"... and that Americans for Responsible Solution's reference to 'Gabby Giffords' handwritten testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee' meant 'handwritten' in a general sense. I've updated the headline and text of this post to make that clear."
Oh... so... all that meaning....
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३२ टिप्पण्या:
I profoundly distrust Mark Kelly.
Unless you see it (or hear it) with your own eyes or ears, don't believe it. Old Althouse famiy proverb ( no relation to our hostess)
I noticed you used your 'things are not what they seem' tag on this post. I disagree: things are exactly what they seem to be, that being utter bullshit.
Sock puppet
So the National Archives might not request these historical handwritten notes after all.
Maybe Beyonce can sing it for her.
Ah.. 'fake but accurate' as usual.
From Dan Rathers to Global Warming Scientist to Beyonce to Giffords (or should I say her therapist...)
Can't those Democrats/progressives learn to just tell the truth and not fudge it.
These hearings are a pathetic sham. More laws because they cannot enforce the laws on the books and refuse to prosecute criminals. Not one word about mental health. These politicians are shameless charlatans and frauds. Every single one, including Giffords.
...meant "handwritten" in a fake-but-accurate sense.
There, fixed it for you
Smoke and mirrors in DC staged dramas is all we ever get. No wonder most people quit caring to watch anymore.
It's like watching a Liars Club story contest.
If those were Giffords words, why does it matter who PRINTED the words?
I came here to say what Inga did. If they were Gifford's thoughts, does it matter who put pen to paper?
@Inga and Writ Small: Did she say she they were her thoughts and someone else just wrote them?
I'm afraid it matters a great deal if someone scripted her.
"If those were Giffords words, why does it matter who PRINTED the words?"'
A photograph of the notes was used as propaganda.
Also, we don't know that those were her words. Is she a puppet or isn't she? We don't know, and for a while the idea of her laboriously writing out that simple message was used to tug heartstrings.
That matters.
It shouldn't have been done.
I feel terribly sorry for Giffords and the way she's been used for partisan purposes from the first days of that tragedy.
(1) Blaming Palin for Loughner's deed
(2) Believing POTUS when he said his presence "opened her eyes"
(3) The coached and edited interview
(4) This
It's getting sickening. Leave the woman alone!
Charlie McCarthy was much better at it.
@Inga: The doubt I feel about authenticity comes from behavior by Giffords' handlers.
Can't you people control your own? ;)
Read the words and notice the lack of any substance: "We must do something."
Then they want you to send them money.
Okay fine, if the hand printed note was used as propaganda then it's wrong. Until it's proven those aren't her words, I won't assume they are not, that would be wrong also.
It isn't like there was an interesting or original thought in the note. What does it matter who wrote it?
I don't think you can say that someone scripted her unless you think her mental impairment includes extreme suggestibility. We have no way of knowing and nothing is accomplished by making assumptions.
And while the embarrassment of the last sentence of Megan Garber's article should hopefully stick for a long time, who wrote the note is a trivial point.
There will always be emotionally-charged stories to be told. Pushing back on the hurting individual is not the answer.
P.J. O'Rourke once wrote that Americans would throw away the Bill of Rights to save the kids on milk cartons. The problem of emotion overriding judgement is a human problem. We have to accept the legitimacy grief and sorrow, acknowledge their validity in their own sphere, and still strive to act with reason.
Revenant said...
It isn't like there was an interesting or original thought in the note. What does it matter who wrote it?
You're revealing insensitive male character, revenant. Althouse said it tugged heart strings, and women vote. This is rhhardin's whole point, isn't it? :)
Emotional manipulation grosses me out and automatically makes me suspicious of and resistant to the ideas of whoever is using it. It doesn't matter if it's a liberal, a conservative or anyone in between or beyond. If you attempt to manipulate me with melodrama, especially in pursuit of power, you've automatically lost me.
Althouse said it tugged heart strings, and women vote.
I like to think women are as capable of rational thought as men are.
Insert joke here. :)
Saw this earlier on Facebook.
As we all know, the poor woman is brain damaged. As Althouse pointed out, she's being used as an exhibit. Also, as we saw earlier, for the umpteenth time, the left has no shame, no honor, no nothin' but a lust for power and control.
Isn't this just an obvious trap? Wounded woman heroically battling a brain injury makes childlike speech. Doesn't the Left want Republicans to say something stupid and attack this poor woman cementing their reputation as the insensitive party. Shouldn't we all watch what we say to carefully avoid it. I guess some people just can't help themselves.
