A Senate Not In Gabrielle Giffords’ Grip: Instapundit aka Glenn Reynolds is right

By
April 18, 2013

I started drafting an item on Gabrielle Giffords’ emotional pleading in the NYTs last night. In the meantime, I see Wonkette is now highlighting a Tweet from Instapundit to former Rep. Giffords.

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords:

A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip

Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them. — Via NYTimes.com.

What happened to Giffords is tragic and she deserves our compassion and support. But no personal tragedy should ever empower an individual to usurp the rights of others, most especially through the sort of emotional blackmail in which Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly now routinely engage. Frankly, it’s shameful, non-democratic and all but anti-American.

Giffords did not take to the NYTs because the U.S. Senate is in the hands of some gun lobby. She did it because she tried and failed to place the U.S. Senate in her own  hands. I am genuinely sorry for her loss and any pain and suffering she has experienced, or continues to endure; however, one must not confuse sympathy with surrender. And it is precisely that, a surrender of sorts to her in terms of our own rights and freedoms, that Giffords has somehow managed to convince herself she’s entitled to assuage her personal suffering.

That’s not the case and all it would really accomplish is to extend Giffords’ own victim-hood, in the sense that the entire body politic would become victim to the pain and suffering now evidently driving her on in a self-centered, if not outright selfish and misguided quest to usurp the Constitutionally-protected liberties of others. Frankly, it’s high time people start speaking out about it and speaking up to her, too.

In point of fact, more people have been shot, died and or otherwise suffered horrible fates to both create and defend the very Constitution Giffords now seeks to stand on end, if not overturn, for no better reason than her own personal suffering.

That’s not noble, no matter how much the media likes to pretend it is – it’s sanctimonious and ultimately inspid in the grand scheme and it needs to stop.

I’m sorry you were a victim Ms. Giffords. But I refuse to be yours by surrendering my rights in the face of your over-emotional and fundamentally illogical pleading which is not only a form of bullying but the worst sort of emotional blackmail, as well.

As for this silliness via Wonkette, Glenn Reynolds aka Instapundit is correct. Deal with it, or be ready to be ignored if you insist on continuing to cry about it. I suspect, especially in the wake of this week’s tragic events, the country is ready to move on. Perhaps Wonkette, former Rep Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly should too.

‘Instapundit’ Tells Whats-Her-Name, That Lady Who Got Shot In The Face, To Stop ‘Bullying’

Screen-shot-2013-04-17-at-2.22.19-PM



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Ragspierre says:

    The Senators NEVER take an oath to “follow the will of the people” (which, in this case is a black lie, anyhow).

    They take their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

    Our civil liberties were put at risk by this terrible assault on them, and the Senate did the right thing.

    • Missing The Good Ol Days says:

      Very well said! Perhaps our “representatives” need a reminder of that on occasion.

    • Jan says:

      Exactly!

    • h4x354x0r says:

      The ironic part is, most of those who voted against cloture for the background check legislation, are voting *for* privacy and liberty-stripping CISPA.

      Upholding only one of the Constitution’s amendments is substantially different protecting and defending the whole thing.

      You can *believe* these turds are consistently defending liberties and the Constitution, but in reality, their votes are 99-1 against the whole body of the Constitution.

      • lil'opaya says:

        h4x354xor – thank you, that is an excellent point. Many who claim to be strict Constitutionalists tend to pick and choose which provisions they honor. There’s a whole lot more to the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment; which by the way, contains the phrase: “well regulated militia”. When those who claim the Constitution as their rationale for opposing common sense gun safety measures also site the 4th Amendment in their opposition to CISPA and the Equal Protection clause in support of marriage equality, I will no longer consider them hypocrites or uninformed about our Nation’s founding documents.

        • Ragspierre says:

          There is no “right” to marry, and there never has been in recorded history.

          Sorry, you won’t get away with that BS here.

          • lil'opaya says:

            There IS a right to Equal Protection under the law AKA the 14th Amendment. That’s what the legal argument of marriage equality rests upon. I don’t think that’s BS

          • Chris says:

            Sorry, you’re simply uninformed. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a civil right in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage.

            I am pretty sure Loving v. Virginia is a part of recorded history.

          • Ragspierre says:

            Sorry, you are an idiot, Chris.

            Cite me to the page number where marriage is defined as a “civil right” in Loving.

