How should I respond?

[RoccoRP87]

"I am respecting your First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. I ask that you respect my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. If I was able to get a CCW and saw the man that shot you he would have been dead before he even shot you. Not all gun owners are bad and some may actually want to protect you."

^^This^^

 

[SigMatt]

I find it offensive that victims of gun violence, directly in Giffords case or indirect in the case of those at Newtown, Columbine, VTech, etc, somehow believe that their suffering places them on a moral soapbox free of criticism or challenge and permits them to demand society change to assuage their grief and pain.

I feel for them, I do. But my sympathy ends the moment they somehow believe we must blindly yield to their emotion and sacrifice the rights and freedoms of others to help them heal, gain closure or use it as a coping mechanism. Once they step on that political pedestal, they become my enemy and if they can't take the criticism or get angry when others don't want to bend to their emotional bidding, they shouldn't allow themselves get up there or be used in the first place.

Our rights are supposed to transcend emotion and the mob. That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. To prevent such short-term pandering and ill-considered outcomes.

In Giffords case, I see her husband as a shameless, honorless soul using her situation to his own ends and playing into the politics of those who would use him for their own ends. Same goes for Sarah Brady. Both richly deserve contempt.

Matt

 

[BlackBart]

Id tell her she sent the WRONG form letter.

 

[Verbotene]

I find it offensive that victims of gun violence, directly in Giffords case or indirect in the case of those at Newtown, Columbine, VTech, etc, somehow believe that their suffering places them on a moral soapbox free of criticism or challenge and permits them to demand society change to assuage their grief and pain.

I feel for them, I do. But my sympathy ends the moment they somehow believe we must blindly yield to their emotion and sacrifice the rights and freedoms of others to help them heal, gain closure or use it as a coping mechanism. Once they step on that political pedestal, they become my enemy and if they can't take the criticism or get angry when others don't want to bend to their emotional bidding, they shouldn't allow themselves get up there or be used in the first place.

Our rights are supposed to transcend emotion and the mob. That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. To prevent such short-term pandering and ill-considered outcomes.

In Giffords case, I see her husband as a shameless, honorless soul using her situation to his own ends and playing into the politics of those who would use him for their own ends. Same goes for Sarah Brady. Both richly deserve contempt.

Matt

Well said.

 

[lx1x]

Ms. Gifford,

Can you tell me the ffl that your husband used. I feel I need to celebrate by ordering online.

Thanks,
Me

 

[Dave MP]

Ms. Gifford,

Can you tell me the ffl that your husband used. I feel I need to celebrate by ordering online.

Thanks,
Me

http://www.dbackpolice.com/

IRT: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...els-ar-15-purchase-by-gabby-giffords-husband/

 

[lx1x]

http://www.dbackpolice.com/

IRT: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...els-ar-15-purchase-by-gabby-giffords-husband/

Sorry.. On iPad/tapatalk.. Sarcastic icon on this is differnt on Internet web browser.

 

[Hatter]

Write back asking for a list of groups they intend to oppose using any donations received. Then support the groups on the list.

 

[Docster]

Email titled "Unthinkable"

From Gabby Giffords



Jose -

Moments ago, the U.S. Senate decided to do the unthinkable about gun violence --- nothing at all.

Over two years ago, when I was shot point-blank in the head, the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing. Four months ago, 20 first-graders lost their lives in a brutal attack on their school, and the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing.

It's clear to me that if members of the U.S. Senate refuse to change the laws to reduce gun violence, then we need to change the members of the U.S. Senate.

I am a fighter and I am not giving up now. This won't be easy and we need your help. Can I count on you to join me by contributing $10 to my organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, right now?

http://action.americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/change-congress

For far too long, the NRA leadership has put fear in the hearts of our elected officials. But I can promise you it's nothing like the fear my constituents felt two years ago, or the fear the first graders at Sandy Hook felt when staring into the eyes of a madman with an assault weapon.

All we're asking them to do is take a vote.

Help me change the Senate.

Gabby



This email was sent to mopar92| Unsubscribe

Paid for by Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC; not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

I got a similar email from Americans for Responsible Solutions; I pressed the 'unsubscribe' button and left a full explanation of why......

 

[Lawman1800]

Laws don't save lives, but people can. It's our God given right to protect ourselves and others from the evil of the world. The NRA does what it does because we who support it demand it.

 

[ZHammer]

I find it offensive that victims of gun violence, directly in Giffords case or indirect in the case of those at Newtown, Columbine, VTech, etc, somehow believe that their suffering places them on a moral soapbox free of criticism or challenge and permits them to demand society change to assuage their grief and pain.

I feel for them, I do. But my sympathy ends the moment they somehow believe we must blindly yield to their emotion and sacrifice the rights and freedoms of others to help them heal, gain closure or use it as a coping mechanism. Once they step on that political pedestal, they become my enemy and if they can't take the criticism or get angry when others don't want to bend to their emotional bidding, they shouldn't allow themselves get up there or be used in the first place.

Our rights are supposed to transcend emotion and the mob. That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. To prevent such short-term pandering and ill-considered outcomes.

In Giffords case, I see her husband as a shameless, honorless soul using her situation to his own ends and playing into the politics of those who would use him for their own ends. Same goes for Sarah Brady. Both richly deserve contempt.

Matt

This...Very well stated sir!

 

[hippygeek]

I'd just like to ask her at what point in the proposed expanded background check process her shooter or the shooter in Sandy Hook would have been stopped from obtaining weapons. The one had a background check and the other stole the weapons he used. Claiming background checks is a way to stop mass shootings is like saying we'd have a federal budget if I used less toilet paper.

