Giffords asks Congress for bold gun control bill

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a dramatic appeal, wounded former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords urged Congress on Wednesday to enact tougher curbs on guns, saying, "too many children are dying" without them.
"The time is now. You must act. Be bold, be courageous, Americans are counting on you," she told the Senate Judiciary Committee at Congress' first gun control hearing since 20 elementary school children were shot to death in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
Gifford was not on the list of witnesses released in advance of the hearings, and in an unusual show of respect, members of the committee greeted her warmly outside the hearing room as she and her husband, former astronaut and retired Navy Capt. Mark Kelly, made their way inside. The former Democratic congresswoman was grievously wounded in an assassination attempt in Tucson, Ariz., a little more than two years ago, and has become a public advocate for gun control.
In the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., massacre, President Barack Obama has issued a call for gun control legislation.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and member of the committee, has introduced a bill to ban numerous assault-style weapons as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines.
The prospects for Senate passage are not strong, in part because of opposition from the NRA and in part from a reluctance among rural-state Democrats to support limitations on firearms.
Republicans pledged to listen carefully, and no more.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Tuesday that reviewing the issue was timely.
"But I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," he said citing the constitutional provision that guarantees the right to bear arms, "and I don't intend to change."
Giffords' appearance - not only her words, but her obvious difficulty in speaking - served to underscore the emotion surrounding the issue of gun curbs. "Speech is a distant memory" for his wife, Kelly said in remarks of his own after his wife had completed her brief plea for action.
The gunman in Tucson, Jared Loughner, used a 9 mm Glock pistol with an extended ammunition magazine in the attack that wounded the former congresswoman and killed six. The handgun would not have been illegal under a federal assault weapons ban that lapsed more than seven years ago, but the magazine that held more than 30 bullets would have been prohibited.
The chairman of the panel, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said it is "a simple matter of common sense" that there should be a strengthening of background checks and that doing so would not threaten gun owners' rights. The checks are currently required for gun purchases from licensed dealers but not at gun shows or other private transaction.
At the same time, he said the Constitution's second amendment "is secure and will remain secure and protection....No one can or will take those rights or our guns away," he said.
He added, "let us forego sloganeering, demagoguery and partisan recriminations. This is too important for that."
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the panel's senior Republican, said that while the shootings in Arizona and Connecticut were terrible tragedies, they "should not be used to put forward every gun control measure that has been floating around for years.."
He also said any serious discussion of the issue 'must include a complete re-examination of mental health as it related to mass shootings."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated that whatever the committee produced wouldn't necessarily be the final product, saying the package would be debated by the full Senate and senators would be allowed to propose "whatever amendments they want that deal with this issue."
Despite the horrific Newtown slayings, it remains unclear whether those advocating limits on gun availability will be able to overcome resistance by the NRA and lawmakers from states where gun ownership abounds. Question marks include not just many Republicans but also Democratic senators facing re-election in red-leaning states in 2014. They include Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Knowing that television cameras would beam images of the hearing nationally, both sides were drumming up supporters to attend Wednesday's session.
A page on an NRA-related website urged backers to arrive two hours early to get seats, bring no signs and dress appropriately. The liberal BoldProgressives.org urged its members to attend, saying the NRA "will try to pack the room with their supporters to deceive Congress into believing they are mainstream."
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama proposed a package that includes banning assault weapons, requiring background checks on all firearms purchases and limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
Giffords underwent a lengthy rehabilitation process and has regained some ability to speak, but has retired from Congress. A gun owner, she and her husband Mark Kelly, a retired astronaut, have formed a political action committee called Americans for Responsible Solutions to back lawmakers who support tighter gun restrictions.
In testimony prepared for the hearing but released Tuesday, Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said such steps had failed in the past. He instead voiced support for better enforcement of existing laws, beefing up school security and strengthening the government's ability to keep guns from mentally unstable people.
