Skip to comments.Gabby Giffords falsely implies that her shooter evaded a background check
Posted on 04/07/2013 10:54:56 AM PDT by Rusty0604
Former congresswoman Gabby Giffords op-ed piece is getting a lot of praise on Twitter. This is the part of the piece that caught our attention: What they will do is create one fair system for all gun buyers, instead of the giant loophole we have now. Right now, we have one system where responsible gun owners take a background check And then we have a second system for those who dont want to take a background check. Those people criminals, or people suffering from mental illness, like the young man who shot me can buy as many guns as they want on the Internet or at a gun show, no questions asked. Giffords seems to be implying that her shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, didnt undergo a background check. This is not true. Loughner obtained the gun legally, and he passed a background check.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitchy.com ...
LOL! Speaking of the devil!
McStain doesn’t understand the Constitution he has sworn many times to protect and defend. Pick an issue, any issue, and he’ll cave, right at the worst possible moment to inflict maximum damage to conservatives. Such is the nature of RINOs.
Certainly someone else wrote it. I doubt she could heat herself a bowl of soup.
you can’t buy a gun “on the internet” without going through an ffl. sorry. fail.
Do Democrats ever have a mind of their own?
If they do they never use it. They just vote like the party tells them to.
Oh, back to the point of the thread....
In a way, Giffords’ puppet-master is technically correct that Loughner “evaded” a background check. He escaped being listed in NICS when he should have been because of the local crooked Democrat Sheriff. That Sheriff, with help from Obastard, then drew attention away from his own perfidy by blaming Sarah Palin for the shooting. But Mr. Giffords doesn’t want it being broadcast around that the kook who shot his wife was allowed to buy a gun by a Democrat Sheriff who could have stopped him.
Gun Grabby Giffords was shot, and Federal Judge Rolls murdered along with a darling little girl on her birthday, because a local Democrat hack politician conspired with another Pima County official to hide her son’s criminally mental state from NICS. Bottom line.
yes they knew for years this guy was unstable and dangerous. now this explains how he passed the background checks. liberals bypasing the system.
They set up foundations that they run and use their spouses as fund raisers.
She did. She voted with the Pubbies on occasion. She had a grade better than "F" with the NRA. (She had a "C" in 2010) Now her liberal husband is calling the shots.
Don’t look to the left for truth or accuracy. They will lie, cheat, steal, anything. Nothing is beneath them in the furtherance of their political agenda. Nothing.
If a community college can issue a report that someone is a threat, then that person should lose a God given right because someone says he's crazy?
You have a God-given right to self-defense, but not to murder. Dangerous instruments need to be kept away from people proved insane enough to murder by their own actions. It's like keeping the Bic lighter out of reach of a three-year-old. I wouldn't have trusted this guy with a metal fork. A firearm is a very lethal version of a fork.
Consider this, in the late sixties it was promoted and excepted by many that felons should not be able to by a gun, I mean after all that sounds so reasonable , right?
The fact of the matter is you are stripping the right away from a class of person simply because it is societally acceptable, Constitution be damned....with the support of many here.
The case of a felon, that's not the only right that's stripped...in most states he can't vote either. The idea here is a felon proved, by either beyond the reasonable doubt of 12 jurors or his own confession, his ability to commit a serious crime. I wouldn't call that a fashion statement but reasonable prudence for fear of recidivism. But, it's not for life, depending on the felony. In many cases, after a period of time (like 10 years), the felon can petition a Judge to have the Felony expunged and his civil rights restored. He'd probably also have to sue NICS.
Now it has progressed to persons under restraining orders, Misdemeanor "domestic violence" (yell at your spouse in some states and it's considered domestic violence) and on and on.....
I really hate that. Judges and Commissioners hand those ROs out like candy to any woman who asks, regardless of the circumstances. Men, of course, don't need restraining orders, so it's one-way. And those go against you at NICS, too. Even if you appeal them and win.
Now, with Obama care being instituted, digital medical records, massive data storage facilities being built, technology that allows the government to accumulate data on your every web post and activity couple with every word you uttered to your doctor, well you get my point.
