E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAmericans For Responsible Solutions, the gun-control group founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly, is airing TV ads in Arizona and Iowa to persuade Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to back universal background checks.
"We have a problem -- where we shop, where we pray, where our children go to school," Giffords says to the camera in one of the ads. "But there are solutions we can agree on, even gun owners like us." The screen then says: "Tell Senator Grassley to support background checks."
Recommended: Jeb Bush lays down his marker
Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that's considering all the gun-control legislation, and Flake also is a member of the committee. (Flake also represents the state, Arizona, where Giffords once served as a congresswoman before she was shot by a gunman.)
The ads -- a combined six-figure ad buy through this week and next -- are almost carbon copies of the advertisements Americans For Responsible Solutions aired last month.
Leave a Comment:
G-d bless her and her husband!
She does have a right to speak out, and I'm sure she is more aware of the personal effect of such an event. He views help shape the debate. It does not make he stance on a gun ban any more correct. She supported such legislation before that event, and new laws will only effect law abiding people while having no effect on criminals or the mentally ill. It is just bad reactionary law. Enforce the laws on the books. That is all that is needed.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite, United States v. Cruikshank,
92 U.S. 542 (1876)
In other words for those of you gun grabbers who lack comprehension skills: The right to bear arms is inherently INALIENABLE. Gun control, quite simply, IS OFF LIMITS.
You are wrong. the right to protect your home and your property with a suitable weapon is gaurenteed by the Ninth Amendment. It is a natural right. the second refers to militias.
Demand, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. They upheld that as an individual right. Move on.
First of all prior to the most recent decisions, the supreme court was very consistent for almost 200 years that it was not an individual right, but a collective one. What the recent SCOTUS rulings did confirm is that it is not an absolute right and reasonable regulations is constitutional. See justice Alito's comments on this.
Demand, if you are going to broadly interpret "people" as having collective, not individual, rights then you are going to have a serious problem with the 1st, and 4th amendments.
Furthemore, in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, this:
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The SCOTUS thinks different.
If they do, they are ignoring what the previous SCOTUS thought. See quote from the justice that I began this string of comments with.
Mr Steady
Read up on;
U.S. v Emerson
Mcdonald v Chicago
Silveira v Lockyer
Parker v District of Columbia
Nordyke v King
Disrict of Columbia v Heller
Just for Grins
Hodges v Obama
That will keep you busy.
No, the Second Amendment refers to the "Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms".
You can try to spin it any way you wish.
Here are the FACTS:
The Founding Fathers well knew the importance of the People maintaining freedom of arms.
After all, the American Revolution started when the British tried to confiscate a cache of arms.
.
Guns are here to stay. Please start getting used to it.
They're not going away.
Neither is marijuana, booze, fast cars and other vehicles, gambling or marital infidelity.
.
You said it; now prove it.
Meanwhile:
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
- Alan M. Dershowitz , Notable gun hater
To all you gun proponents-why aren't you calling for repeal of the 1934 ban on machine guns? Under your logic that's a restriction on your second amendment rights. Those of us that think public safety matters look to other countries like Australia and Canada where gun control has minimized mass shootings. Of course geocentric Americans don't think we could learn from non Americans.
Actually, many of us do call for a repeal on that and do believe it is an infringement.
And if you really cared about public safety maybe you should look at ALL of the crime stats for Australia after their gun ban. Crime, especially violent crime, went way up AFTER the ban. So are you ok with people being raped and murdered as long as a gun isnt used? Thats all you get with this course of action.
There is no ban on machine guns. Over 750,000 people in the US have them legally.
All you need is money.
.
I certainly respect the right of any citizen to speak out against gun violence and support a specific piece of legislation. Unfortunately, there is a certain segment of our society and certain politicians (particularly female poliicians) who vote on emotion rather than making a knowledge based decision. I despise all the theatrics used by Feinstein and Obama to try and get the public to support gun control measures which everyone knows will be ineffective and certainly will punish law abiding citizens.
This is exactly what community organizers do. They are better at starting riots than developing solutions.
Really...kind of a prehistoric view on women isn't it?
