Giffords, Kelly launch gun control lobbying effort
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband launched a political action committee aimed at curbing gun violence on Tuesday, the second anniversary of the Tucson shooting that killed six people and left her critically injured.
Giffords and Mark Kelly wrote in an op-ed published in USA Today that their Americans for Responsible Solutions initiative would help raise money to support greater gun control efforts.
"Achieving reforms to reduce gun violence and prevent mass shootings will mean matching gun lobbyists in their reach and resources," they wrote in the column.
They said that it will "raise funds necessary to balance the influence of the gun lobby."
The move was hinted at in Kelly's recent comments that he and Giffords want to become a prominent voice for gun control efforts.
The couple last week visited Newtown, Conn., where a gunman opened fire in an elementary school, killing 20 children and six adults in December. They also met with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate.
The couple was expected to discuss the initiative in an interview airing Tuesday on ABC News. The network offered a preview of the interview Monday and during "Good Morning America" on Tuesday. Kelly described a meeting with a father of a Connecticut victim in which he "just about lost it" after the parent showed him a picture of his child.
When asked by Diane Sawyer about when such violence happens to school children, Giffords responded: "Enough."
In the op-ed piece, Kelly and Giffords discussed what they deem lawmakers' inaction on curbing gun violence.
"In response to a horrific series of shootings that has sown terror in our communities, victimized tens of thousands of Americans, and left one of its own bleeding and near death in a Tucson parking lot, Congress has done something quite extraordinary - nothing at all," Giffords and Kelly wrote in the op-ed.
"This country is known for using its determination and ingenuity to solve problems, big and small. Wise policy has conquered disease, protected us from dangerous products and substances, and made transportation safer. But when it comes to protecting our communities from gun violence, we're not even trying - and for the worst of reasons."
They hope to start a national conversation about gun violence and raise funds for political activity, so "legislators will no longer have reason to fear the gun lobby."
"The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve fellow citizens and leaders who have the will to prevent gun violence in the future," they wrote.
As a House member, Giffords was a centrist Democrat who represented much of liberal-leaning Tucson but also more conservative, rural areas. The former state legislator voiced support for gun rights and said she owned a Glock pistol.
Tucson will mark the anniversary by ringing bells across the city at the moment that Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a supermarket where Giffords was meeting with constituents.
But even on a day of remembrance, residents won't be able to escape the gun debate.
City Councilman Steve Kozachik has organized a gun turn-in program at a local police station Tuesday for people who have decided they no longer want weapons in their homes. He's hoping it helps bring added pressure as Congress and Arizona's Legislature come back into session to "keep the conversation" alive.
People giving up their guns will receive $50 gift cards from Safeway - the grocery store chain where Giffords was shot in the parking lot. The grocer contributed $1,000 of the nearly $10,000 Kozachik raised.
He said that as the shooting fades from the public's mind, issues like controlling the sale of large capacity magazines and keeping guns from the mentally ill need attention.
The event has angered local gun-rights advocates, including an outgoing state senator who plans to gather outside the station and offer people cash for guns instead.
"They're stealing it - stealing it," said Frank Antenori, a Republican who was defeated in a congressional primary bid last year. "Can you name me one firearm in working condition that's worth $50 or less?"
Antenori and Kozachik accused each other of acting out of political motivations. Antenori said the councilman was sullying both the Tucson and Connecticut school shooting victims by the timing of the buyback. Kozachik said the outgoing legislator was just trying to keep his name in the news and remain relevant.
Tucson residents held events over the weekend to mark the anniversary of the Saturday morning when Loughner opened fire with a pistol with a 30-round magazine that he emptied in just 40 seconds.
Rep. Ron Barber, then a Giffords aide, was shot in the thigh and cheek, and went on to replace his boss in Congress. He supports an outright ban on high-capacity magazines and a new federal assault weapons ban while acknowledging there are millions of both already in circulation that will remain there.