It's her sentiment that matters, who better to express it, even haltingly and simply than someone who's life was forever altered by it? Perhaps SHE wanted to do something, something to give her life more meaning again. Why assume she's being used as a puppet?
Shouldn't we all watch what we say to carefully avoid it.
I reject your assertion that we can "avoid it" by watching what we say.
If the last four years have taught us anything, it is that the press will find dirt on their opponents even if they have to invent it.
This is how it works.
Inga hears that a liberal said something and she agrees wholeheartedly without needing proof. Shouting and Ritmo hear that anyone said anything and they disagrees wholeheartedly without needing proof. Most conservatives hear that a conservative said something and if it's stupid they say that was stupid and if it's something they agree with they agree with it wholeheartedly without needing proof.
It's her sentiment that matters, who better to express it, even haltingly and simply than someone who's life was forever altered by it?
I admit the speech was dippy, but I wouldn't go so far as to say a victim of brain damage is the best choice for reading it...
Writ Small said...
Isn't this just an obvious trap? Wounded woman heroically battling a brain injury makes childlike speech. Doesn't the Left want Republicans to say something stupid and attack this poor woman cementing their reputation as the insensitive party. Shouldn't we all watch what we say to carefully avoid it. I guess some people just can't help themselves.
What an insidious tactic. The second specific example of what you're suggesting is now a general one: an entire political point of view defined by it's lowest common denominator! Brilliant! I wish our side could use it--and we will!
Enjoy the decline!
Enjoy the decline!
No Wyo Sis, I DO need proof, proof that she those are not her thoughts.
Of course those were her thoughts. Her husband said so.
Inga, She-rube of the SS, getting played like a banjo by Ms. Giffords' handlers...
...and wanting to believe SOOOO badly.
The story still says the handwritten script was "scrawled". (That's left over I guess from some early draft of the story in which we were supposed to think that poor Ms. Giffords can't even write neatly anymore because of evil guns.) But they've shown us the neatly handwritten script that someone gave Ms. Giffords to follow; it's anything but "scrawled".
Will someone please wake me when the press says something honest about guns.
I promise not to "heckle" them.
Ditto what Writ Small has been saying.
I think the point goes beyond the tactical. While the propaganda purposes of Giffords' testimony are as malordious and malovolent as Palladian declares, Giffords herself is a sympathetic figure and it is bizarre to imagine that she has some alternate opinion about being shot that she and her husband are keeping secret.
Everything is propaganda. Even the use of accurate examples in honest advocacy is propaganda. You have to persuade people in the manner in which they are persuadable.
One can feel some relief when the propaganda is so clumsily done as to reveal the skeleton mechanism of its attempted manipulation. Hopefully more people become more alert. Even so, appeals to emotion still ring true. This is because emotions are true -- they are heartfelt and sincere -- as emotion. Accept that and then bring in the broader argument of fact and reason. The answer is yes, but...
"Althouse said...A photograph of the notes was used as propaganda.
Also, we don't know that those were her words. Is she a puppet or isn't she? We don't know, and for a while the idea of her laboriously writing out that simple message was used to tug heartstrings."
"Is she a puppet...?" Well, the cited article says that her injury makes response NOT understanding difficult - like someone with Lou Gherig's disease. But, small minds like the woman in charge here suggest she's a puppet.
Apparently the only thing that's REALLY important is the Sacred Second Amendment protecting our "God Given" rights to have any damned weapon we want. I remember Jesus in the Sermon on the mount said, "Blessed are those who shoot first and ask questions later, for they'll help reduce the excess population!"
The only thing worse than being a tool is being a tool who knows they are being used as a tool.
In this case, the fault may not lie with Gifford, but her husband.
Of course, no one in favor of restricting the 2nd Amendment will complain about Gifford being exploited.
Sock puppet
Okay. Gabby Giffords was shot in the head. What is Sarah Palin's excuse for cribbing "Energy", "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" on her hand? #realtalk
High on a hill was a lonely puppet
Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo
Loud was the voice of the lonely puppet
Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo
It's all imagery for the unwashed masses. NRA vs. a victim's pseudo-words. Why let rational thought, ideas and argument for/against a Constitutionally-granted right get in the way of "doing something".
If a parade of victims is all that's needed to win an argument, the NRA should trot out Kendra (age 12). Or find some other equally sympathetic figure to tell their story.
I don't know if she really appreciates how she's being had. I'd have to ask The Blonde, but it sounds like she's as surrounded with slime as Elvis was.
