Why are the Giffords in Alaska this week pushing gun control?

Question

They lost the vote. Why dont they just 'Get over it and move on' - thats what the liberals tell the conservatives to do when we have lost a vote?

If you read the article linked below - these folks are pushing for our senators to climb on board and help them ban 'Internet Sales'. I dont know about you - but - when I think of 'Internet Sales' I think about going to Amazon and doing a click and pay - a few days later it shows up in the mail. The Giffords, by 'Internet Sales' - they mean posting a for sale on any online web site..... and if you do, than "Internet Sales' also include - selling to your neighbor, co-worker or posting a for sale sign at your local supermarket. Me - I think if you make private sales illegal - you have just enacted a National Gun Registry. What do you think?

I think saying they want to stop 'Internet Sales' is just double speak. They should be calling it stopping private sales or stopping the advertising of private guns for sale.

This is a link to the Yahoo article. The article in yestedays Daily News Miner in Fairbanks had tons of remarks..... all telling the Gifords to go home, get out of Alaska, or to go someplace really, really warm with lots of sinners. And it wasnt LasVegas

http://news.yahoo.com/kelly-giffords-lobby-alaska-gun-130534890.html

Answer 1

If liberals are willing to accept 40,000 vehicle deaths each year so they can have the freedom to drive their car.



I'm willing to accept the 11,000 - 12,000 gun homicides(that includes both murder and justifiable) each year to exercise my freedom to own a firearm.



Firearms are used to PREVENT, on average, 2.5 million violent crimes each year.

I don't know how many vehicles are used in the same capacity, but I'm sure it's a few less(sarcasm)



The Giffords are blowhard liberals who are well paid to propagate their lunacy for the consumption of idiots.



Murder rate.

They always use "gun murder" rate when comparing the USA to the rest of the world.

If you just go by murder rate. The USA ranks #108, the 107 above the USA on that list all have "gun bans" in place. Liberals are far more concerned with how a person is murdered than they are with the actual murder itself. Somehow to a liberal being beaten or stabbed to death is morally superior to getting shot. >No, logic isn't necessary to be a liberal

Answer 2

It's a mystery to me what these people want. If it were just a background check for private sales, they'd figure how to make it easy and free. And why is it that nobody in the media has used that in a pointed question?

This might even be a good time to introduce legislation authorizing a subsidy using public tax dollars to FFL holders, say $40 per gun sale, to compensate for their cost of doing background checks and keeping records.

It's also peculiar to see almost all the Democrats in Congress supporting a flat tax that disproportionately burdens the poor and minorities. Nobody seems to be making that point, either. And "universal background checks" certainly fit into the category of a regressive tax the way it's been proposed.

Answer 3

They can put the prettiest silk hat they can find on it, but it's still what it is - a big foot in the door. Once the "universal background check" becomes federal law, the means to enforce it will end up superceding any concurrent registry ban. The federal government has no right to know what's in anyone's gun cabinet, any more than it has the right to know what books are on anyone's shelves, I know the left likes to paint those with confiscation fears as irrational paranoids, but regardless of how you feel about this, the fact is that this government already knows more about us than it has any right to know. There's no reason to make it worse, especially with what a hostile government would fear most concerning its subjects... I mean, citizens, at least for the moment.

Answer 4

Fascism isn't only in the east coast. It stretches all the way to Alaska my friend. And it's unfortunate. In alaska, they're talking about extended criminal history checks and even though that may be good, it won't stop mass shootings. I live in colorado where they had another shooting at a theatre in a town called Aurora, and the man who did it used a 100 round drum magazine, so the libtards and left wingnuts cried about wanting to ban "large clips," and they got their way. 15 bullets per magazine only, 8 shotgun shells per shotgun. That was the limit set recently. Now you can't buy magazines that are "high capacity". Sure, for pistols and shotguns, that's the avarage capacity, but it's still unlawful. They passed these laws swiftly, without any word. They silently limited our rights. They originally wanted a communistic 10 round and 5 shotshell limit, but that didn't pass. And even though Colorado doesn't have any restrictions on what type of weapon you can buy, the magazine round limit is an example of what these people can do, when they push for communism. They also wanted to pass a gun ban list which banned over 3,000 firearms by name. You heard me. That coupled with a 10 round 5 shotshell limit. That was their original fascist agenda which thankfully didn't pass because the governor didn't want to ban any guns. However... There's a lawsuit happening right now, and colorado sheriff departments are suing for the gun rights back, and are trying to strike down these magazine limits, and I hope it works.



Banning guns and limiting them for citizens does absolutely nothing to stop criminals. My friend Stephen was murdered by a criminal who had an automatic Uzi, and a 39 round clip. In Colorado, Stephen could only have a 15 round magazine, and even though he used it along with his pistol to defend himself, it was no match for a criminal with an automatic weapon with a large magazine.



Why didn't the 15 round limit stop the criminal? Why didn't federal law prohibiting automatic weapons for citizens stop the criminal either? He didn't give a damn about the law, and now my friend is dead because he couldn't defend himself. Just goes to show you what happens when fascism and communism touches our lives, like what's happening in Alaska.

Answer 5

They are now taking the stance that if they act like they are big supporters of half of our gun rights then they can make us think they're on our side and that we'll let them take away the other half.



Basically she thinks that people in Alaska (and the other overwhelmingly pro-gun states she is visiting on this tour) are absolute idiots and can have a majority opinion shift based on such transparent manipulation.



She should prepare to be surprised.

Answer 6

lmao...I thought you were joking until I read the article.



They might as well be trying to convince the Alaska population that salmon fishing is evil. They would probably have a better chance than trying to convince the Alaska population that guns are evil and that more laws are needed.



Makes me want to grab my 44 mag and go hook into a 200 pound halibut.

Answer 7

Have you seen the weather reports out of Arizona lately?



Speaking of which, how are you faring up in that Alaska heat wave? I hear half your state melted, so you're only twice as big as Texas now.

Answer 8

I just want to comment that Gabby Giffords has a little problem with objectivity. I also want to mention that CF45 has let loose with commentary that matches my views exactly.

Answer 9

You have to remember that the main reason she was shot is because she opposed gun control. Those who sent Jared Lee Loughner probably warned her that the next time they would send someone who wouldn't just wound her.

Answer 10

Gabby once had my sympathy. Notice that is "past tense".



Just like the brave men and women who serve in the military- they have my immediate respect and admiration. It is automatic with me.



However, some of them choose to pizz on my respect for them. Once you pizz on your honor- then are no more than a pizz ant, and your service is no more than a pot of pizz.



I served....and I refuse to pizz on my country.



Edit: Thank you C_F_45

Answer 11

Your conclusion: "... you have just enacted a National Gun Registry ..." does not follow logically.



Republican James Brady is doing his own campaigning to severely restrict guns