Gabrielle Giffords' and Mark Kelly's Call for "Laws to Require Responsible Gun Ownership": Yay or Nay?

Categories: Morning Poll
glock22.jpg
Two years after the Tucson shooting in which six people were killed, and 13 others were injured, including then-Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Giffords and husband Mark Kelly used the date to call for Congress to do something.

"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," the couple writes in a co-authored editorial published yesterday in the USA Today.

See also:
-Gun Control Debate Continues Two Years After Tucson Shooting

Giffords and Kelly announced an organization they've created called Americans for Responsible Solutions, which is supposed to counteract the NRA -- especially in the money department, so legislators "will no longer have reason to fear the gun lobby."

What kind of laws Giffords and Kelly want passed by Congress aren't laid out, but they've got the generals mentioned in this editorial.

"As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home," they write. "What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence."

Although it's not specific, do you agree with Giffords' and Kelly's stance?

Cast your vote below:


My Voice Nation Help
37 comments
Similarly
Similarly

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
Those are 56 million deaths that fall onto the hands of people like
Obama, Biden, Morgan, Bloomberg, Cuomo and anyone who calls for gun
confiscation. YOU are the mass murderers who make the Sandy Hook shooting look like nothing in comparison.

Thane.Eichenauer
Thane.Eichenauer

If they can't state what laws they are advocating for there is no reason why anybody should support their "stance".  Show us the proposed law and a person can have an informed opinion about it.  If Giffords and Kelly can identify a describable irresponsible behavior then propose that as a prohibitive law.  As is is they are asking people to support a feeling.  http://www.a-human-right.com/

papahutch2000
papahutch2000

Wonder what they think of arpile's old ladies with automatics, that is automatic weaponstrooing our malls and schools? 

ptcgaz
ptcgaz

I voted for in general yes, because I am sure that they will include commonsense things into their requirements for responsible gun ownership. That to me would include not toting an AK-47 around and claiming it's for self defense or hunting. I also think it would include not owning large capacity clips. I also think it would mean submitting to complete registration of all guns owned AND submitting to complete background checks, that include things like mental illness checks and criminal background checks. 

Ken Frango
Ken Frango

Robert is correct, the Brady bill requires FFL dealers to perform background checks through NICS. 1.8% of people are rejected. I'm not really sure what the gun show loop hole is.

Robert Souza
Robert Souza

Stop with the railing against gunshows. They run background checks at gunshows. Every licensed dealer is required to run a background check. However, a private individual can sell to another private individual with no checks. So, a private individual can come to a gunshow and sell a firearm to another person without a background check. This is something that happens every day in face to face purchases.. on backpage.com and hundreds of websites and classified ads. NOT just gunshows. The vast majority of purchases at gunshows are through a dealer with an FFL (Federal Firearm License) who rents a space and sets up a booth. This is pure media uninformed hype. And by the way, perhaps only law enforcement or the military NEED a 30 round clip, but that shouldn't prevent me from having one. Do I NEED a car that can go 130 mph?

Joel Valera
Joel Valera

Why don't they run background checks at guns shows? Everyone that buys a gun should be required to have their background checked.ALL firearms should be REGISTERED..EVERYONE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GET A LICENSE FOR EAPON THEY OWN.. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE TO DRIVE, WHY NOT FOR GUNS?

Joel Valera
Joel Valera

Yes, no one but Law Enforcement or the Military need.. 30 round clips, AK's,

Chuck Jennings
Chuck Jennings

The quote was: "As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home," they write. "What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence." That is very non-specific. There isn't anything with which to agree or disagree.

Nomas Creativenative
Nomas Creativenative

Guns are not the problem !!! People are so if killed a bunch of people with a pencil would they out law pencils

Hector Joe Mora
Hector Joe Mora

I heard a yay ranting about gun control . We need to keep an eye on this noodle . It is a shame to see what is happening in our country .

Hector Joe Mora
Hector Joe Mora

I heard a yay ranting about gun control . We need to keep an eye on this noodle . It is a shame to see what is happening in our country .