Inga said...
It's her sentiment that matters, who better to express it, even haltingly and simply than someone who's life was forever altered by it?
This assumes they are her sentiments. At this point, anything her "handlers" say is suspect.
Apparently the only thing that's REALLY important...
...is that that clown who shat himself over on the faked-edits-heckling thread has shown up here with more of his comedy stylings.
Republicans, where is your sideshow? We keep waiting but you keep failing to deliver. Where are the women who protected themselves with firearms from home intruders? We're continuously told they exist. Wouldn't they be pleased to publicly explain their position?
It's her sentiment that matters...
...like when an coached eyewitness picks an innocent man from a lineup.
Apparently the only thing that's REALLY important is the Sacred Second Amendment protecting our "God Given" rights to have any damned weapon we want.
I wouldn't say it is the only thing that's important, but it is certainly more important than anything your side has come up with so far.
I remember Jesus in the Sermon on the mount said
Jesus was tortured to death by his government. Draw from that what lessons you will. :)
garage
You are correct, I remember Palin's husband and speech therapist writing that on Sarah's hands, how fucking dishonest!
We're continuously told they exist. Wouldn't they be pleased to publicly explain their position?
Why? So they can have their home addresses printed in the paper by supporters of gun control?
Wouldn't they be pleased to publicly explain their position?
Under a Lincoln,maybe, but not a Yugo.
Chip Ahoy said...
Republicans, where is your sideshow?
We're waiting for you to animate it, Chip. Only you know how to to portray the deployment of advanced weapons and the disappearance of people.
Chip Ahoy, ask and ye shall recieve
@mcTriumph
It's all a sideshow. Giffords could be instructed how to vote just as competently as Ron Johnson. Or Dandy Diaper Vitter. Or any drunk Kennedy. Or creepy John Edwards. Or drop out governors...........You get the idea.
Again: Giffords was shot in her head. She gets to talk about it as best as she can. I'd hate to deprive you of that.
C'mon it's a circus. It's a bear riding a bicycle.
If I was there riding a bicycle, nobody would care.
If I was there talking about gun violence nobody would care.
But it was not-so-Gabby (anymore) Giffords - the bicycle riding bear - that the cameras were there to see and capture on their little electronic chips. What she said or who wrote what she said doesn't matter.
Her tragedy was sad. And yes, the people exploiting her tragedy deserve our scorn.
Not even close, O She-Wolf of the SS.
Ms Trotter isn't being led around by the nose.
If you get shot in the head, and live, you can't talk about being shot in the head? Seems to me you'd have a pretty damn good reason to have an opinion on it.
@Henry: So who's up next in the Senate Hearing? Was Gifford their "star" exhibit/witness?
I'd much rather see Giffords break-out her ballyhooed Glock and pop a cap in Jared Lee Loughner's ass.
Didn't you all see "The Kings Speech"? Her therapist probably drafted the speech to accommodate her particular speaking deficiencies and minimize stammering/stuttering/sounding stupid. Two out of three ain't bad.
Having her speak at all was emotional manipulation and is despicable. I don't care if the adolescent handwriting was hers or not. We can't have a rational dialogue on gun control when one side consistently resorts to cheap tricks and disingenuous bullshit. I'm glad the pro-gun lobby isn't playing along, and is instead telling democrats to sh-sh-shut the fff-fff-fffuck up!
Again: Giffords was shot in her head. She gets to talk about it as best as she can
Sure, but she didn't.
Her contribution to the national "debate" consisted of this:
"Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act."
I'm sorry, but the person who wrote that drivel is not in full possession of her wits. Shame on her husband for dragging her in front of the cameras like that.
The kid-like lettering on the three hole punched note book paper is a lovely touch. If the speech therapist had drawn a couple of hearts or a smiley face it would have just put the tin hat on it
Whole thing is ridiculous. Hearings are essentially for DiFi's new and improved "assault weapons" ban that would essentially ban long guns on the basis of cosmetic features that apparently scare people because they make the guns look like military assault rifles. Never mind that Giffords was shot with a handgun, along with the rest of the victims there in Tucson, nor that rifles are very rarely used for murder. And, never mind that for a lot of Dems, the real issue is the violence in their inner cities, many times the nation's norm, and mostly caused, again, with much more easily concealed handguns, and never mind that most of those weapons are already illegal.
So, they are essentially using handgun violence and its victims to lobby to ban modern semiautomatic rifles primarily in order to reduce handgun violence in the inner cities (almost entirely in the father-free zones caused by the abject failure of progressive social engineering).
