Gabby Giffords eviscerates weasely Senators who killed the background check bill

Republican NRA supporters in the US Senate shot dead today a proposal to toughen background checks for proud Second Amendment murderers who want to buy a bazooka in order to better massacre America’s children.

Former US Congressman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head at a townhall meeting, is not pleased.

This is a snippet of a much longer op ed she wrote in the NYT – read it.

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….

Former US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Former US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated. I am asking for mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You’ve lost my vote. I am asking activists to unsubscribe from these senators’ e-mail lists and to stop giving them money. I’m asking citizens to go to their offices and say: You’ve disappointed me, and there will be consequences.

People have told me that I’m courageous, but I have seen greater courage. Gabe Zimmerman, my friend and staff member in whose honor we dedicated a room in the United States Capitol this week, saw me shot in the head and saw the shooter turn his gunfire on others. Gabe ran toward me as I lay bleeding. Toward gunfire. And then the gunman shot him, and then Gabe died. His body lay on the pavement in front of the Safeway for hours.

Giffords is spot-on about getting in their faces and yelling at them.  It is the only thing, other than money, that works with these people.  And liberals don’t do it, at least not nearly as much as conservatives do.  Gun nuts are happy to yell.  Hell, they use the fact that everyone thinks they’re crazy to their advantage.  “Don’t clamp down too far on guns or who knows what the NRA supporters will do!”

There’s a reason everyone worried that the Boston Marathon bombing was done by some anti-government gun nut.  And there’s a reason why so much of the political violence over the years has been created by religious rights nuts – whether it’s shooting abortion doctors or bashings gays – while I can only think of one case case of violence from a gay rights supporter, and he didn’t even kill anyone.  Look at the domestic terrorists we’ve had over the years, and how many were for liberal causes and how many conservative?  Their side is crazier, and louder, and more violent prone than ours, and they’re happy to use it to full advantage.

Now, I’m not suggesting we embrace their violence.  I am, however, suggesting that we embrace their tone of voice.  Get in your elected officials’ faces and yell at them.  It’s why the Teabaggers were so effective scaring the bejesus out of Democrats in 2009 at all those townhall meetings, and it’s why Republicans were so effective scaring Florida election officials, and ultimately the Supreme Court, in 2000.

Republicans aren’t afraid to unleash their inner-crazy.  It’s time Democrats did the same.

Here’s some of our previous coverage on the background check issue:

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

80 Responses to “Gabby Giffords eviscerates weasely Senators who killed the background check bill”

  1. Naja pallida says:

    Same old tired arguments. Other things don’t have the sole intended purpose of killing things. Odd that you mention cars, considering all cars in use must be registered with the state, and pass a safety inspection. To use one legally, you must take a test and be licensed, and carry insurance. I’d be perfectly fine if those requirements were also put on firearms.

  2. thnxs4listening says:

    “killing device” do you mean knife or my car. Anything can be used as a killing device so I am not sure why you single out guns. Loophole, sure, and anyone that has any sense would use a loophole, look at congress themselves they use loopholes everyday in attaining what they want in legislation. So don’t isolate gun owners or sellers to using a system to there advantage when everyone does it.

  3. karmanot says:

    Have another Vodka comrade..

  4. BeccaM says:

    I also come at it from the other direction: If, as the gun advocates say, the 2nd Amendment is absolute and is supposed to guarantee no regulations or laws banning magazines over a certain size or banning certain types of semi-automatic weapons, why then is it okay for the gov’t to ban and/or strictly regulate the ownership of fully automatic weapons? Why don’t people have a right to own bazookas and rocket launchers as well? Heck, ‘arms’ isn’t even the same thing as handguns or rifles — it could be taken to mean any weaponry, up to and including tanks and helicopter gunships. Even nuclear weapons — after all, remember all of the diplomatic talks with the USSR? “Strategic ARMS Limitation Treaty”?

  5. Naja pallida says:

    Except one of the big things that the anti-gun control crowd keeps saying is “Why don’t we just enforce the laws that are already on the books!?” Background checks are already federal law. They just happen to have a loophole for private sales, which was intended to mean one on one sales, but with gun shows commercial gun sellers basically bored the loophole out into a giant gaping chasm specifically intended to avoid the law, because you know, proof of ID and an extra two minutes at the counter is too much to ask anyone who wants to buy a killing device. All the bill would have done is close the loophole and make existing law actually function as intended.

  6. Drew2u says:

    It looks to me as if anarchism has morphed into today libertarian. How else would explain the rabid – well, anarchy – by gun nuts who want to get rid of the lifeblood of governmental stewardship (taxes)?
    Libertarianism unchecked is anarchism, plain and simple.