Michael Schilling
Michael Schilling

No! It won't solve any thing, and it will NOT prevent what happen in CT.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

Meanwhile, Brewer says she will sign no laws that restrict gun ownership.  I wonder if that includes her son who's been in the state mental hospital for 20 years.  Before his kidnapping and rape charges, he could have owned a gun with Brewski's full blessing.

ptcgaz
ptcgaz

@FightForYourRights big pharma has nothing to do with the shootings. GUNS and irresponsible owners are the problem 100%.

ptcgaz
ptcgaz

@Robert Souza not according to many muckrakers. I saw a special report from FL where the ABC (I think) news crew was able to send in someone with a criminal record of violent crime that was paroled and wiling to be used as a test subject to a gun show and he was able to buy an assault rifle. BTW as an added bonus.. ONE LESS assault rifle for nut jobs in FL!


ptcgaz
ptcgaz

@Joel Valera also mandatory insurance should be required on your guns. If you shoot someone with your guns that would add a layer of defense for the injured AND/or killed victim of your gun crime. 

ptcgaz
ptcgaz

@Nomas Creativenative If someone murders over 20 people with a pencil, I would consider your absurd argument.

ptcgaz
ptcgaz

@Michael Schilling really how do you know this? 

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@WhoKnows  if he got out now, he can get his gun rights restored from both being a felon and from his mental instability defense. it would only take about a year after he is done with his parole. so it wouldnt be that long before he could graduate from "the knife point rapist" to "the gun-point rapist" look it up, you can get your gun rights restored (not a guaranteed restoration of rights, but it is possible) if nothing else, he could join the posse

PRO2ndAmendment
PRO2ndAmendment

A law abiding citizen should look into the mirror and ask themselves, "Why is the government and their minions always targeting and restricting me?"  Because the government has no plans to rid the criminal elements of society, only to create more criminals.

shadeaux14
shadeaux14

@danzigsdaddy He' not a felon. When mommy pulled some strings and got him a hospital bed instead of a prison bed, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, thus avoiding a felony record.

ptcgaz
ptcgaz

@PRO2ndAmendment maybe that is because IDIOTS like your self that are deluded into thinking you aren't the problem ARE actually part of the problem? come back to me when you know someone who is murdered with a gun cocksucker. GUNS aren't the solution.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@PRO2ndAmendment "Why is the government and their minions always targeting and restricting me?" Really! Is that what you ask yourself? Define "always" for us, would you? If always is every 20 years, then I suppose you're right.

I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment as well. I strongly believe that we cannot pick and choose which Amendments still apply and which ones don't. We cannot say we like this Amendment so we'll support it but we don't like that one anymore so we'll ignore it.

I'm also a supporter of the ENTIRE 2nd Amendment - you know, that part about a well regulated militia being the pre-cursor to the right to keep and bear arms. You can't just ignore half of the language in the 2nd Amendment just because its inconvenient to your position. Of course the government can regulate what arms you can own. Do you really believe that the 2nd Amendment allows you to own a .50 cal machine gun, how about a rocket propelled granade launcher or a claymore mine? There are clearly limits on the guarantees provided by the 2nd Amendment as result of the "clearly regulated" language but your types don't want to acknowledge that, do you?

shadeaux14
shadeaux14

@PRO2ndAmendment Keep your eyes on those shiny guns Pro. That way you won't notice how many of your other rights are being eroded by the religious right.


Just like they planned.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@shadeaux14 if i remember correctly, its still a felony jacket on him, but it also is a mental illness jacket too. but even if it was only one or the other.... you can still apply for your rights to be re-instated from either one of those. (but, yeah... i love how she got it to where he's incompetent so he doesnt have to do time with the big boys)

PRO2ndAmendment
PRO2ndAmendment

@LegitQuestions  Research Patrick Henry, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison (obviously you did not pay attention during your scholastic endeavours and now spew things out of ignorance).  After you have completed that research, go ahead and review United States v. Emerson, District of Coulmbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago.


Also, you may want to learn about commas or rather take some classes on the english language in general to get a further grasp on sentence structure and reading comprehension.


