Top 10 Scumbag Responses to Gabrielle Giffords' Plan to Write a Gun-Control Book

Categories: List This
gabby-giffords-obama-top.jpg
White House/Pete Souza
Gabrielle Giffords with President Obama and her husband, Mark Kelly.


Perhaps rule number one of Internet use is, "Don't feed the trolls."

However, sometimes those trolls are too disgusting too ignore. Such is the case when news broke today that former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is writing a book on gun control.

We checked out people's reactions to the story on about a dozen national news websites, much of which includes people arguing the merits of gun control. On one site, however, Breitbart.com -- a right-wing news website -- much of the commentary of anonymous, online commenters is dedicated to attacking Giffords, who was nearly murdered for doing her job of representing southern Arizonans as their congresswoman.

You might be as surprised as we were to find out what some people really think of Giffords. Find the top-10 scumbag comments below:

10.)

giffords-scumbags-10.jpg


9.)

giffords-scumbags-9.jpg


8.)

giffords-scumbags-8.jpg


7.)

giffords-scumbags-7.jpg


6.)

giffords-scumbags-6.jpg


5.)

giffords-scumbags-5.jpg


4.)

giffords-scumbags-4.jpg


3.)

giffords-scumbags-3.jpg


2.)

giffords-scumbags-2.jpg


1.)

giffords-scumbags-1.jpg


Click here to see the entire comment threat on Breitbart.com.

My Voice Nation Help
109 comments
Happy Funball
Happy Funball

"criminals don't follow the law" has got to be one of the most asinine arguments ever put forth. By that "logic", i have to wonder: why do why do we bother having laws at all... I mean hey, screw it, after all...since Criminals Don't Follow Laws, let's just declare 'Murika to be the land of the All-Day, All-Night Free-for-all, Free Fire Zone...because #FREEDUMB and stuff, right

Jason W. Ground
Jason W. Ground

Your objection to paperwork is not a good enough reason to stop the use of background checks. Every Amendment to the Constitution has limits... Even the Second.

Thomas Hare
Thomas Hare

The facts have always been simple and beautifully stated: "An armed society is a polite society". Giffords and Kelly are liberal hypocrites who, as all other liberals, believe we should all be sheep to the government that teaches fear. But they aren't god and I don't fear them. They can suck a nut! The idiot that wrote this story did a great job cutting and pasting liberal ideals. I could do that and get paid too. New Times writers are pawns to the liberal magazine owners. Hey Matthew, you are the true troll is the debacle!

Andrew Hare
Andrew Hare

Mathew Hendley is some how employed to write 2 and a half paragraphs worth of vomit along with several screen prints, and it's considered an article! New Times should revisit ways to cut wastes in payroll like this d-bag...

Don Collins
Don Collins

Because she got shot what makes her such an expert on a gun control book ??????????

Russell Claggett
Russell Claggett

Everything said is dead on.(in the article, not what that douche bag Joe is talking about )

Beau McGranahan
Beau McGranahan

Fundamentally, people who are for control are not really against guns, they just want a monopoly of gun owners in government. Because you need guns, to take the guns right? So an entity called the state is responsible for astronomical gun violence all over the world, and anti gun advocates conveniently ignore this fact and are more than willing to defer their self defense responsibilities to the state. These are the fundamentals that I was referring to. Just to clear that up.

Beau McGranahan
Beau McGranahan

You should scroll above and see all of the words you are putting in my mouth right now. Never said these things. Silliness.

Joe Rollins
Joe Rollins

If you think a gun is going to protect you from a government that has jets, tanks, and missiles... then I have a spoon full of water for you to use in case of a house fire.

Beau McGranahan
Beau McGranahan

Again, criminals dont follow the law. And gun control doesnt work to lower crime. The evidence is over whelming. An easy google search will clear that up for ya. Not to mention that the people "clearing" you have the most guns and are armed to the teeth. Is there something fundamentally wrong with that scenerio? Yeah. Probably. Reading non revisionist history will clear that up too.

Joe Rollins
Joe Rollins

Intelligent people think that someone should be cleared to possess a weapon, and trained to use it properly. If you're against that, then I am not sure what else I can say.

Beau McGranahan
Beau McGranahan

And subscribing to collectivism is brain smashing. It hurts to see intelligent people talk like this. Ugh.

Beau McGranahan
Beau McGranahan

None of that would have stopped the dude from shooting this woman. Sorry.