  7. Drew2u says:

    I take my car to a driving range in which I drive over cutouts of people or round targets in order to test my driving abilities. My car is a weapon – I do not need a license to use my car and drive on public streets; otherwise my 2nd amendment rights are being infringed. I shall be able to teach my 7 y/o to drive on streets with impunity otherwise her rights are being infringed.
    (obviously I do not do those things, but if we are going to talk about “infringing arms”, then my vehicle should be exempt from all laws as it can be a form of bearing arms.)

  8. Alex says:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..The fucking spew written here can’t actually be real opinions or thoughts! Fools! All people are good, the world is just, trust your neighbor wholly; communism looked great on paper too!

  9. karmanot says:


  10. karmanot says:

    Is that like not walking to the post box today, because you already walked to the post box yesterday and there was no mail?

  11. karmanot says:

    Which earns you the middle finger. But because of irony your comment is perfectly applicable to Herr Grunewald.

  12. karmanot says:

    Said the pea brain.

  13. karmanot says:

    I totally agree. I’m in my mmmmm anarchist mode.

  14. Dan Aronson says:

    Perhaps Becca, but I have googled Gabby Giffords apologises, Gabby Giffords admits she was wrong, and all that comes up is “Gabby Giffords is furios” or a story about another idiot politician that told Gabby to stay out of her towns. Please point me to the article that was published after her shooting where she says, “I was wrong! So, so wrong!”

  15. BeccaM says:

    Getting shot in the head and nearly dying will tend to make one rethink one’s positions on a great many things.

  16. BeccaM says:

    Well, think about it and tell me I’m wrong. ;-)

  17. usagi says:

    That doesn’t help, but how many times have the Democrats offered legislation to repeal Obamacare in the last year?

  18. usagi says:


  19. karmanot says:

    I bet it took you hours to sound it out.

  20. karmanot says:

    Put you right foot in, put your left foot out do the Idaho poky and shake it all about.

  21. karmanot says:

    Mr. Potato had a mad.

  22. karmanot says:

    brown shirts don’t have tact.

  23. karmanot says:

    Assuming you had any wits, nit wit.

  24. karmanot says:

    Heil Her Grunevald. “We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.” That says it all about you—-a traitor with a gun.

  25. karmanot says:

    “nearly all organized extremist leftist violence remaining now is directed at property,” mmmmm

  26. Dan Aronson says:

    Just to set the record straight, Gabby Giffords took four (4) gun votes while in congress. The first was a vote compelling reciprocity for carry permits. She didn’t vote (how is that OK — ever?). However, she came down on the pro-gun side of each of the other three, including:

    HR 5827 – Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010
    Giffords’ vote: YEA

    HR 627- Allowing Loaded Guns in National Parks
    Giffords’ vote: YEA

    And my very favorite . . .

    HR 6842 – Repealing Portions of the D.C. Firearm Ban, including the ban on, you guessed it, SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS!
    Giffords’ vote: YEA

    And now she is outraged at the Senates non-vote? Am I the only one that sees this woman as the biggest opportunist in America? Look. There are only two choices here. Either she quite literally had a come-to-Jesus meeting which taught her the error of her ways, or she flip-flopped because 90% of Americans would have just as soon strung her up for voting the way she used to. And don’t forget, she’s also able to effectively leverage her personal tragedy knowing that it, quite ironically provides her with a bullet proof vest from accusations like mine. As unfavorable as its going to make me, I say once a politician, always a politician. Now watch as I am called a bully for calling out the lady that got shot — which in and of itself is crap. She survived. Over 30,000 Americans didn’t in 2012 alone. Nonetheless, I await your hurled tomatoes.

  27. cojo says:

    Low-information voter

  28. cojo says:

    Sorry, that was meant for Drew2u.

  29. Naja pallida says:

    His intention seems to have been to post on Red State, but missed the mark a bit.

  30. cojo says:

    Instead of being nasty and hurling insults to support your specious argument, try a little tact and decorum; and maybe some facts.

  31. cojo says:

    No it is not a democracy; never was.

    As he said, it is a Constitutional Republic.

    You saying otherwise will never make it so.

  32. Naja pallida says:

    But… but… both New Black Panthers are so scary! They wear black… and they ARE black!

  33. cojo says:

    Problem still is that this is only feel good legislation that does nothing to prevent these types of crimes; just like the Clinton era legislation did nothing to prevent Columbine and many others like it.

