Anti-Gun Protesters Prepare to Invoke Rep. Giffords at NRA Convention
- Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:06pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
PITTSBURGH (AP) — When the National Rifle Association gathers for its annual convention in Pittsburgh, gun control advocates will try to make sure Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is on people’s minds, even if she’s hundreds of miles away watching the space shuttle launch in Florida.
The nation’s largest gun rights group said its meeting “will be a great celebration of freedom” in a city where 1 million of the NRA’s 3.5 million members live within a four-hour radius, said spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.
The NRA expects about 70,000 members to gather Thursday through Sunday, while Giffords will appear Friday at Cape Canaveral, Fla., to see her husband, Capt. Mark Kelly, pilot a space shuttle launch.
Outside the convention, the Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence plans to demonstrate with several people connected to shootings, including Patricia Maisch, a 62-year-old Arizona woman who wrestled away an ammunition clip from a gunman as he attempted to reload during the Jan. 8 shooting that killed six people and wounded 13, including Giffords.
The group plans to take out local newspaper ads and hire a billboard truck to drive around during the convention to “invite” NRA executive director and CEO Wayne LaPierre to discuss a loophole the group says lets private gun sellers bypass the federal background check system that licensed gun dealers must use to screen customers.
Maisch said details of her appearance Saturday in Pittsburgh were still being worked out, but she’s hopeful the attention Giffords receives the day before helps her own efforts bear more fruit.
“I would hope that they would have the fortitude to try to find common ground. I’m not at odds with the NRA,” said Maisch, who doesn‘t own guns but said she supports individuals’ rights to own them. “It‘s very discouraging that we have as many guns on the street that we do in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.”
Arulanandam said it‘s unfair to link Giffords’ appearance more than 800 miles away to the NRA event, in part because the NRA has lobbied for the national background check system, which he contends would have stopped Arizona shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner from buying weapons had authorities only acted on information they had about his substance abuse and mental health history.
“The issue there was with the fact that Jared Loughner had so many warning signs that went unheeded,” Arulanandam said.
The NRA had no comment on Maisch’s appearance, Arulanandam said.
LaPierre said that elections have shown that the NRA’s message resonates with most Americans, noting that former President Bill Clinton has written that Al Gore lost the 2004 presidential election by abandoning his previous pro-NRA position.
“In the heartland of the country,” LaPierre said, “… it was bad politics to be on the wrong side of the gun issue.”
That’s one reason that Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, will speak at the convention Friday on his Second Amendment record, and why other Republican heavy hitters, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and freshman U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey will also appear that day. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a past Republican presidential candidate, will be the keynote speaker Saturday night.
But anti-gun groups contend the NRA’s political invincibility is a myth that flies in the face of at least one new survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, which found gun ownership has dropped from 54 percent of U.S. households in 1977 to 32 percent last year.
Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Violence Policy Center, said Democrats have bought into the “myth about the insurmountable power of the National Rifle Association” to keep from asking tough questions about why they have lost key races to Republicans in recent decades.
“The NRA will tell you they’re about freedom, heritage, family — no,” Sugarmann said. “It’s about selling guns to the last buyer.”
Paul Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., who is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the NRA tries to convince people they’re “in danger of losing their guns if the wrong people get elected” in order to ratchet up fundraising support, and to bolster gun sales. Helmke said most NRA members are more moderate than the group itself because “if the NRA is seen as sitting down (with opponents), they‘re going to be losing their extremist members and they’re not going to be able to sell as many guns.”
LaPierre dismisses such talk.
“The NRA’s clout decade in and decade out always stands on where the American public stands on the Second Amendment,” he said.
“They wanted to be free 200 years ago; they want to be free now.”
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 683 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 647 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 314 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 170 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 209 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 170 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (230)
Xpat48
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:55pmGabby should buy her own Glock, S&W, H & K, Colt, or any one she wants.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:48pmYay, another gathering of blithering idiots.
Report Post »MidWestMom
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:05pmWhat group are you referring to?
Report Post »Fedup
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:45pmJust another ploy to take away gun rights. This guy was sick in the head and a lefty to boot but no one did a thing about it. Don’t blame loopholes in gun regulations. You are lucky that we adhere to ANY regulation concerning guns. We have ATF ordering gun dealers in AZ to sell weapons to drug runners yet we hear nary a word from you about it. If you allowed all to carry then the maniac who shot Giffords and the other poor souls– would have been put down by an upstanding citizen. Arm everyone and maniacs like the guy who shot Giffords would have thought twice about it if he thought that maybe he would be outgunned. A good offense will always trump a good defense.
Report Post »spirited
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:41pmWill there also be a poster of the truth teller
>Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik there?
Report Post »retriever
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:46pmWho in the hell is the truth teller?
Report Post »retriever
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:41pmI have had her on my mind since it happened, and I am glad that she is coming along nicely. NRA doesn’t need to be reminded about Rep. Giffords. Everyone remembers her in their prayers.
Report Post »Now go home and YOU pray for her too! You just want to carry a picket sign to show everyone that you are important. NOT!
steelmover
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:37pmI cant believe gun control is still an argument. The most fundamental right….the right to live… is the right to protect yourself.
I also like the poll done by the university of Chicago. Only 32% of households own guns hahahaha. What happened to the record sales of guns in just the last few years???? Figures, the poll is from chicago.
