Two Views: Gabby Giffords and NRA

by Categorized: Gun control Date:

Former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords writes in the New York Times today:

\"gabbyI know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending.

And here\’s the NRA\’s Chris Cox:

\"chrisToday, the misguided Manchin-Toomey-Schumer proposal failed in the U.S. Senate. This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution.  As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. 
The NRA will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats who are committed to protecting our children in schools, prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law, and fixing our broken mental health system. We are grateful for the hard work and leadership of those Senators who chose to pursue meaningful solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

51 thoughts on “Two Views: Gabby Giffords and NRA

  1. Paul

    The gun control people lost this one.The system worked.
    Didnt Obama make some statement around election time that went something like “We Won”?
    Well Obama “You Lost” this one so quit demonizing the process you swore an oath to up hold.

    1. 90% of the Population

      Paul: May I enshrine your words for a future reprint for repudiation? And the sooner the greater your surprise.

      And when the side for gun restriction has the votes, we will not stop at background checks. We will have enough votes to push for assault weapons ban and that includes semi automatic hand guns.

      The popcorn is ready.

      1. The Conn-servative

        “And when the side for gun restriction has the votes, we will not stop at background checks. We will have enough votes to push for assault weapons ban and that includes semi automatic hand guns.”
        I’m glad you actually told us what your real goal is.Perhaps this is why we actually decided to go to the mat on this. Your stated reason isn’t the real reason. It’s to bad you don’t have any real pull with what you do like the President, and the anti gun movement, but we know it’s your ultimate goal.

    2. Jeb Pachagallop

      Kim, aka America is dying and aka every other right wing nut poster on these blogs; seeing all these police out in the streets of Boston and towns must make you really frightened with all those po-lice guns. I guess it just wants to make you go out and git more AR-15s to counter balance the po-lice arms.

      1. CT Citizen

        Thousands of police with armored vehicles,”assault rifles”,Boston shut down by one kid …The people need to be more worried they dont get shot by a cop playing GI joe than the bomber on the loose. The cost of resources and Dunkin Donuts will be mind boggling.

  2. Connecticut is Circling the Drain

    The Campaigner in Chief didn’t get his way on this one so he demonizes the opposition including people in his own party. He is the epitome of a sore loser.

  3. sam

    In response to Gabby remarks. Maybe this was “not” a decision made out of political fear, just maybe this was just the right decision at this time. Laws should not be created because for emotional reasons or to apease long standing political agendas. These anti gun politicians have used these grieving families of these innocent children that were slaughtered in Newtown by a “mad man” to try to pass an agenda against “law abiding gun owners” they have been trying to pass for years without success. Maybe this was just Karma.

  4. Forest Chump

    Why would anyone expect Gabby Giffords to be rational – she was shot in the head!

    It’s good to see that there is still some patriotism and respect for the constitution left in the halls of power in Washington. I don’t care what organization helps to fund the defeat of the power grabbers – as long as someone does. Thank you to the NRA and other gun owners organizations, as well as the courageous politicians who see this gun grabbing effort for what it really is. It’s quite clear that if this bill passed, the next step would be the creation of a national registry in order to abide by the new rules.

  5. The people have spoken

    Stop your whining and complaining, losers. Those of us who work in the background have proven effective in our struggle to keep freedom alive in the U.S. in spite of the shameful behavior by politicians in CT and Washington.

    We won and you didn’t. Live with it and learn to adjust

    1. New CT gun laws

      OK. I will stop complaining. Now YOU must also stop complaining about CT gun legislation. Live with it and learn to adjust.

      1. The people have spoken

        The CT law will be overturned through our efforts. The time for complaints has passed

          1. Kim

            You’re usual excuse billyboy. Your compulsive lying is legendary – that’s why no one listens to you or agrees to abide by your so-called ‘deals’

  6. Pamela Robinson

    We think that the slow ones now will later be fast and the first ones now will be the last as the present now, will later be past.

    The outcome of this legislation was not unexpected. In American politics, the conflict works itself out at the ballot box instead of the barrel of a gun. We will choose and identify the weak among the herd of the obstructionists and successfully target them for removal beginning in 2014 and thence forth every election cycle until we preserver.

