It’s a very interesting statement from someone who owns a gun herself, as does her husband, and is constantly surrounded by people armed with firearms who protect her
‘No More Guns. Gone’: Why Gabby Giffords Isn’t Giving Up
Gabby Giffords’ black SUV rolled through the security blockade and right to the southern entrance of the U.S. Capitol, to be greeted by a former colleague and a half-dozen current and former staffers. After quick hugs and hellos, Giffords leaned on the cane in her left hand, made her way up the slight ramp and then down through the labyrinth of back halls and passages and elevators toward a basement conference room.
It was a homecoming of sorts for the ex-Congresswoman and survivor of an assassination attempt. But she wasn’t there on Wednesday to reminisce. She was there to make the same case she has been making for the last ten years.
“I’m Gabby Giffords. I’m from Tucson, Ariz. Jan. 8, 2011, changed my life forever. I was a Congresswoman. I was shot in my head while meeting with my constituents,” Giffords said as she sat down at a roundtable of current and former lawmakers to discuss the next steps in their work to curb gun violence. “After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I said enough is enough. I founded a group called Giffords. We are on a mission to end gun violence now.”
Her group spends most of their time advocating for restrictions that hit the law abiding, rather than the criminal element, and their true goal is the total ban of guns from the hands of the average non-criminal American. They’ll all sit there and say “no, no, we just want common sense gun control.”
A day before Giffords returned to the Capitol, we sat down at her organization’s headquarters in Washington, a corporate-tinged space a block north of the fabled lobbying K Street corridor. A professional as always, Giffords was ready to make the case that gun laws were getting stricter, lives were being saved, and hope was in the offing during an exclusive interview with TIME. Despite a landscape that seems bleak for anyone who supports limiting the ability to buy and sell guns in this country, Giffords and its allies have been able to pass 525 state-level laws restricting access to firearms over the last decade—nothing to sneeze at in the least. Her youth-organizing program just turned five and has about 75 alumni who continue to work in their local communities. And 460 Giffords-backed candidates have been elected to state or federal office, according to the group’s accounting.
“Inch by inch. Capitals, capitals, capitals,” Giffords says in describing the incremental and far-flung set of goals.
That inch by inch thing is why Republicans cannot give in on any sort of legislation, because if you give the gun grabbers this and that, they want the other. And then some more of this and that and the other. If you gave them every bit of legislation they have demanded, they would want more, right up to the Australian solution. And Time Magazine really buries the headline at almost the end of the long article
As we wrap our interview in her office, I ask how she keeps coming back to a challenge so deeply ingrained in politics. She pauses for 12 pregnant seconds.
“No more guns,” she says.
Ambler, her aide and adviser, tries to clarify that she means no more gun violence, but Giffords is clear about what she’s saying. “No, no, no,” she says. “Lord, no.” She pauses another 32 seconds. “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”
It’s simple: she’s saying what she means. No more firearms for you. No more citizens with firearms to protect themselves and their families. The gun grabbers will tell you what they want if you listen.
An aide clarifies that she’s talking about Australia, where gun sales were outlawed after a mass shooting and existing weapons were purchased by the government. Giffords nods in the affirmative. It’s an idealistic goal, for sure, and one perhaps mismatched for the moment in this country. But Giffords has an answer for that: “Legislation, legislation, legislation.”
In other words, the aid realized that Giffords let the cat out of the bag. Reports show that maybe only 30% of guns were turned in after Australia passed that law, but, they do not have something like our 2nd Amendment.
Perhaps she meant no more guns for men like Jared Lee Loughner, the gov’t hating, mentally-ill conspiratorial misogynist with a history of disturbances who nonetheless was able to buy a 9mm Glock semi-auto pistol about a month before the murders. He purchased ammo from Wal-Mart the morning of the shooting where 6 were murdered and 13 more wounded. He shot Giffords, his primary target, in the head.
Was Loughner defending himself from Giffords’ policy votes?
Giffords is severely injured by her experience. Nothing she says should be criticized or examined closely. It is pointless to argue with someone who is brain damaged.
Off topic a little: After Giffords was injured, she did not return to the Congress for over a year. During that time, she performed no official duties, yet maintained a full time staff. She was allowed to remain in office because something about a minimum term being required to qualify for benefits. That was seen as more important than the citizens of her district being represented in Congress. Don’t tell me the Democrats care about no taxation without representation.
So being shot in the head while performing her official duties should get her removed from office? Would she have lost her health coverage (workers comp rehabilitation) if she resigned earlier? Sounds like a cheap ‘shot’ taken at Rep Giffords.
One year after being shot in the head, she resigned, and aid Ron Barber (also shot in the attack) won the special election for the seat.
Same with Uncle Fester (D-PA).
Aren’t there enough brain damaged dems in D.C.?