Reality
Normal democrat / progressive crap. "even gun owners like us" Really how many? Democrat / progressive only needs 2 to make this comment and is probably all that do like them.
You better look closer at the crime stats from these countries. It is not gun that are crating these mass shootings, think for a min. there have been guns here since the beging of this country, yet it was notuntil the last few decades that these shooting started.
More laws less liberty
Why lie?
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia significantly tightened their gun control, banning rapid fire rifles (semi-automatics), adopting strict licensing rules for purchase, use and storage. In the 18 years before the law, Australia had 13 mass shootings - but none in the 16 years since.
Also:
An extensive gun buyback program took 600,000 guns off the street.
The firearm homicide rate in Australia declined from 0.37 deaths per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.13 in 2010, a drop of 64%.
Over the same period, the firearm suicide rate per 100,000 declined from 2.15 deaths to 0.73, a drop of 66%.
All other gun related crime and violence is down sharply.
So Gun Control in this particular country, with its particular culture, in this particular time, worked. Pro-gun people can (and do) argue that what works in Australia will not necessarily work here. Absolutely valid argument.
So why lie?
The NRA claimed in 2000 that violent crimes had increased in Australia since the introduction of new laws. The federal Attorney General Daryl Williams proved that the NRA falsifying government statistics. The NRA relented, apologized, and removed any reference to Australia from its website. For all of 6 months.
To this day you can still find myths and lies and distortions on pro-gun sites, instead of the simple truth: Gun control worked (but Australia is different).
That's not so hard to swallow.
So why lie?
Bob, you are really missing the point. Sure, gun crime went down, duh. Look at the rest of the crime...it all rose sharply. Significant increases in violent crimes, murders, robberies, and other acts. Who cares if gun crime goes down if the result is MORE CRIME?
The NRA lies to support its views? I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.
Why lie.So even if I believed all the stuff you say, and I was dumd enough to believe criminal would stop comitting crimes without gun, and Drug cartels would surender them. You still have not addressed how wewill defend our country. also the fact that shall not be infringed is the law! learn to read or at lease read the constitution before you spout off.How about I take your 1st Amendment right away from you.
More Laws Less Liberty
There is no lie...violent crime DID increase, just not gun crime. Those arent the same thing you know...there is such a thing as murder, robbery, rape, etc that dont involve firearms. Are those ok? You only seem to be concerned about ones where guns are involved.
jaywillie. and the anti gun pansies don't Grow up
"People say its easy to tell retard jokes," cracks comedian Anthony Jeselnik, "but I disagree. You have to explain everything."
Violent crime is Australia went down since they went after the guns, across the board. Period.
Ok Bob, now you went from misinformed into being a liar.
Then quit telling jokes at the anti gun rallies!!!
I find it very offensive that Piers Morgan and his ilk are under the premise that it is fine to ban one type of weapon because it will kill a certain amount of people in a certain amount of time. What are you saying, it's fine to kill someone with a shotgun (Joe Biden) but not with an AR-15? Someone please tell me what is an acceptable number of people to kill with any given weapon. Twenty? Ten? Three? I think it's a tragedy when ONE person is murdered. So why aren't we focusing on the real problem, bad people? If we want to eliminate people killing each other, then by the lord Harry, we had better ban people.
Gabby Gifford hitting the NRA from one side - Bloomberg from the other side - Biden up the middle - Obama pounding down on those gun nuts. The NRA is cracking at the seams and will be dismantled soon.
Wow, you are going to have a rough time when you wake up from that dream.
And Romney for the win in 2012! LMAO! You're the head cheerleader I suspect. Watch the game closely. You're about to see some major backpedaling when the administration gets confronted with more facts and questions as to why current laws are ignored, not to mention that nasty little thing like the constitution getting in the way...
Where did the Giffords duo get the coin for the ads?
The ad fairy?
I would take an educated guess they were co-opted by the Bloomster himself,because he knew Arizona and IOwa would not be fertile ground for the political wants of an over bearing Jewish meglomaniac from NYC.
johninpa
I think they need to run several million dollars worth of those Anti-Gun ads here in Texas. We can always use the money.