The one good thing is that it isn't going to work. The left is trying to use emotion, and esp. the Sandy Hook shootings, to drive the gun control debate. The gun rights opposition is using facts and logic to counter this. The longer the debate goes on, the more the tragedy will fade in everyone's mind, and the less likely it will be that Congress is stampeded over the cliff. (Too late though for Andrew Coumo, who just killed any chance for national office by pushing through even more idiotic gun grabbing legislation). And, they can only trot out Giffords a limited number of times before their ploy becomes too transparent even for the fawning liberal media to countenance.
I'm sorry, but the person who wrote that drivel is not in full possession of her wits
I'm saying that someone that gets shot in the head gets to comment about it. Like getting your cock sawed off by a Lorena Bobbitt. You're uniquely qualified.
I'm saying that someone that gets shot in the head gets to comment about it.
And like I said -- she didn't comment about what happened to her.
Her speech was "kids are dying, do something". Getting shot in the head doesn't qualify her to comment on that.
"Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act."
And, if they were serious about solving the violence problem, they would work to solve the underlying social problems that are the fundamental cause for most of this violence. And, the basic problem is the breakup of the family structure, children, and esp. boys being raised without fathers, and as a result, never being adequately socialized, which is done first by fathers, and then by wive and their own fatherhood, both missing from these communities. And, much of this family breakup can be directly tied to progressive social engineering, starting with LBJ's War on Poverty which subsidized family breakups, and the destigmatization of bearing children outside of marriage.
So, we have the same progressives who pushed through all this dysfunctional social engineering now trying to solve this problem, that was an inevitable result of their policies, with totally symbolic solutions that don't even have much of a relationship with the symptom that they are trying to cover up.
Q; Why did she resign from Congress? She could've followed this script. Or maybe have hubby do an Edith Wilson. Oh wait, could hubby/speech therapist sit beside her when it came time to vote?
BTW, how's Hugo Chavez doin' these days.
Revenant @11:08
"Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act."
IMHO, this very simple presentation was contrived & orchestrated. The speech was, er, dumbed down to approximate the idea of the writer as to the extent of GG's cognitive abilities & QED to fool some of the people into believing that she would certainly be espousing Diane F's gun bill.
And, if they were serious about solving the violence problem, they would work to solve the underlying social problems that are the fundamental cause for most of this violence.
There is no violence problem. The United States today is more peaceful than at any point in our history.
People are desperately searching for solutions to a nonexistent problem. Unsurprisingly, they aren't finding any solutions. It is damned hard to solve a problem that never existed in the first place.
Inga said...
"Why assume she's being used as a puppet?"
Because she is surrounded by puppeteers?
Actually, I don't assume it. I don't know and neither do you. No one is going out of their way to clarify anything and no one is explaining her condition.
She is, at the very least, extremely vulnerable and dependent. In any other context, this would raise all sorts of cautions. Why not in this situation?
Getting shot in the head doesn't qualify her to comment on that.
So you get marginalized for getting shot in the head from commenting about getting shot in the head? Son, that ain't ringing any liberty bells in the Constitution I read.
Bruce Hayden
But of course. You have said it best.
Sad manipulation.
Shame on all of the manipulators, especially her hubby.
So you get marginalized for getting shot in the head from commenting about getting shot in the head?
Come now, garage, we both know you're not that stupid. She was commenting on children getting killed, not on "getting shot in the head".
Step up your game, man.
David
"She is, at the very least, extremely vulnerable and dependent. In any other context, this would raise all sorts of cautions. Why not in this situation?"
The people who slobber & say that we must listen to her in this case would not take her order in a store or resturant or buy property from her without getting a confirmation from her guardian, caretaker, whatever. Unless they were in on the manipulation, that is.
Shame on them.
Has anyone thought to start a talent agency specializing in retarded people and victims with sob stories? You could set up shop across from DNC headquarters and make mmmmillions!! You know, gunshot victims, girls who can't manage getting a photo ID to vote, anchor babies whose parents were deported. Reason has played far too big a role in pushing legislation. Lets go for the heart strings.
Garage, you are missing the point that she's qualified to discuss how it feels to be a crime victim, but that status does not confer special insight into gun policy. If anything she's going to think less clearly and logically about what ought or ought not be done about guns.
Revenant
There's no sense dealing with trolls. These people would not in good conscience witness a Will for someone in GG's condition, again unless they were in on the manipulation.