The massacre in Newtown has also set off a national discussion about mental health care, with everyone from law enforcement leaders to the gun industry urging policymakers to focus on the issue as a way to help prevent similar mass shootings. The issue of mental health has arisen in four recent mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, the Tucson shooting, the incident in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater last year and Virginia Tech in 2007.
"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals," LaPierre said in his statement. "Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families."
While not yielding on specifics, much of LaPierre's statement had a milder tone than other remarks the NRA has made since Newtown.
That includes an NRA television ad calling Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for voicing doubts about having armed school guards while his own children are protected that way at their school. While Obama's children have Secret Service protection, officials at their school have said its own guards don't carry guns.
Feinstein said Tuesday that she will hold her own hearing on gun control because she was unhappy that three of the five witnesses testifying Wednesday are "skewed against us."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday he would wait to see what legislation Democrats produce. Republican leaders of the GOP-run House have expressed similar sentiments.
"The time is now. You must act. Be bold, be courageous, Americans are counting on you," she told the Senate Judiciary Committee at Congress' first gun control hearing since 20 elementary school children were shot to death in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
Gifford was not on the list of witnesses released in advance of the hearings, and in an unusual show of respect, members of the committee greeted her warmly outside the hearing room as she and her husband, former astronaut and retired Navy Capt. Mark Kelly, made their way inside. The former Democratic congresswoman was grievously wounded in an assassination attempt in Tucson, Ariz., a little more than two years ago, and has become a public advocate for gun control.
In the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., massacre, President Barack Obama has issued a call for gun control legislation.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and member of the committee, has introduced a bill to ban numerous assault-style weapons as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines.
The prospects for Senate passage are not strong, in part because of opposition from the NRA and in part from a reluctance among rural-state Democrats to support limitations on firearms.
Republicans pledged to listen carefully, and no more.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Tuesday that reviewing the issue was timely.
"But I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," he said citing the constitutional provision that guarantees the right to bear arms, "and I don't intend to change."
Giffords' appearance - not only her words, but her obvious difficulty in speaking - served to underscore the emotion surrounding the issue of gun curbs. "Speech is a distant memory" for his wife, Kelly said in remarks of his own after his wife had completed her brief plea for action.
The gunman in Tucson, Jared Loughner, used a 9 mm Glock pistol with an extended ammunition magazine in the attack that wounded the former congresswoman and killed six. The handgun would not have been illegal under a federal assault weapons ban that lapsed more than seven years ago, but the magazine that held more than 30 bullets would have been prohibited.
The chairman of the panel, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said it is "a simple matter of common sense" that there should be a strengthening of background checks and that doing so would not threaten gun owners' rights. The checks are currently required for gun purchases from licensed dealers but not at gun shows or other private transaction.
At the same time, he said the Constitution's second amendment "is secure and will remain secure and protection....No one can or will take those rights or our guns away," he said.
He added, "let us forego sloganeering, demagoguery and partisan recriminations. This is too important for that."
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the panel's senior Republican, said that while the shootings in Arizona and Connecticut were terrible tragedies, they "should not be used to put forward every gun control measure that has been floating around for years.."
He also said any serious discussion of the issue 'must include a complete re-examination of mental health as it related to mass shootings."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated that whatever the committee produced wouldn't necessarily be the final product, saying the package would be debated by the full Senate and senators would be allowed to propose "whatever amendments they want that deal with this issue."
Despite the horrific Newtown slayings, it remains unclear whether those advocating limits on gun availability will be able to overcome resistance by the NRA and lawmakers from states where gun ownership abounds. Question marks include not just many Republicans but also Democratic senators facing re-election in red-leaning states in 2014. They include Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Knowing that television cameras would beam images of the hearing nationally, both sides were drumming up supporters to attend Wednesday's session.
A page on an NRA-related website urged backers to arrive two hours early to get seats, bring no signs and dress appropriately. The liberal BoldProgressives.org urged its members to attend, saying the NRA "will try to pack the room with their supporters to deceive Congress into believing they are mainstream."