@Deerhunterbow1
I dont know,never been to Texas but I dont think much that had to do with Bloomberg would be well received.
Probably be a lot of broken TVs from the thrown cowboy boots when he showed up on the tube.
Giffords was shot with a gun brought with background checks.
Aurora...same
Newtown ...same
Virginia Tech....same
so how is she a poster girl all of a sudden for background checks?
what high profile shooting occurred because of a slip up on a background check?
not Columbine.
maybe we just need them because they say so,and its on their wish list?
"But there are solutions we can agree on, even gun owners like us." I am really disappointed that Gabby Giffords has adopted king "O's" tactics - lieing to the american people in an effort to get agendas that erode our freedoms and 2nd amendment rights. The truth of the matter is that gun owners do not support additional "gun control laws" when what we have are not even enforced - especially inflated background checks that will eventually lead to confiscation of our fire arms. Even the name of her organization is misleading - who could possibly disagree with an organization with a name like "Americans for responsible Solutions"? But once the "book" is opened, and the American people "read" what is on it's pages, the deceit is obvious, and the eventual, oppressive consequences can be identified.
Maybe we should background check drug dealers and gang members too? Does anyone seriously think that passing a "Universal Background Check" system is going to keep law breakers from getting guns? The laws that are being proposed are for law abiding citizens and they aren't the ones killing people.
Here's where this goes if it's passed.
1st-Universal Background checks and they will fail. (criminals don't follow the law)
2nd-The government will announce that background checks aren't enough and we need a "Universal" gun registration program so they know exactly who owns a gun and who doesn't. (again, criminals won't abide by this "law")
3rd-The "Gun Registry" will be used against law abiding citizens when their gun is stolen and used in a crime. The government will then enact some sort of "gun safe" requirement and hold anyone accountable for guns that go missing.
4th-The government will "figure out" that none of their laws had an impact on crime and the only "sensible" solution is to take everyone's gun away from them through a "National Gun Buyback" program.
Don't kid yourself, liberals are afraid of a populous that is armed especially the intelligent, law abiding ones. If they were truly worried about someone's safety, they would abolish alcohol, hammers, knives and any other instrument or concoction that kills many more people every year than a gun does.
I agree,these solutions from the
are no solutions at all,and when they don't work,they will be back for more,and more.
Yes just look at how well Mexico's gun laws are working. Oh yeah I know that is because they have a corrupt Government!!
Homicide rate in the "Po White Trash Neighborhoods" of the Globe (2009), Europe, North America and Down Under:
Greenland 19.2
Russian Federation 11.2
Bermuda 9.3 <--- WTF!?
Lithuania 7.5
Republic of Moldova 6.8
Ukraine 5.4
Estonia 5.2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
USA 5.0 <--- Way to go NRA!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Latvia 4.8
Montenegro 3.5
Liechtenstein 2.8
Albania 2.7
Finland 2.3
Bulgaria 2.0
Romania 2.0
Canada 1.8 <--- Way less!
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.8
Macedonia 1.8
Belgium 1.7
Czech Republic 1.7
Slovakia 1.5
New Zealand 1.5
Serbia 1.5
Hungary 1.4
Poland 1.3
Ireland 1.3
Greece 1.3
Portugal 1.2
Australia 1.2 <--- Down 60% since gun control!
Great Britain 1.2 <--- Way way less!
Croatia 1.1
France 1.1 <--- Effing France beats us!?
Netherlands 1.1
Sweden 1.0
Italy 1.0
Malta 1.0
Spain 0.9
Germany 0.9
Denmark 0.9
Switzerland 0.7
Slovenia 0.6
Norway 0.6
Austria 0.5 <--- Glockville
Iceland 0.3
So in Australia they have surrendered their will to the government. That is not a pattern I care to follow. I enjoy the rights my constitution guarantees. To quote your mother, If Australia jumps off a bridge does that mean we have to do it? They are now less free to live as many wanted to in that country. Congratulations to them on less shooting and more bludgeoning. More victims less self defense.
Sane: "That is not a pattern I care to follow."