Yes, I certainly do.
When we get to the point of "someone" deciding who is mentally "fit" to own a firearm, well I think that is a very dangerous road to go down....an I think it is a trap just like the argument in the 60's..."who could support a felon buying a firearm"?
I would want some sort of due process in the machine. You are correct to be suspicious of any situation when a single person can decide the ability of another single person to exercise a God-given right. Even Judges can be appealed, but with the NICS, how can you appeal something you aren't even allowed to see? There is a legal process in place to determine if a person can be involuntarily committed, it should be just as difficult to put someone on the NICS hit-list for mental reasons.
The person should at least know what they're doing, and the system right now is secret. A situation ripe for the raping. And your concerns are well-placed, sorry if I implied they were not.
“If you can by law strip individuals of their God given rights at the whim of a frenzied public, what good is the Constitution? “
I’m gonna steal that, if you don’t mind.
You have a God-given right to self-defense, but not to murder
I agree 100% But self defense, even if you have to KILL to do it, in and of it self is not murder, yes?
Dangerous instruments need to be kept away from people proved insane enough to murder by their own actions.
I don't disagree with you at all but my problem is how do you set the criteria of who is "insane"
I agree that to you and me could decide because you and me would use "common sense" The problem is what you and I consider "common sense" is subjective. Both of us know that "common sense" is not so common these days. Yeah, I know, It can go round and round, but that is kind of the point. What used to be common sense before is now promoted as extreme.
The case of a felon, that's not the only right that's stripped...in most states he can't vote either.
Actually that is not true. In most States a felon cannot vote if he/she is under the constrains of parole or other obligations of said conviction. Denial of 2nd Amendment right is for all intents and purpose for life time....same with misdemeanor convictions of "domestic violence". Does that lifetime punishment not violate the 5th and 6th Amendments?
In many cases, after a period of time (like 10 years), the felon can petition a Judge to have the Felony expunged and his civil rights restored.
Never happen in a million years unless you have tons of money and the proper connection. What politician would ever take the chance of restoring a felons rights lest it go bad...without the proper payout/payment/connection that is.
I really hate that. Judges and Commissioners hand those ROs out like candy to any woman who asks, regardless of the circumstances.
I do too, but it really cuts to the heart of the matter. We can see how easy it is to abuse these law that are put in effect for "common sense" Grrrrr, it is either a right or it is not.
My answer is to amend the Constitution within the provisions that are put in place to do so.
In my view if it is not done that way then the Constitution is meaningless.
I'd be honored, thank you ;)
I can’t disagree with you.
That being said, I hate that this happened to her and I hope Jerrod loughner never again sees the light of day but I also hate to see her used as a political puppet like Jim Brady was.
Sarah Brady spend 25 years going after “assault rifles” and high capacity magazines after her husband was shot with a small revolver. She would wheel her disabled husband out in front of a crowd like a piece of meat for all to see and then use him to push for guns laws that for ten years restricted guns that had NOTHING to do with her husbands shooting.
Gabby Giffords is being used in the same way and I doubt very seriously the poor lady even knows whats going on around her.
Mark Kelly has already proven himself to be a hypocrite and a liar when he purchased a 1911 model .45 and AR-15 and then when he got caught, he lied and said he was just showing the country how easy it was to buy a gun and he intended on turning them over to the police. Anyone dumb enough to buy that line? Even Gabby could see through that load of bull.
The left has never been honest or straight forward in the gun control debate and I don't see them developing the scruples to be honest about ANY issue anytime soon.
Gabby has significant brain damage, and is therefore ripe for getting fed lies to repeat and otherwise manipulated. The rats, of course, have no shame, and since they couldn't use her funeral for one of their typical campaign rallies they'll just use her while she's alive. (shrug) It's a shame Gabby has no family members who will stand up to the rats and tell them to go play in the street.
Great conversation, thank you for having it with me.
It is a reaffirmation of how FR should be, minus the infection of trolls.
Hehe, found it:
Hat tip Freeper dead