Giffords: Women Need More Gun Control

Thanks to an amendment the late Senator Frank Lautenberg attached to the 1997 budget appropriations bill, it’s illegal for those convicted of domestic violence to own a firearm. But now that they’ve staked out their own little corner of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex, Gabby Giffords and her space cadet hubby, Mark Kelly, think more needs to be done. Giffords is shocked – shocked! – to have learned that criminals don’t always comply with the law. And sometimes miscreants’ attorneys plead them down to a lesser charge. What’s their answer? More gun control laws, of course! Reader Chris W. just got this letter from the former Arizona congresswoman . . .

Chris –

Christin was a 35-year old mother of two from Washington who appealed to the courts for protection against her ex-partner who had already been convicted of stalking in a previous relationship.

Five days later, she was found dead in her home – a murder-suicide made possible because of lax laws that enable deadly violence against women trying to escape dangerous relationships.

Tragically, her story is far too common. In the United States, 76% of female homicide victims are stalked before their death, and the vast majority of their assailants use a gun to carry out the crime.

It’s time for Congress to protect women from gun violence.

Read and co-sign my letter to the Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to hold a hearing on preventing gun violence against women – the first step to passing legislation.

Current law prevents domestic violence offenders or those under a restraining order from possessing firearms. The legislation, named after the late Senator Frank Lautenberg, saves lives, but it is due for an update.

Far too often, domestic abusers will plead down to a lesser charge … like stalking.

During my time in Arizona’s State Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, I used my voice and my vote to protect victims of domestic violence, and I see this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee as an extension of that work.

I hope you’ll add your name to it today:

The gun lobby would say that women should arm themselves for protection, but studies show that keeping guns out of the hands of their abusers is a more effective way of keeping women safe.

Congress should act to keep women safer, and – working with you – I will be calling on them to do so in the year ahead.

Thank you for joining me,

Gabby Giffords
Americans for Responsible Solutions


  1. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    Women need more control OF guns.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Absolutely! When every woman is armed, rape will vanish.

      1. avatar Mina says:

        well not exactly. Real rape will vanish but there will still be that type of convenience rape when a women feels something just isn’t right the next day and decides that last night must actually have been rape …

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          That’s the sort of thing that’s I think should just be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Rather than trying to make a blanket rule that covers each and every possibility, why not let the people involved figure it out? Maybe guys should carry “Pre-boink” forms, so if they want to do it, he can say, “OK, here, sign this first.” Would that help balance things out? 🙂

    2. avatar Larry says:

      Not to be cruel, but I’ll bet $1000 that the brain damaged Giffords did not write a single word of that letter.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Sucker bet…

  2. avatar Patrick Rogalin says:

    Huh. I just got a memo at work today reminding military commanders that members that plead to a lesser charge are still impacted. It said that the law prohibits those whose actions for the intent of the law were still prohibited even if they plead to a lesser charge. Of course once convicted of stalking I’m sure an angry boyfriend would never get a gun illegally.

  3. avatar Cliff H says:

    “The gun lobby would say that women should arm themselves for protection, but studies show that keeping guns out of the hands of their abusers is a more effective way of keeping women safe.”

    Yeah, well that would be true, IF you could figure out a fool-proof way of keeping guns out of the hands of abusers. Good luck with that. (Not.)

    Total civilian disarmament has to be the end game of these folks because aside from the brain damaged and their MAIG teat-sucking spouses, I can’t think of anyone truly stupid enough to believe that passing a law that says it’s illegal to use a firearm to kill your domestic partner is ever going to work. What is the penalty – they execute you twice?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      They keep you in prison forever – even after you’re dead.

      1. avatar Jake says:

        Then they take you to the ballot box!

    2. avatar Mina says:

      “The gun lobby would say that women should arm themselves for protection, but studies show that keeping guns out of the hands of their abusers is a more effective way of keeping women safe.”

      What studies by who using what method?

