• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gabby Giffiords is Suing the ATF

TurtleDude said:
Once a politican/celebrity tries to use their tragedy to limit the rights of other Americans, they are fair game. pure and simple. but the one we should thrash is not Gabby since (akin to the late Jim Brady) she is not calling the shots. In both the cases of Gabby Giffords and Jim Brady, it is the publicity seeking spouses who are responsible for most of the idiocy. Sarah Brady parlayed her crippled husband into a ticket to the A list. Before he was shot, she was just another second string Washington insider's wife who really didn't rate much attention. The minute her husband was tragically crippled, she was on every gun hating politician and Celebrity's Must invite list. Same with mark Kelly now
Click to expand...

Caring for your crippled spouse is "idiocy" to you?
 
jet57 said:
The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence is suing the ATF to find out exactly what and how much influence the NRA has over Trump.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...e98e4b03deac08c2a9b?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009



No matter which way it breaks we'll get an answer and it should be very interesting. The filing is included in the article.
Click to expand...

Assuming this story is on the level, and with Huffpo that is always something it could be unwise to automatically assume . . .

What law prevents the President from consulting the NRA or any other legally registered group in the United States?

What is wrong with the President asking for information from such groups or hearing their argument for this or that policy?
What is wrong with making a decision based on what they offered?

Did Giffords file suit to investigate whether President Obama ever talked to The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? Whether he asked for information or heard their arguments and/or was influenced by what they offered?

The Constitution gives full right to people of all points of view to petition their government for redress of grievances or to remedy whatever they think should be done.

To demonize such groups and most especially to waste taxpayer money to investigate them purely because we disagree with them is just plain wrong. Giffords is wrong to do that.

To demonize a President because he shares the mainstream opinions/values of a particular group that you disagree with is also just plain wrong. Giffords is wrong to do that.
 
Rucker61 said:
Automatic weapons are controlled. Being a victim doesn't give you the right to take away others' rights.
Click to expand...

Being gun obsessed doesn't give you the right to let others have their rights taken by a gun obsessed moron.
 
TurtleDude said:
the problem with people who run organizations that get money by advocating gun restrictions is that those groups aren't going to fire their employees or cease to exist once their current goal is achieved. Example. in 1990 or 91, Sarah Brady said the ONLY GOAL of her organization was passing the brady bill. she came to Cincinnati (when GHWB was in office the brady bill was DOA) to try to get major cities to start passing waiting periods etc. She told the city council that her organization ONLY wanted this law and not any bans etc. Cincinnati passed the law. she was back after that whining in favor of a stupid "assault weapon ban". we played the tape of her saying she didn't want anything else. A moderate GOP councilman I once worked for who had voted for the waiting period, pointed out that she had been dishonest, I ripped her up pretty badly and that councilman said that she had told the anti gun mayor (who had invited her there) she'd never come back after being "treated like that"

so when Mark K claims they don't want things like bans, I call BS. I have seen other groups like this lie and lie and lie
Click to expand...

Once President McKinley lied, therefore all republicans are liars.

See the problem there, yet?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well since the NRA supports the Second Amendment to the Constitution it should have influence over every president because it's a watchdog group of the citizens to force the hand of politicians to adhere to their limits. That's what the Bill of Rights is.

Imagine that in a constitutional republic where the leaders are democratically elected citizens have influence over them.
Click to expand...

Great. Now, do you think that influence should be hidden, or transparent?
 
TurtleDude said:
she's nothing more than a pawn now-as Lenin would note, a useful fool being trotted out by her egomaniacal husband who uses the tragic crippling of his once witty and very attractive wife as a substitute for having a valid argument
Click to expand...

This is just more hateful character assassination.
 
TurtleDude said:
you essentially remove yourself from ever being taken seriously in gun control discussions when you post something that incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

The irony of this post cannot be overstated.

TurtleDude said:
I am curious, what part of being a left wing libertarian supports gun bans or gun control imposed by the government? or do you "left wing libertarians" support government restrictions on constitutional rights while whining about corporate power only?
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand the concept of liberty. Liberty is freedom from authority, not just freedom from government. If that confuses you, consider whether holding a loaded gun to someone's head gives you a measure of authority over them.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think its sad that she was crippled. I don't go around trying to compensate for crappy arguments by pretending that "I care more" than the people I am debating. That's almost always a left wing bit of nonsense though some bible thumpers use it to. The idiocy that if I oppose something advocated by the victim of a tragedy (or more likely someone using the victim as a pawn) I must not care.