Report Post »Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:02pmWhat you are forgetting is that if guns were banned, there would be no way for criminals to commit crimes. Guns = crime.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:16pmR U KIDDING ME? IF guns were banned there’d be no crime? YOU DOPE!!! YOU poor, pathetic, braindead dope!! IF there were no guns, the criminals (WHO HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO GET GUNS…. arghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! I cannot believe that an ADULT would even begin to believe that if you get rid of GUNS we would have no crime…. ) HERE’S A CLUE FOR YOU DUDE: WITHOUT GUNS WE WON’T BE FREE OR SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Mr. Nice Guy
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:32pmPATTY HENRY,
Go up the page and look for posts from Hawt‘n’secksie. He’s being facetious. Or he’s insanse, not really sure. Good humor either way.
Report Post »Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:36pmCalm down Patty….the only reason people commit crime is because they have access to guns. Look at Mexico…guns are illegal. They have the lowest crime rate in the history. There are never any murders or crimes in Mexico. That’s why Americans are fleeing en masse to go live in Mexico! No crime, more jobs, and better tasting (not to mention cleaner) drinking water. Look up the facts before you bust out your CAPS lock on me.
Report Post »geonj
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:36pmdid anyone ask Rep Giffords if it is ok to use her as an image of gun control for the leftis loons.
Report Post »nosycophant
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:36pmSo someone might benefit from her switching parties becoming a Liberal getting shot in the head and living? Sounds like it was planned.
Report Post »miles from nowhere
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:35pmNICK84 I have guns to protect myself from people just like you and the ones that take advantage of people with no way to protect themselves.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 3:15pmAre you being serious right now? What do you think I’m trying to do that you would require protection from me? I just don’t think that someone kicked out of school and ordered to get a psych evaluation before returning (which he failed to do), should be allowed to legally purchase or own a gun. I don’t see how that is anything but reasonable… Do you think someone with the mental capacity of a toddler should be able to purchase a gun if they are of physical age?
Report Post »Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 4:04pmI agree with Nick. If at any time someone deems that someone else should be required to undergo a psych eval, that person should be restricted from ever buying a gun. I’m not sure we should stop there, though. I think everyone who wants a gun should have to undergo a psych eval. In addition they should implant a tracking chip into everyone buying a gun so their whereabouts can be known at all times.
It would just be so much easier if we banned guns entirely.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 5:27pmSo do you think everyone should be allowed to own a gun?
Report Post »Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 6:43pmAbsolutely not! I do think we need magical background checks that can tell the future so we know if the person buying the gun plans to commit a crime with it so we can stop the sale. We also need a magical law that prevents criminals from obtaining guns illegally. With those two simple things in place, we could end all gun crime. That‘s all I’m saying. More magic, more predicting the future, less violence.
Report Post »Mark Tripp
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:33pmAgain, there is NO such loophole, period. It is a leftist LIE.
EVERY firearm purchase, no matter who or where it takes place, MUST comply with EVERY local, state, and federal regulation for the transfer of firearms in that city/state. PERIOD. Stop the lies.
As to 30 round magazines, only a clueless noob calls them a clip, as the people forced to defend their places of business during the Rodney King riots how important they were and are.
Report Post »upstateny
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:21pmThere is also no difference in crime rate with any of the ridicules regulations any of there lefties whip up. But that’s not their goal anyway.
Report Post »TheGreyPiper
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:33pmI am an NRA member and unreservedly support the 2nd Amendment. However, I do think NRA should find a way to do more, both by advocacy and action, to fight *illegal* gun ownership and use. Allowing the hoplophobes to maintain the rhetorical high ground against “gun violence” (aka “crime”) is a serious shortcoming. NOBODY is in favor of violence of any kind.
Report Post »Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:59pmExcept criminals. Criminals are in favor of violence, and if guns were banned, criminals would become extinct because there would be no guns forcing them to do violence.
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 8:38am@Grey- what more should the NRA do? Start their own police force or criminal invetigation unit, or firearms enforcement unit?
Report Post »Other than be more vociferous about the complete Secon Amendment, they’re probably doing all they can, so where do you get off saying they should do more?
What part of “Shall not be infringed” do you and the libs find so difficult to understand?
eat-more-bacon-USA
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:32pmUh, hello – - Gabrielle Giffords is a long time member of the NRA and a long time gun owner. Although Gabrielle Giffords received a “C” rating in 2010 (in the lead-up to the mid-term election) from the NRA for her stance on gun rights (the National Rifle Association‘s list of grades and endorsements for Arizona’s Congressional delegation, a list reserved for members only) – it is well known that she is a gun rights advocate.
Report Post »sister1_rm
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:30pmOoh! Ooh! How about this. Every law abiding citizen wants violent crime to stop, yes? So how about every citizen over the age of 21 who does not have a serious mental illnes or record of violent crime be rquired to take regular gun safety training, and be required to openly carry a firearm in a prpoer holster in public. Do ya think violent crime has much of a chance in that scenario? Who’s going to mug or rape an armed citizen, or hold up a bank, or terrorize a mall when they are going to be shot down befoe the objective is accomplished. What’s more, with the entire adult population trained in gun safety, chances have it, the kids are going to be better informed about the consequences of abusing a firearm. Normalize firearms and the anti-gun crap will stop.
Another side effect of general firearms, is that with violent crime way down, there won’t be as much need for a large police force, so a nice chunk of budget is opened up for other uses, such as a decrease in taxes.