  34. Sweetie says:

    “The Republicans don’t win because they yell. They win because they have a singular focus that they never abandon and the other side of the same coin sister party that works in cahoots.” fify

  35. BeccaM says:

    Unless the real purpose, of course, is to ensure that the ATF can’t enforce those laws effectively…

    As near as I can tell, the same folks who trot out that line are also against having taxes enough to pay for adequate police forces, courts and prosecutors, as well as against any specific measures that would enable law enforcement and gov’t agencies to better enforce the laws. Exactly as you pointed out above.

  36. FLL says:

    Many Americans would have no objection to third-party candidates winning. I’m only interested in looking at the post-WWII data to shed light on the viability of third-party candidates. I think a win at the state level would be initially easier than at the federal level, which is why I mentioned that in my original comment.

  37. BeccaM says:

    An estimated 90% (plus or minus) of Americans support universal background checks for the purchase of firearms, including 75% of self-identified NRA members. A national or state-run system could be as simple as an instant phone call check.

    This was deemed unacceptable. So were all the other measures that a solid and overwhelming majority of Americans support, including measures to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. The expired assault weapons and extended magazine ban was also supported by a solid majority — and was deemed in multiple judicial rulings to be entirely Constitutional.

    Why is it the least bit controversial to keep firearms out of the hands of convicted violent felons and crazy people? And how the heck does one expect to do that if we won’t check backgrounds — for everyone — at the point of sale, no matter the venue where it happens? As I remarked in a comment below, it’s harder to buy a car or a piece of real estate than it is to purchase a gun. One isn’t even allowed to drive a car without liability insurance, paid registration, and a valid license.

    Anyway, if we want the filibuster to stop being used to shut down the entire American democratic process, Harry Reid needs to go. Period. He’s proven himself time and time again to be a liar. Same thing with those Dems who refused to vote for filibuster reform. And in this case here with the total sinking of any gun safety legislation, we now have a list of Dems who put gun interests ahead of the will of the people and of their constituents.

    If we want elected officials to stop voting contrary to the will of the American people — whether it be on gun control, bankster prosecutions, taxing the rich and corporations, or preventing unnecessary wars — we need to draw the bright line and refuse to vote for those who will not stand up for us. Sadly, judging from the last couple of decades of “Lesser Evil” elections, I honestly doubt whether the progressive left and moderate middle has the collective backbone to do it.

  38. pappyvet says:

    I completely agree

  39. BeccaM says:

    Other than a few anarchists, eco-terrorists and radical animal rights advocates, violence for left-wing causes pretty much ended back then — and nearly all organized extremist leftist violence remaining now is directed at property, not people.

  40. BeccaM says:

    What we were asking for was sensible as well: Simply to make background checks universal — exactly as the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre said was needed and appropriate a decade ago, before he changed his mind. Close those gun show and private sale loopholes, and to make it harder for the professionally diagnosed mentally ill to get hold of firearms.

    Frankly, I’m of the opinion that all firearms should be registered and at least as hard to acquire as an automobile.

  41. BeccaM says:

    And a follow-up: That “most of them were on psychotropic drugs”?

    Or is the real intent of that litany to slander “Liberals and or (sic) Democrats”?

  42. I vote third party. If people keep voting for the same old same old, there is no point in complaining when they get the same result.

  43. Drew2u says:

    It’s okay. I’m sure that IdahoFrank isn’t an accurate representation of the Idahoans with spuds-for-brains. :)

  44. FLL says:

    What confused me was the last sentence, where the commenter said, “All but 1 of those shooters were Liberals and or Democrats,” so I thought they meant that the percentages were for “those shooters.” But you’re right, I might misunderstand the commenter’s intention.

  45. KingCranky says:

    Please do point out where the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, explicitly bans 10-round magazines, background checks and a national gun registry database.

    But hey, good thing that assault weapons ban expired, and that NRA policies are always followed, there haven’t been any massacres since those actions have been taken, not a single instance.


  46. Drew2u says:

    It fits the rest of the post’s coherency, so I would just assume saying “victim” instead of “convicted” was intended.

  47. KingCranky says:

    Same here, except my Senators are Cornyn and Cruz.

  48. Drew2u says:

    “Due to gun lobby opposition, the [ATF] bureau has not had a permanent director since the position was made subject to U.S. Senate approval in 2006”.
    “The ATF is the primary enforcer of the nation’s gun laws, but advocates
    and former ATF officials say the agency has been underfunded,
    understaffed and handcuffed in its abilities to go after gun crimes.”

    How are /we/ supposed to enforce the laws we already have when our legislature is passing laws specifically to undercut the ability for agencies like the ATF or the FDA to function?