I tend to care about things I can change or things I have caused or could cause. Do I spend time engaging in penance or self flagellation because a politician was crippled by a nut case? No. what I care about is defending constitutional rights of lawful gun owners-rights that people like Giffords' husband seeks to abrogate as some sort of sick way to try to make up for what happened to his wife
Click to expand...

This is a really long winded way of saying that you don't care enough about her being crippled to do anything about it. Nobody is obligated to entertain such a sociopathic view.
 
Absentglare said:
This is a really long winded way of saying that you don't care enough about her being crippled to do anything about it. Nobody is obligated to entertain such a sociopathic view.
Click to expand...

So what is your solution that should have been in place to stop her and others from being shot that day?
 
KevinKohler said:
OK, fine. You don't NEED a swimming pool, which kill people, too, so no pool for you.
Click to expand...

People die to their own negligence in pools, so they're assuming their own risk.

You don't assume much risk by walking around in public, but you could be shot in the back by a lunatic nonetheless. Hence the issue where it seems like a good idea to NOT intentionally arm people who have been proven incapable of handling the responsibility of gun ownership.
 
Absentglare said:
People die to their own negligence in pools, so they're assuming their own risk.

You don't assume much risk by walking around in public, but you could be shot in the back by a lunatic nonetheless. Hence the issue where it seems like a good idea to NOT intentionally arm people who have been proven incapable of handling the responsibility of gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Not true. People die in pools due to ANOTHERS negligence all the time.
 
Absentglare said:
Maybe if the right didn't waste its energy on benghazi, it could have had some legitimate scrutiny like that which you named.
Click to expand...

so again your support of gun bans and anti gun posts is based on the politics of the gun lobby and the president it supported. Good thing you aren't even pretending any more its about stopping crime-a facade we all know is oozing, steaming, stinking bovine excrement
 
Absentglare said:
Caring for your crippled spouse is "idiocy" to you?
Click to expand...

in your pathetic (and failing massively) attempt to try to contradict my assertions you are lying about what I said. He should care for his crippled spouse but he shouldn't use her as an emotobabbling battering ram against the rights of millions. BTW he should be in prison for straw purchase activity
 
Absentglare said:
Being gun obsessed doesn't give you the right to let others have their rights taken by a gun obsessed moron.
Click to expand...

you demonstrate a frightening level of ignorance about the term rights There is laws against murder. You labor under the delusion, apparently, that you have right not to soil yourself or be afraid and that right requires honest people be disarmed. Sorry, that attitude is specious and contrary to law and reality. people owning even belt fed electrically driven 5000 rounds a minute gatling guns in no way interferes on your rights in any way. AND ANYTHING HARMFUL someone might do with that Aerotech automatic gun is already AGAINST THE LAW
 
Absentglare said:
The irony of this post cannot be overstated.



You obviously don't understand the concept of liberty. Liberty is freedom from authority, not just freedom from government. If that confuses you, consider whether holding a loaded gun to someone's head gives you a measure of authority over them.
Click to expand...

you are lying again and you make the idiotic claim that someone owning a gun somehow interferes in some freedom you have. its idiotic
 
TurtleDude said:
you are lying again and you make the idiotic claim that someone owning a gun somehow interferes in some freedom you have. its idiotic
Click to expand...

Yes a person's freedom not to be shot ends when they enter my house Uninvited or threatened me or the people I love. So you're not at Liberty to do those things in the first place so he isn't losing any liberties.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well since the NRA supports the Second Amendment to the Constitution it should have influence over every president because it's a watchdog group of the citizens to force the hand of politicians to adhere to their limits. That's what the Bill of Rights is.

Imagine that in a constitutional republic where the leaders are democratically elected citizens have influence over them.
Click to expand...

The NRA is not a watchdog group, they are now a lobbying organization and political action group and thereby should not have direct influence on the president or any sitting politician. The effort by Gifford will net the information necessary in order to judge exactly what influence the NRA has on the White House and its stand on gun control. This would be tantamount to the Teacher's unions having direct influence on the decision making process of the secretary of education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom