Gabby and her gun
The above picture is from Gabby Giffords’ Facebook page. She posted it after someone posted a cropped version of the picture taken when she was running for office a few years back and thought she needed to present a tougher image in her Arizona district before an election. Today, she runs a non-profit named Americans for Responsible Solutions which advocates for banning the same types of weapons and accoutrements which she is holding in the picture. In her statement which accompanies the photo she says;
I grew up with guns, and I like owning them. So does my husband Mark. It’s an interest we’ve shared ever since we met. It’s part of my heritage as an Arizonan and it’s my right as an American.
Yeah, well, there are a bunch of Americans who also grew up with guns and like owning them – so why does she think we shouldn’t be able to now?
You might remember that a few days ago, her husband, Mark, was spotted buying the same sort of scary-looking black rifle in Tuscon. He said that he was buying it because he wanted to see how difficult the paperwork was, because he didn’t get a good sense of the paperwork when he’d bought an M1911 semi-automatic handgun a few moments before.
Giffords released the photo because someone else had already done it, not because she wanted full disclosure about her previous activities back when she needed Arizonans’ votes. According to Breitbart, she initially claimed that she didn’t recognize the photo and a spokesperson from AFRS hinted that the photo had been altered.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Huh, who woulda thought……I’m shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya…
How dare you point that out, Jonn! Don’t you know she’s got an agenda to push?
Oh, and Mark? If you didn’t “have a good sense of the paperwork” the FIRST several times you purchased a weapon–hint: it’s the same fucking paperwork–you probably shouldn’t be allowed on I-10, lest you be one of those dipshits who drives 45 mph in the left lane with your turn signal permanently on.
At least we don’t have to worry about you getting anywhere near a Space Shuttle anymore, thanks to the Jug-Eared One.
Sparky….
It’s not like the paperwork is rocket science or anything…badaboom!
According to the shop owner, Mark didn’t even do the paperwork on the rifle yet. Since he had to wait to pick it up, he has yet to fill out the 4473 and wait for NICS check.
Hopefully, all this nonsense causes it to come back DELAY when he does do it.
I don’t know how he accomplished it, but Mark has managed to be a lame astronaut (I suppose that’s what comes from marrying a politician).
This was the answer I posted to her on her Facebook page after I ran it through my tact filter five times (By the way, anyone know a good place to get tact filters replaced?):
Gabby, with respect: When people like you talk about “common sense” gun laws, you are only talking about confiscation. There are already laws on the books that specifically address the issues of criminals having weapons, several of which were broken in the attack that injured you and killed several other people. I’m not interested in giving up any more of my rights in exchange for vague promises of how much better I’ll feel when they’re passed.
If you really want to do the right thing, then please support enforcing the laws that are on the books.
It’s amazing how being shot in the head can change your opinions…
Ah, the chameleon characteristics of a politician, sporting her AR-15 when she thinks it’ll garner her votes, decrying a weapon that never injured her when she no longer needs those votes.
Oh the hypocrisy of a “couple” advocating for the banning of weapons they are actively buying or have historically used to gain votes.
And the idiocy! If their advocacy succeeds, it will ban people *like them* from owning weapons like that, though I suspect they’d get a waiver, like Finestain and her CCP.
@7–Okay, Doc. I’ll bite.
Pray tell, let’s assume that every single law that has been proposed in the wake of Sandy Hook at the federal level is in fact passed.
This would have prevented the shooting in Tucson–yes or no?
Now that I think about it, how likely is it that a gangbanger would be a Cal Bears fan?
USC, sure-but Cal?
@7: I’ve been shot and my opinion hasn’t changed. What’s your point?
Also @ 7: The psychology behind it is actually quite simple to understand. You have a group of people that always think “it will never happen to me”, because they prefer to live in their comfort zone where they have a perceived viewpoint of the world around them. Once they are brought into reality, they feel vulnerable and want to do whatever they can to get back into that comfort zone. Others take the opposite view and instead of trying to make everyone else bend to their feelings and their comfort zone, they bend to the reality of every day life and become more situationally aware, more vigilant, and more prepared. Gabby and James Brady choose the former, I chose the latter, because I am of the mind that it’s not my right to tell someone else how they should best be able to protect themselves, whether they want to carry pepper spray, a taser, or a gun. Also, it’s not up to me to decide for them what type of gun they want to carry, or own.
