Gabrielle Giffords Pictured With "Assault Rifle" in Leaked Photos, but Cop Is Cropped Out

Categories: Guns
gabby-cop-side.jpg
Facebook
Gabrielle Giffords (left) and a Tucson police officer.
A radio host from a Tucson radio station that describes itself as talk from the "right" posted a photo online of what the host calls proof of "elitist hypocrisy"-- former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords holding a so-called assault rifle.

That host, as well as the right-wing Breitbart.com posted the picture -- both using a "source" to explain the context of the photo -- although a Tucson police officer, in his SWAT uniform, is cropped out of the picture.

See also:
-Gabrielle Giffords' Husband Mark Kelly Bought an AR-15 Rifle

"...[I]n response to the exploitative political scheming of Mark Kelly, persons connected to Congresswoman Giffords released this photo in response to what they perceived to be her husband's hypocrisy," writes 104.1 FM's James Harris. "They believe Giffords is not cogent enough to completely understand her scripts dictated by Kelly to further his own political aspirations. Neither do many in my audience."

According to Brietbart.com, it also obtained a copy of the photo, but their writer explains that the image they received "was cropped to protect the identity of the person on the right-hand side of the original photograph (to Giffords's left)."

And, just as Giffords' husband Mark Kelly took to Facebook to explain why he was recently photographed while buying guns in a Tucson gun shop, someone took to Giffords' Facebook to tell Giffords' side of the story, as well as the entire picture, which kind of changes things:

giffords-rifle.jpg

Compare that with the photo posted by Brietbart (left) and 104.1 FM (right), which both appear to be edited beyond a simple crop.

giffords-crops.jpg


The radio station never mentioned that there was another person in the photo. Brietbart failed to mention -- and by the looks of how it's written, perhaps purposely omitted the fact -- that the other person in the photo is a cop.

The explanation from Giffords' Facebook paints quite a different picture, too.

"The first [photo] is at the Tucson Police Department firing range," the post says. "They invited me to test rifles and tasers that they bought with federal funds, which I helped secure."

Another photo shows Giffords holding a different rifle, and the explanation says that one was taken while Giffords was visiting troops in Afghanistan.

"I guess the intention of those who have publicized these photos is to somehow call into question my belief that military style assault weapons should be more strongly regulated with background checks and other safeguards," the post says. "I have never wavered in my support for those who serve our country. I fought to make sure they have the weapons and safety gear needed to carry out their mission, and proper health and mental care when their service ends."

Kelly's and Giffords' gun-control advocacy organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, calls for federal legislation "to limit the sale of assault weapons" to civilians, and it's fairly obvious what 104.1 FM in Tucson is trying to do, as it explains that, in the photo, Giffords is "smiling because she loves her big ole 'assault riffle,' (sic) the AR-15."

The top-rated comment on the page says that this photo " is sadder than what happened to her on Jan 8th," a reference to when a madman went on a shooting rampage in January 2011, where 13 people were shot, and six people died as a result.

brian-bostick.jpg


Giffords' Facebook post, with the entire explanation, can be found here.

My Voice Nation Help
23 comments
ExGeeEye
ExGeeEye

Lessons learned:


1. It's OK to hold and shoot a Scary Black Rifle if you have a Policeman present (presumably to scare the SBR and keep it from jumping up and flying around shooting people at random).


2.  The presence ot the Policeman also blesses and makes OK the shooting of a target depicting a Disadvantaged Urban Youth of Indeterminate Color -- not quite St. Trayvon, but still...

Further:


A.  That's a Policeman?  Looks like a Soldier.  Where is he going that camouflage will be appropriate, let alone necessary?  How very TactiCool he looks.


B.  If that was Glenn Beck and no Policeman was around, it with be prima facie evidence of RACISM!!!11!


C.  My gun does not enhance my shwanz.  It does, however, compensate for my age and lack of kung fu skillz

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

They aren't really "edited beyond a simple crop", except that people who don't know what they are doing tried to fix the lighting in Photoshop(The Brietbart one is the best of the three, but they still jacked up the black levels). Otherwise, the pictures are just cropped. No extra layer of conspiracy there, guys. Sorry about that.


As for editing out the cop, that doesn't change it THAT much for me. She's still holding a supposedly dangerous "assault rifle" with a huge grin on her face, and a set of cans around her neck. Taking the cop out doesn't change that at all.

Comanche_Moon
Comanche_Moon

I hope they have cable and internet at the FEMA camps. 

azlefty
azlefty

Is that the one Todd got caught buying?

Can;t wait for the  restrictions to kick in then we can fuck the other amendments with "common sense restrictions!" 


Be careful what  you wish for you may get it!


wqcharleston
wqcharleston

...and why are they shooting at Justin Beiber?

wqcharleston
wqcharleston

First of all I am for tighter gun control and background checks.  This picture does make me angry.  She has a huge smile on her face while she is holding a weapon.  It looks like she is glorifying weapons.  If she secured funds for the weapons, it would have been more appropriate to have the officer hold the gun. 