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama proposed a package that includes banning assault weapons, requiring background checks on all firearms purchases and limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
Giffords underwent a lengthy rehabilitation process and has regained some ability to speak, but has retired from Congress. A gun owner, she and her husband Mark Kelly, a retired astronaut, have formed a political action committee called Americans for Responsible Solutions to back lawmakers who support tighter gun restrictions.
In testimony prepared for the hearing but released Tuesday, Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said such steps had failed in the past. He instead voiced support for better enforcement of existing laws, beefing up school security and strengthening the government's ability to keep guns from mentally unstable people.
The massacre in Newtown has also set off a national discussion about mental health care, with everyone from law enforcement leaders to the gun industry urging policymakers to focus on the issue as a way to help prevent similar mass shootings. The issue of mental health has arisen in four recent mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, the Tucson shooting, the incident in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater last year and Virginia Tech in 2007.
"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals," LaPierre said in his statement. "Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families."
While not yielding on specifics, much of LaPierre's statement had a milder tone than other remarks the NRA has made since Newtown.
That includes an NRA television ad calling Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for voicing doubts about having armed school guards while his own children are protected that way at their school. While Obama's children have Secret Service protection, officials at their school have said its own guards don't carry guns.
Feinstein said Tuesday that she will hold her own hearing on gun control because she was unhappy that three of the five witnesses testifying Wednesday are "skewed against us."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday he would wait to see what legislation Democrats produce. Republican leaders of the GOP-run House have expressed similar sentiments.
Can any one explain how passing more laws will stop the law breakers?
If breaking the law was a concern to them, they wouldn't break existing laws!
Â
Why does removing the tool of choice for the law breakers fix anything? They will only choose another tool!
If somebody got stabbed with a screwdriver would we then ban all screwdrivers?
Â
By true definition, an assault weapon is anything object that could be used in an assault. that is a very broad term!
Â
It seems that we should be concerned with controlling the criminals!
The bottom line is that politicians are very afraid of citizens having guns. Most is the fear that as the economy and life in the US continues to deteriorate some will take issue with the running of government.
Â
Their fears are well founded. There are more and more folks that are not happy with the way government is going and some of those folks are well armed.
 @RalphCramden Ralph, a relative of mine is armed security at government agencies around town. Today he was 15 minutes late because they reassigned him across town to fill in for a sickness or whatever.When he got there, the public was lined up outside and the employees were all inside. They would not open the door to the public until the licensed, trained, armed, NRA instructor-rated private security guard--or as people protesting the NRA would call him, a "terrorist"--showed up to protect them.
 @PlayanekesÂ
That's good stuff.
 @Playanekes I, for one, wouldn't protest the NRA or any other lobbyist group. I'm not a member, nor do I belong to PETA or any form of organized religion.  Internally, they all are too political for my taste, especially organized religion.  And I certainly wouldn't call an armed security guard at a government facility a "terrorist".  So I don't believe I fit the mold you're trying to portray.
 @Sundowner  @Playanekes Should have that one talk to me. I'll turn him Republican.Â
 @Playanekes Oh, and I wasn't a hippie way back when -- I worked for the Federal government at the time (Selective Service and Department of the Army).  I'm still not a hippie, but somehow one of my three children turned out to be a bit of an earth-cookie.  Oops.
 @RalphCramden I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you.  I personally have no fear of the government and I honestly don't think "they" (whoever "they" are) fear us.  I think some responsibility lies with the fear-mongering that takes place daily on talk radio and, for me, FoxNews.  A good majority of their audience are those of not even average intelligence, so when those people hear the rhetoric, they believe it hook, line and sinker....they're oblivious to the fact that the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., are getting people riled up because it's money in their pocket.  Sure, they might be Conservative, but they're NOTHING like the crazies out there who take the rhetoric as gospel.  Proof can be found daily on this very forum.  I'm comfortable with the extreme left being out here -- what are they going to do, take over with their picket signs?  Ain't like they've got an arsenal to go after the other "side".  But the extreme right DOES have an arsenal.  Many of us are, quite frankly, afraid of them.  They've got guns.  Â
 @SundownerÂ
Bill Clinton was talking about you the other day.
http://now.msn.com/bill-clinton-tells-democrats-not-to-trivialize-gun-culture
Â
Keep insulting those who don't believe like you do. It is not going well at this point. Those so called folks "of not even average intelligence" are very well armed and sticking up even more.