So… looking at the picture of the target she shot up, it appears to be a young hispanic boy. Does this mean she’s a racist?
@13: I think he looks more like Justin Beiber.
@14–we should be so lucky.
HM2 FMF-SW Ret: at the risk of sounding callous, any serious head injury (like getting shot in the head) can diminish cognitive ability, memory, judgement, alter personality, etc . . . . That’s particularly true when the injury involves the frontal lobes of the brain.
Giffords was shot in the left temple. It’s entirely possible she has some degree of cognitive impairment as the result of her injury. In particular, it’s possible she is now easily convinced by others to back causes and take positions that she never would have agreed with previously.
I seem to recall a diminished ability to handle requirements of her job as Congressional Representative was one of the reasons she resigned.
Justin Beiber … WEAPONS FREE … FIRE AT WILL!
I like Gabby and her husband. They are a bit left of me … but they are good American’s. He an accomplished Navy man and Astronaut and her a political figure gunned down by a wack job of a POS and now left disabled for life. Truly sad … Two promising careers cut short!
If they like guns … OK.
If they want to be responsible gun ownership advocates … OK.
But I am not going to beat her and the CAPT up.
Just my opinion!
Oh did I mention … Justin Beiber … WEAPONS FREE … FIRE AT WILL!
@14- Can’t be. The picture is of 1. A guy. 2. One that can grow facial hair. JB fits neither criteria.
But back to the discussion at hand – GG has diminished capacity based on a bullet to the head. Her husband has diminished capacity based on having given up his obligation of protecting and defending the Constitution.
@ 7 Doc …. “It’s amazing how being shot in the head can change your opinions”
If I was shot in my head … I am certain that some of my opinions would change too as pointed out in post # 16 by Hondo.
Calibrate me on your post in # 7.
What is it that you are saying …
An ex- girlfriends brother was stabbed to death. His family has not tried to ban knives…
I feel badly that Gabby Giffords and all the others from that day were shot. The fact is she was shot by a mentally disturbed individual who never should have been allowed to own a gun. The system failed, the local sherrif and courts failed ), the school he went to failed…. he was stalking Giffords for 3 years.
@16 You are correct. And that kind of injury also does terrible things to wallets, bank accounts, and retirements. A friend of mine had a brain tumor removed, benign, and was in the hospital for four days. Total damage: $250,000.
Giffords suffered catastrophic brain injury, had multiple surgeries, and extensive rehabilitation. Care to even guess what that might have cost?
The fact is, she and her husband have medical bills and issues to deal with, and they’ve made the decision that helps their situation the most: they’ve turned toward the answer that will bring in the money. Being pro-2A right now would push her into obscurity — and possibly, bankruptcy. Turning toward the anti-gun crowd assures her of attention and a steady cash flow. What you are seeing with Giffords is self-preservation, pure and simple.
Until DiFi et al decide to abridge the 1st as well as the 2nd, the Giffords still have the right to display their views publicly. So do I.
Meanwhile, we may no longer be paid to protect the Constitution, but neither we nor the good Capt (ret) have been released from the oaths that we took. Maybe he had some super secret special oath nulification ceremony?
@17: I’m not going to bag on Gabby, but her hubby is fair game. He has an agenda that involves infringing on my rights, so he’s in for a fight from me. He’s part of a political lobbying group that he and Gabby formed, so he’s no longer insulated from criticism. He knew he wasn’t going to get the rifle that day, but he made it sound like it was so easy to do. That makes him a teller of half truths at the least and an outright liar at the most. I don’t give a fuck if he was Navy, Coast Guard, or a Boy Scout, he’s stepping across a line and I’ll be the first in line to tell him so, since he has forgotten the oath he took.