The words that she spoke may be her own, but releasing a photo of the script was unvarnished manipulation.
Many times people with expressive aphasia also lose their ability to write.
garage mahal said...
Sock puppet
Okay. Gabby Giffords was shot in the head. What is Sarah Palin's excuse for cribbing "Energy", "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" on her hand?
McTriumph said...
garage
You are correct, I remember Palin's husband and speech therapist writing that on Sarah's hands, how fucking dishonest.
===========
Got to say, one of the best comebacks I've ever read. A classic!
Next up Inga will come along and bleat "Well, who's to say Palins husband and speech therapist didn't write that stuff on her hands. Show me proof to the contrary!"
If anything she's going to think less clearly and logically about what ought or ought not be done about guns.
You could argue that people that are gobbling up firearms and ammo aren't thinking clearly or logically.
A crazy person put a bullet in her head. There's a slew of Democrats in line to put their hand up her ass to make her lips move.
There's no sense dealing with trolls.
Garage isn't a troll. Unless you mean Dave, in which case I only replied to him because I wanted to use that Jesus line. :)
You could argue that people that are gobbling up firearms and ammo aren't thinking clearly or logically.
Well, we're thinking "hm, there's a bill before Congress to ban these guns but let existing owners keep them. If I ever want to own one, I'd better buy it now".
I guess you *could* argue that's unclear and irrational thinking. Just not convincingly.
Actually, I fibbed a little in that first paragraph. What we're really thinking is "how can the entire United States be sold out of rifles, accessories, and ammunition? Truly Barack Obama is the greatest gun salesman in the history of the world". :)
Erika said...
Garage, you are missing the point that she's qualified to discuss how it feels to be a crime victim, but that status does not confer special insight into gun policy. If anything she's going to think less clearly and logically about what ought or ought not be done about guns.
We are getting more and more of that. NOt just the victim with absolute moral authority that NO ONE DARES criticize since they have Suffered So Much!!
More than that. The companion notion that Victimhood gives the victim absolute intellectual clarity on the problems and solutions needed to solve the Terrible Tragedy from recurring. 911 Victims trotted out as experts on skyscraper constrution fixes, why John Kerry had to be the next President, why every plane needed armed police on them....
It is good that this liberal and progressive jewish formulated media construct of victims, moral authority, special wisdom from victimhood and emotional blackmail against any that criticize the Puppetteers manipulating the Cindy Sheehans and Gabbys - arrived fairly recently.
Otherwise the victims of the McDonalds and Lubys Cafeteria shootings or the "Sainted Victims Families" would be absolute experts on not just the shootings, but all matters related to fast food and future fast food policy and future use of "the hallowed ground".
Hey, if we wanted to know if Gabby was there, just disabled in her ability to express herself, there's always the Christopher Pike solution. Give her a buzzer, one buzz for yes, two for no, and start by asking her questions like "was your mother's maiden name Sullivan?" or "Is the current President's name Bush?" After ten or so questions we'd know if the person sitting there was capable of real-time coherence.
I fell sorry for the Congresswoman. But I smell a lot of rats.
The only gun policy issue Giffords has illuminated is whether she should still be allowed to own a gun.
Maybe the people are rational, they've seen the takings happen in Britain and around the world, first the guns, then the right to defend yourself and finally free speech. Who the fuck do news anchors and professors think is going to defend their fucking right to free speech in the end, lawyers?
Gifford is a dumb stupid bitch. Fuck her and her weenie husband.
It is good that this liberal and progressive jewish formulated media construct of victims
Apologize to GWPDA.
Rev,
"Jesus was tortured to death by his government. Draw from that what lessons you will. :) "
Wow, for an atheist you sure can preach! :-)
Inga,
"It's her sentiment that matters", how???
If you mean, her sentiment matters to our feelings of sympathy for her, of course.
If you mean, it somehow privileges her ideas on what (if anything!) to do over the opinions of anyone else, then no, no--a thousand times no.
Godfather,
Yes, I noticed the fine quality of the handwriting, too.
So none of the leftists are disgusted by people taking advantage of a victim to take away rights from law abiding citizens? This is really a have you no shame moment. Why can't you win based on the strength of your arguments rather than resorting to sock puppetry?
And who just created a false flag poster named Right is right? To comment on this story in that fashion? Irony!
"It will be hard. But the time is now. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you" - Like and share Gabby Giffords' handwritten testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee on gun violence. Join her and Mark Kelly by texting SOLUTIONS to 90975
---------
The above is from Americans for Responsible Solutions Facebook page. This organization is Giffords' and Kelley's organization
Why did they use the term "handwritten" at all? What could it possibly mean they meant handwritten in a "general" sense?