    Gun people, enjoy your moment of fleeting victory for it will not last.

  7. Johngaltwhereru

    I see. When people vote against Liberals, they are doing so out of political fear and cold calculations.

    It is not possible that they disagree with the legislation?

    How do those who agree with Giffords opinion reconcile the supposed 85% support for “universal” background checks with people voting against 85% of the population based on political fear?

    Isn’t that kind of like trying to get fatter by eating less and exercising more?

    1. Pamela Robinson

      Mr. Johngaltwhereru: By your online persona, it seems that you have a Libertarian orientation and this always poses a dilemma when trying to rationalize with one.

      If you have responded to my comment, you have assumed that liberals would never think that conservatives would ever not vote out of fear of liberal reprisal. This is not unreasonable any more then liberals ceasing to vote from the same insecurity. I merely stated that the struggle continues and the laggards who accepted high points on their NRA score card will need to face a restless population up to 90% in the next election. Why do you need to be so defensive? And why do you need to understand this gun issue as a conservative/liberal divide? Does this place give you the security of ideological interpretation which you as a Libertarian so disparately need for comfort?

      Lastly, those who demand gun reform over the protest of industry profiteers and little boy sandbox play which so frequently results in much heart ache through loos of life will win.

      Time is on our side.

      1. Johngaltwhereru

        Billyla,

        First, I was not responding to your comment, I was responding to Gifford’s comment.

        Second, I cannot respond to most of your second paragraph, as there are so many double and triple negatives, I don’t have any idea what you were trying to say.

        The part I did understand, the question of why the gun issue has to be a Liberal vs Conservative divide, is easy. That is because there is a clear Liberal vs Conservative divide on this issue. Conservatives, in general, wish to uphold the Constitution and it’s proper Amendment process. Liberals, in general do not. And no, this does not provide me comfort. As the US becomes less an less educated, less and less self reliant, and more and more likely to vote for the party that demonstrates disdain for the Constitution, the rapid decline of the most fair and prosperous Country in history will continue it’s rapid decline. I find no comfort in that.

        1. MORE gun laws required to stop gun crime

          “Conservatives, in general, wish to uphold the Constitution and it’s proper Amendment process.”

          Wow. You conservatives are practically saints.

          How about legal abortion? You pass state laws to get in the way as much as possible. Not a Constitutional issue, but the Supremes have ruled it legal, and the saintly Conservatives disobey.

          Don’t go literal on me because what is constitutional is what the court says is constitutional. Here in the world, not in your mind.

          So now you have people passing state gun laws, taking a page from the anti-abortion playbook. Priceless.

          1. Forest Chump

            more guns: “Don’t go literal on me because what is constitutional is what the court says is constitutional. Here in the world, not in your mind.”

            Can you say “Heller”? Your statement is hilarious from someone who works so hard to dismantle the second amendment rights of honest citizens. But liberals and socialists get to pick and choose what is lawful and what isn’t, without regard for reason or consistency

          2. MORE gun laws required to stop gun crime

            Kim, we’ll see what happens. Heller was in the past. The CT, CO, and NY laws have not been declared unconstitutional at the state or federal level. It is not what is in your fevered mind, it is what actually happens here in the real world. Tough for you to understand, I know. Predictions do not interest me. Many predicted with great confidence that Obamacare was unconstitutional.

          3. Forest Chump

            the usual twisted ‘logic’ by billyboy. ‘Heller is in the past’ so the law decided in that case does not apply. At the same time he claims “what is constitutional is what the court says is constitutional” even though whatever the court has said, they’ve said in the past.

            “The CT, CO, and NY laws have not been declared unconstitutional at the state or federal level.” But that is not in the past, right genius?

            The lib credo – I can twist anything around any way I wish to make it conform to my beliefs. I can use the same argument against you, to support my own position. I am liberal. I don’t have to make sense. Only fools would dare to disagree with me. Therefore, I am always right.

      2. Fed Up

        Pamela (wildbill): Ya gotta love the typical liberal hypocrisy outlined in your rambling, mostly incoherent post. To hear you call someone else ‘defensive’ after posting the following comment is pure chutzpah and ignorance – all strong suits of billyboy.