      Common sense tells me that arming women would be far more effective.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        For some reason, it pleases me that I’m not the only one who noticed that. 🙂

        1. avatar Mina says:

          Yeah, I got into an interesting conversation with a Liberal a few weeks ago about shooting coyotes. I have been having trouble because they are proliferating by me and I have lost several kittens to them (i.e. singular kittens that I brought home one at a time intending with each to make a lifelong pet … invested lots of time, energy, love into)

          When I mentioned we intend to start shooting the coyotes to thin the herd a bit, her response (which I am learning is a cut and paste type thing done without thinking at all) “Studies prove that this is ineffective because …” (something about more will move in to take the place of the ones we eliminate)

          That’s when I remembered something I heard on news radio in the barn last year. Believe it or not they did a study and the study proved that if you say “Studies prove” or “Studies show” first then most people will believe whatever comes next. (which of course it took a study to prove that this is true, conundrum for sure!)

          Sounds like a typical Leftist BS technique to me. I am sure you could apply one of Saul Alinsky’s rules to that one.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Just call that response :The Ignorance Prefix.” I’d be willing to bet a beer that whoever uses that to append to a hoax has never read even one study, much less multiple studies.

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Academia hoaxed by fake scientific papers auto-generated by gobbledygook text generators

      2. avatar ChrisB. says:

        Those studies she refers to exclude non gun murder of spouses which elevates. In fact armed women are net net safer from all forms of spousal and or ex partner murder than unarmed women.

        1. avatar Mina says:

          Right, which is why the right answer to anything a Liberal says that starts with the line “Studies prove/Studies show” is what study, who performed it, prove the study team’s neutral unbiased position.

          Otherwise it’s a crap “study” and whatever their “conclusion” was I call BS. Moreover, I bet you pulled that right out of your own [email protected]@.

        2. avatar rlc2 says:

          Next time you are in one of those conversations- just ask politely, “Really, that sounds very interesting- what study IS that?”… and ….

          The silence may be deafening.

          This is one of the strengths of TTAG- that we argue and debate on facts, and reason, on something that seems “simple” as guns, but turns into conversations about practical self-defense, or individual vs states rights, or taxation without representation. And that quite naturally leads to other issues- that dont make sense when you deal with them on the facts- ObamaCare, as the most glaring.

          THAT is why its so threatening to the Prog-tards- it gets right to the heart of the matter and explodes the talking points and flim-flammery of studies, and people say, and appeals to false authority, that works on the un-informed or lazy thinking types who just want to be part of the cool kid club.

          The Dem’s in DC know they are blowing up. The desperate attacks on guns are really smoke and mirrors deflection. So if we hold fast, and continue to debate and defend calmly but from a factual and unyielding basis, we will win-

          Mina- you promoted Ben Shapiro- and you are exactly correct. Everyone here should go to TruthRevolt and download how to debate liberals.

          If its not up to us, to inform on guns, and freedom, then who will- the government? The media? Unions? Politicians? Academia?
          The 50% that are the members of the victim and dependency class?

          It happens at the grass roots, and the push-back and hysteria against the TeaParty proves it works.

        3. avatar Alex Peters says:

          Ironically, there are many states where “Christin” wouldn’t have been granted the authority to protect herself. Why? Because it would’ve been impossible for her to legally purchase a firearm and/or get a pistol permit within 5 days.

        4. avatar Larry says:

          For rlc2, I have tried the “Really? Where can I see that study?” route before, on a different subject, but the well-trained libtard will say “I’ve got it at home, I’ll send it to you.”, thus impressing observers with the fact that it exists, except of course it doesn’t and nothing ever arrives. While still worth a try, these fruitcakes are prepared to defeat (in their minds) any rational objection to their obvious silliness.

          BTW, tho, I remained in that discussion group long enough for that individual to give me that answer twice more, after which I cut and pasted all three episodes and stated that he had NEVER forwarded anything because such studies did not exist, he was lying, and he withdrew from the discussions.

