hearts of people.
Weapons of war do belong on our streets. How else are we supposed to secure our streets during war with our own government?
“…any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.”
What’s your reason for owning those two guns, other than so you can say you do? Are they for self-protection? Have you ever run a drill of trying to get to them under stress?
I realize it’s usually the anti-gunner’s tactic to demand a reason for ownership, but it occurs to me that (and I’m still forming this thought, so bear with me) if you own them for self-protection and you don’t carry them and/or have them stored in such a way that they’re accessible when you need them, then you are doing it wrong. Attendant to that, if you own guns for reasons other than self-protection, like recreational target shooting (and that’s fine, don’t get me wrong), then you don’t really have any business propping yourself (as a politician) up as “owning guns because you support the 2A.” You own guns because it’s fun, but not because you think you should for 2A reasons.
Am I completely off on this line of thinking? Like I said, it just occurred to me, so it’s a work in progress.
I have two theories, not necessarily exclusive:
1. To appear as fellow, “reasonable” gun owners.
2. To advance the idea of limiting the number of guns people can own.
Anti-rights politicians buy some hunting shotguns before election time to make it look like they’re gun owners’ friends.
Romney
Biden
etc. etc.
Right, and both of those reasons are what I was referring to by “so you can say you do.”
I’m just tired of their BS. Politicians get called on the big BS they spew fairly often, but opinions are also swayed by the small, seemingly innocuous things as well. I think they’re as, if not more important than the big things.
My contempt for them and their sycophants knows no bounds.
I own extra for when I may need them and can’t get them. I have them in case I need to arm a family member or friend who can’t get them. I own them to protect not just my person but my rights and freedoms.
“… we don’t want to take away your guns…” so is this disingenuous crap or has she been so fooled by others that she believes it? She is a democrat politician, and they tend to select for bald faced liars. I wondered, after the attack on her, if she would end up at this point. Sadly, I am not the least bit surprised. She is making the most of the crisis to grab for more power for her and hers, just like Feinstein.
To be fair, they really don’t want to take away the guns. Seriously.
They want to make it impossible to buy new guns, both by restricting the guns you can buy and by reducing the number of stores selling guns.
They want to make it impractical to maintain proficiency with the guns people already have, by driving shooting ranges out of business and denying permission to open new ones.
And they want to make it too expensive for anyone but the wealthy to afford access to guns, range time and ammo.
I see mild-to-moderate versions of this in CA, but the confiscators really tipped their hand with the recent legislation in IL and NY. I don’t have to make up crazy theories when it’s all there in the bills for everyone to see.
It’s a ten step weight loss process. At the end, the goal is confiscation, or as you say, rendering the civilian population defenceless through lack of ammo, etc. If we assume Giffords isn’t a fool, then she has declared for the other side, and will say and do anything to further this goal.
So is Cuomo a storybook character?
So, why can’t we come up with advocacy groups with names like this? IMHO a pro-2A group with a name like “Americans for Responsible Firearm Ownership” would be harder to demonize than the NRA.
Because we tend to say what we mean and authoritarian weasels tend to hide behind words.
And how’s that working right now? Especially when “our” most significant response so far is to suggest the best solution is to put armed guards in schools.
The question is how do we prevent these things from happening. The response from the NRA suggests nothing to prevent these things from happening.
You can’t completely prevent these things from happening and statistically it doesn’t even make sense to spend a lot of money and infringe on everyone’s rights to try since it’s such a small problem. The only response that makes sense is allowing teachers to carry if they want to. It’s cheap and effective. Oh and telling idiots with messed up kids not to teach them how to use guns and to keep them locked away. Or to just not own any and get little Johnny into a facility ASAP.
If these events happen in places Cumbria, UK and in Norway that should tell you something.
People who believe they can be prevented are living in fantasy land. I wouldn’t be surprised to one day learn, if the regime in North Korea ever falls, that stuff like this happened there with knives or pitchforks. There are a few violent nutters everywhere. I’m more worried about the violent sociopaths in power with entire armies at their command wanting to disarm their citizens.
There is no “preventing”. There is only mitigation. And as someone who went to a gang riddled school in a high crime area, I can attest that school resource officers keep a alot of negative elements away.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/08/will-newtown-lead-to-lockdown-high
Though “the Columbine scenario is terrifying,” Fuentes writes, “the odds of it occurring in your hometown are about one in two million.” Nonetheless, such terrifying scenarios have driven an ominous redesign of the American schoolhouse: “From metal detectors to drug tests, from increased policing to all-seeing electronic surveillance,” our schools are steadily becoming “prisonlike institutions where children are treated like suspects.”
Is the prison analogy overblown? Not according to some federal officials charged with helping to reshape the schools. Fuentes quotes Peter Cosgrove of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, part of the National Institute of Justice, the Justice Department’s R&D shop: “You have kids in school being educated in life and in prison you have a similar situation of people being reeducated. In theory, they’re not far apart.” The “same technology,” he notes, “will be useful in both prisons and schools.”
Especially when “our” most significant response so far is to suggest the best solution is to put armed guards in schools.
Staten Island (part of NYC) is working on armed guards in schools right now.
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP3a3c8a72a94544d79d7cfbe9702f207e.html
Still think it’s a bad idea?
Still think it’s a bad idea?
Yes.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/08/will-newtown-lead-to-lockdown-high
The response from the NRA suggests nothing to prevent these things from happening.
Actually, using fear of armed retaliation is the only real way to decrease the odds of this happening. You can’t stop a crazy person from being crazy or someone hellbent on causing harm from causing harm. Thinking that we can pass a law that will magically stop that is just absurd. All you can do is take steps to try and deter the less crazed attackers and mitigate the damage for the ones who get through.