Cari Brown
Cari Brown

While I agree that the comments that were quoted are indeed nasty, I also believe that the response to the horrible tragedy Ms. Giffords lived through & others did not by Ms. Giffords herself as well as her family is just about equally nasty. I mean, they should probably just come out & speak their disdain for the Constitution & rights of average Americans--a group they themselves do not belong to anyway--& now that they are openly planning to capitalize on the tragedy, I have lost all the respect that I once had for Ms. Giffords & her family.

Joe Rollins
Joe Rollins

Of course. They should have every right to go down to their local gun agency and fill out the required paperwork to have their background check and psychological testing done, and then once approved be allowed to take their certification to a local gun range to get their required safety training and shooting skills assessment, and once they are capable of firing a weapon safely then take that certification to their local gun store to make their purchase.

Beau McGranahan
Beau McGranahan

Gays should have guns and marriage. What say you Joe Ploskonka? Ha!

Joe Rollins
Joe Rollins

I'll bet these people who scoff at the idea of gun control as an infringement of their rights are the same ones that aggressively stand against the rights of fellow citizens to marry.

Mi Chelle
Mi Chelle

Wow! So much meanness in the world!

BorkBork
BorkBork

lol all those replies are perfect and right on the money. We no longer want to her Mrs Potato head talking about guns.

ExpertShot
ExpertShot topcommenter

I for one like the restrictions on gun ownership which are in place now - The Brady Bill (declared Constitutional by the US SUPREME COURT) and other laws restrict gun ownership.  We do need to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people and the current laws do some of that.  However, it is obvious that these laws do not work properly and I would appreciate my elected officials more if they would try to make them work better to keep dangerous people from having dangerous weapons. 

For all you gun nuts out there screaming about your rights under the 2nd Amendment because you think you can use them guns to fight your own government.  You're NUTS!  


Our constitution works well when you read ALL of it and not just the parts you like:

The Preamble states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note, the words "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense" and promote the general WELFARE."  Now, that you have those concepts in your head - let's move on.

Remember when the guns were taken from Blacks who tried to protect themselves from the Klan - No, you probably don't because you're ignorant fugks!  Read a little bit on the subject.  Guns HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONFISCATED IN THE US and the Supreme Court said it was just fine: Don't hear you gun nuts yelling about that now do ya!

However, here's the kicker:  Gun rights are maintained in this country to quell insurrections, NOT to allow a group of thugs to try to kill government officials or each other.  Here's the ORIGINAL INTENT of our Founders:

Article. I.Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . . ;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Look at WHY the right to bear arms was granted to each citizen!  To make sure that there are enough members of an ORGANIZED Militia to supress an INSURRECTION.  Also, the Government has the right to disipline militia members - that's all people who can bear a weapon, according to our US Constitution.

Why do you gun nuts pick and chose which sections of the US Constitution you like and disregard others?  That's what makes our country weak - ignorant fugks like you!


RogerVTranfaglia
RogerVTranfaglia

As one of your SCUMBAGS I hate to tell you that Mrs Giffords has every right to publish anything she wants to . Especailly GUN CONTROL!! I suppose you have evidence that Louder was a teaparty member..... can't wait to see that print

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

These people are attacking her as a victim of gun violence and because of her political views instead of putting aside their differences and saying "I'm sorry she's a victim. As a responsible gun owner reasonable steps should be taken to insure guns don't end up getting in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, regardless of political affiliation."

Sad. And truly pathetic.

Jessie Garcia
Jessie Garcia

Most of these wacks talk like the Government is coming for their guns or something, nobody really buys your teabagger conspiracy shit. You're not convincing anyone except the mentally unstable like yourselves...

Jessie Garcia
Jessie Garcia

Cris hit the nail right on the head, we have a bunch of chicken shit big mouths like david who fear everything, hence a gun is the only solution.

Jessie Garcia
Jessie Garcia

David we need to let diseases like you eradicate themselves...

David Lopez
David Lopez

@ Jesse Garcia the only mental health issue is you. You hoping for gunowners to kill each other off. For a liberal you are pretty violent.

David Lopez
David Lopez

I didn't know guns shoot all by themselves. You fell off the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@ExpertShot  

You seem to have overlooked the fact that the 2nd Amendment was added after Article I was written, because the States wouldn't ratify it unless certain protections were added, including that the federal government not be allowed to disarm their citizens.

Again, you have to read the whole thing, including the Amendments, and consider the order in which restrictions were added, and why.

