Previous Post
Next Post

NRA Tweet

NRA attacks Gabby Giffords over gun safety control legislation with ‘pathetic’ tweet MOCKING her shooting in 2011. That’s the rather lengthy, more-than-slightly sanctimonious and entirely misleading headline over at regarding the NRA tweet above, which linked to the Breitbart News story here. Not to mix metaphors (much), the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex saw the tweet, got on its high horse and had a cow . . .

BN showed that [gun control advocates’] claims that background checks are a way of “stopping violence” can’t even survive Giffords’ personal experience. After all, her attacker, Jared Loughner, passed a background check to acquire the gun with which he attacked her in January 2011.

After BN reported this, the NRA tweeted the story and media and gun controllers lost it. Slate, MSNBC, Daily Mail, Huffington Post UK, Tucson Weekly, Mother Jones, Blue Nation Review, Daily Kos, Chicago Sun Times, The Hill, New York Daily News, San Francisco Sentinel, Inquistr, and others were aghast that Breitbart News actually tested Giffords’ claims.

But no one displayed the conviction that Giffords’ views were above criticism quite as well as MSNBC’s Al Sharpton. On March 6 he asked: “How can the NRA tweet anything like this about Giffords after all that she went through?”

In other words, Giffords is their human shield.

Once again, thanks to, we’re confronted by gun control advocates’ stunning hypocrisy.

Anti-gunners like MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell can make inflammatory remarks like this – “We don’t know yet exactly how Tamerlan Tsarnaev got the gun used to assassinate Officer Sean Collier and to wound Officer Richard Donohue. But we do know that getting that gun was made easier — much, much easier — by the life’s work of Wayne LaPierre,” But NRA jefe Wayne LaPierre can’t point out that Giffords’ killer passed a background check; a backdoor registration scheme that threatens all Americans’ gun rights.

Anyway, anything that riles-up the antis this much, that makes Mother Jones want to vomit can’t be a bad thing, can it?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. if only we could get the collective heads at Mother Jones to explode, the world would be a better place.

    • Truthfully, I don’t know that it would make that much of a difference, practically speaking. Who is actually influenced by what Mother Jones prints in the long run?

    • Since their heads are all empty it might be easier to create a vacuum within and have them IMPLODE.

      Just sayin’.

  2. Tweeting anything, *anything* about Ms. Giffords is a losing proposition. She is a poster child for “gun violence prevention”, honestly the NRA comments were fairly tasteless, and even worse, ignorant of how they would be viewed by the world at large. It’s not about what you say, it’s about how they can and will twist what you say.

    • Yeah, why don’t we just give them the win and take our ball and go home? Nothing is off limits for the left (including celebrating abortion or whatever new sexual depravity is in vogue), so why do we have to hamstring ourselves with rules that only we play by?

      • It’s a personal goal of mine to make sure that every citizen/voter knows how they are being manipulated by the anti-gun-rights herd and their moneyed herders, and that includes pointing out when their feel-good proposals would not, and did not, make any difference. Every. Single. Time. Without fail.

        If emphasizing the truth to a blindered electorate is considered insensitive, then call me insensitive. If they choose to stay with the herd knowingly, that’s one thing. If they choose to stay because they’ve never been exposed to the truth, no matter how jarring, then that’s a failure of people like us.

        Only by making the antis defend their proposals with logic and reason can these proposals be exposed as the shams/power-grabs that they are. “How exactly would that change things?” is one of the worst things you can ask an anti-gunner about any of their schemes.

      • Agreed Dickie J,

        I was just thinking this same thought tonight. Why do we always take the high road while they get to fling poo all day long without anyone questioning the practice. I am tired of it. The fact is, the country is becoming more and more divided. The middle ground had pretty much made their choice. You either enjoy your freedoms or you want more government control in your life. That’s really it. So why be civil anymore when they’ve chosen the low road?

      • She should get all the due consideration that Dick Chaney received after his heart troubles. She should be treated with the same kid gloves that were used on Trig Palin. She should be placed on the same pedestal as the Palin daughters were.

        • Is it possible to use their tactics without becoming just like them? I don’t know. I do know that we have to win, and just accepting the handicaps they impose on us isn’t going to get us there.