        5. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

          Mina, speaking as a scientist myself, ALL studies are biased in some way. A good study, however, notes the limitations and how they could impact and/or color the results or interpretation. That’s actually an Imortant part of the peer review process. Or, rather, should be. Unfortunately, peer review seems to be becoming more and more a way to enforce orthodoxy rather than assess the integrity of the work.

        6. avatar Mina says:

          Right, they will always say they have the study. And a lot of time, truth be told, when I say that I have the facts and data on my side and can show this and that … I never ever reveal my source and sometimes I don’t even reveal the data itself. Because they aren’t interested! All they have to know is that you have it and you are confident in it (not saying this is every discussion but most, esp with the really dumb or the women) … so they assume the reverse will work for them: If they tell us they have the study, we’ll accept it. No further anything required.

          So what I do, and this works every time, is think of a good 5 word answer that dismisses it – either an inconsistency in the argument, or a counter study I can name, or sometimes I just say No, that’s false and repeat my point. They ALWAYS next play go for the personal attack which means: ta da I won that one.

          It’s really not that hard to debate the Liberals You just have to understand that their brains work different than ours and you have to use it against them.

          Raul: I am an engineer and pretty steeped in the scientific process 🙂 I get it, which helps!

      3. avatar rlc2 says:

        I followed the link to the ARS website, and its pretty thin. In fact, there’s NO links or stats or studies anywhere. It looks like they are just making things up.

        Another example of the prog-tard echo chamber- if you repeat a lie enough times it starts to become part of their accepted truth.

        I really sympathize with CAPT Kelly. He’s accomplished the apex of aviation challenges, getting to the astronaut program and going to space. But he can’t undo the tragedy of what happened to his wife, and he doesnt appear to see how they are both being shamelessly used to promote a wider agenda.

        I’d be willing to support him if you aimed at mental health care issues, or promoting wider and better self-defense training for women, including guns as one part of the tool kit.

        Once again, its not the inanimate tool that is at fault, it is the tool user, and the root cause is “too hard” so the gun-grabbers go for the easy “fix” which, as in most well-intentioned legislation, turns out to have exactly the opposite un-intended consequence- leaving women defenseless.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          I really sympathize with CAPT Kelly. He’s accomplished the apex of aviation challenges, getting to the astronaut program and going to space. But he can’t undo the tragedy of what happened to his wife, and he doesnt appear to see how they are both being shamelessly used to promote a wider agenda.

          I disagree. He is not being used at all. He is being ferried about the country on donations to his PAC, which was called one of the more successful super-PACs. He’s turned into a self-centered, glory-seeking sympathy hustler who shamelessly uses his wife’s injury to promote himself and whatever agenda will garner him continuing fame and adulation. And, of course, cash.

          Read older posts about this for more on the space cadet’s shenanigans.

      4. avatar paula harshbarger says:

        You don’t need a gun to kill someone

    3. avatar Salty Bear says:

      I can’t think of anyone truly stupid enough to believe that passing a law that says it’s illegal to use a firearm to kill your domestic partner is ever going to work.

      You should go look at the comments on anti-gun sites some time.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Thing of it is… IT’S ALREADY ILLEGAL!

  4. avatar Excedrine says:

    No, Gabby. No, they don’t.

  5. avatar bob says:

    /\/\ this.

  6. avatar S.CROCK says:

    Her husband looks like a bald cousin Eddie from the movie Christmas Vacation.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Her husband Mark is parading her around having her recite inane scripts. She sounds like a 12-year-old Shirley Temple when she reads them. But damned if he isn’t going to get some kind of political career even if the wife got shot.

      The wife, Gabby, was a Glock owner. She turned down security for the Tuscon public meeting despite the known fact that a number of her earlier campaign volunteers were a bit nuts. Now we are all supposed to ignore the constitution because Mark the Pilot says so? Or has Gabby say so?


  7. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Notice how Space Cadet Kelly doesn’t move his lips and you cannot see the fishing wire move her arms. Amazing

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      You’re assuming marionette. I always figured it was more like a Muppet relationship, with his hand up Comment Moderated 🙂

    2. avatar Delbert Grady says:

      The guy is a hypocrite creep, the media helped him shrug off his AR15 straw purchase but he is just another do as I say not as I do Democrat retard.

