Giffords makes emotional appeal as Congress talks guns

World Jan. 31, 2013 - 07:10AM JST ( 24 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

24 Comments

5

NolivingJan. 31, 2013 - 09:46AM JST

LaPierre also conceded that in a reversal, the NRA no longer supports universal background checks for gun owners. He said the current system is a failure because the administration doesn’t prosecute potential violators aggressively.

Idiots! LaPierre you are even on tape in 1998 or 1999, can't remember which year, telling congress that all gun sales with no exceptions should require background checks.

One of the scandals of the background check system is that people who purposely lie on their background check forms are not prosecuted. There have only been 44 prosecutions in the last 50,000 cases where people were purposely caught lying on the background check form. Private sales need to require background checks, the system that should be in place for that is that by law private sales have to take place at a FFL gun store where the store will be required to run a background check for the private seller on the customer. There also needs to be a requirement that you have had a mental evaluation that shows you are not a danger to yourself or anyone else within a year of your purchase of a gun and the background check needs to be extended to ammo purchases. The background check also needs to show the names of the people that live at the same residence that is given and those people also have to have a background check done on them and if it is shown that anyone that lives at the same residence as the gun buyer is denied access to a firearm due to criminal conviction or due to being mentally compromised then the buyer will be denied the purchase until they relocate out of that residence. Finally there needs to be an adoption of what Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and UK do and that is the police or ATF go to/call the gun buyers neighbors, spouses/significant others, relatives and possible landlord and ask if they have ever felt threatened by the potential gun buyer and what type of temper the gun buyer has.

The background check system, especially at the federal level is not thorough enough. This really isn't an issue on Military style semi-automatic rifles or shotguns or hand guns or magazines that carry more than 7-10 rounds because the truth of the matter is that once these people, people who are denied due to a criminal conviction or being mentally compromised, get a gun, any gun such as a single action revolver or a bolt action or lever action or break action or a pump action it is game over.
-5

JasserJan. 31, 2013 - 10:01AM JST

Obama wants to ban military-style assault weapons (Note the "assault weapons" label). At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security recently purchased 7,000 fully-automatic AR-15s calling them "personal defense weapons". I'm surprised they even used the word "weapon." Why not "device" or "tool" and really push the euphemistic hypocrisy home.

So, who could the DHS possibly need defending from? Americans who refuse to turn in their guns? And DHS "officers" are not sworn officers like the police or the military. They violate the Constitution all they want.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-28/department-homeland-security-purchase-7000-assault-weapons
-1

timtakJan. 31, 2013 - 10:30AM JST

Unfortunately the gunner seems to have blown the bits of the senators brain that dealt with emotion away http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa02nPy0N2E which makes it all the sadder to watch.
1

VirtuosoJan. 31, 2013 - 11:27AM JST

She might not deal with emotion well, but at least she's still alive@timtak. Six other people at that shooting didn't make it.
1

SuperLibJan. 31, 2013 - 12:01PM JST

LaPierre also conceded that in a reversal, the NRA no longer supports universal background checks for gun owners. He said the current system is a failure because the administration doesn’t prosecute potential violators aggressively.

So he supports the concept of universal background checks? And he doesn't want them because existing laws don't do enough.....but no laws will work better? How about supporting the concept and working together to make the execution better.

By law, anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer must have a background check, with convicted criminals and people with mental problems barred from purchases. Gun buyers at gun shows and online don’t need the check.

Translation: We have a voluntary background check system.
-3

Xeno23Jan. 31, 2013 - 02:05PM JST

Political melodrama; I'm not sure any of this is actually serving the public welfare. All this grandstanding and dog & pony showing is going to distract us from more serious, profound examinations of tough social issues. Throw an emotive Senate hearing out there for everyone to bicker over: bread and circuses.

I have no love for the NRA, but let's examine what it represents: the NRA is most active as a lobbying organization - that means it represents the interests of a particular group to the power politics of Washington DC. What is the NRA's power base? Its membership. Who are its members? Potential voters. The primary (but not all) threats and "punishments" the NRA make to political targets is an erosion of constituent support; the threat is that voters will mobilize against the target given actions counter to their interests.

Yeah, um, isn't that kind of how it's supposed to work? Voter mobilization? We may not like the NRA, or what it stands for, but there are also lobbying organization with corporate and economic power bases that have little or no relationship to the voting public. For example, Insurance and big medicine. Would voters mobilize for a pro-insurance agenda? For more expensive medical care? These kinds of lobbies threaten political targets with financial woes. In a democracy, which is better? Voter action, or monied action?

Granted, the NRA has been known to serve up some unsavory dishes to noted enemies, but who doesn't do this? That's politics. I know many NRA members who aren't happy about some of the organization's political tactics, but they remain in the organization because they want representation. They want their voting potential directed in their favor.