        To quote:

        “What you need a a good swift slap across your face to bring you back to reality. Apparently, you have forgotten that we live in a nation of laws that allows us to speak our minds and raise funds for political battles. A good swift kick in your ass and a slap across your little kisser should sufficiently knock some sense into your otherwise diminished vacant brain of yours.”

        1. Pamela Robinson

          I feel that if I use enough negatives in my statement, it will confuse the lesser brains (right wing nut cases) on these posts.

          1. Fed Up

            only billyboy would try to defend his grammatical incompetence, with a pretense at intelligence. good for you, billyla

  8. justme

    I wonder when our politicians will submit and pass legislation that will minimize the tragedy at Newtown. Of course that would mean Bloomy and Murphy would have to do some real homework as to what caused this tragedy in the first place. Their so called gun control proposals are a joke and do nothing to prevent these crimes other than punish law bidding citizens.

    1. MORE gun laws required to stop crime

      I know the new gun laws will be a terrible inconvenience for you. Try to do the best you can. I know it’s difficult. Maybe go out and fire a few rounds at a deer crossing sign and you will feel better.

      1. 99.9% of the people

        MORE: blah, blah, blah. You LOST – hike up your skirts and get over it. Your pontificating is boring and childish

        1. MORE gun laws required to stop crime

          I was talking about Connecticut where the new gun law was passed. If you live in CT maybe you need to hike up your skirt, Rambo.

          1. 99.9% of the people

            CT new laws will be challenged and discarded, sweetie. Those of us who have an effect by working behind the scenes will make these hasty, contrived, illegal laws part of history.

            Thanks for playing sweetheart

          2. MORE gun laws required to stop crime

            OK. But watch your step. The law is in effect NOW and you can lose the game and go to jail for violations.

            Say, wasn’t Obamacare supposed to be ruled unconstitutional? How’s that workin’ out for ya?

          3. 99.9% of the people

            wow, a warning from a hater of the constitution. what a surprise.

            Obamacare? You mean the secretive plan that we couldn’t know about until it was passed, and even then we won’t know until it’s full effects start to show? That Obamacare?

            You mean the Obamacare that was ruled a tax?

            It will go the way of CT gun laws once its’ reality hits home.

            any more questions genius?

          4. MORE gun laws required to stop gun crime

            Kim,
            The law is the law. You understand the law, don’t you? ObamaCare is the law of the land.

            Obamacare will never pass – oh, it passed.

            Obamacare will be declared unconstitutional – oh, sorry, no.

            Now I’m supposed to believe your lame predictions?

          5. Kim

            I like to hang around in men’s rooms with my gun. First I grab the barrel then I grab… Well, you know.

          6. Kim

            add ‘more gun laws’ to the list of billyboys’ personalities.

            It’s tough to remember to change your posting name between worthless blatherings, huh billly? Only YOU see me in every post, around every corner, peeking out from behind doors.

            Your obsession is dangerous – you really need to increase the meds.

          7. 99.9% of the people

            more gun: ‘the law is the law’. But didn’t you just say that the past doesn’t matter? Which is it? Can you show some level of consistency or should you be considered crebible based on your ability to call someone names and/or be sarcastic?

            Never mind – the answer is obvious. You are billyboy and logic is therefore not permitted or understood.

  9. Truefacts

    More gun laws don’t stop crime. If they did why so much crime in Chicago. What about in other countries like Australia with gun bans and a increase in violent crime by 51%. Then you have england with its gun bans BBC news said the violent crime rate went up 40%. Then you have canada with gun control and crime rate going up and US crime rate going down.

    1. MORE gun laws required to stop crime

      True Fact: The USA has 10 times the gun crime rate of the UK.

      1. Truefacts

        Your title is wrong more gun laws create more crime its just the facts. Uk only has 63 million people were we have over 315 million. Also more gangs in US were most crime is centered in cities.

        1. MORE gun laws required to stop gun crime

          Number of people not significant. The rate is per 100,000 people.

          I don’t see any reason for the removal of guns to reduce non-gun violent crime. Gun bans do only what is possible: they reduce gun crime. Fewer guns, fewer gun crimes.

          1. johngaltwhereru

            Stop ignoring the percentage of black people in the Countries you are comparing.

