Gabby Gifford's AR15 photo

[C-dub]

So if use the logic I read here, if my wife was injured in a drunk driving accident I should go out, get drunk and drive the police station...to show how easy it is????

Not the same. One of these things is illegal while the other is.

No no, you should buy a case of rum and take to the police station to show how easy it is to get.

[C-dub]

When those pictures were taken of her at the range shooting an AR15, and apparently on another occasion with an AK47, they were taken with the stated purpose of making her "look tougher." THAT is what her campaign said. She wanted to look tougher.......presumably tougher on crime or something.........but she was cynically trying to portray herself as a gun person for the specific purpose of trying to appeal to a certain segment of the voter base in Arizona. I quote the linked article:

"We were told she wanted to toughen her image. She asked to come out and she wanted to shoot a rifle. She had one of our guys out there to show her how to shoot an AR-15."

Gifford had a carry license prior to her injury—and for all I know, she still has one.......although I can only speculate whether or not her brain injury has rendered her ineligible for a license any longer, even in Arizona's constitutional carry environment. Her husband obviously believes it is lawful to keep a 1911, although I don't know how he feels about a "shall issue" right to bear one, or whether or not he has a carry license. But there are differences between people who own a gun because they believe that the law gives them "permission" to own one; and people who own a gun because they believe that it is their human right to own one—affirmed and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The former not only may not have any desire to own an EBR, but they will also see no inconsistency between their "permission" to own a 1911, and their advocacy for banning EBRs. The latter understand that there is no constitutional or human rights difference between ownership of a .22 caliber revolver, a .308 caliber EBR, a .270 bolt-action, a 10mm full auto SMG, a Barret Light .50, and a 75mm pack howitzer.

My point is that her attitude towards EBRs has not significantly shifted since before her injury, and in all probability, neither has her husband's. Had he been a ground pounder in the military, he might have a different attitude toward them. He was not....he was a fighter pilot. Without denigrating his service, there is a huge difference between viewing weaponry as multimillion dollar technology wielded from 25,000 feet up on one hand, and as handheld personal weapons used to fight alongside your squad-mates on the other hand. She was not a "gun person" before then, and she is not one now. In that regard, she has been consistent. Guns were a political symbol then, and they are a political symbol now. Neither then nor now were either of them particularly enthusiastic about the AR15. If they were, they would have owned one. They both certainly had the financial means to own any AR they wanted, and they both would have had no difficulty passing a NICS background check. The only thing that has changed between then and now is how they use guns as political symbols. In the past, she used them as positive symbols to enhance her political image and make her look tougher. Today, she uses them as negative symbols to enhance her political image and make her look thoughtful.

As with most democrat liars (but I repeat myself) and ALL liberals, their only constant is power. Truth and principle come and go according to the demands of either acquiring and/or maintaining that power, and that is why the democrat liars (but I repeat myself) party is ascendant. It has invested heavily in teaching unions which teach an irrelevant Constitution, and a media arm which serves as its propaganda arm. The bulk of the electorate are low-information voters who have been raised in those classrooms and watch that media. They are the product of the democrat liars (but I repeat myself) party. Right now, in the wake of Sandy Hook, Gifford and Kelly are both strident for banning EBRs, but between her injury and Sandy Hook, neither was particularly vocal about it. They are playing the political winds for their own advantage. But it goes deeper than that: they create their own political wind through their propaganda arm of the democrat liar (but I repeat myself) media.

Prior to Sandy Hook, Obama and the democrat liars (but I repeat myself) did everything they could to downplay their anti-gun agenda. We were repeatedly told by lying democrats (but I repeat myself) that "Obama doesn't want to take your guns." But now, post reelection, and particularly post Sandy Hook, the war on guns we ALL knew was coming despite democrat liar (but I repeat myself) assurances has finally broken out. Democrat liars (but I repeat myself) particularly see Sandy Hook as the wind beneath their wings, and they are going to try and ride this thing as high and as far as it will take them in pursuit of the (disarmed) socialist workers paradise they all want. Gifford is a politician whose track record to date on the right to keep and bear arms shows that she is bound more by political expediency than by constitutional principle. I've been around a lot of brain injured people (neurosurgery was the "prestige" specialty of the hospital I used to work in, and one of the ER docs I worked with was a neurosurgeon who was consulted by the White House when Jim Brady was shot), and I know that LOTS of people have brain injuries that can significantly affect their ability to speak without necessarily canceling out their intellectual capacity to think. Gifford may well be of sound (but wrong) mind, and her speech issues may have nothing to do with her ability to conceive of and follow political ideology or strategy. To me, until someone releases information about her status conclusively stating that her intellectual capacities have been severely diminished, her injury is a irrelevant other than as a motivator for her advocacy. As for her husband, the fact that someone was a combat tested fighter pilot, a flight test pilot, and an astronaut does not make them either a republican or a conservative. I submit John Glenn as exhibit A.

Gifford and Kelly are democrat liars (but I repeat myself).

Ya'know, TAM, your posts would be MUCH shorter of you didn't repeat yourself so much.

Well, he is the redundant man of redundancy.

[C-dub]

[ Image ]

[ Image ]

I stand corrected. That is a target of the Bieber, but with some kind of outline on it.

Is she pointing that, possibly loaded, rifle at the man's foot?

[psijac]

[ Image ]

[ Image ]

I stand corrected. That is a target of the Bieber, but with some kind of outline on it.

Is she pointing that, possibly loaded, rifle at the man's foot?

Bieber is not old enough to grow facial hair even now.

[bdickens]

Not to flame, but I think that calling it hypocritical is a bit harsh. Gabby Gifford did have a terrible and traumatic experience, and I would not be at all surprised if her attitude about guns has changed since the time she was shot. I think that is normal and natural.

Using that logic, anyone who has been in an accident caused by a drunk driver should be calling for bans on all cars (and not just for punishing the drunk drivers).

My thoughts exactly.

[TexasCajun]

I don't like the fact that Gabby Giffords and the other innocents were shot by what appears to be a lunatic criminal. And I do pray that she is able to recover as much of her pre-incident ability as possible. Never having a similar experience myself, I honestly cannot say how I would react in her situation. But the timing of her and her husband's advocacy is what really troubles me. After Reagan was shot, the Brady family took an almost immediate stand against guns. I don't agree, but I think I can understand the reaction. But in this case, the "reaction" was very delayed. And that's what doesn't sit well with me. It's as if they saw Sandy Hook as an opportunity to launch their advocacy group in the most marketable climate. It turns my stomach.