          Sometimes the truth is cruel. The NRA’s tweet was harsh and insensitive, but it spoke the truth.

        • See what you did gloomhound? Your comment went over everyone’s head, and they missed your excellently crafted, absurd irony. Now they’re arguing over whether we should behave like the anti’s do. Ugh.

    • Fighting fire with bubbles doesn’t work… They don’t hold back, neither should we.

    • I’m totally willing to accept what you are saying, but could you (or anyone) phrase the same point the NRA is making in a way that would not get the same result from the antis?

      • No there was probably no way to prevent them from twisting it, which is part of the point I’m making. I think anyone with any objectivity realizes that poor woman is mostly likely brain damaged to such a degree that she isn’t aware of what she is being used for. Which is not her fault, it makes her handlers loathsome pathetic people. However, some battles are not worth fighting, and certainly not worth fighting when doing so causes you to engage in behavior that you find abhorrent when your opposition does it.

        If you wish to maintain the moral and intellectual high ground, you have to do so all the time.

        • “If you wish to maintain the moral and intellectual high ground, “

          So we’ll end up being morally and intellectually superior but enslaved and with no rights, all because we were too hamstrung by letting the opposition determine the rules of what is okay to say and how it’s okay to say it?

          What good is having some “intellectual high ground” if they achieve any of their goals? Intellectual high ground means precisely squat in a tyranny.

          Unless, of course, we plan to “debate” them into submission. That sounds nice, but in practice, the real world defines the rules.

          • I understand – and feel – your frustration. Not to mention the temptation to give as good as we get. But the moral high ground keeps us in line. so that we never become them. And should push ever come to shove, our moral superiority will fortify us when fortification is the order of the day.

    • How many times have gun prohibitionists used dead children as political props?

      They dish it out but can’t take it. Just like any other bully.

    • honestly the NRA comments were fairly tasteless, and even worse, ignorant of how they would be viewed by the world at large.

      Honest but tasteless. Interesting concept. The NRA has never been marketed as a pinnacle of political correctness. Neither should they be.

      Putting that poor woman on stage and making her say all that crap is the real crime here. They have turned her into a puppet for the civilian disarmament complex. We shouldn’t be tip toeing around her and her husband and their agenda and supporters. We should be furious that they would abuse her in this fashion and have her push for law and legislation that is completely ineffective and a mockery of what has happened to her. We are not mocking her. Her husband and their supporter’s are mocking her! In the face of our people, many impoverished, severely lacking education, some mentally unstable, and those who have embraced a life a crime – the solution? Gun control. What a mockery by anti-freedom, anti-rights statist supporters.

      If they took a fraction of all that money they are dumping into disarming american’s and put it into education, it would go miles further than their ridiculousness they are attempting now.

      The problem of demoralized america? The solution? Gun control.

      • I don’t disagree with you at all. I am saying that the way this was approached was the wrong tact. I saw the comments and winced, I knew nothing positive would come from it. The NRA doesn’t need to preach to the choir, we are already with them. Their message needs to be for public consumption. Want to really get the anti’s goat? They should have said something along these lines “We hope for the continued well-being for Gabby and her family on her road to recovery.” The anti’s would have twisted it like they do everything, and shown themselves to be pathetic lowlifes. Instead we have a message from the NRA which can easily be viewed as insensitive.

    • NRA’s comnent was spot-on. Gabby Giffords is tasteless for attempting to use her attack to infringe on the freedoms of the law-abiding.

      Gabby Giffords pimps her attack as often as she can, in an attempt to disarm the law-abiding. The NRA merely put the lie to her rhetoric.

      • Gabby Giffords was brain damaged in the attack. To what degree it can be thought that she able to consider and promote gun control in a rational, cognitive manner is open to debate. It is much more likely that she is fed her talking points and trotted out at public functions purely for sensationalism and emotional impact.

        It could be that the only thing the anti 2A crowd has more powerful than waving bloody shirts and climbing on the bodies of murdered children is to display a living but brain damaged victim.

        I hardly think that any political opinion allegedly voiced by a person with brain damage of any sort can be considered the final and most important argument on the point in question.

        At least he handlers seem to be feeding her well and seeing to her personal needs.