"There's no way that those are going to be taken or collected - there's no way that's possible," Barber said Monday. "But if we can move forward toward controlling the accessibility or access to those magazines or assault rifles we can go a long way to minimizing or possibly preventing future tragedies."
Barber plans to mark the moment of the shooting at a private gathering with staff and family members. He will also visit a hospital to thank doctors who treated him and other victims and attend an evening prayer service.
Barber also is pushing for better mental health care and early intervention into school bullying, which he said can lead to serious mental health issues.
"I think it's a very complicated issue and no one or two or even three steps are going to address it or get rid of mass shooting in the future," Barber said.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who vetoed GOP-sponsored bills twice in two years that would have allowed guns on school campuses and in public buildings, said Monday she's expecting more legislation in the wake of the Connecticut shooting, but she offered no suggestions.
"It will be something that I'm sure will be addressed in the Legislature and my ears are all open, and I'm certainly anxious if there is a solution that we get it done," she said.
Loughner pleaded guilty in the Tucson shooting in November and was sentenced to seven consecutive life sentences plus 140 years.
Giffords and Mark Kelly wrote in an op-ed published in USA Today that their Americans for Responsible Solutions initiative would help raise money to support greater gun control efforts.
"Achieving reforms to reduce gun violence and prevent mass shootings will mean matching gun lobbyists in their reach and resources," they wrote in the column.
They said that it will "raise funds necessary to balance the influence of the gun lobby."
The move was hinted at in Kelly's recent comments that he and Giffords want to become a prominent voice for gun control efforts.
The couple last week visited Newtown, Conn., where a gunman opened fire in an elementary school, killing 20 children and six adults in December. They also met with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate.
The couple was expected to discuss the initiative in an interview airing Tuesday on ABC News. The network offered a preview of the interview Monday and during "Good Morning America" on Tuesday. Kelly described a meeting with a father of a Connecticut victim in which he "just about lost it" after the parent showed him a picture of his child.
When asked by Diane Sawyer about when such violence happens to school children, Giffords responded: "Enough."
In the op-ed piece, Kelly and Giffords discussed what they deem lawmakers' inaction on curbing gun violence.
"In response to a horrific series of shootings that has sown terror in our communities, victimized tens of thousands of Americans, and left one of its own bleeding and near death in a Tucson parking lot, Congress has done something quite extraordinary - nothing at all," Giffords and Kelly wrote in the op-ed.
"This country is known for using its determination and ingenuity to solve problems, big and small. Wise policy has conquered disease, protected us from dangerous products and substances, and made transportation safer. But when it comes to protecting our communities from gun violence, we're not even trying - and for the worst of reasons."
They hope to start a national conversation about gun violence and raise funds for political activity, so "legislators will no longer have reason to fear the gun lobby."
"The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve fellow citizens and leaders who have the will to prevent gun violence in the future," they wrote.
As a House member, Giffords was a centrist Democrat who represented much of liberal-leaning Tucson but also more conservative, rural areas. The former state legislator voiced support for gun rights and said she owned a Glock pistol.
Tucson will mark the anniversary by ringing bells across the city at the moment that Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a supermarket where Giffords was meeting with constituents.
But even on a day of remembrance, residents won't be able to escape the gun debate.
City Councilman Steve Kozachik has organized a gun turn-in program at a local police station Tuesday for people who have decided they no longer want weapons in their homes. He's hoping it helps bring added pressure as Congress and Arizona's Legislature come back into session to "keep the conversation" alive.
People giving up their guns will receive $50 gift cards from Safeway - the grocery store chain where Giffords was shot in the parking lot. The grocer contributed $1,000 of the nearly $10,000 Kozachik raised.
He said that as the shooting fades from the public's mind, issues like controlling the sale of large capacity magazines and keeping guns from the mentally ill need attention.
The event has angered local gun-rights advocates, including an outgoing state senator who plans to gather outside the station and offer people cash for guns instead.
"They're stealing it - stealing it," said Frank Antenori, a Republican who was defeated in a congressional primary bid last year. "Can you name me one firearm in working condition that's worth $50 or less?"