Yes, or maybe: Responsible Americans to Stop Criminal Violence, or, Safe Citizens for Sensible Statutes.
But to answer your question I have to agree with Pulatso, and “Strait-talk’n American” just doesn’t have the nessesary fluff.
To be fair Mayors Against Illegal Guns sounds pretty good at face value. Armed criminals and illegal guns are surely a bad thing. The problem is that they are actually against all gones and are for expanding the definition of guns that are illegal.
I totally agree, but as long as MAIG and Brady are playing the Face Value game it shouldn’t hurt for us to improve our first impression with the impressionable masses.
I see gabby being the new generation of annoyance being the next Sara Brady. and her hubby the next James. Wait it be the opposite maybe he is the next Sara!
Would it be wrong to start calling her Grabby Gabby?
I keep telling people that gun control is the WRONG solution for the WRONG problem. Until they calm down from the shocking horror that was Newtown, they’re not going to make rational decisions.
Then again, perhaps it is the ones like Ms. Gifford and Ms. Feinstein who have just been sitting back with legislation written and in hand, waiting for a tragedy such as this so they can spring up and shout, “WE’VE GOT THE SOLUTION!” before anyone can stop to think about what the real problem is.
“until they calm down from the shocking horror that was Newtown”
Unless it was YOUR child or relative killed there, how long can you milk this horror?
This was horrifying, no doubt.
But you know what? My brother-in-law died about 5 weeks ago.
I’m still occassionally upset about that.
The death of 27 people I’ve never heard of doesn’t keep me up at night, sorry.
Nor does the death of the 20-ish kids in Chicago that same weekend.
I guess I must be evil or something.
Apparently some think it was shocking and want to milk it for all it’s worth. I’m not one of those people.
Typically, we see a call to be reasonable, with no specifics offered. What part of reason includes agreeing to something before analyzing its details?
Whats next, Nuns holding AR’s & decring the violence? Maybe the Pope, although he has an entire armed police force. Imposing on a lady who is trying to recover from brain damage says quite a bit about the grabbers, it says their BS is falling apart, Randy
Giffords has it backwards. It will take more courage to not do anything. It would also take courage to still support the 2nd ammendment even if you are a victim of that support. What happened in Sandy Hook was horrible but 26 personal tragedies should never take rights away from anyone else especially 100+ million people.
Humans for the most part are not much on reasoning, but very reliant on emotions. As long as our arguments are rational, we are behind the OODA Loop versus the wingnuts. If persuading the “masses” is important, then we need to stop fighting the wingnuts’ emotional arguments with facts. Facts won’t register.
Logic didn’t sink the Dukakis campaign, even though all the logic indicated that Dukakis would be a sh!tty President. Willie Horton sunk Dukakis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton
What we need now is our own Willie Hortons, and they’re not hard to find. When the masses are more afraid of Willie Horton breaking into their home than they are of Adam Lanza, then we win.
PsyOps/Mind Control/Terrorism play mainly on knee jerk emotional reactions.
Read anything by Edward Bernays and it becomes very apparent that the Rulers/Elite play this card ALL the time.
Logic and reason don’t sell things nor agendas. It’s EMOTION, EMOTION, EMOTION!
Not to be cruel, but Gabby Giffords HAS to be mentally incompentent after having taken a bullet to the dome.
I cannot believe anything that she is a part of now because she is just paraded around like a mindless zombie solely to push the civilian disarmament agenda.
Not being too cruel either Sleeper, but my opinion is that, medically, you are right on the money. The gun control has no lower limit on the agenda and tactics that will continue to be utilized. The $hit storm has barely started
I’ve seen interviews with her, and while her recovery is remarkable, she still clearly struggles mightily with basic motor skills and making herself understood. For that reason I wondered how much input she actually had, as opposed to the influence of others such as her husband and those who would take advantage of her situation to further their own agenda. There’s a big difference between someone else writing all this stuff up and her nodding her assent after reading it, and her actually taking part in formulating the ideas set forth.
That generalization is too broad. Brains and Brain Damage are hard to understand. While it’s not exactly annalogous, I had a Thermodynamics professor that had recently survived a stroke. His speech was very difficult to understand and his handwriting was horrible (not the most effective professor) but he was still a wizard at thermodynamics. I’m not saying Grabby-Gabby isn’t wrong/stupid, just that brain damage does not NECESSASARILY mean she can’t think or reason.
So, does this mean that Gabby will be selling her personal Glock now?
Now Gabby and Mark are just like Diane Feinstein – ‘my guns are ok but yours are evil’
The liberals are very clever and will try their best to lead us down the paved road of good intentions to becoming lampshades, bars of soap, and pelvic ashtrays.
Dont be a pelvic ashtray you stupid libtards, or at least dont turn me into one (I dont even smoke).
How about that? If you support the Constitution you’re the “ideological fringe” that the NRA panders to. Someone with the intention of banning guns probably should avoid using the word “fringe” whenever possible. Seeing as they’re going to attempt to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. I mean, why call attention to yourself.
It’s now clear that Gabriel Gifford’s is the new stand in for Jim Brady, with exactly the same intentions, only more. A psycho kills with a gun, and they blame the gun.
A war of words for the soft, brainwashed minds of the American public. After all, who can be bothered to engage in independent and deep thought these days what with so many reality shows to keep track of?
QUOTE: “…they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.”
Uh… doesn’t “political extinction” come from pissed-off voters, who righteously vote out anti self-defense, gun-grabbing simpletons?
Good luck convincing people that the problem is “too much freedom.”
No “responsible person” would want a firearm. I have a headache.