      • I’m with you Chip…and gun control is a cash cow for the gabby and major tom. Zero sympathy here…

    • The Brady Campaign used poor brain-damaged Jim Brady to “good” effect for many years until his death. Now gun-control zealots have Gabby Giffords to replace him. Why would they possibly give up on a tactic that they believe served them well in the press for 30 years?

    • I agree. The NRA tweet was tasteless. They could have worded it differently and still make their point.

    • Not in the slightest.
      Any & all BS coming from the pro disarmament lobby must be refuted, both loudly & publicly.
      Stating facts that roundly rebut inaccurate assertions from a leading light of the gun banners isn’t tasteless; it’s saving lives & protecting the innocent.

  3. Well, the logic implied in the actual tweet is pretty impeccable, no? And it’s expressed in a manner that even the not-particulary-gifted can “get” (Altho I personally think it might have been done just a tad more sensitively–as if that would help). If the statement gets wider publication, I guess it could be a good thing.

  4. I’m rather amazed that when Giffords “talks” you can barely see the space man’s mouth move.

  5. Anything that gets them to spew the true venom that lay bubbling just below the thin veneer of their so-called “civility” is absolutely worth saying — and sharing.

    A thousand times.

    It would be mildly entertaining if it were not so sad and predictable. Especially for the fact that every time these so-called “gun nuts” (which are probably actually anti-rights advocates merely posing as us) that get their knickers in such a twist would wish that Giffords dies, myself not being one of them, we could readily point to dozens if not hundreds more of wishes for harm and death to come to NRA members and their families.

    All one needs to do is simply skim over their social media channels, if you haven’t already been banned for making the most polite and respectful (and factual) rebuttal of course, and see for yourself that they’re really every bit the blood-thirsty monsters they paint us as. And probably much, much more than that.

    Yes, the hypocrisy is quite stunning.

  6. We need gun control because

    I’m continually amazed that anyone who is even peripherally involved in a crime that involves a firearm suddenly (assuming they are for gun control) becomes an expert on the subject.

    I had a root canal done once – does that qualify me to be a dentist, or to set national dental policy?

  7. This is not mocking Gabby in any way. It is pointing out a fact that no kind of check can predict the future.

    People just WANT to be offended, it is like a subtle way of ad hominem attacking your opponent. Feigning offense to imply their uncivility, evilness, etc.

    • Feigning offense us just a tactic to avoid debating the merits of an issue because they can’t debate on the merits. This is a perfect illustration:

      Anti: We need universal background checks to reduce violence like what happened to Gabby.

      Pro: Gabby assailant passed the background check as did a plethora of recent attackers such as Karl Halverson Pierson, James Holmes, Eliot Rodger, and both Fort Hood shooters. Also, Nancy Lanza passed background checks for tge weapons Adam stole and used.

      Anti: You’re a NRA gun industry shill. You hate women and want them to be killed by their abusers. You’re what’s wrong with this country and we shouldn’t tolerate you.

      Pro: How would background checks stop the gang violence that plagues inner cities since gangs can also make money selling illegal guns as well as drugs.

      Anti: You’re just a selfish person hoping to kill some black kid aren’t you? I’m not debating this will you since you are closed minded.

      • That’s about as accurate a reproduction of a “debate” with a grabber as I have ever seen. I would only add,
        Anti: We need to ban assault rifles. There have been 1000 school shootings since Sandy Hook. 1000!!
        Sane person: No there haven’t, that number is wildly inflated and you know it. there has not been a single school shooting of that type since then.
        Anti: You don’t care if children are shot.

  8. Just to be absolutely clear, the NRA allegedly posted a tweet of something that would be incredibly poignant if Gabby Giffords had said it — but Gabby Giffords never really said it?

    • I’m just guessing, but I think that is in the nature of a distillation or conclusion as to what Giffords has actually said. As in, Giffords has said we need to expand the current system of background checks to include everyone. The system of background checks she has said we need to expand is the type of background check Loughner passed. So _in effect_ she is saying, everyone needs to have to pass the same check the guy who shot me passed.

  9. We all have to keep the eye on the ball: What tends to serve our purpose vs. undermine our purpose. Fair doesn’t matter in love, war or politics.
    This point is easily made without allusion to any particular victim. Just cite the incident:
    – Date, place, name (initials) “Passed the background check”.
    – Date, place, name (initials): “Sole gun, would have passed the background check”
    (e.g., AL would have passed a BC had he bought a long gun).

    We PotG know that nothing will keep a gun out of the hands of a criminal or a determined crazy. Nevertheless, that’s a hard proposition to swallow IF your mind-set is “I want to believe something would work”. The uncommitted voter wants to believe that BCs work and UBCs would work even better. Not perfect, of course; just work often – or sometimes. We would like the uncommitted to recognize that they will never work at all; zero. Or, that they might work once or twice per year but not enough to make a dent in the problem.

    So, what will work better? Tell them:
    – “It has never worked; it will never work; nothing, ZERO!”
    – “It didn’t work here, it didn’t work there, it didn’t work in another case”
    Planting the seed of doubt is probably more effective in undermining the appeal of UBC than trying to use ridicule of a sympathetic opponent.

  10. So the truth that the attacker passed a background check is now a personal attack? Has the truth become so offensive?

  11. Why are the espouses of a brain-damaged person finding a place in the media amongst such things as; Ukraine civil war/WW3, Clinton private email scandals, UK pedophilia corruption, unjust M855 ammo ban, shady 11th-hour Executive Orders, Christie pension corruption, the Federal Reserve’s secret “Triangle Document,” MRAP build-up within the country, etc, etc, ad nauseum?

    “We don’t know yet exactly how Tamerlan Tsarnaev got the gun…. But we do know that getting that gun was made easier — much, much easier — by the life’s work of Wayne LaPierre.”
    How do they KNOW getting the gun was made easier, much less “much, much easier” without knowing how he got the gun? A baseless STATEMENT, evidenced by no supporting facts and much hooey. The bad hooey, not the good hooey.

  12. Noting that Giffords’ shooter passed a background check is not offensive. Noting that Giffords is a half wit, now that’s offensive.

    • Gabby is mentally disabled. They coach her and have her recite their ineffective nonsense like some puppet to push their agenda and somehow we are “insensitive?” Have they no shame? How can they use that poor woman as a puppet. No shame. No shame at all.

    • She was already a halfwit. That’s to say she was a halfwit BEFORE the attack. Now she “acts” like a halfwit on behalf of the gun ban lobby.

  13. “How can the NRA tweet anything like this about Giffords after all that she went through?” Rev Al, pretty much says it all, here.

    In the minds of gun-controllers, Gifford’s has been made into a sacred person. When “normal” people, i.e., those of us who aren’t sacred like she is, criticize her viewpoints we are seen as questioning not only her views but also her essential purity. We are profaning, not just a person but a sacred icon. Oh, the horror of it all!

  14. Nobody is immune from criticism once they wade into the discourse, no matter how many headshots they took. Immunity from snark is even less.

  15. I would feel a great deal more sympathy for Ms. Giffords had she not refused armed security for the event at which she got shot.

  16. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.

    How’s that medicine taste, progbots? Oh, you don’t like it? Too bad. You brewed it, you drink it.

  17. I “passed” the exact NICS “check” that Gabby’s fellow Democrat, Jared Loughner, “passed” before he shot her in the head just 3 hours ago. All her “handlers” are pushing is the EXACT SAME THING. No changes at all. Read it. No. Changes. At. All.

    Read it.

  18. I love it when the left declares war, then recoils in horror when their opposition fights back. Pathetic.

    That said, we should all know by now that truth and facts are poison to the left, and anyone so much as questioning the lies of a poor, poor victim is just unthinkable.

    If we really wanted to dish it out, we could make the observation that massive brain damage caused Gabby to be a leftist gun hater. Proof that it really is a mental disability.

  19. So, where is the part of NRA “tweet” that is so “awful”? Oh, that they point out facts is the “awful” part. Got it.

  20. Officer Richard Donahue was shot by his fellow cops, so Larry might want to brush up on his facts.

  21. I think she’s a poster child for mandatory marksmanship training. If her attacker had been a little better shot we could be spared her silly opportunistic rhetoric. Without her( along with most in politics esp liberals) the world would be a better place.

Comments are closed.