Guest10
Guest10

Don't forget Roxanna Green, for two years she never mentioned guns, she was too busy with her husband hanging out at baseball games and being photographed with celebs. Now as the story of her daughter has run it's course all of a sudden Roxanna Green is an anti gun advocate and wants to tell the American people what kind of gun they should be allowed to legally own. Who cares what Roxanna Green thinks about anything

Guest10
Guest10

Has anyone asked Roxanna Green what she thinks about Giffords in this photo? For two years Green said nothing about guns, just that her daughter played little league over and over. Now that the story has run it's course about her daughter Roxanna Green wants these weapons banned and she wants to tell the American public what kind of gun they should legally be allowed to own. Why does Roxanna Green get to decide this? She should stick to hanging out at baseball games and hanging around celebs, she should leave the second amendment alone

RobAZ
RobAZ

In all the hoopla as to Giffords "expertise" when it comes to weapons, why is it that her committee assignments while in the US House are never mentioned?

She was a member of the Committee on Armed Services and served on the Subcommittees for:

* Tactical Air and Land Forces - Oversight and legislative jurisdiction over: US Army, US Air Force, deep strike bombers, National Guard, Army and Air Force reserve modernization, ammunition programs.

* Readiness - Oversight and legislative jurisdiction over: Military readiness, Training.....


It looks pretty clear this picture was taken prior to her being shot.  I guess Breitbart and all the other right wing wackos have a problem with a person doing their job.


JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

The one thing that is not addressed in either the article or her statement is when the photos were actually taken.   My understanding is that her right arm is mostly paralyzed so its unlikely that the photo was post-injury, but it would have been nice (and appropriate) for her to confirm that.  Regardless, cropping the photo to remove the context is disingenuous.  I know it happens on both sides, and it shouldn't happen on either side, but all it does is poison the debate and make it harder for civilized people to have a reasonable discussion about important public policy issues.

valleynative
valleynative

@wqcharleston She was holding it because she had been shooting it, and clearly enjoyed shooting it.  Shooting sports are actually a lot of fun.  She had been a shooter for a long time, and used to understand that AR-15's aren't evil or magical in any way.


david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@Guest10 if she lost her daughter to violence, she has every right to take up the cause. I wonder, what gives YOU the right to judge her and her reasons?  I think you need to look in the mirror first before taking this route..

valleynative
valleynative

@RobAZ I don't think anybody suggested that they had a problem with the fact that she clearly enjoyed shooting the AR-15.   What gave you that impression?


HaddieNuff
HaddieNuff

@JohnQ.Public  Civilized people don't pay attention to, much less read, Breitbart.com, John. (But then you already know that. :}) Can someone tell me WTF is all this manufactured outrage about anyway?  As I've said before, I suspect getting a bullet through the brain is going to change your outlook just a bit. 

As for those waving the "Second Amendment rights are absolute' flag, that's as deserving of the 'here's your sign' as are the Breitbart followers.  The Second Amendment does not covey unlimited rights, nor does it prevent laws banning the sale of certain types of weapons and ammunition. It also does not mean there can be no prohibitions on those who can legally purchase weapons (e.g. no felons and mentally ill). 

%s

SCOTUS 2008 decision in DC v Heller, majority opinion written by Justice Scalia.  You will need to read part III.   

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01She has exactly as much right as anybody, and her opinion carries no more or less weight than anybody else's.  What becomes annoying is when victims believe that we should grant them additional regulatory power as partial compensation for their loss.

Guest10
Guest10

She had a picture on her facebook shopping at a Walmart with several shopping carts of toys with a big smile on her face. She wasn't angry at Walmart then? But two weeks later she shows up at a Walmart in CT and is now protesting them. She seems only to be mad at Walmart when there is a camera in her face? How come she wasn't mad at Walmart in Dec. when shopping for the toys?

cjleete
cjleete

@HaddieNuff   When you agree that your right to blather on can  be regulated, then I'll agree that my right to self defense can be regulated.

valleynative
valleynative

@HaddieNuff   If you mean that the bullet may have diminished her mental capacity, that doesn't seem to be the narrative we're supposed to believe.  If you mean that she was in favor of gun ownership until she was personally attacked by a gun owner, then that's the sort of hypocrisy we're supposed to be making fun of, at least if it involves gay marriage.  Did I miss a memo?

HaddieNuff
HaddieNuff

@cjleete   Poor baby!  Sorry, but I'm going to follow the constitution and how the Supreme Court has ruled on our First AND Second Amendment rights.  I don't always like it, but it is what it is.  I'm certainly not going to accept as fact what some low information ignorant whacko-bird TELLS me is fact.

And, BTW, you are aware that the gun you want to tote around doesn't really make your dick bigger, aren't you?

Kevin Phillips
Kevin Phillips

@valleynative @HaddieNuff It comes as no surprise to me that people who have an issue with this believe that changing her opinion as she gains new knowledge, experience and education is considered hypocrisy.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...