  49. pappyvet says:

    Where did you get the information that all but one of the above was a registered democrat or liberal?

  50. FLL says:

    I think you mean that these are the percentages for people convicted of murder, not murder victims, right? And as for either those convicted of murder or murder victims, how would you know their political views or party registration? Your comment needs a little tweaking here and there.

  51. IdahoFrank says:

    My point is, we need to enforce the laws we already have. A new law, if not enforced, will be no more effective than the laws we are already not enforcing!

  52. Drew2u says:

    I’m not understanding your point; are you saying that the
    people being killed have a higher chance of having some sort of record
    of a criminal activity? Were they killed as a result of a crime they were committing, is that what you’re trying to say?

    The for-profit prison system and jail sentences for people for smoking or possessing weed sort of skew the criminal-record number.

    And background checks required for gun sales is a step towards making sure criminals don’t have avenues towards guns. Will it magically solve the problem? No, of course not, but the issue is far more complex than any one piece of legislation, but how are we even supposed to start addressing the issue if our representatives won’t even give it a vote in the first place?

    Finally, how do you know the voting record for 91% of Baltimore’s murder victims?

  53. IdahoFrank says:

    We do not need new laws we need to enforce the laws we
    64% of murder victims in New Orleans had past felony arrests
    91% of Baltimore’s murder victims had criminal records
    75% of murder victims in Philadelphia had criminal records
    77% of murder victims in Milwaukee had an average of 12 arrests
    85% of murder victims in Newark had criminal records
    91% of murder victims in Arizona had criminal records
    74% of murder victims in San Francisco had criminal records
    75% of murder victims in Indianapolis had criminal records
    71% of murder victims in Charlotte had criminal records
    60% of murder victims in Atlanta had criminal records

    All but 1 of those shooters were Liberals and or Democrats
    (the other one had no political stance), most of them on psychotropic drugs as

  54. pappyvet says:

    snort…guffaw !!

  55. Drew2u says:

    They can have ALL the medically advanced leech-therapy for their medical care that they want! ;)

  56. pappyvet says:

    Exactly correct ! I’ve wondered with a smile,that if these people wish to return to “good old days” of white man property owners rule,shouldn’t we also return to the right to bear arms as being strictly flintlocks? ;-}

  57. Drew2u says:

    And that is why people like the above guy want to suppress votes. Every time they hear “expanding democracy” they can only think of their war of aggression on other countries; that “bringing democracy to [country]” means bombing the hell out of those countries. ;)

  58. pappyvet says:

    More important to our democracy-versus-republic debate, the U.S. Constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation. This is what today’s commentators mean when they say America is a republic, not a democracy

  59. pappyvet says:

    You may wish to do the same.

    The causes of the American Revolution were many, but for the monied class there were three principal aims. They sought self-government: that is, they sought to rule the colonies themselves, to further their own interests. They sought to protect the institution of slavery, which had been endangered by Lord Mansfield’s ruling against it in the Sommersett case of 1772.
    But to win the American Revolution this predatory elite needed help. Their own rhetoric about freedom and equality led to widespread demands for the right to vote: universal suffrage. In other words, the people began demanding democracy. Even the slaves (white and black alike) demanded to be freed and allowed to vote. And thanks to the “unwashed masses”,we became a Democratic Republic.

  60. pappyvet says:

    Exactly ! We are a democratic republic,
    A democratic republic is a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens. But we are quickly moving toward a Plutocracy. A form of government that is controled by wealth and money.Some say we are there already.

  61. Butch1 says:

    We can also put the blame where it is deserved and that is squarely on Senator Reid!
    He promised us if we did two things, ( voted Obama back to a second term and made sure the Senate had a democratic majority, both things accomplished ) he would get rid of the Super-majority vote. I watched him say it on the TV and this Mormon, when asked to repeat it even cussed by saying, ” You’re damned right I will!”

    We held up our end of the bargain and he lied through his teeth to us. If he had held up his end of this deal we would have had a Simple-majority and the bill would have passed but, no, Sen. McConnell is still in charge of the Senate and the Minority Rules with their Super-Majority voting. The turncoat democrats that voted against this bill along with the republicans deserve to all be primaried and voted out of office. But, especially Sen Reid for lying to the people and permitting this to happen in the first place in my opinion. It is a typical democratic move to “snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory” each and every time “we, the people” work hard to put them back in power. Now is the time to remove them once and for all and start supporting third party candidates to stop this from happening again. You cannot ever trust a liar again.

  62. Randy Riddle says:

    For the life of me, I don’t understand why the Dems aren’t rubbing the NRAs noses in the gun control laws passed – and fully supported by the NRA – in the 1930s after rashes of gang violence.