Report Post »conversationcanwork
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:37pmThat is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. More guns, to that amount, would be terrible.
Report Post »Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:56pmYes, Conversation, you are right. We all know guns turn otherwise law abiding citizens into zombies incapale of controlling themselves. The citizenry is far too prone to mindless zombieism to be trusted with firearms. Guns must be banned.
Report Post »RugerHoyt
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:57pmSo simple, yet sooooo true.
Report Post »Mr. Nice Guy
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:14pmHawt‘n’secksie,
No, let’s start from the beginning: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, Therefore people must be banned. QED.
Report Post »AuH2Oconservative
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:26pmI guess these people are stupid as well;
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment
“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion.”
Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference — they [firearms] deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
Report Post »George Washington.
upstateny
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:14pmconversationcanwork, If it’s the stupidest thing you have ever heard. Explain why every town or country that has a mandatory gun ownership policy has the lowest crime rate.
Report Post »conversationcanwork
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:38pmYou can’t force someone to own a gun. I am probably a better marksman than 85% of the people here (and a liberal at that) and am in the Marine Corps. I don’t really want a gun, so I won’t buy one. Mandatory Gun Ownership isn’t right.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 4:55pm@conversationatwork
I see now. You can’t make someone own a gun, but you CAN make them own health insurance.
Mandatory health insurance is not right, nor is it A right.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:27pmCongresswoman Gifford is pro 2cd amendment at least she was before she was shot. So invoke her name if you want no one will be suprised that you leftist try to use a tragedy to promote taking more personal freedom, and building a bigger big brother government. He77 the leftist/socialist were using this awful event 10 minutes after it happened in hopes of political gains. Nothing new here the democratic ghouls will always try to feed thier political machine off the bodies of the dead and wounded. Like your socialist leasder said “never let a crisis go to waste!” I don‘t5 see how people like that can even look in the mirror and not see a demon face like those in the Devil’s Advocate
Report Post »WHITE LOTUS2x
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:27pmIn this day and time, how safe would a person feel without protection? If there ever was the time to need protection, it is here and now. Lotus.
Report Post »conversationcanwork
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:25pmI like how there are bullets through the flag, what is that supposed to symbolize?
Report Post »Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:51pmIt symbolizes that criminals are shooting the flag with guns, and if we banned guns, criminals would not be able to shoot holes in the flag. Duh.
Report Post »love the kids
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:24pmGiffords is in Florida watching the space shuttle launch that the US is scraping, and not going to the anti gun rally that the US is keeping. That says a lot about her character. Thanks for standing up for our rights Rep. Giffords.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:10pmTHAT is a cheap shot. She is going to watch her HUSBAND go into space possibly for the last time. I doubt she is doing so unassisted.
Report Post »arx
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 10:44pmYeah you shouldn‘t fault her for watching her husband’s launch. And I’m sure she is still in recovery. But wouldn’t it be something if she swung by the convention in support of the NRA!
Report Post »GayDem4Beck
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:24pmThey’ll take every opportunity to dismantle this country, piece by piece. I for one won’t give up any rights or freedoms for anyone on the Left or the Right.
Report Post »chiefparker
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:23pmFunny, I’ve never seen them show up at Knob Creek Gun range here in Ky. The Largest machine gun show in America is held here. Come. My question is WHERE ARE YOU? We’re waiting…
Report Post »MidWestMom
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:30pm::snicker:: cowards aren’t they?
Report Post »southernORcobra
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:27pmThe noise and the overwhelming sense of awesome keeps them away
Report Post »notavictim
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:19pmYeah, let’s just let the criminals hide their guns, take them away from law-abiding citizens-then we’ll all be safer. Morons!
Report Post »Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:49pmI am in agreement with you. Less guns would definitely result in criminals obeying the law.
Report Post »Vickie Dhaene
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:17pmI get chills every time I hear that Speech with Charleston Heston. The same chills when I hear our National Anthem. I am a PATRIOT.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:58pmSome things are worth dieing for.
Report Post »Ron Morris
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 7:45pmHillary Clinton,makes a commitment for gun control to the UN,yesterday!I don,t give a damn what Hillary commited to!!!
Report Post »America, lets tell this Dictator Barack Hussein Obama(Teflon-Obama),the Dictator of the United States of America,that “WE THE PEOPLE”,will not give up any part of our 1-st or 2-nd Amendment,or any other part of our Constitution Of the United States of America!!!!!
To the Barack Hussein Obama Dictatorship Administration of the United States of America,“WE THE PEOPLE”,will not give up any Amendment of our Constitution of the United States of America,to
any,Marxist,Socialist,Communist or “OPEN SOCIETY” or “NEW WORLD ORDER” Administration!!!
Washington DC go to HELL. “WE THE PEOPLE”,will keep our guns and our Bibles,Thank You!!!!!
miles from nowhere
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:14pmIts to bad there was not someone there with a gun to protect her. Crazy people will get to you no matter if they have a gun, he would have used any means possible to get her, knife, car exposives.
Report Post »smak
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:21pmThey issue soldiers guns, not knives. Knives aren’t very efficient or effective.
Report Post »Ssenkrad
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:47pm@Smak
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Report Post »Zeus In A Speedo
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:42pm@ Smak –
They issue soldiers knives, too. Knives can be very effective at killing at short range. Any trained special forces soldier or police officer can disarm an assailant with a hand gun in melee combat; a knife is much deadlier in melee. A gun is obviously deadlier at a longer range.