    3. avatar Mina says:

      You know, I’d sure like to explore some personal character dirt on Mr. Perfect here.

      For example, who’s he doing while wifey is at home alone at night, pooping in her drawers and waiting for a change?

      That would sure be good info for our side to have, no? Something they would do to one of us I reckon, had we the gall to trot out someone so seemingly caring & nurturing to his hurt wife in the fight for our rights.

  8. avatar Don Q in (We gotta get outta this place) Kali says:

    So when the offender cant get a gun, he will just use a blunt instrument, knife, or just beat the poor victim to death. Brilliant! I agree with BigRed2989 on this one.

  9. avatar James says:

    “domestic abusers will plead down to a lesser charge”

    Maybe Ms Giffords needs to have a discussion with the liberal DA’s of our major metropolitan areas about ACCEPTING these plea deals. Then she can talk to the liberal judges who don’t sentence appropriately, stay prison terms, and deal out probation.

    Until then, she can go bleep herself and her victim status.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Perhaps rather than discussing the possibility of better ways to enforce unconstitutional anti-Second Amendment laws we should be pounding on the theme of women being guaranteed the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from their asshole ex-partners.

      To paraphrase the T-shirt: Shoot the first one – word will spread.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        The Giffords have THEIR guns. Too bad for us if they get their way. Steekin’ hypocrites.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      We have so many crimes- and thus criminals- that if plea deals stop the courts will grind to a halt.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        More laws = more “criminals”.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        Here’s a deal – charge them with every damn thing you can think of that they could possibly be convicted of (like they do now), but make it illegal to give ANY concurrent sentences, all convictions must run consecutively, the longest sentence first. Then offer to make all the lesser charges go away if they plead to the most serious crime on the list.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      The DAs are the ones instigating the plea deals. They do it to up their conviction rates.

  10. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    I could write a story about a former California State Senator in a way that would make a great case that anti-gun former politicians shouldn’t own guns.

  11. avatar SysEng says:

    What a perfect couple! He looks like Sloth from the Goonies and she is about as smart as Sloth.

    1. avatar Philip says:

      You sir have gone too far! You impinge upon and degrade the good name of sloth! Fie I say!

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Sorry, but SHE is no longer capable of being responsible for HIM. I’m amazed that her doctor even allows him to exhibit her as much as he does.

  12. avatar ST says:

    This is a problem we need to keep an eye on, because the average person who’s never been in a DV situation-or a false complaint thereof- might accept the propaganda hook line and sinker.

    If you want to get a cultural movement started in America, start attaching the issue to female rights. Well be in a spot of bother if the public media associates gun ownership with “violence against women”.

    1. avatar Mina says:

      That’s a 10-4 and I have been watching it carefully.

      I think we’re just about there.

      I have a perma-search on google news for “shannon watts misogyny”

      1. avatar rlc2 says:

        Outstanding. I completely agree- if we independent and small R republicans are going to empower and attract more voters we have to educate and inform, with effective role models. Please DONT put more dinosaurs like McCain, or hopeless nitwits like Huckabee out there and expect them to attract young independent or conservative new voters. There is an entire generation of Gen X and the next Millenials, who only need to know the facts to see how they are being ripped off by the top-down statists in BOTH parties, but most egregiously by the “progressive” Democrats.

        This is hard work, as we will be undoing 40 years of steady infiltration of bad ideas and bad intentions by the left, in academia, think-tanks and community activist groups, non-profits, the StateRunMedia(tm) and it appears big chunks of the civil service (IRS, for example). But the good news is reality is on our side, and the Millenials are NOT idiots- they are hip to spotting propaganda and internet buzz/social media marketing masquerading as truth.

        Young women are claiming their power, including rejecting the radical feminist lunacy foisted upon them. Young men are doing the same, more and more- we just need to help them by pointing out the facts, and giving them a place to learn, like TTAG already does, about guns, here.