    “The NRA President at the time, Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praised the new state gun controls in Congress. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he testified before the 1938 law was passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.””

  63. pappyvet says:

    We were asking for so little, comfort more than anything else, shame on them

  64. FLL says:

    You sound like you were home-schooled by fundamentalist Xtians.

  65. Drew2u says:

    If it means going to your version of bible-thumping revisionist, abstinence-of-reality public schools in the south, then no thanks, I’d rather have an education based on facts.

    Face it, democracy is used to elect representatives from (almost) the entire populace (who all have an equal voice and chance to share rule). Without the democratic process all you get is “The Representative of Shell Oil” or “The Representative from the great corporation of Haliburton” to which I submit to your cry of a Republic. When a manufacturing group holds more representation power in government than 90% of the government’s citizens then yes, we have a Republic without Democracy.

  66. Wrong…Go back to school. May want to study some, this time. I will not get in a battle of wits, with an unarmed person.

  67. FLL says:

    Some supporting details for your argument?

  68. FLL says:

    No one is trying to grab your guns, just keep them out of the hands of people with a history of mental illness.

  69. Drew2u says:

    The U.S. is both, dumbass.

  70. FLL says:

    We do have the results from recent years for comparison: 2001 through 2006, 6 years during which the Republican opposition was in charge. Or were you talking about the track record for third-party representation in Congress, which I believe has been a consistent 0%?

  71. usagi says:

    Problem is, it’ll be forgotten in a few days. The Republicans don’t win because they yell. They win because they have a singular focus that they never abandon (“Economy is up? Tax cuts for the rich! Economy is tanking? Tax cuts for the rich!”).

    The notion of “more guns” being a solution to gun violence is absurd. It is demonstrably wrong. Yet they’ve (successfully) framed the terms of the debate as if the choice is arm everyone in the country or confiscate and melt it down every gun in the country.

    In the aftermath of Newton, my comment on one of the breast-beating treads somewhere about what to was get your Congressperson on record today supporting stricter gun control and if they waffle even a tiny bit, organize, fund-raise, and primary the fuck out of them. And never stop. Don’t let them off the hook when they see the mob coming for their job. It doesn’t matter that they’ve seen the light, they missed the window and you’re going to throw them out of their job because of it.

    Want to change this? Get pissed off and stay that way. It’s a brilliant editorial that should be a template for the future. Now, is anyone going to step up and do the work to take these bastards down in the next election or are we going to be on to the next outrage tomorrow and link back to this in six months after the next gun massacre?

  72. lynchie says:

    You would know.

  73. lynchie says:

    We will get the guns and them we will come for you

  74. The writer is an idiot, and so is Gabrielle Giffords. All the data was 15 years old and the rest, was flat out lies. The laws on the books aren’t enforced, why would you want to make more. They wouldn’t make a difference anyway. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. It pays to know the difference, and for once, in recent memory, it worked as designed. The gun grab is far from over…

  75. The people who killed this bill were the ridiculous Democrats who left the filibuster in place rather than strike it from the Senate’s rules, as was their right as the majority party. As long as people continue to vote for this brainless, gutless party they will continue to enjoy similar outcomes.

  76. FLL says:

    At this link, you can find the roll call for the Senate vote to end the filibuster on the bill to toughen background checks for buying a gun. 50 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted in favor of the motion to end the filibuster, and 41 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted against the motion.

    Si no puede hablar español… [If you can’t speak Spanish…] then I’m going to concentrate on our common English language. What does “just the same” mean? 50 is not “just the same” as 4, and 41 is not “just the same” as 5. I’m all in favor of not wasting money on generic slush funds for unspecified Democratic senators; rather, we should support or not support individual candidates on the basis of merit. However, knowing the comment pages of this blog as well as I do, I’m guessing that someone’s first-grade English teacher and first-grade arithmetic teacher are weeping right now.

  77. Log Man says:

    This writer is an idiot. Damn near eveything he wrote is false.

  78. DontFearTheReaper says:

    The right banks on the fact that liberals always want to take the “high”road all the fucking time. It’s time, well past time, to take it to these bastards.

  79. AggieCowboy says:

    I’m in Oklahoma. My senators (Inhofe, Coburn) are weasels owned by the NRA, Evangelical Christians and For Profit Insurance. No help coming from this state despite our own problems with gun violence and a severe lack of mental health care.

  80. Drew2u says:

    It’s funny that “The Left” example that I hear is Weather Underground, I think, from the 1970s. Umm… the ’70s were 40 years ago.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS