Gun Control Ad Starring Gabrielle Giffords to Air Before State of the Union

Breitbart ^ | Jan. 27, 2014 | AWR Hawkins

[PROCON]

In a commercial set to run just before and after President Obama's January 28 State of the Union (SOTU) address, Gabrielle Giffords looks into the camera and says, "Congress is afraid of the gun lobby." According to the Associated Press , Giffords will push background checks as a way to "make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns." She will say, "9 out of 10 Americans support background checks."

On December 4, Breitbart News reported a CNN poll that showed "50 percent of Americans oppose more gun control," and only "49 percent" support it.

[TheGipperWasRight]

State of the Union has turned into an infomercial, anyway. They should put Don Lapre and his “tiny little classified ads” in the Vice President’s seat behind Obama, and the guy that uses flex seal on the screen door on the bottom of that boat in the Speaker’s seat.

[vmivol00]

Seems like a total waste of money. The only people who will tune in to watch the Liar in Chief are folks who don’t need convincing anyway. ha ha

[camle]

if you can show me a system of background checks that is free, available to anyone, and cannot lead to registration, then lets’ talk. otherwise no.

[RightGeek]

Now the SOTU is like the Superbowl with big ad buys? Must be cheap - no audience.

[ontap]

"Congress is afraid of the gun lobby."

If they value their seat they damn well better be afraid of the gun lobby (American people)!!!!

[ontap]

The only truthful statement to come out of the SOTU speech since idiot child got elected was when Joe Wilson shouted out “You Lie”!!!

[MaxMax]

Hey Gabby, Crawl into a Hole! Your fifteen minutes of using victim as a political
tool is over, and you've become the new Useful Idiot Tool of the Democrat party.

Real Americans no longer feel sorry for your pain when you come to us saying
that we cannot as a legal citizens own a firearm. 2nd Amendment.

And it was All Dem supporters who were doing the killing. How about we
strip Democrats from having guns because they all have your brain damage.

[tanknetter]

I was going to watch, use to to play the Obama Drinking Game ( when he blames someone else: drink! When he uses I/me: drink!)

But then my liver threatened to hack it’s way out of my body and go running down the street in terror ...

[ThunderSleeps]

She will say, "9 out of 10 Americans support background checks."

Yeah, but the real question is, how was the question asked? Actually there are (at least) 3 problems with this.

One, as with any poll you can get the numbers you want by carefully crafting the question.

Two, most people who only get their information from the MSM believe there is this thing called a "gun show loophole." Even worse, they have no first hand experience with firearms or the firearms purchasing process. If they did, they would know we already have background checks! Duh!

Three, what they mean by "background checks" but almost certainly didn't ask specifically about (see #1 above) is "universal background checks." Which sounds hunky-dory but is worse than worthless. That notion would require a background check on all private firearms sales - not just sales from licensed dealers.

If you (lib lurkers) believe that would stop illegal firearms purchases you are stupid and naive. Yes that is mean, but true. If someone could pass a background check they would, and they'd buy a firearm from a licensed dealer rather than take the risk and pay the premium for getting one on the black market. But they can't, so they won't purchase from someone (commercial or private) that is going to require a background check.

If you think universal background checks will stop illegal arms sales you are a fool. Do you believe that passing a law requiring all private drug sales take place at a pharmacy with a Doctor's prescription would stop illegal drug sales? The notion of "universal background checks" is every bit as laughably stupid.

[CPT Clay]

What BS

[SampleMan]

I don’t think you read my post, you meant to respond to someone else, or you didn’t catch that the italics is from the article, and what I was commenting on.

I’m curious as hell to know what I posted that was “lib lurker” worthy.

[Red in Blue PA]

Wow! So not only will the SOTU be one big lie but the commercials will be too.

[ThunderSleeps]

Oh no, I’m sorry, I wasn’t implying you were a lib lurker! I was adding on, piling on, on the italicized comment. I agree with you. Sorry for the confusion. I should be clearer on that, my fault.