            Political Correctness is dangerous denial.

  10. Paul

    Obama has a fit
    | 04/18/13 | Bob Lonsberry

    Yesterday was a big news day.
    One of the biggest in years.

    The nation had been hit by a terrorist attack just two days before, reports were that a suspect had been identified and might even be close to being arrested.

    The mysterious assassinations of two Texas prosecutors had been broken open and the country was just learning that it was neither white supremacists nor Mexican drug lords who had targeted our legal system.

    Letters containing a lethal poison had been mailed to both the Congress and the White House. For the first time since the season of terrorism commenced in 2001, a poison attack had been launched in the mails.

    And all of this had broken since noon.

    So when the White House announced that the president was holding a hurry-up press conference at 5:30, you knew it was big.

    The Boston evening briefing had been called off just minutes before it was scheduled to start, presumably out of deference to the president’s appearance, and the air was heavy with portent.

    Perhaps the president was going to announce an arrest. Possibly he was going to give more information about the deadly letters sent to Washington and whether they were tied to some terrorist plot.

    Maybe he had something to say about the evacuations at the Boston courthouse, and at Brigham and Women’s.

    Maybe it was just an update to the country on where we stood and what we should expect.

    But it was none of those things.

    As radio stations and television broadcasts across the country went live, the president and his props walked out and it became clear what this was about.

    Barack Obama was throwing a fit.

    After some comments from a Sandy Hook father who has become an anti-gun campaigner, Barack Obama took the microphone and wore it out for most of a half an hour.

    Not a word about Boston.

    Not a word about defending the country against terrorism or any success that might have been had in catching whoever was behind an attack on the country just 48 hours before.

    It was Obama about Obama.

    His big gun-banning initiative had come up empty.

    He had taken the horrific murder of 20 young children and their teachers and whored it out to advance his lifelong anti-gun agenda. He used the tears of bereaved mothers to manipulate the political system to get what he wanted.

    Only he didn’t.

    The Senate – controlled by his own party – denied him even the least offensive of his attacks on the Second Amendment.

    The legislative process played out and he lost and his reaction was – on a day when there was an abundance of truly significant issues facing the country – to throw a self-centered hissy fit.

    He ranted and raved, condemning Congress and the NRA and anyone else he could think of. He raised his voice and there was rage in his eyes and he threatened his foes and tried to rally his supporters.

    He called on people to support him and his party and to oppose the Republicans and their supporters.

    He was concerned about politics.

    While there was still blood on the sidewalk.

    While a dozen people were still fighting for their lives.

    While a nation was looking for leadership.

    Barack Hussein Obama was throwing a fit. Outraged at his political impotence. Indignant that the Congress had not bowed before him.

    On the day that a poll said 4 percent of Americans believe gun control is an important issue.

    Barack Obama was upset about guns.

    So clueless. So out of touch. So focused on what mattered to him, without regard to what mattered to the people.

    He had tried to gut a piece of the very Constitution he had sworn to uphold, and it bit him, and he threw a tantrum.

    It was like watching a spoiled prince, some inbred and addle-minded scion of entitlement and privilege, raging against a disappointment to his ego.

    Last night we saw the real Obama.

    The one who doesn’t give a damn about anything but himself and his interests.

    ——————————————————————————–

  11. Patriot

    Why isn’t the media screaming about the police in Boston ordering businesses to close and people to remain inside their homes? Has martial law been declared?

    I understand the concerns about the bombers, but I’m more concerned about this government ‘putsch’ and the lack of outcry against it.

    Sure it’s easier to search for a suspect if no one is allowed out into the streets. Using that logic, it would be even easier if they simply rounded everyone up and herded them into football and baseball stadiums. How easy would it then be to locate a suspect when he would be the only one not in custody?

    We could give these ‘processing centers’ nice friendly names like ‘gulag’ or ‘work camps’ or even ‘Auschwitz’ and ‘Dachau’. The police could separate anyone they thought had any knowledge at all of these bombers, and start pulling fingernails and breaking knuckles to get them to tell what they know (or don’t know). Hell, it worked with the Japanese didn’t it? Let’s round everyone up

    This is why the government is taking your guns, people. It’s not too late to see the light but time is running out.

Comments are closed.