 

[Gbh]

Ms Giffords,

As Americans, we are granted rights and privileges, both of which come with responsibility.
It seems that your movement has attempted to put our rights in the privileges category, while ignoring the true issue which is responsibility.

Rather than hold people accountable for the misuse of firearms, you have tried and failed to hold the the firearm accountable for people's actions. This was misguided and the reason for the failure of your cause.

With all due respect, Capt. Kelly has not been shy putting your personal tragedy in the spotlight. I submit that a firearm did not shoot you. A person shot you in the course of misusing a firearm.

Going forward, personal responsibility and accountability should be the focus. The demonization of inanimate objects and law abiding citizens has proven to be, on the federal level, the wrong approach.

Thank you for your service to our country

 

[md_rick_o]

I like this one, i'm going to shamelessly steal from it. THANKS.

My suggested response:

Dear Ms. Giffords:

I agree that the inaction on the part of the US Senate in response to the level of firearms violence in the United States is a blot of shame. I am glad to hear that you and your organization support responsible solutions. May I assume that your organization is in favor of:

- increased sentences for those convicted of using firearms in the commission of felony crimes?

- more frequent prosecution of prohibited persons attempting to acquire firearms through theft, illegal transactions, and straw purchases?

- streamlining of background checks and compelling states to fully cooperate with the federal system and stop withholding information from NICS?

- and finally, may I assume that your organization is in favor of reducing or eliminating barriers that law-abiding, responsible gun owners now face when choosing to defend themselves and their families?

Because if you do not support these measures, Ms. Giffords, then your organization is opposed to the only sensible, responsible solutions to gun violence in the United States.

 

[sgt23preston]

The only thing that stops a bad gun with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

How does taking away guns from law abiding citizens protect people? It does not. The current gun laws being proposed would not have prevented Sandy Hook nor the shoot out in Arizona.

Gabby Gifford was carrying a Glock concealed on the day she was shot...

She did not respond in time to her situation, so...

Now she wants to keep us for having a chance to defend ourselves...

I respect Law Enforcement, but honestly Policemen & women only show up AfTER a crime has been committed...

I don't understand her logic...

 

[Gbh]

I respect Law Enforcement, but honestly Policemen & women only show up AfTER a crime has been committed...

 

[sleev-les]

"LOL, UMAD BRO?"

One of my favorite lines lol


"COOL STORY BRO!"
" Y U MAD THOUGH?"

lol

 

[Ouhuzo]

Ah, memories

Here's how I did...

YES! Your phone number was old insult we used at my former airbase with our officers to idiotic suggestions ("Geeeet Bent, sir" but not orders, mind you - that we obey). When used here in the land of the big PX, I really get some blank looks.

Still remember my first introduction to that slang: The old ready shack for us maintenance crews had mounted over a window an almost bent double pitot tube that an expeditor truck rammed into some zero-dark-thirty night with a sign "GET BENT" hung on it.

 

[Ouhuzo]

My suggested response:

Dear Ms. Giffords:

I agree that the inaction on the part of the US Senate in response to the level of firearms violence in the United States is a blot of shame. I am glad to hear that you and your organization support responsible solutions. May I assume that your organization is in favor of:

- increased sentences for those convicted of using firearms in the commission of felony crimes?

- more frequent prosecution of prohibited persons attempting to acquire firearms through theft, illegal transactions, and straw purchases?

- streamlining of background checks and compelling states to fully cooperate with the federal system and stop withholding information from NICS?

- and finally, may I assume that your organization is in favor of reducing or eliminating barriers that law-abiding, responsible gun owners now face when choosing to defend themselves and their families?

Because if you do not support these measures, Ms. Giffords, then your organization is opposed to the only sensible, responsible solutions to gun violence in the United States.

I like it: respectful yet turns the argument around and back on the gun-grabbers.

 

[squirrels]

Gabby Gifford was carrying a Glock concealed on the day she was shot...

She did not respond in time to her situation, so...

Now she wants to keep us for having a chance to defend ourselves...

I respect Law Enforcement, but honestly Policemen & women only show up AfTER a crime has been committed...

I don't understand her logic...

Giffords is a first-class hypocrite.

I feel for her for the experience she went through, and it upsets me to see how she now suffers from mental issues due to being shot.

However, it doesn't justify her sudden switch from being pro-2A to this.

You know, it doesn't take much courage to speak out for the Second Amendment until you've been shot/shot at. The price of a free, armed society is that sometimes some people will "turn bad" and may use those arms for nefarious purposes. If everyone in the country is carrying a gun, as many pro-2A people would like to see, eventually SOMEONE is going to get shot. You hope that law-abiding carriers can minimize the collateral damage, but someone is still going to take a bullet once in a while.

Giffords was all about gun-rights before she ended up in the crosshairs. Now all of a sudden she's all about gun restrictions. It's times like that that people's TRUE beliefs become apparent...as the old adage says, "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face".

Unfortunately, Ms. Giffords decided that while she could speak up for 2A rights BEFORE, once she was faced with one of the possible consequences, she didn't have the resolve to continue to do what was right. She backed down from her stance on individual rights and demanded the government do something to protect her, even if that meant oppressing other people.

I guess I can't be mad, but I do pity her for not retaining the faculties or resolve to continue fighting the good fight.

In all honesty, after seeing one of her interviews, it seems more like she's just a pawn at this point. Her faculties still seem somewhat compromised and it looks more than anything like people (her husband, for example) are feeding her ideas instead of allowing her to try to formulate her own. I don't think SHE understands her OWN logic at this point.

And that's just fine for Obama and company.