Antenori and Kozachik accused each other of acting out of political motivations. Antenori said the councilman was sullying both the Tucson and Connecticut school shooting victims by the timing of the buyback. Kozachik said the outgoing legislator was just trying to keep his name in the news and remain relevant.
Tucson residents held events over the weekend to mark the anniversary of the Saturday morning when Loughner opened fire with a pistol with a 30-round magazine that he emptied in just 40 seconds.
Rep. Ron Barber, then a Giffords aide, was shot in the thigh and cheek, and went on to replace his boss in Congress. He supports an outright ban on high-capacity magazines and a new federal assault weapons ban while acknowledging there are millions of both already in circulation that will remain there.
"There's no way that those are going to be taken or collected - there's no way that's possible," Barber said Monday. "But if we can move forward toward controlling the accessibility or access to those magazines or assault rifles we can go a long way to minimizing or possibly preventing future tragedies."
Barber plans to mark the moment of the shooting at a private gathering with staff and family members. He will also visit a hospital to thank doctors who treated him and other victims and attend an evening prayer service.
Barber also is pushing for better mental health care and early intervention into school bullying, which he said can lead to serious mental health issues.
"I think it's a very complicated issue and no one or two or even three steps are going to address it or get rid of mass shooting in the future," Barber said.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who vetoed GOP-sponsored bills twice in two years that would have allowed guns on school campuses and in public buildings, said Monday she's expecting more legislation in the wake of the Connecticut shooting, but she offered no suggestions.
"It will be something that I'm sure will be addressed in the Legislature and my ears are all open, and I'm certainly anxious if there is a solution that we get it done," she said.
Loughner pleaded guilty in the Tucson shooting in November and was sentenced to seven consecutive life sentences plus 140 years.
I think it's pretty clear that people who think more guns are the answer are never going to agree with the people who don't. And just like our joke of a congress, we have too many who are so polarized they will never admit there are good points to be made on both sides and work to seek a reasonable compromise. It's too bad we can't eliminate the one-note-Johnny extremists and get on with some actual solutions.
Listen up, anti-gun/stricter gun control laws people. I am going to try to explain something to you lke you are four years old. Guns are NOT the problem. Stick with me and I will explain.
Â
Fact: you could put a fully-loaded AK-47 on the table and it is perfectly harmless by itself. A gun is an inanimate object. It is incapable of making any decisions. It cannot get up off the table, aim itself and begin firing. It is only when a human being becomes involved that a gun - or any weapon for that matter - becomes dangerous.
Â
Fact: criminals do NOT care about laws. Any law you pass with the intent of reducing the number of guns in the hands of criminals is entirely useless (Now don't get your knickers in a knot - I am NOT advocating for the repeal of all laws. Laws are necessary for a society to survive). If you make a certain type of gun illegal, any person who wants that type of gun badly enough will turn to those who sell guns illegally.
Â
Â
People have said we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally ill. I am in agreement with that; however, there needs to be VERY clear definitions of what "mentally ill" is. There are people in this world who think I am crazy because I believe in God and hold the Bible to be His inerrant, inspired word. If I were to relate why I believe, some psychiatrists would probably classify me as "delusional", thereby possibly preventing me from ever legally owning a gun. Under those circumstances, do I give up my First Amendment right to the free practice of my religion, do I give up my Second Amendment right to bear arms, or do I become a criminal and own a gun in violation of the law? We also have HIPPA regluations to deal with when it comes to the mentally ill. How do we protect a person's privacy while ensuring a person who is truly mentally ill cannot legally purchase a gun?
Â
Should a background check be a part of EVERY legal gun sale? Absolutely. That reduces the odds of a criminal legally purchasing a gun AND it protects the Second Amendment right of the people. I am a little leary of gun registries. That would make it too easy for a corrupt government to remove ":enemies of the state".
Â
In conclusion, there is no way to totally eliminate violent acts committed with guns. At best, we can close the "gun show loophole", and encourage those who own guns or are thinking about purchasing one to be responsible with their hardware. We can also be tougher on those who commit crimes with guns by enforcing the punishments our laws allow.