@7 – HM2 — It’s predictable what fear will make you do and how it will change you.
@ 22 … Good point on oath … it is a life long oath as long as you are collecting pention and/or are subject to re-call. In my case … it is life long … you can bet your ass that if the US Navy needs to reactivate steam powered ships … regardless of age, I will be re-called.
@ 23 … fair enough brother! My compassion for their family plight outweighs my concern over their political views. Having said that, I know there are many more unlike me out there who will share my view about Gabby’s health and also take up a fight against their political view. And that is healthly as well. Now this makes no sence as I type it … hope it makes sence when someone reads it …. I need a beer!
PintoNag: don’t think that’s the driving force here. As a Member of Congress and the dependent of a military officer, Ms. Giffords unreimbursed medical expenses relating to her injury almost certainly were quite manageable. As a Member of Congress, Ms. Giffords would have qualified for the same health insurance program as other Federal employees. Those programs, while not “free rides”, offer fairly good coverage – particularly for catastrophic trauma situations. Presuming she elected coverage (it’s not mandatory), that insurance would have paid the lion’s share of her expenses associated with her being shot and the required medical aftercare (by law, it pays before TRICARE). If she managed a disability retirement vice simply resigning (possible, since she left due to serious health issues that impaired her ability to do her job), she’d also be eligible to continue that Federal employee health insurance after retirement. (I haven’t been able to determine definitively whether or not Members of Congress can apply for a disability retirement or not, but I believe they can if they meet the criteria.) Giffords’ retirement benefits fully vested after 5 years of service – which she attained about 3 weeks before she resigned in January 2012. The pension might not much under those conditions (it might be as low as 8.5% of her pay), but it would at least cover the cost of that continued health insurance. After any civilian insurance, TRICARE would kick in. Her husband was still on active duty when Giffords was shot. TRICARE would pick up the vast majority of her medical expenses after her civilian health insurance paid. Most likely, the worst Giffords and her husband would be looking at expense-wise is the annual TRICARE catastrophic cap for an individual. I believe that annual catastrophic cap was approx $2,500 or so when Giffords was shot. The above is not merely theoretical. I have personal knowledge of at least 3 cases where people with that combination of coverages (Federal employee coverage plus TRICARE) had major health issues. After both insurances had paid, in each case the individuals involved were out less than $1000. Doesn’t always… Read more »
@ #25: Will take issue with you about the oath we took. My oath had no expiration date. Until someone shows me a very good reason to think that it has been revoked, I will die thinking it still in effect without regard for a pension or lack thereof.
OWB: as a retired military officer, CAPT Kelly is indeed still bound by that oath. He’s also still subject to recall.
This has been airing in AZ for a few weeks now. She was my district rep and she did a good job, but now I think she’s becoming the new poster child for gun regulations. In addition to wondering if she is comprehending her words or just parroting due to her brain injuries, I can’t find the stats to support the claim that 9 out of 10 Americans support background checks.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/11/gabby_giffords_in_new_gun_control_tv_ad_congress_must_act.html
@26 Hondo, until seven years ago, I was covered by Federal insurance (job), and Tricare (dependent). Not anymore, but I know how the system works.
I was being kind before, but now I’ll be blunt. Reality jumped up and bit them on the ass. It’s possible to have an epiphany in life, but when it involves turning on, restricting, and criminalizing the freedoms of half the people in this country, I consider that epiphany to be suspect.
I used to really admire Mark Kelly and thought the whole ‘brothers in space’ thing was cool. I also empathized with Gabby Giffords. She seems like a nice person who had something horrible happen to her.
But I cannot excuse their crusade against the 2nd Amendment. Gabby Giffords is letting herself be a political tool for the left at the least or a calculating politician whose values and beliefs turn with the polls at the most. Mark Kelly is a liar. He had the nerve to testify in Colorado, a state where he’s never lived, while Colorado citizens were prevented from testifying. Then he turns around and buys two firearms the next day. When caught, he comes up with the BS excuse that he was proving how easy it was to pass a background check or something. LIAR.