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@ExpertShot  "Why do you gun nuts pick and chose which sections of the US Constitution you like and disregard others?  That's what makes our country weak - ignorant fugks like you! "


Same reason Bible-thumpin' "christians" pick and choose which COMMANDS of GOD to follow, and which to demand that OTHER PEOPLE FOLLOW!


Might explain why there is so much overlap between the two demographic groups.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@MaskedMagician1967  ... where in the 2nd Amendment's RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms does it mention criminals or the mentally ill?


What part of "Shall NOT Be Infringed" don't you gun-grabbers comprehend?



textopcat
textopcat

@MaskedMagician1967  

Everyone feels bad for every victim of criminal violence.  However, being shot does not make you an expert on guns. Mark Kelly is even worse in that he "claims to support background checks" but has been caught publicly on multiple occasions for making false statements on 4473 background check forms.  So, for me the actions of these two show that they will do or say anything that will give them "power" and money.  I have no issue with them writing a book (or putting their name on a MAIG book) but I will not purchase. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative ... says the teabagger who habitually overlooks the fact that the 10th Amendment was added AFTER the Interstate Commerce Clause which appears in Article ONE of the Constitution.



MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

Donkey, perhaps you should read up on the Gun Control Act of 1968.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @MaskedMagician1967 

The answer is the same as it was yesterday.   It has been standard practice for centuries to strip rights from criminals and the insane.

As long as due process is followed in deciding whose rights should be revoked, this is not a violation of the Constitution.

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative 


"AFFECTING Interstate Commerce" means EXACTLY what SCOTUS determines it to mean, numbnuts.  


See Raich v. Gonzales


That's how the U$ Legal system works, whether unbalanced teatards such as you like it or not


valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @valleynative 

"Interstate Commerce" doesn't mean "whatever the hell they want to try to control", moron, or they wouldn't have bothered with the 10th.

Isn't that really pretty obvious?

Jesus but you're stupid.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, ...


Whoops! ... the POWER to Regulate Interstate Commerce was already delegated to the Feds ... BY THE CONSTITUTION in Article ONE, you daft dipshit.


Does it hurt to be so stupid?




valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @valleynative 

Moron, Of course it came AFTER.  It's an AMENDMENT, meaning that it changes what was written before it.

I'm sorry, but you're just too stupid to bother with any more.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@ExpertShot @DonkeyHotay @MaskedMagician1967  


Governments don't have "rights", they have and are granted POWER via the Constitution.


Individuals have "rights", which are protected from Government power via the same Constitution.


hth.


ExpertShot
ExpertShot topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @MaskedMagician1967DonkeyHotay, does the Government have the right to "provide for disciplining, the Militia"?  Might that discipline include taking property away from someone in the Militia?  Might that property include a gun?  Yes, it might 


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@MaskedMagician1967  ... so you admit that NO INDIVIDUAL RESTRICTIONS appear in the clear and concise language of the 2nd Amendment that unequivocally states the RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT Be Infringed.


... but accept the Government's power to arbitrarily restrict, regulate and control Firearms and access to them via legislation.



Noted.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @valleynative 

No, you continue to be wrong about just about everything.  I said no such things and nothing that could be remotely twisted or extended to mean such things.  


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative ... so you agree that The Government can put massive restrictions on Firearms in the U$A, so long as they do it via "due process".


And that The Feds -- via the Interstate Commerce Clause -- can in fact exercise dominion upon all things "affecting interstate commerce" even when you habitually disagree with said exercise of delegated power.



valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @valleynative 

If, in your mind, my saying that people can have their rights stripped via due process is the same as saying that the entire Constitution is worthless, then I can understand why society might not want you to be able to vote.

You're just not rational.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative ... so you admit your precious Constitution isn't worth the parchment it's written upon, since any/all rights can be stripped from anyone/everyone under the pretense of "due process".


Noted.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay

Stating a fact doesn't make a person a "lowlife fascist", even if you don't like that fact.


I'm guessing that you had some rights stripped away as a direct consequence of something stupid you did, and you blame society, rather than yourself.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative @DonkeyHotay @MaskedMagician1967  


Slavery was "standard practice for centuries".


Calling the denial of rights "standard practice" is something that lowlife fascists do.


@valleynative "As long as due process is followed in deciding whose rights should be revoked"


LOL! ... guess what, numbnuts, the Third Reich used "due process" to strip the rights of Jews and Gypsies, you daft dipshit.


Slavery and Segregation were maintained in the U$A for 100+ years via "due process", you wretched pig-ignorant bigoted maggot.


Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...