Good for you. Peachy. Reasonable opinion.
So why lie about Australia?
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
•Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
•During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
•At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
•Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.
Thanks for making my case. As I wrote earlier:
To this day you can still find myths and lies and distortions on pro-gun sites, instead of the simple truth: Gun control worked (but Australia is different).
Well Bob, if facts dont work for you I am not sure what will. Believe what you want but if any of this foolishness passes and crime goes up its on you.
Please help
Please help stop the approx $30 million a year in Unconstitutional payments from L.A. County to the State Employed judges. Stop the bias created by the bribes in favor of L.A. County against the tax payers?
Judges validate the integrity of elections. The judges have received AMNESTY from prosecution for accepting money that was not authorized by LAW. The entire system has been corrupted.
Please help stop the waste and fraud and restore integrity to the courts.
LA County takes tax payer money then bribes the judges so they rule in favor of the County against the tax payers.
Senate Bill SBX211 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Sign petition to repeal SBX211
This data is from the Australian Institute of Criminology
Victims of violent crime statistics
Assaults continue to represent the majority of recorded violent crimes. The overall trend since 1996 has been upward, with an increase of 55 percent between 1996 and 2007.
The trend in sexual assault has also followed a general increase. The highest numbers of victims of sexual assault and of assault were recorded in 2007.
There were 282 victims of homicide in 2007: a 12 percent decrease from 2006 and the lowest number recorded in the past 12 years.
Continuing the trend since 2004, robbery offences increased again in 2007, to 17,988.
The number of recorded kidnappings fluctuates from year to year. From 1996 to 2004, kidnappings registered a general increase, but the number of victims of kidnapping has remained relatively steady following a decline in 2005.
The trends in the past five years of selected violent crimes have varied. Variability from year to year is more pronounced in offences that have fewer victims, such as homicide.
Recorded homicide declined from 2002 to 2004, increased in 2006, and decreased again in 2007.
Both assault and robbery have increased since 2004.
The number of sexual assault victims has shown a fluctuating pattern, with the number of victims recorded increasing in three of the five years considered
Gun free zone means: hey bad guy come on in and harm as many people as you want because it will take 911 responders 5-15 minutes to arrive and the law will not allow law ABIDING citizens to possess a gun on this property. Aurora, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Sikh Temple, Oregon mall are all gun free zones. Thanks gun control law, you allowed many innocent people killed.
Ms Giffords is a mass media whore and she needs to retire. She will not admit that the criminals will obey a new gun control law like they obeyed the other over 2000 gun control laws on the books that are rarely enforced. Her aganda is flawed from step one and her 10 minutes of fame is long over and done. That mass shooter in Arizona did the country a disfavor. like a magpile she will continue on her agenda until the POTUS decides that her news worthness has died a painful death. Go home
Richard Schmidt, the convicted felon, killer and right-wing neo-Nazi, had 18 guns when apprehended.
James "Whitey" Bulger had 29 guns in his Santa Monica apartment when the 16 year hunt caught up with him.
The NRA dodge/lie/propaganda is criminals will always get guns. They steal them. No, dummies, they buy them. Every single gun they've been able to trace, from these two criminal's arsenals, was bought from a private seller or at a gun show.
What most of us Americans want is to reduce the number/lethality of guns in the hands of criminals, and to trace these guns to the asswipes who sold them to these criminals. Then we want to fine and/or jail these people.
A very small percentage of gun owners (and the NRA of course) block this. They have this fantasy that if the Feds have a database of gun sales then Nancy Pelosi will come for their guns.
For heaven's sake, I think you can take her.
The Feds knew about Bulger and left him skate for murders,I'm sure they didn't care about how many guns he brought or where he brought them.
Some new gun law would prevent Bulger from being given immunity by the FBI?
All law enforcement looked the other way for Bulger,and his crimes,and now you bring him up as a poster boy for new laws?
and the people who left Bulger skate will"enforce" the new laws...what a friggin crock.
Well Bob, I think if it really was "a very small percentage of gun owners" this wouldnt be the issue it is.
And Pelosi has said she would take every gun we have if she could so yes, most gun owners dont trust her with anything.
