Yup...
Gabby Giffords [ gun control]
- Thread starter CJ...$
- Start date
Yup...
Coming back from what this poor woman suffered it's clear she has more mental capacity than you do.
I hunt and cherish the freedom and opportunities we have in America but I am sick and disgusted by the 2nd Amendment Cult turning anything into a point about the double secret government ploy against them.
My suggestion is delete this sick and disgusting post and pray for forgiveness.
1st of all my post is not sick and disgusting..I was just thinking about the hippocracy of president Obama using Gabby in every national speech he gives... I am fully aware of what happened that day in Tucson.. that "was" sick and disgusting as is any shooting where innocent people are killed and wounded.
Gabby was calling for things like [ more border security] and was not a far left liberal..more of a centrist and many Democrats wanted her out as she wasn't far left enough for them..But its just a shame that she is being "exploited" by the Democrats.
I.M.O. any subject concerning guns/laws/controls/ is a sportsmans issue.
I will ask you "dukes daddy".. do you think Gabby could pass a background check?...Should she have to? should she have a gun in her purse in her current condition...I think its up to her and her family... Not the idiots in Washington D.C.
Last edited:
spook12
New member
While I in no way support the Dem's efforts for more gun control,your claim of ''Hypocrisy'' on the part of the POTUS seems silly.Do you even know the definition of hypocrisy?
How can you call the Dems hypocritical on this issue,when we all know that a portion of that party has been pushing for more restrictive gun control for years?
As to her being ''Exploited'' how so?It looks to me like her and her Husband are willing participants In these efforts.You can't exploit the willing.
So, Cindy Sheehan was she Exploited [ example].. she was willing... but dumped as soon as Bush left office...
You can't see the Hypocrisy.. of using Gabby as a gun owner who might not pass a background check and then may no longer own a gun, if new laws are passed? is she willing or being used?.. I think she is a kind gentle lady who is being used.. thats my opinion
noharleyyet
Well-known member
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."- Rahm Emanuel
RobG
Well-known member
Geez Dicky, the mental part of background checks are designed to screen out people who lose touch with reality such as severe bipolar. They are not intended to screen out people who have lost their motor skills.
spook12
New member
And I think she is a kind gentle lady, who with her families blessing has put herself up front and center on an issue that she [rightfully so] has very strong feelings about.
We don't have to agree with her,but surely we can agree she has the right to her opinion and voice it.
As to her passing a background check- I really have no idea, I'm not aware of any lost mental capacity,not saying it doesn't exist just I dont know. I'm pretty sure she couldn't pass a CC course in my home state as it requires a range test and it seems to me she has lost considerable motor skills.
We don't have to agree with her,but surely we can agree she has the right to her opinion and voice it.
As to her passing a background check- I really have no idea, I'm not aware of any lost mental capacity,not saying it doesn't exist just I dont know. I'm pretty sure she couldn't pass a CC course in my home state as it requires a range test and it seems to me she has lost considerable motor skills.
If you read thru my posts, you will see I never said Gabby should not have a gun...My premise is to provoke thought on whether she will be able to pass a background check.
Yes i agree there are many types of mental handicapps..Motor skills? you think any new legislation [background check] will/may include a question about brain injury? or handicapped abilities...
RobG
Well-known member
Dicky - many pro-gun folks have been advocating keeping the guns out of the hands of the people with mental problems. I'm worried about that path more than anything you are talking about. What is a mental problem? Postpartum depression? Teacher/neighbor says you are acting weird? That is something that could happen. On the other hand your assertion about Giffords is absurd and a bit offensive.
OriginalOscar
Active member
Thanks, I can post again:
Just a thought, While Obama consistantly uses Gabby Giffords as his anti-gun poster child.:hump:.. the libs are always stating how she is a gun owner... I have seen her on at least three of Obama's nationally televised speeches..
Nothing against Gabby personnely [ God bless her]
But wouldn't she be stopped from getting a gun under the libs new proposed background checks [ mental capacity]... not trying to be cold... but what about it... ?
You don't find the following offensive. "Gabby Giffords as his anti-gun poster child". or "background checks (mental capacity)"
Classic gun nut hate speech against anyone who calls for any regulation of firearms.
