Gabby Gifford's AR15 photo

[RX8er]

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).

You stole my thunder.

[karder]

IMHO, you are missing the point, or at least, how I see the issue. If I am hit by a drink driver, and spend 6 months in the hospital, do I blame the driver, alcohol or the car? Which one should I try to get banned? Using the case of the Giffords and their position, you would ban the car, or at lease ban alcohol.

You are being logical in your thought process. My point is that Gabby Gifford, and her husband have lost their ability to be logical in this due to their own terrible experience, which is specifically why they don't have credibility when making arguments for stricter laws. Of course the point that they are being used by the left as pawns is true and tragic as well. I believe that Gifford is wrong politically, her logic is skewed, and she is being used as a pawn by an evil group who have other motives. At the same time, I would be hesitant to judge her as an individual too harshly based on this picture and apparent change of heart. My fire would be pointed to the people who are using her to further their agenda. Let's face it, the poor woman can barely form a sentence and she is being paraded around as a poster child by the gun grabbers trying to capitalize on her tragedy.

[Rrash]

IMHO, you are missing the point, or at least, how I see the issue. If I am hit by a drink driver, and spend 6 months in the hospital, do I blame the driver, alcohol or the car? Which one should I try to get banned? Using the case of the Giffords and their position, you would ban the car, or at lease ban alcohol.

You are being logical in your thought process. My point is that Gabby Gifford, and her husband have lost their ability to be logical in this due to their own terrible experience, which is specifically why they don't have credibility when making arguments for stricter laws. Of course the point that they are being used by the left as pawns is true and tragic as well. I believe that Gifford is wrong politically, her logic is skewed, and she is being used as a pawn by an evil group who have other motives. At the same time, I would be hesitant to judge her as an individual too harshly based on this picture and apparent change of heart. My fire would be pointed to the people who are using her to further their agenda. Let's face it, the poor woman can barely form a sentence and she is being paraded around as a poster child by the gun grabbers trying to capitalize on her tragedy.

You stole my thunder. I don't blame he victims for their views. Horrific memories that play over and over, traumatic experiences hat can't be placed into words, PTSD - these things cloud logical thinking. Put yourself in their shoes - at face value, it would seem noble for a politician, tv reporter, etc., to reach out to someone experiencing these things. You can't blame the suffering person for taking a stand on what they think is right. It is the irresponsibility of those that use these sufferings for their agenda. My heart goes out to the misguided Giffords' and other victims of gun violence.

I believe true justice is to insist on changes that will make us all safer.

[SF18C]

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????

[RX8er]

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.

[G26ster]

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.

To both of you.

[SF18C]

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.

And if it was up to the gun grabbing libs...which one would be illegal???

[cw3van]

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.

Anyone who has been victimized is going to be emotional, but justice can rarely be achieved by victims fueled by rage.. If you are the parent of a child who is murdered or assaulted, your reaction would probably be to do some very violent and unGodly things to the person who hurt your child, but the law does not allow that. In theory, objectively minded police officers are supposed to arrest a suspect, jurors are supposed to determine guilt and a judge is charged with determining a fair sentence.

In the same way, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects the freedom of U.S. citizens and ensures that emotionally driven citizens and victims rights groups don't strip away our freedoms based on their own fears or experiences. The left tries to portray Gabby Gifford as a knowledgeable voice due to her tragedy, but in reality, Gifford is not qualified to be suggesting gun control policies for the nation specifically because she had a terrible experience which prevents her from being logical and objective in her views.

I think they both use the shooting situation to their advantage to get more of the spotlight Mark more than Gabby. When I say I understand having someone you love shot & killed I do but what you call for is the scum to be punished not a ban on firearms. I have no respect for either of them (but truly sorry Gabby was shot) just my opinion both are postering for their gain.

[77346]

I feel really sorry for what happened to that lady... but I feel even more sorry how she has accepted been used as a puppet by the administration and her husband.

[VMI77]

I don't believe it to be hypocritical, any more so than the old saw, "A conservative is a liberal who's been raped, mugged, etc." would be. Personal epiphanies do occur, that in this instance one has occurred that has a negative impact on my beliefs makes it no less real, or any more hypocritical than had it gone the other way.

I'll take away the word hypocritical and say this....if a person believes in something and has integrity then they stand by their principles even when those principles make it difficult for them. Someone under these circumstances with true integrity and courage would uphold the rights of others as well as themselves even though they suffered a personal tragedy (and this includes her husband). Ridiculously, she got a medal for courage. I'm not saying her reaction makes her bad, but it does make her merely ordinary, not courageous, and it indicates her position before being shot was not based in principle, but on personal convenience.

I don't believe there are many people posting here who would seek to take away the self-defense rights of others because they or a loved one got shot by a thug or a lunatic. The reason is because most of the people here believe in gun and self-defense rights as a matter of principal. If you only maintain a principle when it's easy, it's not a principle.

[hillfighter]

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).

You stole my thunder.

Not a ban on all cars. Only cars owned and driven by average citizens. The political elite would keep the use of their government chauffeured cars, and rich people would still be allowed to hire private chauffeur services.

[aaangel]

I feel really sorry for what happened to that lady... but I feel even more sorry how she has accepted been used as a puppet by the administration and her husband.

it seems like they like the "slimelight" !! best seller book, appearances, etc....etc.....

[The Annoyed Man]

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).

[stevie_d_64]

I don't believe it to be hypocritical, any more so than the old saw, "A conservative is a liberal who's been raped, mugged, etc." would be. Personal epiphanies do occur, that in this instance one has occurred that has a negative impact on my beliefs makes it no less real, or any more hypocritical than had it gone the other way.

I'll take away the word hypocritical and say this....if a person believes in something and has integrity then they stand by their principles even when those principles make it difficult for them. Someone under these circumstances with true integrity and courage would uphold the rights of others as well as themselves even though they suffered a personal tragedy (and this includes her husband). Ridiculously, she got a medal for courage. I'm not saying her reaction makes her bad, but it does make her merely ordinary, not courageous, and it indicates her position before being shot was not based in principle, but on personal convenience.

I don't believe there are many people posting here who would seek to take away the self-defense rights of others because they or a loved one got shot by a thug or a lunatic. The reason is because most of the people here believe in gun and self-defense rights as a matter of principal. If you only maintain a principle when it's easy, it's not a principle.

You bring up an excellent point...I would never ask a liberal/socialist to give up or compramise their principles, but I know for a fact that they would expect us to give ours up for the good and emotional well being of the public good...No matter the cost to our freedoms and liberties...

That is why I am extremely dissapointed in many elected officials that compramise their positions to maintain their power and status as politicians at the expense of theirs and others constituencies...

[sjfcontrol]

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.