Â
You are wise in being afraid. I have to give you that.
 @TreeWizard I'll sign that one......Remove the illegals that is...
 @AmiM "The whole perjury thing" involved sex, plain and simple.  If he'd lied about national security, Vince Foster, a thousand different other things, I'd find it more than objectionable.  But sex -- unless you've been in that position, you'll never know.  When the ONLY thing telling the truth about sex will do is hurt others, a decent person will keep their mouth shut or lie. No soul-cleansing, no "I feel so guilty I've got to confess"....you take it to the grave.  I don't condone lying in any way, but what possible business was it of anyone else's?  There have been presidents who've sat in the Oval Office and scratched their butts, but you and I don't need to know that.  And I guarantee you there have been presidents who had sex on their desks......again, I don't need to know about it, nor do you.
 @Sundowner There are a lot of people out there who don't care that Clinton was poking around in a place he didn't belong. What we object to is the whole perjury thing... it's sort of objectionable, don't ya think?Being lied to by our "representatives" is a given. And that's too bad.
 @Altazi  @TreeWizard I know that was a metaphor, but these are people, not stray animals.  Maybe that kind of thinking needs to improve a bit?Â
 @Sundowner  @TreeWizard All you need to is create an environment that is not conducive to illegal aliens continued residence in our country. No jobs for illegals (severe penalties for non-compliant employers), no government benefits, no residences (E-Verify). If you stop putting out food, the stray animals will leave.
Â
 @Reeldeal101  @SundownerÂ
Exactly. The definition of a criminal is one who ignores laws.
Â
Making more laws will do nothing to stop violent crime. Plus isn't murder already against the law and a capital crime, and that doesn't seem to work so some minor law certainly won't make things better.
 @Sundowner I always think it is almost humorous when a person thinks that ANY law is going to be payed even the slightest attention to by a criminal, or a person with criminal intent that is more than likely going to take their own life after they destroy another's life....
Â
Universal background checks are not a bad idea from my P.O.V. But I have to say that I view them as pretty useless in preventing crime. Â The only thing that this is really going to do is make law-abiding people have to take another step to purchase a firearm.
 @SundownerÂ
Not going to happen. To many folks and mental health is not an exact science.
Â
Plus if anyone with a mental health issue has their guns taken away those folks will not seek help. That is the fear that many already have. The government has created these issues and now they have to suffer the consequences.
Â
If you look at the data, most murders are gang related and most are black on black crimes. Second and climbing is Hispanic related gang violence. Justice and FBI statistics bear this out. But government wants to demonize mental health folks who are a very low percentage of those committing murder.
 @SundownerÂ
If you think about it Fox news, Rush, Lars, et al, have found a very large listening audience. The numbers show that conservative talk radio has 4 of the top 4 talk shows with over 50 million viewers. That is a sizable viewership.
Â
What created this environment? Much of it had to do with the lack of a voice on the right and the constant insults from the ivory tower liberals who would look down their nose at the conservatives.
Â
The more the country moved to the left the more power the conservatives have as more and more folks are beginning to wake up. Since the conservatives have a very high percentage of gun ownership they make the left afraid. And more and more conservatives are arming themselves and politicians need to be very afraid.
Â
This movement has nothing to do with mental health. It has to do with the anger of the populace that is getting more and more fed up with government not taking care of business. It will come to a head here one of these days.