#LetsGoBrandon
Bwaha! Lolgf
Given that the Democrats can’t even tell the difference between males and females, the real question is, “Are there any Democrats who are not brain damaged?”
Does the 2nd Amendment prohibit any and all restrictions ?
Second Amendment:
It’s quite simple and clear. ANY infringement of our right to “keep and bear Arms” is unConstitutional! No mention of age. No mention of mental status. No mention No mention of ‘actions’ (auto, semi-auto, single-shot), gauge or caliber. No mention of felons. If a member of ‘the people’ can keep and bear it, any firearm is Constitutional. The Supreme Court made a mistake years ago permitting infringement of shotguns and fully-automatic (machine guns).
Some believe the Constitution can be overruled by “common sense”, e.g., the right of 12 yr old boys to bear AR-15s in middle school CAN be infringed. The right of a someone convicted of a felony to carry a Thompson submachine gun can be infringed!
Top. People.
https://townhall.com/videos/2023/04/26/how-many-guns-has-the-atf-lost-bidens-atf-director-sits-stunned-when-confronted-by-matt-gaetz-n8231
#TrustUs
#WeKnowWhatWeAreDoing
Bwaha! Lolgf
I say , ” No More Communists ” . F#ck her and her husband. And the rest of the communists wanting to take our rights away.
Wasn’t she shot by a deranged democrat, (but I repeat myself)? How about no more guns for democrats.
Representative Giffords was shot in the head by Jared Lee Loughner, a largely apolitical but anti-government crazy. He DID shoot Democrats, though.
How about no guns for crazies?
Democrats commit at least 70% of crimes and probably 80 or 90% of gun crimes.
If the constitution cannot be brought into compromise with common sense then it is 100% absolute. Do you believe it is 100% absolute? I do not. But I do believe any compromises must be on the side of intent and most importantly the balance of freedom. I know that word (like God) irritates and frightens you but there it is.
We realize you want all the guns you personally don’t like from te hands of all the people you don’t like. Freedom does not depend on who you like dowd.
We’re glad to hear you don’t believe the Constitution is absolute.
Do you believe that a ban on AR-15 style rifles is unConstitutional and communism?
Most street crimes are committed by poor folks who are likely largely apolitical, but those who bother to vote may vote for Dems.
Of course, connies always, always, always completely ignore white collar crime which cost Americans more than does street crime! We suspect white collar crime is committed as much by Repubicuns as Dems.
White collar crime doesn’t cost in bodies just dollars.
“Poor folks”? Since when is a major democrat voting block “apolitical”? Almost every nigga I know is a democrat and a criminal. And I can’t name a white collar criminal republican. Epstein, Weinstein, Bankman-Fried, Madoff?
You’re so funny!
So the Supreme Court violated the Constitution when they infringed on your right keep and bear a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun? How about flame throwers? Shoulder fired missiles will help keep you safe from gov’t tyranny.
If not the Supreme Court, who should decide what is Constitutional? Do you know more about the Constitution than the the Supreme Court?
There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about kids or felons.
In a nation of 330 million we have only about 26k homicides, but 0.5-1.5 trillion dollars of fraud.
Tax fraud cost $1 trillion. Republicans support tax fraud and white collar crime.
We always know when we got ya Elwood, you start to lie. There has never been any Republican I’ve ever heard of who supported either tax fraud or crime of any color. Please name them. Just five will do.
Do you? I do know the Supreme Court is not infallible. In fact they made a right out of thin air more than once Roe being the obvious error.
The SC is there to protect our rights not eliminate the ones radical communists don’t like. Sometimes there is a balancing act, sometimes a compromise. Things radicals can’t understand and refuse to agree to. With you it’s all your way or they highway. That’s the fascist side of your dual personality.
That’s why you want to steal our RTKABA, our free speech, our right to fair and honest legal representation, our right ot own property and all the others. All you know is force just like your gods Adolf and Stalin.
But please keep up your hysterical rants. They amuse us. LOL. They betray your cowardice and weakness.
The problem with obnoxious fools like yourself is you just can’t stand anyone not obeying you. You are a tyrant.
Yes. Don’t you? I don’t believe the “style” of a weapon should determine it’s constitutionality. I can fully support genuine weapons of war like tanks, artillery, mortars, mines and such being banned to civilians. I cannot support the very type of small arms being banned the constitution was actually made to protect. Individual small arms should be legal.
Now if you want to discuss who should be allowed to buy them like violent felons, the insane, people under the age of majority etc I am open to that discussion but I am not open to any discussion where you get to decide what I can get to defend myself and family from crime and government oppressions.
You leftists really need to understand you have no moral right to determine and limit everyone elses rights.
Every constitutional right seems to have limits. The problem is you leftists want to limit our rights out of existence. Guns is just one area. How about how you want to limit free speech, aspects of the 4th and 5th amendments and more?