Also, there is a fact called the “21 foot rule.” A person armed with a knife drawn and within 21 feet, can run up to you, and stab you before you can draw and aim a pistol. I also believe knives account for more violent assaults in the country than guns.
Should we ban knives, too!
Report Post »Subdude0ne
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:56pmNo, they issue soldiers guns, and knives. Knives are very efficient and effective in the properly trained hands.
Report Post »3Bigdogs
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:13pmLet ‘em protest…I think I’ll go buy another gun!
Report Post »MidWestMom
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:25pmProtest all you want.
Report Post »1) Not giving up our guns.
2) Not gonna stop buying more.
3) For now, we jump thru the hoops & buy them legally.
Closing those hoops will only change one thing – #3 .
Showtime
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:10pmI have the gun. I need more bullets. Going up that way today anyway!
Report Post »southernORcobra
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:26pmalready bought a third gun today :)
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:11pmAs many have already said attempting to do away with the 2nd which at this pint any added law to already existing laws is an attempt to strip people of their rights. Crime /violent crime will become rampant in the USA; the violent criminal under belly within America is only held back by a very thin blue line.
Cowards commit violent crime and if the American populace were disarmed it would without question double, triple or quadruple the amount of crime.
Wake up dirty hippies
Oh and over throwing the constitution and attempting to force me to turn in my guns is the fastest way to create an outlaw.
Well at least an outlaw to your BS progressive utopia
Report Post »Roberto G. Vasquez
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:13pmThank God for the NRA! Join today and support the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:20pmBut guns kill people!!! And keyboards make mistakes! I’m so smrat!!!
Report Post »pappy
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:47pmMy wife & I are already NRA lifetime members. Anyone belong to that other gun advocate group? You know, the one with all the letters in the abreviation… The CCRKBA or something like that? I believe I get around 2 to 4 emails per week from them & they ALWAYS want another donation. At least the NRA doesn’t pest for more money….. that I don’t have.
Report Post »Bonnieblue2A
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:11pmProgressives never miss a chance to exploite victims for their own political agenda. Will Gabby Giffords be replacing Jim Brady as the gun grabber’s poster girl? Sick, really sick.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:18pmGun grabbers? Really? She was the victim of a SHOOTING. No one is exploiting her. She is a good example of why we need stricter background checks for guns, as well as a possible ban for 30 round magazines. It isn’t exploitation to try to reduce the amount of cases like this.
Report Post »BIGJAYINPA
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:23pmHere is a tip for the protestors in Pittsburgh. Be very respectful and keep it peaceful. Protest and debate the issues to your hearts content. Engage in the spirited intercourse of ideas and opinions. The people attending this convention will gladly engage in the arena of ideas and spirited debate. But if I were you I would forget about trying anything violent or illegal. This is not the place for a violent confrontation.
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:26pmIf memory serves, Giffords is a member of NRA
Report Post »MidWestMom
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:28pm@APatriotFirst
I do believe you are correct!
Report Post »Mr. Nice Guy
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:29pmNick84,
Stricter background checks, OK. Ban 30 round magazines, no reason. It’s not a “hardware” problem, it’s a “people” problem.
Report Post »Gold Coin & Economic News
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:33pm@Nick84 Don’t be a ****** Nick. It’s not legal to kill people, but it still happens and Jered Loughner is a crazy who would have found a way to wreak havoc anyway regardless if he had access to guns or not.
Report Post »NOKOOLAIDDRINKER
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:33pmBonnie I’m sure they will try to get her support, but if not her then someone else from that tragedy will be used toward their ends. The lose of our 2nd Amendment rights will be the final “nail in the coffin” in the demise of our United States of America. That is their ultimate goal!!!
Report Post »The marxists/socialists have taken over the banking system, big businesses (auto –2009 stimulus, wall street, banks –Tarp and medical–Obamacare) the media (for decades), our children (propaganda in schools controlled by the teachers unions), and the final coup de grace– total gun confiscation. They will not stop until they have accomplished this. If Hillary has her way and the Senate passes the UN Small Arms Treaty — then THERE IT IS handed to us by the United Nations (one of the most America hating organizations housed on our shores)!!!
CAN WE HOLD ON ‘TIL 2012? I’m praying every day!!!
J.C. McGlynn
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:36pmJames Brady was a gun rights supporter until he got shot during the Regan assination attempt.
Report Post »To those who don’t believe Gaberial giffords is not being exploited for political gain , guess again. everytime you hear about G.G. getting shot you hear about loopholes, many put in by liberals just for this.
Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:36pmI agree, Nick84. We need stricter laws because we all know criminals only obey the strict laws.
Report Post »Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:40pmWe should make it illegal for anyone to own a gun if they are going to attempt to murder someone with it. That should be a prescreening question along with the stricter background check. We all know criminals are honest and will only give the truthful answer.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:44pmThese anti gun groups of the progressives will not stop any level of disgusting intimidation and inflaming rhetoric until they have their ideal of a society enslaved under the command of a small group of ‘elitists’ who know absolutely nothing about our great country.
Report Post »Hawt'n'secksie
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:46pmThis is a time when we could learn from Mexico. Aren’t guns mostly illegal there? And isn’t their crime rate the lowest in the universe? No one in Mexico would dare try to obtain a gun illegally. We should ban guns entirely, then we would have less criminals and crime because the guns wouldn’t be tempting the law abiding citizens into committing crime.