What next. You going to trash talk the 20 moms who lost their kids in Connecticut? Why don't you just delete your hateful gun nut post and stick with hunting posts.
rhomas
Banned
I thought Dickey Normus was commenting on Obama and his histrionics, more than making any derogatory comment about Gabby Giffords. I suppose you also believe that Obama's use of school children in order to milk the tragedy of Newtown was also legitimate? Do you honestly believe that kids 5 and 6 years old wrote those letters he read? Can you state emphatically that those children even understand the concepts of gun bans and gun control? To deny that Obama, the anti-gun crowd and the main stream media have not used the victims of gun violence to parlay their agenda into a massive debate over the Second Amendment rights of legal gun ownership, is a denial of the obvious. To call those of us who question those tactics "gun nuts" is akin to going along with the wrong headed attitudes of the gun grabbers and their leaders. When we take into account the fact that a large majority of hunters in this country are avid gun owners and collectors, as well as choosing to pursue our love of hunting with a firearm; this is the most perfect venue for discussions about the current debate and all of the false information and media focus on unfortunate individuals such as Gabby Giffords. To extoll the propaganda of the antis while denigrating the truth of the pro gunners is to promote the denial of one of our most basic beliefs as hunters.
The true villains in this discussion are Obama and the anti-gun organizations who, with the backing of the media are escalating the debate through the outright sickening self promotion and use of unfortunate victims to pander to their sycophants.
The true villains in this discussion are Obama and the anti-gun organizations who, with the backing of the media are escalating the debate through the outright sickening self promotion and use of unfortunate victims to pander to their sycophants.
RobG
Well-known member
Heaven forbid that someone brings in people who were actually affected by the crime! Or someone who was forever massively changed by a gunman using the arms under consideration! By comparison the NRA decided to bring in Obama's children who had nothing to do with the crime. I don't see how you have a leg to stand on.
rhomas
Banned
The NRA was making a valid point about Obama's children having more and better protection than the rest of the nation's children, while at the same time Obama was denying the legitimacy of providing armed security in our schools. I found the NRA's stand to be 100% justified in proving a point. What too many failed to accept or understand is the fact that most of our top ranking Administration officials, and law makers, also send their children to those same well protected schools; while the 99% of Americans don't have those options. Rather than providing extra security for the children of the imposter in chief, wouldn't it make more sense to have them attend classes within the confines of the most highly protected residence in the US.....the White House? After all, how many millions of dollars are spent providing that security all ready? Why spend the additional money when our children are at risk due to having their schools as "gun free zones"?
sethkuhl
Well-known member
If you think for a beaver daming minute that any legislation passed will change any shootings you are crazier than those in office!
sethkuhl
Well-known member
As far as Gabby goes don't know her and sorry to hear about what happened to her, but $%(^ happens and nothing lawmakers do will change anything except get the balls rolling on gun legislation. Today ar tomoro semi auto then bolt actions, where does it stop? Dink could probably take out an army with his 4 wheeler and crossbow, who can stop that?
sweetnectar
New member
Maybe I fit into the 2nd ammendment cult:
OriginalOscar
Active member
You do realize the reason you have a plug when hunting migratory birds is because it reduces harvest. Doesn't that same logic extend when some nut walks into a group of people?
Fight or flight only works if you get a chance to run or rush the nut.
sweetnectar
New member
Run or rush the nut? No need for that, my bullet will get to him faster and shut him down faster.
As for using a plug...only the law abiding use a plug. Remember gun laws tend to limit the law abiding not the criminals.
As for using a plug...only the law abiding use a plug. Remember gun laws tend to limit the law abiding not the criminals.
OriginalOscar
Active member
Bullet singular. So you do realize no need for a clip of 30 for self defense. Thanks for supporting reasonable firearms restrictions. 5 is reasonable.
No it's not. If some deranged nut goes and starts shooting at me or mine I want as many as I can carry to fire back. Keep firing until the threat is eliminated. 5 shots means if I need 6 I'm out of luck. From your posts I have to wonder who's side you are on.