Also, I don’t have any respect for people who try to use their so-called moral authority as emotional ammo in a political debate to obscure the facts. That they are hypocrites only makes it that much worse.
@29,I am sure you know it but we already have background checks in this country, so I think 9 out of 10 americans polled in that survey are unaware of that fact.
Not entirely sure how that stops criminals of course, because we all know they folow the law….
@29: The “9 out 10” number is a made up number floated by the gun control types. They have no hard data, other than, perhaps, a small sample size poll that wouldn’t pass muster statistically. If they were honest (yeah, like that’s gonna happen), they would phrase it “that 9 out of 10 people polled are in favor”, but they don’t.
I don’t care how much the gun control freaks milk Gabby Giffords and Newtown for all they’re worth.
They forget one simple fact: no gun ban law on the planet with stop someone who has an agenda and a means of killing from killing people.
PintoNag: agree fully, and no offense intended.
I was similarly serious about wondering if Giffords is actually actively promoting this cause, or if she’s being influenced to do so by others – and may not even realize that she’s being used. I had similar questions about James Brady, too.
Brady was clearly being showcased by handlers as the poster boy for their cause…I don’t know enough about Giffords to be sure the same is true here, although it would not surprise me if that were the case.
I understand where her husband is coming from, even though he is misguided in his data and thinking.
It’s human nature to want to see senseless violence stopped and we as humans are always trying to “fix” things, even when our fix will not actually have a benefit that is tangible in any way. We already have too many problems caused by the laws of unintended consequence to be rushing to add more problems.
Suicide is responsible for close to 2/3rds of the firearms deaths each year, and suicide is already illegal. Additional laws won’t change suicides, lack of guns won’t change suicide. Murders committed by minorities in NYC are 90% of all the murders in NYC. Making it illegal to be a minority in NYC would have a greater impact on the murder rate than any gun ban, but it’s not a viable solution. Neither is a gun ban because the criminal minorities who are committing 90% of the murders in NYC are already using illegal weapons. A discussion of why these young people are murderers and what leads to that behavior is uncomfortable, difficult, and without a clear endpoint. That’s why a feel good band aid fix is what our legislators are attempting, it’s doing “something” without doing any real heavy lifting.
Until we get back to actually doing the hard work of addressing social problems that run rampant through our large cities, young men in these areas will continue to use a gun to succeed because that’s what works for them. It allows them access to financial gain either through controlling drug turf for selling product, or simply relieving an unarmed law abiding citizen of their possessions. Difficult, long solutions are not something short sighted politicians want to tackle.
Here’s hoping some of them find their way back to the hard work and drop the “quick fix” mentality.
I am always suspicious of anyone who wants me disarmed while they stay, well armed.
They trust my happy arse to drive a one ton automobile on the roads everyday and not kill, maim or injure anyone. My job at one time was driving a steel delivery truck a seven ton stiff truck loaded with tons of steel and driving on the interstate full with vehicles at rush hour of men, women, and children at speeds up to 75 mph and they trusted me not to kill, maim or injure anyone, yet they tell me We cannot be trusted with a gun.
A 7 ton truck hauling 27,000 lbs of steel I loaded and strapped down myself and drove everyday amongst the population and no one was worried. For those who say nay you need a permit this truck at that time was not big enough or heavy enough to need a commercial drivers permit all you needed was the standard license. Ya know something else? I am a veteran also! “HORRORS”
A 3 lb M1911A1 with more than seven rounds? They get worried.
All due respects to the family of Gabby Giffords, but I don’t think it is wise to pass gun laws based on the desires of someone who is severely brain damaged.
Yea, I said it. Because it’s the truth.
Crime sob stories don’t trump Constitutional rights. These two are such jackasses. Yeah, I said it. Next week are people going to be hysterical jerks demanding the 1st amendment should be limited so meanies don’t call gun victims jackasses?
FatCircles0311: some would argue that “anti-bullying laws” proposed or in effect in some locations effectively do exactly that.
DiFi and MK/GG have a new book coming out “Fahrenheit 2500″* – that’s the name of the new dystopian situation we are in!