We should also ban mental illness, as it is not fair people commit crimes when they are insane.
While we are at it, let’s ban crime. Crime sucks.
Report Post »theonefromabove
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:47pmWill they ever believe in the constitutional rights?
http://politicalbowl.com – Political Videos
Report Post »eat-more-bacon-USA
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:51pmGabrielle Giffords is a long time member of the NRA and a long time gun owner. Although Gabrielle Giffords received a “C” rating in 2010 (in the lead-up to the mid-term election) from the NRA for her stance on gun rights (the National Rifle Association‘s list of grades and endorsements for Arizona’s Congressional delegation, a list reserved for members only) – it is well known that she is a gun rights advocate.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:03pm@Gold Coin & Economic News
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:33pm
@Nick84 Don’t be a ****** Nick. It’s not legal to kill people, but it still happens and Jered Loughner is a crazy who would have found a way to wreak havoc anyway regardless if he had access to guns or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ban hammers! Ban swimming pools! Ban cars! Ban kitchen knives! Ban tall buildings! Ban short buildings! Ban bridges! Ban airplane flights!
BAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
Report Post »Quad-rip-legic
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:03pmI’m afraid if she remains pro-gun and a member of the NRA after this, the Democrats will put extra big tires on the bus just for her.
Report Post »SavingtheRepublic.com
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:05pm^______^______^
Uhhh first of all its a MAGAZINE NOT A CLIP! Please stop calling them clips.
#2 Guns dont kill; crazy, unhinged, evil people kill. Instead of protesting guns why not go after the legislators who are not enforcing the laws already on the books! Protest them you idgets!
How about just adding more teeth to existing laws for crimes committed with guns. Guns save lives I have articles about how someone was able to protect themselves or their family because they had a gun. Do these boneheads understand that criminals do not follow the law? Do they understand that their desire for more restrictions only hurts law abiding people? Do they understand that criminals will get guns on the “black market” if all guns were banned today? This would in effect leave ppl defenseless.
I am so sick of all these liberal tree hugging, birkenstock wearing, Berkeley loving, dope smoking idiots and their crusade for a socialist/marxist/ communist progressive utopian dream!
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:07pm@Hawt‘n’secksie
Report Post »Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:36pm
I agree, Nick84. We need stricter laws because we all know criminals only obey the strict laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you type that with a straight face?
MEESHEL
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:08pmI didn’t see this one coming…. NOT. LOL. They are soooo predictable… sad really
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:12pmGUNS didn’t kill those 6 and so gravely injure REP GIFFORDS…a nut case did. WITHOUT GUNS on the ready there would be RAMPANT CRIME. HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT IS HAPPENING ON OUR BORDER????
IT”s OFFICIALLY time for all these debasing, demeaning, disillusioning, childish, gutless wonders who are determined to strip AMERICA of it’s rights…time for you to crawl back into your VAULT. WE are officially awake. THANK YOU. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED….now go away.
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:14pmStudy after study shows anti-gun laws do not work and actually increase VIOLENT crime. Let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good liberal attempt to take your only means available to a tyrannical government. Once again, there is not a need for MORE gun laws, just enforce the ones already there, kinda like immigration laws. The ONLY gun law I would back is when someone uses a gun in a crime they are automatically given an enhancement of the penalty of 10 years in prison, no parole or early release period. This same type of law would work for when people flee the police in a vehicle causing high speed chases. If you flee the police in a vehicle when they are CLEARLY trying to pull you over, 5 years prison no early release or parole, period.
Report Post »D0ntTread0nMe
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:25pmEVERYone is exploiting her attack for their own gain. It’s OF COURSE the exact thing people who do not believe in gunrights would do. step 1. wait for any gun incedent… step 2. Scream from the mountain top that we have PROGRESSED past them… Shameful
Report Post »http://www.mythoughtsfromthemiddle.blogspot.com
independentvoteril
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:28pmGrifford IS smarter than the progressives she supported gun rights as well as she is SMART enough to KNOW that there are nuts in the world .. she also is smart enough to know HAD this guy had a KNIFE he could have shook her hand pulled her towards him and stabbed her .. and she most likely wouldn’t be alive today… let them have their fun.. it won’t CHANGE anything..nor will the regulations or changing description of what a gun is… AMERICAN’S will NOT give up their 2nd amendment right
Report Post »prepper1776
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:35pmnick, yeah ban 30 rnd mags that will work great, oh buy the way hows that whole war on drugs thing workn for ya, dont see any drugs around do ya
Report Post »Obama Bin Lying
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 1:35pmIt is exploitation of the poor woman plain and simple. To further the anti gun crowd cause. I hate to be the one to tell the Libratrolls, that it isn’t guns who kill people. It is other people who do. Put a restriction on them, not on the guns. IF you want to use stupid arguments, use drunk driving…ban all beer. Or better yet, go after the car makers. How about Space shuttles, they killed people, should we ban space travel???
Liberals really can be idiots when it coems to their agenda.
Report Post »Mee the People
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:07pmlets give up our guns so they can kill us like hitler killed the jews
Report Post »“from my hot powder burnt hands”
TexasCommonSense
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:14pmIf there had been more legal guns there the idiot may have been killed before he killed nearly as many.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:15pmI am a LIFETIME member of the NRA .. and yes I do believe that Congresswoman Giffords is a member also … many WOMEN ARE!