 @RalphCramden Spending more money on mental health will prevent probably a negligible amount of shooting sprees.  But investing in the mental health of those who need it can only better our society.  Somehow something needs to be done to prevent guns getting into the hands of those with mental health issues.....whether it's the suicidal neighbor who just needs to turn his guns over to a friend until his crisis passes or the estranged spouse who's consumed with rage or the cop whose wife just asked for a divorce or the kid who's starting to show symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia.  They need to be caught in a net and excluded from owning guns, don't they?  Not everyone should have ready access to a firearm.
Â
 @RalphCramden I may have worded it incorrectly.  I don't mean "those who watch Fox News......" -- my mother-in-law watches, thinks they're the best out there, I have many friends who feel the same.  I was referring to the zealots, the gun extremists, the "gun nuts" -- for some reason when asked where they get their information, every single one has cited Fox or Rush or Lars or Laura or Ann Coulter....they DO follow that stuff.  I apologize if I sounded like some elitist who thinks mine doesn't stink....that's not the case.  But when I see extremism on either side, I find it scary.  And when one side is armed, it's even scarier.
 @Playanekes  @SundownerÂ
The mental health myth that they somehow have a higher incidence of murders is just that, a myth.
Â
Therefore spending more money on mental health to prevent firearm murders is nothing more than a waste or money.
Â
The real reason behind the mental health issue is to make a bigger net to exclude more folks from owning guns. The Nazi used it as did the USSR where they declared political enemies mentally ill and sent them away.
Â
History is full of examples of using mental health to silence opposition.
 @RalphCramden  @Sundowner Do you consider Lynyrd Skynyrd classical?
 @SundownerÂ
Well you have a funny way of not insulting people when you state that those who watch Fox news or listen to Rush or some other conservative commentator are "not even average intelligence".
Â
I find that very insulting and I don't watch Fox news (no TV) and don't listen to the radio unless it's classical music.
 @Playanekes If you're asking Jan, there was no desk or anything else that wasn't manufactured by Sealy.  If you're asking me, why would I limit myself to being under one?
 @Playanekes Thorough background checks for everyone purchasing a gun in any setting, with harsh penalties to anyone found to have sold a gun without one.  It would keep an ex-con from buying a gun at a swap meet or from a non-dealer at a gun show.  Sure, many will get them in a manner that would then be illegal or via theft, but many wouldn't.  For me, it's one of those "can't hurt, might very well help" things.
 @Jan Qwib  @RalphCramden  @Sundowner What kind of desk was it?
 @Sundowner  @RalphCramden " more funding for mental health and universal background checks."  I would happily meet you there if we could talk about what constitutes a background check. Doubt it'll work but if it'll shut the hippies up for awhile, let's talk. There may be a repeal of the self-service ban as rider in there somewhere.
 @Sundowner I meant me.
 @Sundowner  @Jan Qwib <---- Not this moral Giant.Â
 @Jan Qwib Not that it matters, but Bill Clinton's approval rating is hovering around 66%.  If you can find one Republican, former president or not, with that high an approval rating, please let us know.  BTW, many of us have had sex in some location other than the blessed 'wedding bed', honey.  And sometimes we weren't even married to the person.  OMG!!
 @Jan Qwib  @RalphCramden What are you talking about?  Ralph referred me to an article regarding something Bill Clinton said, which obviously Ralph agreed with too.  I told him I agreed with what Clinton had to say?  You're got an agenda that won't be including me.
 @Sundowner I don't see the point in offering a path too citizenship until they have properly secured the border, and brought the flow of illegals to a trickle or a stop. otherwise we will be in the same spot 15 years from now.
 @TreeWizard  @Sundowner  @RalphCramden What people don't see coming is, once illegals become citizens they will become police officers, firemen and healthcare providers. They are illegal because they don't like our rules, they want to live by their own rules, and make their own rules.
 @TreeWizard  It is a physical impossibility.  Do the math:  US = 3.79 million square miles.  Estimated #of "illegals" = 12 million.  Average = 4 "illegals" per square mile.  Physical impossibility to round them up and deport them.  The cost alone would be astronomical, few would be willing to have their taxes increased to pay for it.  My "agenda" to begin universal background checks will become law.  Some form of immigration reform will too.  Maybe that's the best we can settle for?  BTW, if my math is off, it's because I'm math-challenged.