            Marriage has ALWAYS been permissive and exclusive, not a RIGHT, dummy.

            lil’opaya, the Equal Protection theory IS BS. Again, sorry to break this to you, but there it is. Homosexuals are not denied equal protection of the law because the are not allowed to freely change a cultural norm, any more than are first cousins.

          • Chris says:

            Ragspierre: “Sorry, you are an idiot, Chris.

            Cite me to the page number where marriage is defined as a “civil right” in Loving.”

            Gladly. Page 388 U.S. 12 states:

            “There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

            II

            These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
            Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

            Next time, before calling someone a “dummy” and an “idiot” for contradicting your false claims, you might want to do some research first to see if what you’re saying bears any relation to the truth.

            The only thing you can do to save face now is to apologize and admit that your claim that marriage is not a right was false.

            “Homosexuals are not denied equal protection of the law because the are not allowed to freely change a cultural norm, any more than are first cousins.”

            When a “cultural norm” discriminates on an arbitrary basis and denies rights for no rational public purpose, Americans have not only the right, but the duty to change that norm.

            Marriage, as a cultural norm, has gone through many changes over the past hundred years. Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage, is one such change. The increasing rights of women within marriage was another. Wives are no longer regarded as the property of their husbands. Marital rape is now illegal. All of these were unambiguously positive changes. Allowing same-sex couples to enjoy the rights of marriage is simply one more change the this ever-changing institution.

          • Ragspierre says:

            While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State’s police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535 (1942). Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree.

            snip

            There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [Footnote 11] We have consistently deniedthe constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race.
            ———————————

            And, of course, you are WRONG about history, too.

            Miscegenation laws are NEW, not old, in history.

            http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/03/01/the-politically-incorrect-truths-old-movies-teach-about-america-and-racism/?singlepage=true

            That gives you an idea.

            But lots of Western culture deals with mixed race marriages through the centuries.

            But “marriage” has a meaning, across time and cultures”.

            As it does now. And a circle is not a square.

          • Chris says:

            Raspierre, nothing you cited supports your false claim that “There is no “right” to marry, and there never has been in recorded history.” I cited the portion of the law most relevant to that claim, the one that explicitly says that marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man.”

            I never said that miscegenation laws were old in history, though it is true that many cultures have had laws banning members of different tribes and/or races from marrying.

            The point is that marriage has changed many times, and has had many meanings across time and culture. It has clearly not always been “one man, one woman;” if you know your Bible, you know that polygamy was once common and viewed as respectable. Appealing to tradition is a fallacious argument. You need to actually explain why allowing same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage causes social side effects bad enough to justify restricting their rights.

            So far, the anti-gays have failed miserably at that, which is why you are losing.

          • Ragspierre says:

            SorryChris,

            There is no “right” to marry. As I said.

            Marriage has always been permissive and exclusive. You saying otherwise…or even finding a place in a Supremes ruling using “civil right”…does not change reality.

            You have no “right” to marry. No matter what you rationalize. Try marrying with a living spouse, or your sister.

            And marriage has NEVER meant the union of the same sex, even in Greece, where male homosexual relationships were de bomb.

            You are simply wrong, stupid, and dishonest. Not in that order.

          • Chris says:

            Ragspierre: “There is no “right” to marry. As I said.
            Marriage has always been permissive and exclusive. You saying otherwise…or even finding a place in a Supremes ruling using “civil right”…does not change reality.”

            I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about rights according to U.S. law and precedence. I have no idea what you mean when you say “reality,” because you’re clearly not talking about the reality of our judicial system, in which marriage clearly has been ruled to be a right. If you’re appealing to some kind of higher source of rights, i.e. God, I have to point out that you’re arguing from a subjective viewpoint. Whether you believe marriage is a right or not is a matter of your opinion. But in U.S. law, marriage is a right, as I have shown you.

            “You have no “right” to marry. No matter what you rationalize. Try marrying with a living spouse, or your sister.”

            Oh, I see the problem. You don’t seem to know what “rights” mean in the context of U.S. law. No rights are unlimited. You have the right to free speech, but try shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. You have the right to bear arms, but you still have to get a background check if you buy one from a licensed dealer. Since this country’s founding, we have balanced rights with risks and responsibilities. Showing that there are limits to rights does not mean that a right doesn’t exist, nor does it automatically justify setting further limits–to do that, you need to show that sufficient risks exist that justify restricting rights.

            Marrying siblings is illegal because it destabalizes family dynamics. Polygamy is illegal because our system of civil marriage benefits is only set up to deal with two people. It’s too confusing to apply that system to group marriages.

            Comparisons between these two types of marriage and same-sex marriage are treated as silly, precisely because they are. The government is constitutionally forbidden from arbitrary discrimination on the basis of gender. It is not forbidden from discriminating on the basis of familial relationships or number.

            More importantly, anti-gays have shown no compelling purpose for this discrimination. Since marriage has been ruled as a right by the Supreme Court, the burden of proof is on the anti-gays to show why this right should be limited to opposite-sex couples. The reason you have consistently failed in the courts, and are increasingly failing to win the public, is because you haven’t provided a compelling reason for this.

            “And marriage has NEVER meant the union of the same sex, even in Greece, where male homosexual relationships were de bomb.”

            As I pointed out, appeals to tradition are fallacious. “It’s always been that way” is not a good enough reason.

            “You are simply wrong, stupid, and dishonest. Not in that order.”

            Again, I ask that you try and debate in a civil manner. Your ad hominem attacks reflect more poorly on you than they do on me.

          • Ragspierre says:

            SorryChris,

            You are full of shit.

            See…???

            There is no “right” to marry. You poor, stupid, lying Collectivist.

            There never was, and there never will be.

            I am not “debating” with you. I am punking you.

          • Chris says:

            “SorryChris,
            You are full of shit.
            See…???
            There is no “right” to marry. You poor, stupid, lying Collectivist.
            There never was, and there never will be.”

            You seem to believe your opinion is God. You’ve provided no evidence to justify your claim that there is no right to marriage. I have provided the page number of the Supreme Court case where they specifically say that marriage is a right–that’s exactly what you asked for.

            If you think your opinion should carry more weight then Supreme Court precedence, that’s…nice for you, but you’re not going to convince anyone with your attitude.

            “I am not “debating” with you. I am punking you.”

            You’re making an ass out of yourself, is what you’re doing. I tried to have a civil debate with you, I spent time crafting arguments and marshalling evidence, and you’re content to repeat the same false claims over and over again, after I have already disproven them, and then baselessly accuse me of lying.

            Good luck winning friends and influencing people.

          • Ragspierre says:

            SorryChris, you are STILL full of shit.

            You came here to pontificate.

            I came here to punk you.

            There is no “right” to marry. (See the period?)

            Marriage has always been both permissive and exclusive. And you are too stupid and agendized to admit it.

            Nobody has a “right” to marry.

          • Chris says:

            “There is no “right” to marry. (See the period?)”

            Ragspierre, why do you believe that repeating an assertion over and over again, while not providing any evidence or counterpoint to evidence already provided by your opposition, is a worthy use of your time? Do you believe that doing so actually convinces anyone of the rightness of your position? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I honestly find your debating strategy here fascinating, and I’d like to learn more about why you seem to think it’s effective.

          • Ragspierre says:

            There is no “right” to marry. (See the period?)

            Marriage has always been both permissive and exclusive. And you are too stupid and agendized to admit it.

            Nobody has a “right” to marry.

        • Ragspierre says:

          As consumers of electronic media, you and I are going to have to protect our own privacy.

          And, depending on how strongly motivated we are, we can.

        • Chris says:

          Wow, so you really do think that repeating the same assertions over and over again, even after they have been demonstrated to be false, is a worthy use of your time. I wish you would answer my questions about why you think that is effective.

          I’ve shown you the Supreme Court decision ruling that marriage IS a right, as you requested. Do you think their ruling is invalid somehow?

          If so, do you believe laws against interracial marriage should have been upheld? If marriage is not a right, then it can be subject to all sorts of restrictions, including bans on interracial marriage.

          If it is a right, whatever restrictions are placed on marriage are subject to a much higher degree of scrutiny.

          So why do you keep insisting marriage is not a right? What evidence do you have that overrules the Supreme Court decision? You do know that if you want people to believe you, you have to provide evidence, right? Repeating yourself over and over doesn’t win anybody over.

          • Ragspierre says:

            There is no “right” to marry. (See the period?)

            Marriage has always been both permissive and exclusive. And you are too stupid and agendized to admit it.

            Nobody has a “right” to marry.

    • kjun7 says:

      I agree we should protect the constitution and our rights.
      The thing that scares me, since we know all this talk about gun control won’t solve any of the issues the left bring up, what is the real reason the want to take our guns and more of our rights away?