I'm glad Giffords wasn't murdered, but I despise her for advocating for gun control, which costs lives.
 @PondimusÂ
I say, when you have walked in her shoes then you might get away with despising her without appearing to be a world-class a**e.
Pro-gun people act like they wouldn't be able to live without their AR-15 and their 100-round drum magazine. Â I consider them to be among the biggest phonies out there, this coming from person who has no problem with private gun ownership. Â The only problem is that these people went way too far in this crusade to arm the country to the teeth, and if they had half a brain they would realize this.
 @Daniel C You obviously do have a problem with private gun ownership, if the kinds of rifles and magazines don't pass your arbitrary test. Don't be a hypocrite.
 @Pondimus NY gov Cuomo slapped down your extremist mentality.  It's time to IGNORE your kind.  You are an extremist.  ENOUGH.  Go away, Sit down, No one cares,  We are ignoring you  now.
I am a veteran, a former police officer, firearms instructor, and NRA member. I have my old duty sidearm, a SIG P220, my back-up revolver, a shotgun, a .22/410 single shot longarm, and a 'scope sighted Ruger No. 1 in .338 in my home. I have always done my hunting with a doube-barrel shotgun, or a single-shot rifle. These weapons have served me well, and I have never seen the need to purchase a high-capacity magazine semi-automatic rifle for hunting. I consider myself a sportsman.  I have hunted with people who like to use semi-auto rifles, but I've never seen them fire more than one shot, and a possible second, follow-up shot before the game animal was down or had run out of sight. I think it is reasonable to restrict the use of high-capacity magazines. Most serious hunters depend on their bolt-action or lever-action rifles to take care of their hunting needs most satisfactorily. . Most high-cap semis are derivatives or pre-cursors to full-out, full-auto combat weapons. They make poor home defense weapons because their high-velocity rounds can easily pass through your house walls, and enter the house next door. For example, when I was 16, my dad and I had just returned from a hunting trip. When we entered our home, he failed to unload his gun and make it safe.  He leaned it against a wall, but it fell over and discharged. The .30 caliber round passed through the adjoining interior wall, through the base of the kitchen stove, passed though the exterior wall, and lodged in the wall of the pump house 20 yards from our house. This is precisely why a rifle of any sort is a poor home defense choice. I cannot think of a single instance in my LE career that a high-capacity semi-auto rifle did more good than harm. In my opinion, if you must have a home defense weapon, buy a 12 gauge, Remington 870, pump-action or a Stoeger Coach Gun. Keep it unloaded, and separate the ammo. It only takes a  moment to load, and it keeps your kids from mis-handling the weapon. If you insist on using a pistol, then take classes, practice, practice, practice, and know your state's firearms self-defense laws forward and backward. Once the round leaves the barrel, there is no undoing the outcome. And count on having to defend your actions in both state and civil proceedings. It's very expensive.
 @Bill Scott Well Bill, glad to meet another member and brother.  I do however differ in opinion from you... I believe the encroachment of the 2nd Am via magazine bans, "assault weapon" bans and any other spurious excuse should be highlighted for the Statist Movement that it truly is. Â
I do NOT think it's reasonable to restrict the use of high capacity magazines.
Besides, they're not talking about *restricting the use* of those magazine, but *banning* them from private ownership. Â There's a world of difference there.
Your admonishment about high power rifles being a poor choice for home defense is accurate and needs to be said occasionally. Â
Â
As an NRA member, and a veteran, I would expect you to hold *all* amendments to the Constitution equally important, and take up the argument against encroaching on *any* of them, rather than adopting the opposition's argument of "there's no reasonable sporting use" for xx rifle, for yy handgun. Â That is NOT the base issue here, and by the looks of your avatar I would presume you had lived through the Brady Assault Weapons ban period, that you should know such encroachments and "compromise" did NOTHING to address the violence afflicting our nation.Â
Â
 @Bill Scott Keep your shotgun unloaded with the ammo out of sight? It only takes a moment to reload a shotgun? Now I've heard it all. Dispensing this kind of advice is a disservice to the public.