        1. avatar Mina says:

          rlc: You need to email me about a conservation I had with the Heller Foundation in December 2013 … resulting in the exhange of what I think is a very intersting 5+ page manifesto. I think you need to see it.

          [email protected]

  13. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Real issue here is people can no longer accept pain in their lives. Back in the day, something bad happen, you just took it. Cried in the shower, got drunk, or stared at a fire and worked through it.

    Now people create a foundation and make dam sure everyone else lives their drama while they work legislation to infringe on citizens rights. Perhaps legislation for the prevention of useless charity organization is necessary to stop the whining…

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Well said! Pain is unfortunately a part of life. Move forward and live your life to the best of your ability to do so.

      “Welcome to your life; there’s no turning back.”

      1. avatar Gene says:

        That’s why there are so many advertisements in women’s magazines for antidepressants and whatnot. It’s for the self-diagnosing and search for a psychiatrist that’s willing to prescribe and listen to them whine about trivial issues.

      2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        Pain isn’t “unfortunately” a part of life, it’s a part of life. Pain is a building exercise and fortune is a matter of perspective.

        True f*cking story… as I was typing this, we got a phone call that we just lost a family member. What reality check?

    2. avatar Jake says:

      Life sucks, then you die.

    3. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Adversity builds character.

    4. avatar Jus Bill says:

      The cash contributions from the rich and/or gullible are pretty sweet too.

  14. avatar Ontheotherhand says:

    We should just chop of a users hands once convicted

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Pretty sure there’s a Constitutional amendment prohibiting that.

      1. avatar Gene says:

        Like stripping Constitutional rights by a mere accusation (merited or not)? Seems better to arm against a threat or actually prosecute for the actual charge.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        @Gene – got no problem with arming against a threat, it’s the “un-handing” for a conviction that concerns me.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      It’s pretty hard to undo that in the case of a false conviction. It’s better to just arm the women to prevent the crime from ever happening.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        Agree. No good comes of having guns around in the middle of a typical periodic screaming match. But once a woman knows the ex-boyfriend or ex-spouse is coming for revenge, a woman should have a gun and know how to use it.

        I’ve never know someone involved in such a situation. Luck, I suppose. But the women involved with the criminally possessive, jealous, and impulsive seem to know what kind of man they’ve got. I doubt the woman in Gifford’s little letter didn’t know of her boyfriend’s prior conviction.

        1. avatar TXGunGal says:

          Pretty much think all women should take responsibility for their own safety. Whether by gun, mace, taser, for crying out loud get SOMETHING.

          I’m fortunate that my dad taught me as a little girl all the way to adulthood. “don’t let anybody mess with you, fight back, get the first punch in, hit em in the nose, thaught me how to make a fist. How to open up a can of wump ass, physically or verbally. It’s not like I’ve lived a trouble free life, but so far, have lived it unscathed. Being defenceless is not a condition of gender, it’s a choice. As an adult I chose to have a gun and know how to use it. Gabby choose not to have armed security at the event, it’s on her.

  15. avatar JasonM says:

    The gun lobby would say that women should arm themselves for protection, …
    As do millions of women, apparently, as women are an ever-growing segment of new gun owners. And the vast majority of them cite self-defense as their primary reason.

    …but studies show that keeping guns out of the hands of their abusers is a more effective way of keeping women safe.
    Where are these studies? Like most TTAGers, I read a lot of this crap. The closest I’ve seen is that a woman with a gun is seven times more likely to fend off a rapist than a woman using any other technique. I would think the odds would be similar for a woman fending off a non-sexual assault.

    I’m curious what law she expects to pass to reduce this violence. I’m pretty sure assault and murder are already illegal in most of the US (I’m not sure about Chicago & DC).

    Perhaps the paperwork a woman gets when she files a restraining order should come with a list of local firearms instructors. I’d support that law!

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Where are the statistics documenting the number of assaults on women that DON’T occur because the assailant knew or feared that the woman might be armed or under the protection of a friend who was armed?