Report Post »Professional Infidel
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:16pmDid Gifford re state the same thing Brady said?? “I got half a mind to quite this job”!!!
Report Post »pappy
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:36pmAnyone else having trouble with their posts showing up? Is big brother here too? I tried twice to post about this article & my input was clean & nice & happy and all that. I’m starting to feel like a red headed step kid…..
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:40pmShowtime-
When did I ever say anything about banning guns? I didn’t did I? Quit using straw man arguments. Do you honestly disagree with my statement that Jared Loughner should not have been able to purchase a gun? He was kicked out of school for disturbing classes and was only allowed to come back if he got a psychological evaluation. He failed to do so. Do you think that should not be taken into account when someone tries to purchase a gun? Also, everyone needs to stop with comparing guns to things like knives. When is the last time someone in America walked into a crowd and stabbed that many people? Also, certain knives are already banned across cities in the US.
Report Post »pappy
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:42pmAs usual, they’ll never let a good crisis go to waste. I think it‘s appalling that they’d try to exploit Sen. Gabby like that. Geeez, the woman hasn’t been out of the hospital that long.
And, don’t forget….
If your held up or your house is broken into, even if your the victim of a home invasion…..
Try to talk nicely to your aggressor. Tell them there’s a better way. They just need a little guidance & understanding. Then, take careful aim & empty the mag in their direction.
I won’t surrender my shotguns. Ever.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:43pmGold Coin & Economic News
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:33pm
“@Nick84 Don’t be a ****** Nick. It’s not legal to kill people, but it still happens and Jered Loughner is a crazy who would have found a way to wreak havoc anyway regardless if he had access to guns or not.”
I’m not denying that he could have done damage without a gun. A gun, however, was the simplest way to cause massive amounts of damage. I’m sorry, but someone as clearly disturbed as he was should not be able to purchase a gun.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 2:47pmMr. Nice Guy
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 12:29pm
“Nick84,
Stricter background checks, OK. Ban 30 round magazines, no reason. It’s not a “hardware” problem, it’s a “people” problem.”
It’s nice to see someone on here is reasonable, even if we do disagree on the “hardware” part. I was curious if you think that all “hardware” should be legal though? I’m not trying to twist your argument or anything. I was just curious if you think things like fully automatic weapons should be legal. I suppose I just don’t see a rational point for having a magazine that big. Even if a few people break into your house, you shouldn’t need that many rounds to defend yourself.
Report Post »Xkiller
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 3:26pmNick84
let me get this straight…he had problems, gave hints that no one caught on to…so it was the guns’ fault? Would you be happier if he had shown up with a backpack full of explosives or pipe bombs to throw at the crowd? Or maybe he could have just driven a truck at high speed into the crowd. I fail to understand how you can look at the 20,000 + gun control laws on the books and still think more with make things better. Now, the government is supplying drug gangs south of the board with weapons and telling US we have a problem with illegal guns down south. The government is trying to justify Hillary’s statement awhile back that 90% of the guns in mexico are from here and what better way to PROVE it then sending the guns there yourself and the “discovering” they are from the states? Wise up, it may be later than you think.
Report Post »snidley-whiplash
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 3:32pmSTOP PEOPLE that commit GUN VIOLENCE!
Report Post »prepper1776
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 3:38pmnick i agree on background checks, but as far as magazine go a colt 45 hols 8 rounds if GG had beed shot in the head with a 45 she never would have survived
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 4:02pmXkiller
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 3:26pm
“Nick84
let me get this straight…he had problems, gave hints that no one caught on to…so it was the guns’ fault? ”
How can you even infer that from what I am saying? It was completely, 100% Jared Loughner’s fault. However, we should not give people like him easy access to the tools to carry out a sick action as he did. I am not arguing for “more” gun control laws. I am arguing for better ones. Like I have said repeatedly on here, there is no way he should have been able to own a gun legally. I understand that there are still ways he could have done harm without a gun, or he could even obtain a gun illegally, but are you too stubborn to concede that those options would have been much more difficult than him walking into a gun store and purchasing a gun legally? You seem to be arguing that it was perfectly OK for him to own a gun. Is that really the argument you want to make?
I am actually pretty impressed that a lot of people on here seem to agree with a better system of background checks. I think too often many liberals think of conservatives as “gun toting rednecks”, but at the same time, a lot of conservatives seem to think that liberals want massive government intervention to take all guns away from citizens. Both those are pretty ridiculous assumptions, to be honest. Gun control legislation doesn’t mean taking guns away. I consider myself very liberal, but I don’t have a problem with reasonable people owning reasonable guns. The problem in this case is that we had an unreasonable person purchase a gun, and something should be done to try to prevent future instances of that. I don’t think that many people on here think a background check is going “too far”, so why not just make background checks work better?
Report Post »carnifex
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 4:05pm@Obama Bin Lying
Liberals really can be idiots when it coems to their agenda.
Report Post »Liberals be idiots. (FIFY)
avenger
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 4:12pmyou can count on the progressive pimps to exploit victims..I will be there 4/30 to mingle with real Americans…macv-sog
Report Post »sp1223c
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 4:13pmI think cars kill more people than PEOPLE with guns!!!!
