Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No law will have an immediate effect but why the can`t do attitude.Things can be better for future generations if we have the will to try. No other developed country is living like this.
If we have people that don't follow the current laws, what makes you think news laws will be followed ?
Gifford's own shooting attests to current laws not being followed.
The mental stability of the shooter is certainly in question and should make that person ineligible for gun possession. Like James Brady, her story is relevant as they through no fault of their own were left in a diminished capacity due to loose regulations on guns.
The right wants to wave a flag and jump on the bandwagon of someone that gets paid 1 million annually to say no to any gun restrictions. face it the right likes to let the tail wag the dog and fall in line with what the NRA tells them, even when it makes no sense. They use a lack of Constitutional understanding and plain ignorance to plot their course.
Where is the NRA's concern for Gabby Giffords rights? If you want to argue the insane and unstable have gun ownership rights you are simply stupid.
Gabby Giffords is advocating for FAR MORE than restrictions on guns for the mentally unstable. Ironically or conveniently (which is it?) you left this out of your post. Why is that?
What she says is meaningful, in addition to being shot she is a gun owner as is her husband. Mark Kelly stated if the shooter had a 10 round magazine or less more people would have lived that day as he was tackled while reloading, assault weapons are just part of the discussion.
His "high capacity" magazine jammed, saving many from being shot. Had he had the standard factory mag it would have been worse. Same with James's AR in Aurora and the guy in Portland.
Yes I care, and she has more right to express her opinion than most of us, but I have to disagree with her. The Constitution is clear and we have inalienable rights that must be defended at all costs, and there are costs.
She has no more right to express her opinion than you or me. Where in the world did you come up with this? She has more ACCESS to express that opinion to an influential audence. That's the difference. And that should trouble you and me and everyone else who treasures the 2nd Amendment.
I guess that any American is eligible to testify before Congress, on a variety of subjects. I mean, that is democracy at its finest. It is not like Ms. Gifford will be the 'last word' on this issue.
Recall that Ted Nugent testified before Congress back in the 1990s (in favor of the Wilderness Act). I would not get upset if he were called again to testify in favor of guns (or arrows). I imagine that many herein would wet their pants in excitment if Mr. Nugent were to so testify.
Here is a link detailing various Americans who have had the honor to appear before Congress and voice their views as Americans:
Although she went thru a tragic thing and I'm glad she pulled thru it, but just because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time doesn't make her qualified to talk about gun rights. I think the hip hop artist 50 cent has been shot multiple times and survived.. should he be up there speaking ?
We do not know what she has learned or what she brings to the table until she has her say. After she had her say it was clear she brought nothing new but one never knows until you listen to opposing arguments.
Although she went thru a tragic thing and I'm glad she pulled thru it, but just because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time doesn't make her qualified to talk about gun rights. I think the hip hop artist 50 cent has been shot multiple times and survived.. should he be up there speaking ?
People who have suffered the consequences of gun violence have a point of view that the rest of us can't imagine, and as such, definitely should have a voice in the discussion. Innocent victims are the whole point of the debate. Why would you want to silence them?
If we have people that don't follow the current laws, what makes you think news laws will be followed ?
Gifford's own shooting attests to current laws not being followed.
That's exactly it. I've said this a few times. When was the last time someone set out to kill a bunch of people but decided not to because they have an illegal weapon?
Although she went thru a tragic thing and I'm glad she pulled thru it, but just because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time doesn't make her qualified to talk about gun rights. I think the hip hop artist 50 cent has been shot multiple times and survived.. should he be up there speaking ?
Exactly! Thank you for your logic. As you can see, many on this thread just don't posess such an attribute.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