Obviously it was important for them to create the idea Giffords had written them. Why the little lie?
"I'm saying that someone that gets shot in the head gets to comment about it."
-- Have we had any of the hundreds of women who keep themselves from being raped thanks to defensive use of firearms paraded in front of Congress?
Althouse said it tugged heart strings, and women vote.
I like to think women are as capable of rational thought as men are.
Insert joke here. :)
Women can do rational thought but don't give it the last word.
Their originial feeling gets the last word.
garage mahal said...
If anything she's going to think less clearly and logically about what ought or ought not be done about guns.
You could argue that people that are gobbling up firearms and ammo aren't thinking clearly or logically.
Or you could call it insurance. You have insurance, don't you?
Isn't insurance rational?
Okay fine, if the hand printed note was used as propaganda then it's wrong. Until it's proven those aren't her words, I won't assume they are not, that would be wrong also.
We know, for a fact, she did not write them. There is zero evidence that they are her words.
Apparently the only thing that's REALLY important is the Sacred Second Amendment protecting our "God Given" rights to have any damned weapon we want.
Yup, basically. My rights trump the childish caterwauling of fascists who wish to suppress them.
Apparently the only thing that's REALLY important is the Sacred Second Amendment protecting our "God Given" rights to have any damned weapon we want.
Changed your mind since yesterday about the impossibility about knowing what's in someone else's head? (Neil Heslin was apparently pausing in expectation of a response.)
Althouse said it tugged heart strings, and women vote.
And, I ask, is this any way to make policy?
As I pointed out above, they are using Giffords, disabled through handgun violence to push legislation aimed at controlling primarily semiautomatic rifles, which turn out to kill many fewer people every year than many other things, including swimming pools, automobiles, handguns, medical malpractice, etc. If she were testifying about handgun legislation, at least she was injured by a handgun. But, this is ridiculous.
And, I think that if the new "assault weapon" ban is enacted, as being pushed by many of the Dems in the Senate, that people are going to die as a result. No, the alternatives are not as good. They are trying to push the American public back 50 years in gun technology, and some of the guns being banned are useful for home defense. And, the ability to quickly eject a magazine and easily check to make sure that a gun is unloaded is a feature that also saves lives.
It just drives me crazy that they get away with legislating through emotional appeals. No facts or logic - just heart tugging emotion. And, the proposed legislation doesn't have a sunset, so we would be locking our great grandchildren into 1950s era gun technology, all because Giffords was shot by a handgun not touched by the proposed ban.
But, of course, if these Senators were driven by logic and facts, they would probably be Republicans, and not Democrats.
Apparently the only thing that's REALLY important is the Sacred Second Amendment protecting our "God Given" rights to have any damned weapon we want.
Of course, this is over the top silly. No one is suggesting private ownership of, for example, artillery, despite the seizure of such being part of the reason that the colonists initially revolted, and, thus, clearly in in the minds of the drafters of the 2nd Amdt. Or, really, select-fire weapons such as M-16s and other machine guns, long highly restricted by the 1934 NFA.
But, the proposed "Assault Weapons" ban would probably be better termed the "Modern Semiautomatic Long Gun" ban, because that is essentially what it is aimed at doing - driving American civilians back to 1950s and earlier gun technology. Why should American civilians be allowed to own modern semiautomatic rifles? Rifles with technology less than 50 years old? Obviously, the "militia" clause, combined with the Miller decision. But, why not? The newer technology guns are safer and are likely to kill fewer innocents through mistakes, while killing or wounding more bad guys intent on doing harm.
"Blessed are those who shoot first and ask questions later, for they'll help reduce the excess population!"
Indeed. Dude.
The entire act is brought to you by the authors of "Fast and Furious."
I find that even talk radio has now bought the myth that Sandra Fluke "testified before Congress" and that she was "invited to testify." That event where she made her statements about birth control was a PRESS CONFERENCE staged by Nancy Pelosi who was not the Speaker and there was no official hearing.
We'll see that soon it will not matter who wrote the words for Gifford. The narrative has been established and facts are only a minor annoyance. The sad part is that mental health, a real national crisis, is ignored even though Gifford's shooting was a random act by a psychotic. He didn't know her.
You mean it was all a bullshit propaganda political theater stunt.
Yea I knew that. It is the Democrats stock in trade.
"Blogger garage mahal said...