    • Chris says:

      Please. In what way is requiring background checks at gun shows a violation of your civil liberties? It doesn’t restrict the right of any law-abiding person to own a gun.

    • hassia says:

      Hysterical, a bunch of white men in powdered wigs and tights, wrote about guns hundreds of years ago, and you speak as if it is sacrosanct. If memory serves me right, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the constitution, therefore it can be rescinded.
      Please keep stroking your guns before you go to bed at night. Everyone else looks on and laughs hysterically except the innocent ones that have been shot.

  2. Maria Whitehead says:

    As always, well flipping said!! :)

  3. FRANK says:

    BRAVO WELL SAID. THANK YOU

  4. Stan25 says:

    The Constitution is the will of the people. To think otherwise is pure folly. That is why the left has a hard time grasping its true meaning

  5. michael 1962 says:

    Just like the will of the people was followed when Obamacare was rammed down our throats. Checks and balances exist for reasons of protecting our inalienable rights. Maybe someone out ask her about the weapon her husband recently purchased.

  6. James says:

    For the writers information, there have been more people killed by gun violence in this country, since 1960, than have “…died and or otherwise suffered horrible fates to both create and defend the very Constitution Giffords now seeks to stand on end….”

    • Mac says:

      James, how many deaths have been caused by gun violence committed by law abiding citizens, how many by criminals and how many accident. That statement is a favorite of the gun control guide and is misleading and ambiguous. Do you know who committed the greatest number of mass murders in the history of the United States with guns? It was the U.S. Government.

    • Eliot says:

      Giffords is a hypocrite, and so is her husband. Did you know that they still shoot guns with 17-round magazines for fun? Google it. They just don’t want the rest of us to have access to the same weapons that they have.

    • Ragspierre says:

      NOOOOOObody is “killed by gun violence”.

      THAT is a typical Collectivist corruption of the language.

      People were killed by…

      1. other people…some of whom were lawfully defending themselves; OR,

      2. themselves…and your Collective tells us we have a right to suicide; OR,

      3. accident.

      Also, put up the source for your statement.

      • Fred Beloit says:

        James don’t need no stinking source, Rags. James is a soldier of the Left, empowered by his big, his huge, his enormous…guilty heart.

    • George says:

      James what are your sources for this comment? At last count over 200,000 military have given their lives and been maimed defending the Constitution no Representative has. So what are the sources.

  7. Mac says:

    I don’t know about the will of certain people, but the will of this person and numerous friends, neighbors and colleagues is the U.S. Constitution. Period. If you want to change it, there is a requirement that 2/3 of both houses of congress vote in favor of amendments,and 3/4 of all states ratify within, I believe, seven years. Realize this, the bill of rights is restraining the government, not giving the people the rights. Those are born to us and inalienable. We the people do not need government to give us permission to have liberty.

    • Tony says:

      Hit the nail on the head Mac! It amazes me how many people just don’t get it.

    • gail says:

      well said Mac !

    • Chris says:

      Mac, please explain to me how requiring background checks at gun shows required a new amendment to the Constitution. Then explain why requiring background checks by licensed dealers in stores did not.

      You can’t, because background checks don’t violate the second amendment.

  8. Marcus says:

    James, that is a lie. The truth is more people have been killed by carbon emission standards than by so called “assault rifles” and your buddy Kermit Gosnell has personally murdered more babies than people get killed in car accidents each year.

    Shame on the hypocrite Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, both of whom own and carry the exact same weapons they wish to take from law abiding Americans. Maybe if leftists like them toned down the rhetoric, lunatic liberals like Jarred Laughner would stay at home.

  9. gary says:

    The shot should have been straighter and the real tragedy of the death of Christina Taylor Green would have never happened. Giffords was an idiot before the shooting and she and her husband are even more ignorant now

  10. Julia Hufford says:

    This was a point I made after the vote yesterday. I protest the emotional “battery” that these people commit to all of us, as if they are going to make SOMEBODY pay for what they have suffered. I HAVE HURT NO ONE!!! Why should I sign away MY God-given rights because they have suffered?

    • Joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) says:

      God given and constitutionally protected civil rights. The 2A is there to recognize the fact that all people have a civil right to self defense, whether that be from criminals or government. Wait…something in that sentence seems redundant.

    • Chris says:

      Your “god-given rights” to do what? Not get a background check? That right isn’t in the Constitution. Unless you are a criminal or mentally ill, a background check is a mild inconvenience, not a denial of your rights. If you are a responsible gun owner you should want people to have to be checked out before they purchase a gun. Thankfully, the majority of gun owners do want that. Those who do not are a loud and powerful minority.