After that they can trample on the First Amendment and begin working on “Fahrenheit 451” – since books contain more words than Congressional Demos want us to know – freedom, honor, dignity, selfworth, self-reliance, individualism, God, and Country.
* Temp at which steel melts
I’m sensing that there may be a very strong break between their earlier stance on gun ownership when representing the voters of what I believe is a very pro-gun state, and the position that Democrats as a party need from them now, being a lawmaker who has been directly impacted by a gunfire. Our politicians have pretty pliable views when their party asks something of them. They seem to even be pushing them down the ‘I like guns but not these’ path, which is a stance I’ve never heard from the mouth of somebody who isn’t being shown on the news.
Considering she was shot while performing her duties as a member of Congress, I’d be surprised if she had any medical bills to pay out of pocket at all, with regards to the injuries she sustained from the shooting.
A Soldier buddy of mine has a son who had Childhood Leukemia and they were on CHAMPUS/TRICARE and he said he had medical bills in excess of $150,000. I’m GS and I don’t have FEHB for medical insurance. I only have TRICARE and the good ole VA. So, it could be possible for them to have medical bills.
Our insurance, at least at one time in the not too distant past, was nearly identical to that of members of Congress, except that they had more options from which to choose and didn’t pay quite as much for it. At that time, I am certain that she would not have had any expenses other than some minimal deductibles. That does not even consider whatever she may have gotten as a military dependant.
Rather doubt that this turn, if that is what it is, has anything to do with paying for any medical expenses. She probably had only none or very little of that. Members of Congress also seem to have access (is it magic?) to much better facilities than do the rest of us even when we have the “same” insurance.
Would certainly like to remind these two that any weaponry owned by my family, even those in or near AZ, were not involved in that awful shooting. So I would really like for them to explain how depriving me and/or mine of weaponry will balance out the criminal acts of others.
Like Cindy Sheehan, Gabby Giffords now has ‘unassailable moral authority,’ which, like Sheehan, will be used to whip up the masses against John McCain.
Mark Kelly may be aiming at quite another target: governor, or US Senator. Arizona luvs them some US Naval Aviator Retired Captains who say one thing and do the opposite for Senator.
JBS: if she passed on FEHB as a Member of Congress because she had TRICARE as a mil dependent, well, then I’m sorry – but in that case she gambled and lost. FEHB plans ain’t that cheap, but most are pretty good insurance. Pair one with TRICARE and I doubt she’d have much in the way of out-of-pocket, even for something like this. By law, FEHB plan would pay first, less it’s annual cap and required cost-shares; TRICARE would then kick in and cover most of the rest. I’d doubt she’d have much left afterwards besides TRICARE’s annual individual cap.
As I said above: I know personally of 3 cases where someone with a combination of FEHB and TRICARE (retiree/standard) had a major medical issue requiring surgery. In each case the bill was well above $15k; each ended up paying under $1000 out of pocket. I think all 3 cases ended up well under $500 out of pocket, but I’m not positive about one of them.
Have you listened to her talk? She sounds like a Chatty Cathy doll, pull her string and she will issue six or so words. Have you looked into her eyes? There is no there there. Her husband is using her as a prop to advance his own political career. She “runs her own Foundation”. Right, she can’t run a kitchen mixer. This poor lady is being used as a finger puppet to take away my rights. It’s disgraceful. Coming to my home state (Washington) to lobby an already liberal legislature to pass her gun grabbing agenda. Despicable. I dare her to find her way home without her handlers and her asshat of a husband.
@38. “All due respect to the family of Gabby Giffords, but I don’t think it is wise to pass gun laws based on the desires of someone who is severely brain damaged.”
Hey, she’s no more damaged than Biden, Feinstein, and a slew of others. The only difference is some of them can remember that H means Hot and C means Cold on the faucet.
@48, I mentioned that in another thread a while back. When she sits next to Kelly and talks, you can’t even see his lips move, he’s that good. There might be a porch light on, but there isn’t anyone home.