Report Post »MOLON LABE
hifi74
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 4:48pmSuperior,
You missed one
Ban danas
Report Post »hifi74
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 4:57pmStupid phone! That was supposed to say Showtime not superior
Report Post »logictrumps
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 4:58pmNick84
You are a classic tool for suggesting a ban on high capacity magazines. The Az Sheriffs were well aware of this nutjob before any of this happened, they failed to perform their duties. If they had acted, he would have been denied at the gun shop during the background check.
Next you will say no black rifles, then you will say no shotguns, then you will say no projectiles over 120gr, then you will say nothing with xyz range. You will continue to do this until Americans can’t own anything except for rim fire 22 rifles that embed a signature on each projectile & casing. Sorry that is not the way it is going to work. Face up to the reality of why the 2nd amendment exists. It is not for “sporting”.
Ask the owners of the liquor stores during the Rodney King Riots if hi-capacity 30 round magazines were critical in defending themselves & their employees. You do not possess the right to dictate how Americans defend themselves. You may demand the left wing crackpot sheriff that let this happen resign if you please.
Report Post »logictrumps
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 5:11pmNick84
Forgot to mention that most of the cheap equipment at harbor freight & sears can in the hands of a skilled machinist be used to create home made hi-capacity magazines. With that said:
When the government bans something it creates a new profitable industry for those willing to take the risk. How much would hi-cap mags go for if they were banned? How much would cartels pay for these high cap mags if they knew rivals only had low cap mags??
Your thought process is full of too many unintended consequences!
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 5:45pmlogictrumps
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 5:11pm
Nick84
“Forgot to mention that most of the cheap equipment at harbor freight & sears can in the hands of a skilled machinist be used to create home made hi-capacity magazines. ”
First of all, I am a “tool” because I don’t see a need to have that many rounds in a magazine? Alright… Your premise here is so ridiculous. How many “famous” shooters do you think would be capable of that to begin with? Even if they could make it, the chance for defects would be greater, possibly leading to a jam. Secondly, just because someone can make it on their own does not mean it should be legal. People can make pipe bombs. Should you be allowed to walk into a store and buy them?
“How much would hi-cap mags go for if they were banned? How much would cartels pay for these high cap mags if they knew rivals only had low cap mags?? ”
So, you are arguing that they would be really expensive and hard to get, and that would be a bad thing?
“The Az Sheriffs were well aware of this nutjob before any of this happened, they failed to perform their duties. If they had acted, he would have been denied at the gun shop during the background check. ”
We don’t know how “aware” the sheriffs were of Lougher, but that is exactly my main point. There should have been more done to make sure people (like the person that sold him his gun) was aware of his past behavior. I know we can’t just let anyone decide who is mentally unstable, but a reputable organization (a college) deemed him mentally unfit to attend classes. It would be nice if there was some communication between the college and law enforcement on the matter that could have been taken into account when he attempted to purchase a gun. I don’t think that is being unreasonable. You seem to agree with me: “If they had acted, he would have been denied at the gun shop during the background check. ” I’m not arguing for a gun ban. I am mainly arguing for a better background check system.
I’m sick of hearing the 2nd amendment argument. You are a hypocrite for using it, unless you believe in no regulation for any kind of weapons. The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms, not guns. If you have the right to bear arms, why are you only arguing for minor gun rights? Do you think you should be able to mount a 50 cal to your vehicle? Why stop at guns? What about bombs, or missiles? They are considered arms, too, and fit under the definition of the 2nd amendment. Should a rich person like bill gates be allowed to purchase a fighter jet fully equipped with weapons? Of course not. The thing is, most reasonable people would agree that there should be some regulation in regards to the 2nd amendment, we just don’t agree where it should stop.
Report Post »arx
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 10:01pmIf you support the right to defend yourself and your family, and you’re not a member of the NRA…what are you waiting for? Join now!
NRA life member
Report Post »Kalish
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 10:02pmI beleive the NRA is paying to rent this building out correct ? If the protesters come inside, and disrupt their private meeting, the NRA members should remove them by what ever means necessary, if they want to protest, let them do it outside.
Report Post »Alaren
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 10:25pmI think many on the left are missing some INCREDIBLY huge points in this whole discussion. 1) The crazy man in AZ didn’t stop shooting to reload because he was out of bullets it is because it jammed up very early in the magazine. 2) Why worry about a knife when you can just drive a car into a group of people? 3) so the case in Oregon where the guy was going to use explosives to blow up a parade would have been magically prevented with stronger gun laws? To me it ALWAYS comes back to the crazy person committing the act. Had Loughner decided to blow himself up no one could have stopped him. Had he decided to steal a Semi and run it into the crowd no one could have stopped him. Strangely, because he used a gun he was actually able to be stopped.
Report Post »arx
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 10:37pmI’ve heard of a proposal to ban all guns within 500 or a 1000 feet of any congressmen, senator, or judge. Feel for the unsuspecting concealed carry permit holder who doesn’t know that royalty is going to be in town, and is charged with a felony because of it. Be better off with an inverse of that proposal… require the law abiding concealed carriers to be armed. I wonder how many shots that psycho would have gotten off if a half dozen armed NRA members were within feet of him. I would say 2 or 3 maybe. And we would have the bonus of not feeding and housing his worthless carcass for the next 50 years.
Report Post »MHP
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 12:36am@Nick84
You’ll take my guns from my cold dead hands. But you’ll never get that far.