  11. Joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) says:

    I so freaking agree with Insty. The whole time I watched O’s temper tantrum yesterday Giffords looked like a bobble head doll. I’m not sure she even knew where she was and I’m not sure she was capable of writing an editorial.

  12. JRPage says:

    I may be off track on this but I think they (democrats) wanted it to fail! It gives them time to try and get more people riled up emotionally about the issue, confuse all the sheeple even more. Hoping they can get more allies next election if have to wait that long. Then ram an even stricter anti-gun bill down the peoples throat. Even Harry Reid voted against it.

  13. Dennis McMahon says:

    Maybe Legislators should focus on securing our schools, something that may actually deter a crazed gunman. They’ve wasted enough time chasing this lopsided agenda. It’s a big mistake on the part of gun-control proponents to think they have public support, as MSM would have liked us believe, & that they’re fighting just the NRA & not the majority of Americans.

  14. Clemmie says:

    Finally! Someone has stood up to Gifford’s whining and moaning. I am tired of both of the Giffords. It’s obvious that her hypocritical husband is trying to run for some office and is doing his best to develop name recognition. It’s horrible what happened to her, but that’s no excuse to take away my right to protect myself and my family.

    • Chris says:

      Your right to protect yourself and your family is not being taken away. This bill was about requiring background checks at gun shows. Background checks are already required at stores, does that violate your rights too?

  15. bud says:

    The woman is a sockpuppet. There is NO WAY she actually wrote that op-ed. I watched her being “interviewed” and it was pitiful. Her husband “answered” every question that required more than “That’s right!”, and had to “correct” her when that parroted response was not “on message”. I’ll bet that no one in her family will allow her to walk to the corner store for a pack of gum, but they expect the rest of us to swallow this rant.

  16. Databyter says:

    Right on the money. Neither Sandy Hook nor Giffords is in the least bit relevant to my 2nd ammendment rights .
    There is no causal relationship to this annoying emotional idiocy, and even if there was it wouldn’t come remotely close to being as important or life-saving and freedom preserving as a well armed lawful citizenry.

    • Chris says:

      “Right on the money. Neither Sandy Hook nor Giffords is in the least bit relevant to my 2nd ammendment rights.”

      You have this part right, but for the wrong reasons. You see, neither Giffords nor the Sandy Hook parents were trying to take away your second amendment rights. All they were saying was that we should expand background checks. Background checks have been around for a while, and have never been ruled unconstitutional. Because they aren’t.

      The Second Amendment says nothing about background checks, and there is no sensible reason why a responsible gun owner would oppose them; that’s why the majority of gun owners support expanding background checks.

      Senate Republicans, backed by the powerful NRA and gun lobby, lied about this being a second amendment issue. Why? Because that sells more guns.

      • Ragspierre says:

        I’ve read your crap here, son.

        You are a liar.

        See ACLU opposition to gun grab.

        Read some, moron.

        • Chris says:

          If you’re going to call me a liar, you have a duty to show evidence that I am lying. I googled your phrase “ACLU opposition to gun grab” and found a few articles showing a spokesman for the ACLU expressing concerns about the record-keeping provisions of the law.

          But nowhere did anyone in the ACLU describe the bill as a “gun grab,” because…it clearly isn’t one. This is a law about background checks. It says nothing about taking guns away from people. So you are being dishonest in your misleading characterization of both the bill and the ACLU’s position.

          • Ragspierre says:

            Again, just lies.

            Or gob-smacking ignorance, stated as “facts”. Which are lies in my book.

            One of us has been to a gun show. Guess who?

            One of us knows that MOST sales at a gun show, or over the interweb, are subject to a background check.

            One of us knows that the back of the FFL background check form collects information on the GUN, not the purchaser.

            Why is that, do you think? I mean, if it is a check on the purchaser’s right to own a firearm?

            See? One of us knows what they are talking about.

            That would be me.

          • Chris says:

            “One of us has been to a gun show. Guess who?”

            When you assume, you really just make an ass out of you. I have been to at least two gun shows that I can remember.