 @Sundowner  @RalphCramden I'll support you, if you support my agenda to remove the illegals.
 @RalphCramden I agree with what Bill Clinton said, and I don't feel I was insulting anyone, I was stating facts as I see them.  I don't reside in Portland, I reside in an area that is probably 75% Republican, very rural.  I'm not talking about gun enthusiasts at all.  I'm not talking about collectors, hunters, those who want weapons to enjoy a sense of security.  I'm talking about the fringe, many of whom are very vocal, very loud.  I sleep, live, breathe their stuff every day, in grocery store parking lots, at one of my jobs, at doctor's offices, at restaurants, at the gas station, the neighborhood saloon.  And don't say "those who don't believe like you do", since you don't know how I believe.  I'm liberal, but not anti-gun in any way.  My "thing" since this entire debate began is only two items:  more funding for mental health and universal background checks.  That's it.  But everyone who values their safety and freedom should fear the far right "gun nuts".  And with 70% of NRA members agreeing with me about background checks, I don't consider myself anything other than centrist on the issue.Â
 @RalphCramden  @Sundowner Home boy in that picture looked like a zombie.
 @RalphCramden  @Sundowner go Ralph go
 @Sundowner  @RalphCramden Hey, I don't fear the government. I just know they are a bunch of snakes in the grass, and it is time to mow the lawn.
 @Jan Qwib  @TreeWizard Tell me, who is it you've decided I "like to hear news from" and "like to listen to for news"?  Do you have some kind of ESP or are you receiving messages about me from some spiritual deity?  BTW, why would I care about 65 or 650,000 people protesting something that's been legal for 40 years?  It's a dead issue, moot point.  I don't care if the same number protested the 65mph speed limit or FDA rules regarding aspirin.  Â
 @TreeWizard  @Sundowner  @RalphCramden I agree with your TreeWizard well said, and Sundowner it is the people you like to hear news from who lack intelligence, and the people you like to listen to for news don't tell the whole story only what will accomplish what they want. LIes, lies. For example it was never shown on main stream that 650,000 people protested in Washington against abortion.
@TreeWizard @Sundowner @RalphCramden Actually, TreeWizard, the story of Rikki-Tikki-Tavi was the first thing that popped into my head when I read " . . . bunch of snakes in the grass . . ." Natural pest control. Too bad we can't get some "mongooses" into Congress.
Â
And I checked. According to Merriam Webtser, the plural can be either mongooses or mongeese.
 @TreeWizard  @theprodigal  @RalphCramden It's not easy to bring in the word "mongoose" to a political debate, and yet theprodigal managed to pull it off.  Therefore, I will say "specificity".  Out of context, but it's such a cool word.  I'm also kind of smitten with "liaison".
 @theprodigal  @TreeWizard  @Sundowner  @RalphCramden Am not sure if that was a shot at me or not; however, I love the fact you said mongoose.
@TreeWizard @Sundowner @RalphCramden Maybe we all need to turn our pet mongooses (or is it mongeese?) loose.
 @RalphCramden Yup, you mean when illegals are more important than real Americans.
Violent videos were mentioned. By comparison, the idea that sex videos, strip clubs etc...have some effect on certain sex crimes has been pushed for some time. So, if they can link certain videos to those crimes, can linking gun videos to gun crimes be far behind? I realize (normal) people aren't affected by videos, but since we can't label crazy folks "crazy" (like the last few killers), some anti "crazy" laws should change.
Anyone see this yet?  (Mayor Bloomberg asked question by journalist)
Â
If we must disarm, maybe the politicians should disarm too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCC-rEx81PE
 @portlandborn83 His NYPD police goons are trying to interrogate the guy... in DC.Â
 @portlandborn83 Typical hypocritical gun control nut....