      Impossible to prove a negative, so the anti-2As just ignore the possibility that this might happen from time to time.

      If it was common knowledge that 5% – 10% of the women in domestic abuse shelters might be armed at any particular time you could probably publish the addresses without concern.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “a restraining order should come with a list of local firearms instructors. ”

      Excellent idea! I’d also contribute to a fund that would assist women with getting the training.

  16. avatar Jeff says:

    this is one of their new national pushes: get guns taken away without any felony conviction. DV accusations are just the low hanging fruit. but there will be more.

    here in WA, the anti-gunners successfully passed a bill that does this verbatim.

  17. avatar William Burke says:

    Why does anyone pay any attention to anything this unfortunate, but deluded vegetable has to say?

  18. avatar DaveL says:

    Ms Giffords, imagine that you had suffered years of physical abuse at the hands of a cruel, violent man. Imagine now that you didn’t believe he’s coming after you, and will not ready until he had killed you.

    Now, do you want a law, or do you want a gun?

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Stupid phone – “that you believe he’s coming after you.”

    2. avatar Maineuh says:

      Indeed. I know a few women who went that route. They were not messed with further.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Ms Giffords, imagine that you had suffered years of physical abuse at the hands of a cruel, violent man.

      Yeah, that man would be named Mark Kelly.

  19. avatar Roscoe says:

    Confiscation driven agenda, pure and simple.

    These people aren’t stupid, they’re possessed.

  20. avatar mtshootist1 says:

    I think poor old Gabby is being abused by that baldheaded cretin next to her, guess his government retirement isn’t enough dough, got to have some dog and pony show to skim more funds off the idiots.

    1. avatar stormchaser says:

      Its so sad.

      To think that both of these people have sworn to uphold the constitution.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      It’s all about the fame and fortune for him. Gabby is defenseless and has no choice but to play the mannequin.

  21. avatar Mina says:

    I think it’s very sad how this man is using his obviously quite seriously compromised wife to make a name and a living for himself by exploiting her misfortune.

    Actually it’s worse than sad. It’s disgusting.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      I couldn’t agree more.

  22. avatar Justin_GA says:

    I’m sorry for having to state the obvious. “Giffords is shocked – shocked! – to have learned that criminals don’t always comply with the law.”…..Well Gabby Gifford is half a vegetable and her husband is a “space cadet”. Being a retard and her husband a d-bag makes me feel bad for her, but I’m not going to let her dictate to me on how to live my life.

  23. avatar Johannes P. says:

    Massad Ayoob was right: nothing makes a man a feminist faster than having a daughter. And I’ll thank Ms. Giffords to not make decisions on behalf of my daughter.

    Encouraging women to be helpless and dependent on others in the face of dangers is N O T empowering.

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      Exactly. Suggesting that The State is going to defend all the helpless women is actually insulting to women. It puts them at MORE risk in the end, by creating the irrational belief that a law, and someone else to enforce it, is going to protect them.

      When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
      I know its hackneyed, and cynical, but if you think about it, on a lot of levels, this is really the key difference between those who want others to take care of them, vs those who want to take care of themselves.

      State control or individual control- which will it be, young women?

  24. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Every single law on the books, regardless how minor the offense or severe the punishment, ultimately depends for its force upon the presumption that a potential offender anticipates being alive tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that, and numerous years thereafter that. It is being alive and having to endure imprisonment, fines, and other restrictions of freedoms that is the negative consequense which serves as a deterrent.

    Absent that expectation of living, what is there to fear? The Law’s force turns flacid before a fatalistic killer. Once resigned to his own imminent death, he’s free to launch an albeit short-lived reign of terror, as did the ex profiled in the letter. No new law can accomplish what thousands of others have failed to do. At that point, only immediate, likely lethal, physical prophylactic offers protection.

    Nothing performs that duty better than a self-defense firearm.

  25. avatar RobertB says:

    If we outlaw guns, people will stop using them. That’s how we got people to stop using drugs.