With 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in the USA which includes about 15,000,000 AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles, why would any politician sign their name to the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban which is yet to be introduced into Congress for a vote? Do they really think they can dry up the supply of weapons available to the insane and to criminals? I think not. So why propose one? The answer is they want to show their constituents that they care and more importantly that Obama cares. This is what is wrong with Washington, spending all this money, time, and resources on things that don't matter.
gabby...what a joke...she is no gun expert,,,shes needs to stfu and do was she does best,,,,nothing
a new law will not stop a criminal,
there is no law on paper can stop anyone that wants to kill
or do harm to anyone, if a law say you cant do it , and you think that would have stop 9/11 , we have laws on you cant hyjack a plane ,
people dont care , if in there mind that they are doing what they was told to do and some do it, so we have a war of that one,
did not stop them, from fling them jets in to our buildings ,laws did not stop them,
laws are like locks
keeps the honest people honest,
it dont stop a thieve , dont stop anyone that is just going to find a way to harm someone,
if we say that guy there is waked out of his mind ,then they say that person is harmless.
the law says they cant do anything to him , just because you fill scared of that of that person, , till that person breaks the law,
in some cases they are harmless.
just take one that is over looked and left behind, that no one helped,
make a law to help people if they need help , help them ,
its bad we need a law like this because back in the old days people helped each other,
now we try to see how much money we can make off the ftter ,
that sentance says it all, there if you dont get it,
no respect no more,
its ok tho make your laws , we as law abiding people , we will go by them,
good point...but ya cant tell that to the dems,,they do what they are told to do,,or what sounds good,,without even thinking...
If you are the reasonable sort, you may be wondering where do these people come from!? The gun-loving nutjobs on this and other sites.
We wondered too, here at the American Psychiatric Association (APA), so we put together a working group to investigate.
The APA interviewed 1,200 gun owners to find 100 that fit the profile: lack of independent thinking, strong tendency to believe conspiracies, and frequent posters to internet sites. These 100 we put through a battery of tests. Here's what we found:
A certain moral ambiguity. In most areas, could not distinguish between right and wrong, fact from fiction.
Relative to the general population, 50 times more likely to believe in the latest conspiracy: moon landing was fake, Obama was not born in the USA, Global Warming is a Eco-terrorist plot, Holocaust was made up, gun violence is unrelated to guns. Sixty of the 100 had a copy of "Zombie Survival Guide" in their home.
Ninety-five claimed to be Christian but 90 of them could not remember the last time they went to church.
Watched on secret camera, they made frequent posts to conspiracy sites, and pro-gun sites. Most had an NRA or other pro-gun site open, so they could cut and paste comments. In every case, each had multiple identities and regularly posted responses to their own posts, echoing the ideas, or congratulating themselves on the sagacity of their ideas.
For example, just above this post is a mindless tiatribe by heritage-of-history followed by an echo by dont mess with texsas (yes, folks, the effing troll misspelled his name!). Same guy, in his mom's basement.
/SNL skit
Wow....you really have gone off the deep end there Bob.
It's pretty sad when you have people against universal background checks that would prevent some criminals and the mentally ill from buying a weapon. Increase the penalties for weapons violations,with life without parole for felons in possession of a weapon. Stricter enforcement too. If someone gets a little inconvenienced too bad,a human life is worth the inconvenience.
Lanza tried to purchase a gun at a store? Why didn't he get it there?
I am for stricter penalties provided we actually prosecute these people. I still dont believe that what is being proposed will prevent crime in any way, shape, or form.
Funny how people like Gabby Giffords and others who have been victims of gun violence support common sense laws concerning weapons,like many police chiefs and law enforcement officers do too. People on the front lines see gun violence everyday. NRA Rambo wannabes are clueless.
Coming from tony the fake vet.
LOL!
Tony, you could get a job writing jokes and riddles on Bazooka Bubblegum wrappers!
I know plenty of people who have been victims who support the exact opposite of what Giffords is advocating. Some people are victimized and decide they would prefer to take responsibility for their safety rather than hand it off to someone who isnt likely to help.