 @Bill ScottYou recommend not keeping your home defense weapon loaded? Those precious seconds of time it takes to load your weapon could cost you your life. Keep your weapon stored in a safe during the day, but load it and put it on your nightstand for bedtime. If you have kids, lock your bedroom door so they cannot gain access to it. An unloaded home defense weapon is useless, especially if you have to fumble around with ammunition in the dark.
      There is nothing any ban will do to reduce crime, criminals don't care about laws. I also think there is nothing wrong with high capacity magazines, it is fun to do a mag dump on some unsuspecting watermelons : ) What is needed, is a tax break for gun safes, more education regarding firearm safety, and closer scrutiny on background checks (mental health). No bans or new laws necessary, no trading freedom for security.
 @randomdude
You are an idiot whistling in the dark if you think a loaded gun in the home is safe. If cops can end up with dead kids, anybody can.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/05/washington_police_officers_son.html
http://www.redding.com/news/2008/nov/12/son-officer-shot-himself-service-pistol/
 @randomdudeÂ
The point is that people are fallible and make mistakes. No matter how perfect you think you or your plan are, you WILL forget or get careless/distracted and the day will come that you don't put it in the safe or lock your door.
Â
Your plan can be as safe as you can make it, but you are still an idiot if you think it's completely safe and you haven't brought a risk to your children into your home with a choice to keep a loaded gun in the house.
Â
You will probably counter that by saying it's less risky than having no protection at all. Perhaps, but you can't point to any hard data to prove that. It's just your opinion and your feeling of being safer and a few anecdotes and news stories of intruders shot. But I disagree, and while I have no hard study data either, I can pull up 100s of cases of children being killed by guns in the home for every one you can show where a life MIGHT have been saved. If you add in domestic violence shootings it will jump to 1000s.
Â
If you can admit it is your opinion that a loaded gun makes you safer, not a proven fact, you will at least have a chance of having an open mind to the possibility you could be wrong.
 @NotAChance Â
I don't think that at all - just the opposite. We have to accept that sometimes bad things happen that are beyond our control. That's one of the reasons I don't arm myself to the teeth, thinking I can prevent all things bad from happening to me and becoming paranoid in the process. It's also one of the reasons I think the extremist gun nuts who want to throw more guns at every problem, like arming grade school teachers, are idiots. The only guns in schools should be in the hands of a trained security guard who is hired to focus all their attention on safety - not squeeze it in between math and reading.
 @ormom What part of keep it in a safe during the day, and behind a locked bedroom door at night don't you understand. Yes cops can be retarded too. You, my friend, are the idiot here with limited reading comprehension.
 @ormom  @randomdude And you're an idiot if you think you can stop all tragic incidents from happening anywhere all the time.
We don't need gun control, we need criminal control. Including all the criminals in Washington DC.
If it saves the life of just one child it must be good, right?
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/01/08/robber-shot.html
 @ChrisJ82Â
Except his gun didn't stop a crime or save his life did it? The robber had the drop on him with a gun to his head and if he had wanted him dead to begin with he'd be dead.
Â
Now he will have to prove he shot in self-defense IF they can place the alledged robber at the scene WITH A GUN IN HIS HAND! That's going to be hard to do AND he shot at someone running away. I'd say not only did his gun not help but it just made his life a whole lot more complicated.
Â
And all of you gun enthusiasts admit that criminals will not stop being criminals, sooooo...when the robber gets out of jail, if he even goes to jail, he will probably just make sure he kills his next victim instead of taking the chance the victim has gun to shoot him with as he runs away. So, our hero may have just made things even worse for the next guy this criminal chooses to rob.
Â
Things are not nearly as simple as gun enthusiasts love to make them - even the rare examples they can find to hold up to try and prove their point often disprove them.
 @ormom  @ChrisJ82 Then there's no point in trying discuss ANYTHING with you ormom. Your mind is made up, just like mine. Now where's that ignore button...