  26. avatar John Thomas says:

    i encourage chris w. to pen a response to gabby giffords including a civil, lucid refutation of the non-facts cited in this letter along with a polite refusal to participate in the further degradation of our constitutional rights, and share it with us.

  27. avatar ErinTarn says:

    Because violence against women isn’t possibe without guns? Clubs, knives, fists, and sabotage can be just as deadly and there’s nothing that can be legislated to stop that. Perhaps we should write laws prohibiting cohabitation of adults of opposite gender.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Then you would (and inevitably will) have the same situation with same sex former couples.

  28. I think with everyone watching Shannon Watts, Gabby got a little jealous and is seeking attention. Like Britney and Madonna.

  29. avatar Icabod says:

    Did a search for “Christin was a 35-year old mother of two” in Washington state. Nothing came up.

    Does anyone have something on the case?

  30. avatar Paul says:

    While I appreciate Mrs. Gifford’s and Mr. Kelly’s service to our nation, and I’m sorry for what they’ve been through, it seems to me that even a couple of comedians on the Vegas strip have more common sense about women’s safety safe than this former Congresswoman and her rocket scientist husband. How ironic is that?

    “What if every woman were issued a gun… Now suppose only half the women decided to carry… Still, who’s going to rob or rape when there’s a 50% chance that Jamie’s got a gun?”

    1. avatar RetLEO says:

      Their service to the nation is precisely what pisses me off the most. Mark Kelly is a retired Navy Captain. That means he took the oath of office to ‘…support and defend the Constitution of the United States…’ at least 6 times. She took a similar oath every time she was sworn into Congress (3 times). What happened to her should be expected to have in impact but their blatant disregard for the principles of the Constitution negates any sympathy I might have had for them. So much for an Oath…

      1. avatar Larry says:

        Nah, you only have to take the oath once, it is for life. I was out of the USAF for 2 years, when I reentered there was no oath, just training to fly a new aircraft. As for a Congresswoman, I dunno.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I don’t think she’s capable of very much any more.

      3. avatar Paul says:

        You make a great point. They did take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and they should certainly know better than to try to strip others of their God-given right to defend themselves. What gets me is that the Giffords and Kelly claim to be “strong supporters of the Second Amendment.” What a joke!

  31. avatar cubby123 says:

    I really can t understand How these people can really be THAT ignornant! You meet force with force…period! There is no other way.If you really think singing kumbya or putting up a sign saying”no guns allowed” and any crook is going to obey that you are just plain stupid! No disrespect but there is no other explanation for it.Oh let s take away guns then they and crime will go away.Really time for bed johnnie adults are talking now.These liberals are so detached from reality it is scary.That lamebrain and his followers on that Chicago of all places radio station “it s the gun , stupid…the only thing stupid is them.Killers surround that place and they are going to challeng the NRA that carrying a gun won t protect anybody.Soo these unarmed believers must not have any life health auto home owners insurance cause they will never need it.Smoke detector, fire extinguisher? ARE YOU KIDDING? WHY? Who needs it? UNDAMNBELIEVABLE!

  32. avatar Shire-man says:

    Oh I think I get it now. It’s not that she was a victim of a criminal act that makes her an “expert.” It’s the massive brain damage. It all makes sense now.

  33. avatar Gregolas says:

    Perspective from a prosecutor of over 1,000 domestic violence cases:
    She tried to get a protection order for her “ex-partner who had already been convicted of stalking another victim.” Ladies, boyfriends with prior felony records are what we in the legal profession call “a Clue”, and you need to get one. As I told my criminal justice classes, ” a female hummingbird has a brain half the size of a pea and they’re STILL smart enough to make the males fight it out so they only mate with the BEST one! Ladies, be at least as smart as a hummingbird!” Someone will probably say I’m “blaming the victim”, but in at least 50%( and closer to 75-80%) of the cases, the victim, bruises, burns, sitches and all, was begging me to drop the charges. Some men are raised to believe they have a right to beat up women. Some women are raised to believe they have a right to get beaten up. Raise your daughters with self respect, independence and a clear sense of boundaries, then arm them and teach them the practical and legal use of firearms.