We may consider LaPierre a tool, but he has to answer to his constituency too. What political targets of the NRA fear is ruination of their political career - mightn't one argue that those who fear that, deserve to fear that?
-3

Surf O'HolicJan. 31, 2013 - 04:40PM JST

From this article: " By law, anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer must have a background check, with convicted criminals and people with mental problems barred from purchases. Gun buyers at gun shows and online don’t need the check."

The last sentence is essentially false due to its staggering incompleteness.

" The “gun-show loophole” is an exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show.

Gun shows aren’t the equivalent of the Wild West. The vast majority of vendors at the shows are fully licensed dealers who must run the FBI check at the time of sale." " The 40 percent figure that Mr. Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, cite so frequently comes from

Department survey. A closer look at that 40 percent number reveals it includes 29 percent of gun owners who said they got their guns from family members or friends and acquaintances.

That leaves 11 percent of firearms obtained through unfamiliar people. Of these, 3 percent reported they got their firearms “through the mail,” a process that requires a background check from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Four percent said “other,” and 4 percent made their purchase at a gun show."

As long as the facts are misrepresented, by either side, honest and rational discussion remains unlikely.
-3

Surf O'HolicJan. 31, 2013 - 04:43PM JST

The other information about gun show sales is from the following link.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/
0

lostrune2Jan. 31, 2013 - 06:08PM JST

LaPierre, 1999:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNUDJuC4Bc4#t=50s

LAPIERRE: "We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone."
-1

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorJan. 31, 2013 - 10:02PM JST

Why do liberals constantly use victims of crime/violence/disaster to advance their political agenda? It's a despicable tactic that only takes away the chance of serious debate. On a personal level, I have nothing but sympathy for Congresswoman Giffords and wish her a full recovery. But at the same time I get tired of these exploitative and emotional appeals that aren't designed to do anything other than shame their opposition into silence.
-1

yabitsFeb. 01, 2013 - 02:50AM JST

Why do liberals constantly use victims of crime/violence/disaster to advance their political agenda?

Let's consider for a second, some of the people that the pro-gun conservatives bring to the table. Speaking at the hearing yesterday was a very strange woman by the name of Gayle Trotter, representing a shadow group called the "Independent Women's Forum." During her testimony, she said the following:

""Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice," Trotter explained. "The guns are accurate. They have good handling. They're light. They're easy for women to hold."

She added: "And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon, and the peace of mind that a woman has as she's facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she's fighting hardened, violent criminals."

So we have actual victims like former Representative Giffords, who, without supporting a ban on guns, are asking for reasonable measures such as universal background checks and limits to clip/magazine sizes, and then people like Trotter who have to take to flights of complete fantasy to try and make their points.

Interestingly, Trotter opposes the Violence Against Women Act. There is something wrong with her mind.
0

yabitsFeb. 01, 2013 - 03:29AM JST

One other interesting tidbit was revealed by the police chief of Baltimore County, James Johnson, who informed the committee that Adam Lanza did not "steal" his mother's guns. They were available to him within the house. Obviously, he is speaking with some knowledge of the police reports from the scene at the home.
0

NolivingFeb. 01, 2013 - 06:16AM JST

One other interesting tidbit was revealed by the police chief of Baltimore County, James Johnson, who informed the committee that Adam Lanza did not "steal" his mother's guns. They were available to him within the house. Obviously, he is speaking with some knowledge of the police reports from the scene at the home.

From what I read it was that the guns were in his mother's closet and not locked up.
0

NolivingFeb. 01, 2013 - 06:24AM JST

Interestingly, Trotter opposes the Violence Against Women Act. There is something wrong with her mind.

So because something is titled that means it is obviously good and there can't be possibly anything wrong with it? Kind of like who in their right mind would be against the Patriot Act.

She claims she is worried about false accusers abusing the ACT to get benefits. Whether that is realistic fear of abuse of the system I don't know and I don't care really. I have read the Act and support it.
0

yabitsFeb. 01, 2013 - 07:13AM JST

From what I read it was that the guns were in his mother's closet and not locked up.

She never should have been allowed to keep those weapons. The lives of over 25 families were irrevocably affected due to her obvious carelessness.

She claims she is worried about false accusers abusing the ACT to get benefits. Whether that is realistic fear of abuse of the system I don't know

She's given a lot over to irrational fantasy. In my view, she needs some mental health services.
0

Surf O'HolicFeb. 01, 2013 - 10:11AM JST

" She never should have been allowed to keep those weapons."

That's your opinion, which you are entitled. I would, however, agree that the weapons should have been locked up securely in a gun safe as the NRA also strongly recommends to all gun owners.