 @NotAChance Â
No one has ever changed my mind with insults or running from a debate. But I have changed it based on someone else's reason and logic. Just sayin - there is usually a reason people stop debating.
 @NotAChance
We probably won't change each other's mind but I think you give up the discussion pretty easily. Is it because you can't refute what I've said?
Americans are being convinced that their civil rights are dangerous and they are increasingly willing to surrender those rights for the future promise of a future safety.
Â
The whole argument and debate and media push to eliminate guns....by convincing Americans to surrender a Civil Right....is a ponzi scheme. It will not stop with just the Second Amendment because totalitarian impulse is inherent to any body of politicians. Â
Â
Consider how the Patriot Act was passed in the dead of night and horrified so many people...Democrats....and, yet, it has been renewed by Democrats. Forever, there will be increasing levels of "security" necessitated by the declining social structure precipitated by the rise of Corporate Power usurping the will of the people and the wealth of middle America. Corporations and the corporate oligarchy will benefit the most from eliminating private ownership of guns because there will always be a 2nd. Amendment for Corporations.Â
They should try this in Portland: $50 for every bike turned in, no questions asked. That would get all those dangerous bicycles off the street and out of the hands of dangerous criminals.
Â
The funny thing about the whole gun buy back and gun registration and every other political solution is that it encumbers, torments, and harasses the lawful citizen without ever having any meaningful effect on the criminal....the only way to change that is to outlaw guns entirely and simply create a new criminal class from; otherwise, lawful gun owners....which is really what the anti-gun crowd believes anyway and, sadly, a myth the NRA and conservatives have done so little to dispel....then gun laws, by definition, would only affect criminals. To be effectively implemented is a simple matter of eliminating American Constitutional Rights because the only way to enforce illegal guns would be to elimnate the 4th. Amendment (Privacy Laws) allowing the "authorities" to storm private homes in search of weapons. And, then eliminate the First Amendment because nobody wants to hear all the protesters. It's such a perfectly simple solution. I mean seriously; lawful Americans don't really need civil rights; right?Â
Yeah well I think it's dangerous to our civil rights when people on the internet pick a part the manner in which a person defends their loved ones and property. Â I wonder if she would have only shot him once would they have said he was her back door man while hubby was at work? Â And then they bring the police into the fray, the police have homes and families, I am guessing if an intruder breaks in on a cop they are shooting to kill, so they don't have to deal with his ass on the streets the next day.
Gabby has my sympathy. She really has gone through hell and has more than earned the right too want gun control. But...make a proposal let's see what your bright ideas are. I don't get it, there's all this talk about banning guns and ammo, but what can they really accomplish with so many firearms in private hands. I've been a law abiding citizen to this point, so the Feds want to turn me into a criminal because I want to exercise my constitutional rights? They can have my guns once I've given them my bullets one at a time. I would say that long line to get into the last gun at the Expo Center can be interpreted as a no confidence vote for the government to do the right thing. Pretty sure those people were a little worried that their rights might be infringed. So do you think the government can come up with a good plan that will save American lives? Or will their plan actually cost the lives of freedom loving Americans that will not stand still for government oppression. Don't tread on me, now more than ever.
 @The Resistance The courts have already ruled. Police have no duty to protect individual citizens - even after they are notified of a specific threat. At least you can still take comfort that they are just a phone call away.
@Conspirator --- Police were 20 minutes away at Newton, PA and arrived just in time to draw the chalk outline of the bodies. Believe me I don't count on any one but myself to protect my family. The police at best are 2nd responders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y
Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo
Â
Â
 @toobadsoosad i just put this up there because i found it so hilarious. They couldnt even have a debate and Morgan is no better either at debating when he goes on his own verbal tirade in other clipsÂ
 @toobadsoosad Does anyone take alex jones seriously? Never have, never will. I would go so far as to say he is a disinformation specialist, and he was brought on that show to discredit gun owners and make them look like lunatics. Yeah great job alex : (
 @randomdude  @toobadsoosad If one were to merely read a transcript of what he said and not sit through the actual sound of his verbal vomit, it's unlikely the words would be different that what has been spewed out here all day and for the past many weeks.  Same conspiracy theories, same cherry-picked "facts", same fear-mongering mumbo jumbo.  Sorry you don't see it that way, but the guy's buffoonery did NOTHING for your cause.  Thank you for having him in your corner -- he's taken Wayne LaPierre's place as your poster boy.  Nice!