  34. avatar Delbert Grady says:

    Perfect drooling example of why the 9MM is NOT effective.

  35. avatar Rainhaven says:

    “It’s time for Congress to protect women from gun violence.”

    This is the ideological fallacy right here. Congress can no more protect women from violence than it can make the sky blue.

    Congress is not a deity. It does not have special powers. This is the true problem. These people want the State to be God, Father, Mother, Boss, Lawgiver, Judge, Jury, Executioner, etc. when it fact it can be none of those things…

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      For crying out loud, Congress can’t even pass a budget.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Well, not to be contrary, but it seems to be doing a bang-up job on the “Lawgiver” and “Executioner” parts.

      And the ironic thing is, Mother Nature has already given us all the laws necessary to make living, feeling beings out of star stuff.

  36. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    Here’s an idea… Take the money that would be spent enforcing and processing that law and use it for the state to provide these women with a sidearm and training to use it. Oh, and if there are kids, let’s put them through the NRA kid’s course while we are at it.

    The woman is less likely to be a statistic this way. It is also therapeutic. An hour at the range practicing is a great way to unwind after a stressful day.

  37. avatar Salty Bear says:

    “…the vast majority of their assailants use a gun to carry out the crime.”

    “Current law prevents domestic violence offenders or those under a restraining order from possessing firearms.”

    Talk about cognitive dissonance! Yes, I’m sure that not every assailant is a previously convicted domestic violence offender or under a restraining order, but even the one in her example was!

  38. avatar Col. Angus says:

    Anybody else completely sick and tired of “Mr. Giffords”?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I initially was AMAZED because I thought it was Montgomery County MARYLAND. Now I’m disappointed.

      In MOCO MD she would have engaged him in a spirited discussion about the roles and responsibilities of former cohabiting parties and the stereotypes attached thereto. And then be killed with a softball bat.

  39. avatar Proverbs says:

    Good photo of space cadet coming off his meds.

    Seriously, I love the old Gabby Giffords. She was a good representative who appreciated and practiced the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.

    The New Gabby is just a shadow puppet.

  40. avatar Bob says:

    “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
    – Mark Twain

    Or as my father likes to say, “Figures never lie but liars figure.”

  41. avatar Tom says:

    “The gun lobby would say that women should arm themselves for protection, but studies show that keeping guns out of the hands of their abusers is a more effective way of keeping women safe.”

    And which studies is she referring to? Without a cite, that statement is meaningless.

  42. avatar Dustin Doyle says:

    I was at the Minnesota state capitol twice this week. Domestic violence is the vehicle that Bloomberg’s MAIG and the Joyce Foundation’s Protect Minnesota used to try and drive gun control this year. Luckily, thanks to the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance we were able to strip out the anti gun parts and we are left with a bill that duplicated several federal domestic violence laws at the state level.

  43. avatar Clyde says:

    So Ms. Gifford, you wouldn’t have wanted an armed and trained woman to have been in the crowd who could have prevented your being shot?
    Or perhaps carrying your own pistol that you had a Concealed Carry Permit for?
    Lets not be a hypocrite here. If we had violated the shooter”s civil rights and forced his doctor to report that he had mental problems and was barred from legally purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer worth the government snooping through our medical records? Look at the fuss that is happening over the NSA listening in to a few telephone calls.
    Though I had nothing to offer in the aftermath but my sympathy and prayers, I wonder about your current actions in your calling for gun control instead of the strengthening and enforcement of mental health laws that would prevent the majority of school shootings, as well as what happened to you.
    Remember firearms are inanimate objects that are incapable of action on their own. It takes a human to make the decision to use or misuse them, and if we put as much effort into strengthening the mental health laws and treating those that are in need of help, not only would only would they receive the help that they need, but make the country safer for all of us!

  44. avatar ensitue says:

    Gabby and The Space Man
    I wonder if having sex with a woman who suffers brain damage is considered rape?

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