If anything she's going to think less clearly and logically about what ought or ought not be done about guns.
You could argue that people that are gobbling up firearms and ammo aren't thinking clearly or logically. "
Actually, it is very rational. Everyone but you expects a real push to ban weapons and even confiscate them. Senator Manchin asked a group of his state voters how many expected an attempt to confiscate handguns. Half the group raised their hands. You may think that is irrational but deep down that is what you would like to see.
The San Diego police chief said this week that he thinks "we could disarm the population in ten years." Cuomo is trying to bring about confiscation, not just a ban. That's why the NRA is now against a national registry.
I don't think the left can pull it off but they will try if Obama gets another Supreme Court nominee and the House goes left next year.
Emotional manipulation grosses me out and automatically makes me suspicious of and resistant to the ideas of whoever is using it. It doesn't matter if it's a liberal, a conservative or anyone in between or beyond. If you attempt to manipulate me with melodrama, especially in pursuit of power, you've automatically lost me. -Palladian
This ^^^. times 1000
It isn't the use of heartstring tugging propaganda, in and of itself.
It is the use of it to advocate the subversion of a Constitutional Right coming from people that swore an oath to uphold and defend that right.
Their goal isn't just "common sense gun laws".
Their goal is to ban the private ownership of firearms, period, and it has been their stated goal for around 40-50 years and they have openly advocated an incremental approach to getting it done. They started with handgun bans in cities and got their Federal long gun ban back in the 90s when Bill Clinton signed it. They tried to renew it when it expired.
They are a pack of opportunistic liars trying to subvert the Constitution and they need to be mocked and called out on it every day, no matter what sympathy bullshit they try to play to shield themselves from criticism. "Ooooooh poooor Gabby", ya well fuck them neo-Commie gun banning assholes and fuck you if you support their subversion. We shot and tarred and feathered alot of Brits that thought they could ban military grade firearms and seize them with impugnity. Too bad our own government wants to act like Rulers instead of Public Servants.
McTriumph said...
Maybe the people are rational, they've seen the takings happen in Britain and around the world, first the guns, then the right to defend yourself and finally free speech.
I think we're unique in America in that generally we do not have a presumptive "duty to retreat" that all nations with blood-lined aristocracy and kingdoms in their history, both east and west, utilized.
You can argue (if a non-lawyer) that the English, or Japanese, folk et al., never started out with a domestic-civil *right of self defense* so the taking of guns was easier.
The purpose, in my opinion, of the American anti-gun movement is to first remove the right to defend yourself. Removing the means then follows on easily.
It should be interesting and informative to examine the history of Australia on this topic. Australia draws its culture base from British traditions.
SGT Ted said...
Excerpted: Their goal is to ban the private ownership of firearms, period, ... and they have openly advocated an incremental approach ... They are a pack of opportunistic liars trying to subvert the Constitution ... Too bad our own government wants to act like Rulers instead of Public Servants.
Said better than I did. Thanks.
Michael K said...
We'll see that soon it will not matter who wrote the words for Gifford. The narrative has been established ...
Exactly. In other recently famous words, **at this point, what does it matter?**
Bruce Hayden -
"The newer technology guns are safer and are likely to kill fewer innocents through mistakes, while killing or wounding more school kids or political events or bad guys intent on doing harm when used deliberately."
Just fixed Haydens comment with a little editing to help remind folks what the debate is about. Same lethal firepower useful in killing loads of bad guys in also quite useful at killing loads of good people when put in bad peoples hands.
If those were Giffords words, why does it matter who PRINTED the words?
Ah, sophisticated, postmodern sophistry. Truth is unknowable, eh, Inga, so what difference does it make?
The perfect leftist testimony.
Devoid of any facts, substance or analysis.
100% emotional con.
Cedarford ... do you really think the debate is about guns and what kinds are acceptable?
If so, how does our government explain Fast & Furious why it knowingly placed certain guns in bad people's hands and directed civilians to break federal law and state law to enable their plan. In short, what good are laws if not enforced, and worse officially broken?
The answer for our new autocracy is simple enough: remove the guns and gun control is no longer a concern. Next, we can enjoy an enforced duty to retreat as well.
I'm rather pleased that the task will be a objective too far ... and yes, that there still is a potential for reactionary violence if the government becomes too oppressive.
You know when a government is heading that way by how often it tells you who is oppressed and why they must therefore restrict all rights a bit more.
It's almost like this is all just theater.