            Regardless of whether most sales at a gun show and the Internet have background checks, the fact is that many do not, and criminals HAVE used this loophole to obtain guns. The Columbine shooters used a straw purchaser to obtain most of their guns at a gun show. The girl bought from an unlicensed seller and thus could not be charged for illegally purchasing guns for another person. She has said that if she had to do a background check, she wouldn’t have done it, because she didn’t want her name connected to the purchase. She knew she was doing something wrong, but she also thought she wouldn’t get caught. How many other people do you think are taking advantage of this loophole? Requiring all sales at gun shows and over the Internet to have a background check would deter straw purchasers, make it easier to prosecute and track them, and save lives, while not violating the rights of anyone.

          • Ragspierre says:

            “…the fact is that many do not, and criminals HAVE used this loophole to obtain guns.”

            You go on to cite a case where a gun or guns were purchased by a straw purchaser, which is illegal.

            You fail to cite any authority for you claimes.

            But…stfw. Really. Were the Columbine killers deterred by any law?

            Naw.

            Would even universal background checks make any difference in the cases of Giffords and Sandy Hook?

            Naw.

            Would the law as proposed in the Senate have contained poison pills that would have led to registration and potential confiscation?

            Yes. And you are a liar if you say otherwise.

        • Chris says:

          Ragspierre: “You go on to cite a case where a gun or guns were purchased by a straw purchaser, which is illegal.”

          As I already explained, the straw purchaser could not be prosecuted for any crime because she bought the guns from an unlicensed dealer without a background check. The gun show loophole allows straw purchasers to act without fear of prosecution.

          Sources: http://zanazl.tripod.com/Columbine/Articles/Guns.html

          http://momsdemandaction.org/faces-of-courage/from-a-loving-father-who-lost-his-son-in-the-columbine-massacre-14-years-ago/

          http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/report/columbinereport/pages/mafia_text.htm

          “But…stfw. Really. Were the Columbine killers deterred by any law?
          Naw.”

          You’re not paying attention. We are talking about a deterrent that did not exist when Robyn Anderson purchased three out of the four guns used in the Columbine shooting. Had the gun show loophole been closed at this time, Anderson claims she would have been deterred. At the very least, she would have been prosecuted for her role in the massacre, which would have deterred other potential straw buyers. You’re making my case for me.

          We can’t say that closing the loophole would have prevented the massacre, but that doesn’t mean we should make it easier for people to make straw purchases with impunity!

          “Would even universal background checks make any difference in the cases of Giffords and Sandy Hook?
          Naw.”

          The purpose was to prevent future massacres.

          “Would the law as proposed in the Senate have contained poison pills that would have led to registration and potential confiscation?
          Yes. And you are a liar if you say otherwise.”

          The bill specifically included a clause banning a national gun registry. That is a fact. Please do not call me a liar simply for providing evidence that challenges your narrative. It would be nice if you could show yourself as someone capable of civil debate.

          • Ragspierre says:

            All that is BS, and you know it.

            The Columbine killers would have killed…using whatever means available…regardless.

            And you know it.

            SorryChris, you are a liar, and a moron.

          • Ragspierre says:

            “The bill specifically included a clause banning a national gun registry.”

            That is true. And a lie. The specific clause was a poison pill. READ, moron.

        • Chris says:

          “All that is BS, and you know it.”

          You weren’t exactly captain of the debate team, were you?

          “The Columbine killers would have killed…using whatever means available…regardless.
          And you know it.”

          No, I don’t “know it,” and neither do you, because neither of us are psychic. If Robin Anderson had to do a background check, she says she wouldn’t have purchased the guns. That means the Columbine killers would have had to turn to other means to obtain their guns. That means it would have taken them more time. More time means someone could have messed up, or spilled the beans. They could have been stopped before the massacre ever took place.

          Now, do I know that the above scenario would have happened if we had stronger background check laws? No. But it would have been at least one extra stumbling block in the killers’ path. And it wouldn’t have violated the rights of anyone. Why shouldn’t we put as many obstacles in the path of criminals trying to obtain guns as possible, while still ensuring the rights of law-abiding gun owners? 80% of gun owners favor expanding background checks–do you really believe all of those people are supporting a policy that compromises their second amendment rights?

          Your argument so far is that “Well, they would have killed all those kids anyway, so we should keep it *as easy as possible* for this to happen again!”

          It’s a nonsensical argument. You haven’t given me one good reason why we should not require background checks on all gun show sales. You haven’t explained how this is a violation of the second amendment, when we already mandate background checks from licensed dealers. All you’ve offered is ad hominem.

          “That is true. And a lie. The specific clause was a poison pill. READ, moron.”

          Amazing. So you admit that the bill specifically outlawed a national gun registry…and yet you still believe that the law could have led to a national gun registry.

          You can’t argue with crazy.

        • Chris says:

          Ragspierre: “Killers, having formed the intent to kill, will find ways to effect that intent.”

          Therefore, we should keep it as easy as possible for them to acheive their goal!

          That is the implication of your argument.

          As I’ve argued, had there been mandatory background checks at the gun show, it could have at least *delayed* the plans of the Columbine killers. With something like this, a delay can be crucial; it means more time for the killers to mess up, and get caught. In which case, it doesn’t matter how motivated they were, they could have been arrested before any killing took place.

          It’s just as naive to believe that gun laws won’t stop any killings as it is to believe that they will stop all killings.

          At the very least, Robyn Anderson might have been prosecuted for her role in illegally buying guns for the killers, which would prove a deterrent to future straw buyers.

          There are legitimate reasons to favor the expansion of background checks, without naively believing that it will stop all killings from taking place.

          But you haven’t actually made any counter-arguments against these valid reasons; you’re too busy ignoring my actual arguments and making ad hominem attacks.

          That said, the link to Volokh you provide is interesting, and is, mercifully, an actual argument. I will concede that the language used in the two provisions the author takes issue with are needlessly vague. Would you support a future bill in which similar provisions are offered in a more clear manner, which explicitly forbids any government official (not just the AG) from making a national registry, and protects the rights of traveling gun owners?

          • Ragspierre says:

            “Therefore, we should keep it as easy as possible for them to acheive their goal!”

            Stupid straw-man fallacy.

            NOTHING you could do would stop them, moron.

            You are completely corrupt. NOTHING you suggest would have impeded the Columbine killers. Not one bit. They were aware of the law, and how to wire around it. A NEW law would be wired around in like fashion, dopey.

            So long as the Obamabanana Republic is an outlaw gang, there is NO law I would trust to protect my civil rights to an effective defense.

            At a minimum, the provision regarding a national data bank on gun ownership should explicitly give every citizen standing to bring actions in Federal court, with high fines and mandatory attorney fees for prevailing parties.

            There should be NO information on a gun on the “background check” form. None.

            If you were remotely honest, you’d agree.

            But we have a long history here, showing that your Collective is NOT honest in anything touching gun control.

            Which is why you lose. We know you.

        • Chris says:

          It’s not a strawman argument, it’s your actual argument. You even go on to say:

          “NOTHING you could do would stop them, moron.”

          So why don’t we just repeal all gun laws, then? Get rid of all background checks? If no gun law could stop any killer, then what is the purpose of having any gun laws?

          “NOTHING you suggest would have impeded the Columbine killers. Not one bit.”

          But you still haven’t provided any evidence or logical argument to justify this claim. You’ve just…asserted it, as if it’s prima facie true. It’s not. I have already gone through and explained, quite patiently, how background checks at gun shows could have impeded the Columbine killers. You are not a psychic; you can’t say for 100% certainty that they wouldn’t have been delayed, or that during that delay, they couldn’t have been stopped.

          You simply believe this because you want to. Sorry, that’s not a rational argument.

          “There should be NO information on a gun on the “background check” form. None.
          If you were remotely honest, you’d agree.”

          You are a very arrogant person, declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow a liar. If there’s no information about a gun on a background check form, the ability of law enforcement to track a gun used in a crime is significantly impeded.

          You may want to consider the possibility that people who disagree with you might have some valid reasons to do so. But that would require a degree of humility you have not demonstrated so far.

          • Ragspierre says:

            “If there’s no information about a gun on a background check form, the ability of law enforcement to track a gun used in a crime is significantly impeded.”

            See, you lying SOS…???

            It ISN’T about a “background check” on the purchaser.

            It IS about a de facto registration system.

            Glad to have you smoked out.

            And NO gun control law works to the ends you PRETEND to ascribe.

            Connecticut had VERY onerous gun control laws. Not ONE of them availed to prevent the Sandy Hook killer, did they?

            How about Chicago?

            How about New York, were the Sullivan Act is over one hundred years old. Nobody is ever killed by a criminal act using a firearm there, are they, liar?

            I LOVE punking you lying Collectivist POS.

  17. [...] of empathy, and their inability to see any side of a story but their own narrow minded view.   Do these people even know how badly they sound and look?  Do they even comprehend that they are completely out of [...]