Report Post »ducker44
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 12:41amCriminals aren’t buying 30 round mags at the local sporting goods store. People need to realize that it doesn’t matter if something is banned, a criminal is going to get it anyway. Please realize their are honest, hard working Americans out there with 30 round mags in case the criminals get out of hand.
Report Post »MHP
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 12:42am@Nick84
They had the info on Laughner’s evaluation, why didn’t they check it out.
It‘s not NRA’s fault, it’s YOURS and your illegal president that allowed it to happen.
I think the democrats wanted her shot to make a point.
Report Post »evil corrupt bastards, and that includes you.
MHP
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 12:48am@sp1223c
Q. Who is the general that has the most record for killing the most people
A. Motors
Got that from an auto auction LOL
Report Post »MHP
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 12:55am@Nick84
Wait till some violent criminal breaks into your house, are you gonna protect yourself with spitwads.
If I want to buy a fully loaded Huey Chopper, I got that right, if I got the money
the right to keep and bear arms, does mean owning a gun.
You liberals are so stupid, and corrupt.
Report Post »lionslayer44
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 1:25amif the guy who jumped on loughner had instead pulled the pistol he had we would be having a much different conversation. be prepared, collect food, water (filters)k, ammo. God Bless America!!!!
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 3:04amMHP
So you are threatening to shoot me because I suggested that laughner should have never been able to purchase a gun? You are insane. I was originally going to say no one wants to take your guns, but maybe they should if you are worried about a random person without any personal knowledge about you coming to take your guns.
Report Post »rappini
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 9:02amI think NIck84 drank some of that cool aid. Hey NIck if you haven‘t read 2A you might want check it out I’ll give you a hint it’s in the constitution. And stay away from my mags,
Report Post »PimpBallWizard
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 10:12am@ Nick, yeah, you’re right. We only have 30,000 gun laws on the books 30,001 will make all the difference. Let’s ban all gun magazines, so they can only fire one round at a time.
What if Gifford’s shooter drove a Prius into the crowd there and killed the same number of people. Wouldn’t that be a conundrum for you!
Idiots, lunatics, and murderers are going to carry out their attacks on people by any means they can. By infringing on the rights and freedom of 80,000,000 law-abiding gun owners, you will not solve a damned thing.
Report Post »Code_Orange
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 11:33amAZ Governor Brewer will present (or forward) each AZ Senator and Congressional Representative with a new Colt 45 single action Army revolver, paid for by the Colt Firearms LLC lobby.
Report Post »Bum thrower
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 12:28pmto NICK84: We DO have background checks for guns; Walk into you local Bass Pro or Cabellas and buy one…..help the economy and protect yourself from idiots like YOU….LOL
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 12:48pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110428/ap_on_re_us/us_watch_list_guns
You’re right. We don’t need to improve our background check rules.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 12:58pmSo many of you are complete idiots. It’s like you are programmed to think that anyone who wants gun reform is out to take your guns. Where did I ever even come close to saying that? However, if you are convinced that a random person on the Internet is personally going to find out where you live, then try to take your guns, maybe you aren’t sane enough to have them. As for the magazines, I just don’t see a point in having that many rounds in one magazine. Honestly, how many of you have ever even shot at someone in self defense? How many of you fired more than one or two rounds?
Report Post »feedmetwinkies
Posted on April 29, 2011 at 4:43pmI love my guns and I live in a state that I can have as many as I want and no one bothers me. That said- it was too easy to get my CCW permit. 2 peopel that took the class couldn’t even shoot the target. I think there should be an exam to insure a person knows how to operate and handle the gun safely. Other than that I think it is everyone duty to have a gun. If everyone had a gun there would be a lot less crime.
Report Post »CO-CONSERV
Posted on April 30, 2011 at 2:36amNick, just to throw a wrech in your “fully armed fighter’ argument. Should Bill Gates be able to buy a fully armed fighter? i used to work for a company called Micron in Boise ID and the CEO of that company did have a MiG fighter. I am not sure if he armed it before he flew it but I know he had it. Not taking either side of the argument just stating that I am pretty sure there are no gun control laws to prevent someone with enough money to buy a fighter jet. :-)
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on April 30, 2011 at 3:22amCO-CONSERV
Lol I actually read that after the post. From what I’ve read, it has to be something that isn’t currently used in service, and has to have certification that it is unable to carry weaponry. Thanks for the interesting post, but it doesn’t really affect my post, in my opinion. My point was about the weaponry. What I was getting at, is the purpose of the 2nd amendment was so people could protect themselves from the government if it had to. No legal weapon today would really protect you from something like a tank. My problem with people obsessively clinging to the 2nd amendment is they act like regulating the 2nd amendment is evil, yet they are hypoctites for already accepting massive amounts of regulation on it. I don’t think anyone on here would argue that they should be able to Own a javelin anti tank missile, yet the 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms, not just guns, and the javelin technically falls into that category. Even if we kept the debate to guns, I don’t see anyone on here arguing for the right to mount a 50 cal to their vehicle. The fact is, most reasonable people accept a large amount of weapon regulation already, so it is frustrating to me when they equate someone who doesn’t understand a reasonable purpose for high capacity mags to some crazy nazi who wants to abolish the 2nd amendment. I understand you werent taking a side in the debate so sorry if this seems directed at you. I was just trying to re-state my point.
Report Post »