 @randomdude @ormom  @toobadsoosad I actually attempted to have a reasonable debate with you or at least one that didn't get into name-calling and personal attacks.  I see you ensured that wouldn't happen (anti-American, "jazz" hands, squeeling with glee).  Buh bye, dude....good luck stroking your....gun.
 @Sundowner  @toobadsoosad I have always believed that he works for your side, you know the anti-americans. He is a disinformation specialist designed to get people riled up and keep them in fear. Most people know Alex Jones is not working for our best interests. Cointelpro all the way, agent provocateur supreme. I bet when you first watched the interview you were waving your "jazz" hands around, squealing with glee.
 @randomdude  @toobadsoosad Doesn't matter if you want him in your corner or not, what the American people saw doesn't set well with most folks and his mouth kinda proves the "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" thing.  You have to see how delicious this was for even the most middle-of-the-road casual observer to see -- to have an absolute crackpot arguing your case.  Had to be some eye-rolling on your 'side' after seeing the spectacle he made of himself.  Don't bother with the "so is Pierce but more of it".....even I was embarrassed for this guy.  Jeesh....do yourself a favor and keep him and Wayne LaPierre and any other "spokesmen" you have locked up in a closet somewhere.
 @Sundowner  @toobadsoosad Who's corner? I never liked the guy. He is doing the anti-gun nuts a favor, so he might be in their corner.
 @toobadsoosad I will add, piers morgan is a spineless tool and should be deported immediately.
 @randomdudeÂ
I detest Piers Morgan and would love to refute everything that comes out of his mouth. But you can't ignore the fact that the US should be so lucky as to have the UK gun death rate.
Â
Wingnuts? We're not talking carburetors here. He is british moron, and if he hates those evil guns so much, he should just go back to his crappy country.
wow a $400 + gun for a $50 gift card KISS MY ASSÂ
There were 32 notable school shootings under the last assault weapons ban, including the worst high school shooting, Columbine. It's time the discussion got to where it needs to be, not gun control, but criminal control.
 @Lew Waters How many of those schools were "gun free zones"?
 @Lew Waters Welcome Lew, got tired of the Columbian? :)
 @Lew Waters Well said.
Â
Ban all you want they'll always be there......
Here is what we're up against! Â Let no one be fooled!
Â
"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered.  The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal."
Â
(quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.)Â
Â
 @Umhal Reading that makes me want to puke.
Best home defense is a twelve gauge shotgun with a magazine of at least five rounds. Â You don't have to be too accurate and if the perpetrator is still around after the first shot, he won't be after the second. Â If a meth freak or any drugger is involved, just wounding him won't work. Â You have to stop him in his tracks because his brain won't tell him he is wounded. Â
 @boomer And nothing says freeze or I'll blow your f***ing head off more so than the sound of the pump action of a shotgun. It's probably the scariest and most intimidating sound that an intruder can and will ever hear.
You want the big magazines baned at over 10 and assault weapons baned.Well the first step would be to make sure the police don't have assault weapons or magazines holding over 10 but we both know thats not gonna happen cause the cops know the crooks will have assault weapons and huge clips holding 30 and we also know that it takes cop 20 minutes or so to get to you house when you call them so its not fair that legal law abiding     Citizens don't have the same weapons.
 @riderofthelegend Interestingly I haven't heard the, "they're only good for killing a lot of people really quickly," argument in a while. I guess it kind of rings hollow when the police show up to these single shooter shootings with those weapons and a load bearing vest full of those magazines.Â
Â
Apparently there's some other intrinsic value to them :-).