Simon
Simon

@ptcgaz

Under Obama the federal government has been using FOIA exemptions to withhold information from requesters 49 percent more often than under Bush. At the DEA alone, under Obama, Administrator Michele Leonhart (a Bush holdover) has presided over a whopping 114 percent increase in FOIA rejections.

Obama pledged that his administration would enhance "whistleblower laws to protect federal workers." Instead, it has been more prone than any administration in history to try to silence whistleblowers.

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which purportedly permits the indefinite detention of people - including Americans - without charge or trial.

Obama vigorously fought for, and persuaded Congress to pass, legislation intended to grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies for their massive warrantless wiretapping under Bush. The Obama Justice Department is fighting the ongoing warrantless wiretapping lawsuits harder than the Bush administration ever did.

Warrantless wiretapping has continued under the Obama Administration. Cell phone companies are also now responding to demands from law enforcement for "subscriber data" thousands of times per day, frequently without subpoenas or other court orders, and many times more often than during the Bush years.

Under Obama the NSA is, for the first time since the Nixon administration, turning its surveillance apparatus on the U.S. and its citizens. The NSA is completing construction on the "Utah Data Center," which will secretly intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world's domestic and international communications.

The Obama administration is aggressively continuing the use of "national security letters," which are unilaterally issued by the FBI without judicial oversight. The recipients are not government employees who are sworn to uphold government secrets, but by law, recipients are not even allowed to tell anyone that they have been victimized.

Obama's escalating use of drone strikes is another major cause for concern. They often kill innocent people. If males are killed in a targeted area, the Obama Administration simply defines them as terrorists. They are adjudicated guilty, sentenced to death, and executed by remote-controlled robots operated by unaccountable individuals thousands of miles away. The administration is now rolling out 30,000 drones to fly across US skies to spy on US citizens.

The Obama administration has created a new interrogation policy in which investigators may waive the Miranda warning.

The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act, which Congress extended following weeks of fierce, impassioned a rushed single day of debate, allows federal agencies to listen to the phone calls and read the emails of American citizens' international communications (even that one day of debate, by the way, was hard won). The government must get approval to snoop from a FISA court, which is untroubled by niceties such as probable cause, and the communications in question need only pertain to "foreign intelligence information", a phrase so broad as to be utterly meaningless.


LegitQuestions
LegitQuestions

@PRO2ndAmendment Then explain it to me genius. I've got plenty of time and will read every word you write. Explain away the first clause of the Second Amendment, which states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,". Tell me, the Constitutional scholar that you are, what exactly that means. Explain it in a way that gives meaning to it because, like you, it is what I believe in as a U.S. citizen born and raised. I have studied the words of our Constitution. I don't have an agenda. I'm actually not in favor of a lot of gun control proposals because I don't think they'll do much good. But I also want to see meaning in the Constitution - the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, not just part of it or the part of it convenient to gun nuts. So help us, explain it to us, tell us why you believe that the first clause in the Second Amendment simply, poof, disappears.

Oh, and while you're at it, answer my question. Does the Second Amendment give you the right to own an M18 Claymore? Or how about an M2 .50 cal? Or an M134 mini gun?

ptcgaz
ptcgaz

@PRO2ndAmendment the left isn't eroding your rights you asshat. If they were you wouldn't have a single gun. KEEP that in mind.

PRO2ndAmendment
PRO2ndAmendment

@shadeaux14 You are only partially correct.  Both the left and right continue to erode our rights.  The voters aka followers of the Rebloodicans and Democrips are what keep the charade going by falling for the same ish every day, every election, every turn.

@JohnQ.Public  First quit assuming you know me or where I stand.  Second, I took an OATH to defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES.  That means I do not pick and choose those enemies they are clear and present.  I also do not pick and choose my Constitution or my Bill of Rights, it is well laid out and it is what I believe in as a US Citizen, BORN & RAISED.  I suggest you actually study the words of the framers of our Consitution and Bill of Rights because you and many others are the one's contexting as to what these documents mean to fit your ill minded and misguided agendas.  State and Federal Supreme Courts so far continue to see it the correct way, why "you types" can't is quite obvious- you ARE the enemies.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...