I've yet to see a full report of the circumstances within the Lanza home by the police. If you have a link to one, please provide it.
0

Surf O'HolicFeb. 01, 2013 - 10:26AM JST

Noliving,

You should know by now that disagreeing with those of the leftist pursuasion is surely a sign of mental derangement.

I hadn't heard of Gayle Trotter before, so I looked her up.

" Gayle Shafer Trotter is a writer and blogger whose work regularly appears in the online editions of the Washington Post, the Daily Caller and First Things. She has interviewed authors and public figures, including Rick Santorum, George Weigel and Nightline’s John Donvan. Gayle is a co-founder of Shafer & Trotter PLC, a law firm in metropolitan Washington, D.C. that advises entrepreneurs and high net worth individuals. She received an undergraduate degree in Government from the University of Virginia, where she also obtained a law degree and served on the Editorial Board of the Virginia Journal of International Law. Gayle has helped lead fundraising activities for charitable organizations and currently serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of St. John’s Episcopal Preschool in Washington, D.C."

Yes, definitely sounds like a mentally unstable person. ;p
0

Surf O'HolicFeb. 01, 2013 - 10:49AM JST

I hadn't read Gayle Trotter's piece on gun control before, but I found it very interesting.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/this-november-cling-to-your-gun-rights/?print=1

One may or may not agree with her own opinion, but the lady is rational and logical.
0

yabitsFeb. 01, 2013 - 12:05PM JST

I would, however, agree that the weapons should have been locked up securely in a gun safe as the NRA also strongly recommends to all gun owners.

What does the NRA recommend be done when owners don't follow their "strong recommendations" and store their weapons negligently? For neighbors to purchase funeral benefit insurance?

I've yet to see a full report of the circumstances within the Lanza home by the police. If you have a link to one, please provide it.

The police chief of Baltimore County, Jim Johnson, was responding to a question about Lanza that went: "Additionally, it’s my understanding that Mrs. Lanza actually gave this gun to her son. Is that correct?"

Johnson: "These guns used in Newtown were not stolen, Professor. They were in the home, accessible to the shooter."
0

yabitsFeb. 01, 2013 - 12:14PM JST

One may or may not agree with her own opinion, but the lady is rational and logical

Be opposed to the Violence Against Women Act because of an irrational fantasy of men being victimized by women -- while at the very same time praising military-style weapons for women -- is hardly the sign of a mentally healthy person.

I call 'em as I see 'em and Trotter appeared to be manic during the testimony. Embarrassingly so.
0

Surf O'HolicFeb. 01, 2013 - 12:37PM JST

" Johnson: "These guns used in Newtown were not stolen, Professor. They were in the home, accessible to the shooter.""

And they should have been(may in fact have been) stored in a proper gun safe, but as of yet those facts have not been released. If they have, I would like to read them.
0

Surf O'HolicFeb. 01, 2013 - 01:59PM JST

"Be opposed to the Violence Against Women Act because of an irrational fantasy of men being victimized by women -"

Here's another attempt at character assassination for having an opinion different from some others. As a lawyer, she can make an educated decision whether to support or oppose proposed legislation based on the content and not merely the oft-deceptive moniker.
0

yabitsFeb. 01, 2013 - 08:51PM JST

And they should have been(may in fact have been) stored in a proper gun safe, but as of yet those facts have not been released. If they have, I would like to read them.

And the question remains what the NRA recommends doing in the situation of gun owners who fail to follow their "strong recommendations." Will you keep passing on that one?
-1

yabitsFeb. 01, 2013 - 09:01PM JST

Here's another attempt at character assassination for having an opinion different from some others. As a lawyer, she can make an educated decision whether to support or oppose proposed legislation based on the content and not merely the oft-deceptive moniker.

The other morning, on Joe Scarborough's Morning Joe program, he played a section of Trotter's "testimony" to the Senate committee. After the clip, Scarborough and his cohost, Mika Brzezinski, just looked at each other in silence for a good 5 seconds. All that was missing was the sound of a cuckoo bird.

An educated decision? The VAW Act was initially passed in 1994. It's been around for enough years now to have its effects fully documented. An educated decision would rely upon valid statistics so as to back up Trotter's specious claims of male victimization. Guess what: They just aren't there.

Meanwhile, Trotter doesn't seem concerned about any potential "male victimization" from handing out semi-military weapons capability to women. When it comes to using the legal system -- via the VAW Act -- Trotter is opposed. She'd much rather have the woman settle things non-judicially via the firearm. Even though, may readers be reminded, that statistics show a woman is many times more likely to be killed or injured with her own firearm than have it used to protect against an intruder.

She seriously needs a thorough mental health check. Her wild flights of fancy are getting the best of her.