I have no comment about gun control. I have a comment about foisting Giffords out as an advocate. Nothing satirizes the pure silliness of Gifford's holding any objectivity than the below sketch from Mitchell and Webb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98CWbGG2DJ0
Inga:
It's her sentiment that matters.
Libtards thinking stupid shit like this is what's wrong with this country.
Isn't this just an obvious trap? Wounded woman heroically battling a brain injury makes childlike speech. Doesn't the Left want Republicans to say something stupid and attack this poor woman cementing their reputation as the insensitive party. Shouldn't we all watch what we say to carefully avoid it. I guess some people just can't help themselves.
Hey, I have an idea! Let's take a permanently and obviously disabled crime victim, and use her as a tethered goat!!!!
Remember, fellow dems.. we're the party that cares!
Strelnikov said...
It's almost like this is all just theater.
That is because it IS theater, no *almost* about it. The same thing is runner in theater-2 regarding *immigration reform*. The ous and ahs are almost palpable.
Jason said ...
Let's take a permanently and obviously disabled crime victim, and use her as a tethered goat!!!!
Perfect analogy.
"Caring" is hard!
I think you're missing the point.
This post is the result of getting up at 10 am, and reading and commenting down from the top.
Many neighborhoods in the city of Chicago are being held captive by a de facto Army of Occupation. The majority of the decent law-abiding citizens are out-gunned by this Army, and although they outnumber them, they are able to do nothing about it. Hadiya Pendelton and Heaven Sutton are shot dead and nothing happens but more cries to tighten gun laws.
Now indulge me in a Gedankenexperiment. Imagine a street in the worst part of town on a Spring evening, with folks sitting on their porches or stoops, socializing and enjoying the evening breeze. No one is brandishing or waving any weapon, but on every porch there is an AR-15 or M1911 within easy reach. The first time the gang-bangers showed up, things got ugly. Very ugly. Twenty rifles beat a half dozen pistols any day of the week. The gang-bangers hadn't had it explained to them that way before, but after the initial confrontation they left that street alone.
The point I am getting to is that the men and women on those porches are a perfect example of a well-ordered militia.
'Let her die!!!!'
Cruelty and Sickness aren't just a Right-Wing talking point it's a Vision.
"No Wyo Sis, I DO need proof, proof that she those are not her thoughts."
No, the burden of proof is on the people propounding this sentiment posing as evidence, as well as on the obsessive gun grabbers.
They've already lied by calling it Gifford's handwriting. They've already propped her up on TV and put words in her mouth. They've already repeatedly lied and misled about gun statistics. They are emotional to the point of hysteria when challenged. They've already failed to enforce the laws that are already on the books. (See, California, where the government has the right to take guns from felons and crazies but has a 20,000 person backlog on doing so.) They've already repeatedly exploited tragedy, other peoples' deaths and injuries, including but not limited to the injury to Giffords and the deaths of children in Connecticut, to push a political agenda. They've already failed for years to address the real problem, the mentally ill.
Amartel said ...
They are emotional to the point of hysteria when challenged.
That IS the *tell* for almost any liar ... whether it's about Gifford testifying or Hillary pounding a desk demanding "what difference does it make now?"
Grung_e_Gene said...
'Let her die!!!!'
Cruelty and Sickness aren't just a Right-Wing talking point it's a Vision.
Why does YOU saying 'Let her die' reflect on the right-wing? Are your arms tired from beating that straw man?
The facts are that the note is used in fraudulent propaganda. A reasonable person would be intelligent enough to accept that this casts doubt upon the entire event. And the burden of proof for justification of the Democrat's actions are entirely upon them. Because they have demonstrated themselves to be scumbags.
No one needs to "disprove" her words. It is now up to them to prove that she hasn't been used like a sock puppet. It is what happens when you argue in bad faith.
"That IS the *tell* for almost any liar ... whether it's about Gifford testifying or Hillary pounding a desk demanding "what difference does it make now?"
Yes, because all the screaming and crying distracts the listener from all the bullshit and lying.
Things about the handwritten note:
-the handwriting is very childish, like someone tried to make it seem to be written by a mentally impaired person. Or maybe the therapist just has childish handwriting. Either is possible.
-the "thank you" is in different handwriting. The first "thank you" is crossed out and replaced by one in different writing. Maybe Gifford wrote the second "thank you."
Bruce Hayden said...
And, I think that if the new "assault weapon" ban is enacted, as being pushed by many of the Dems in the Senate, that people are going to die as a result. No, the alternatives are not as good. They are trying to push the American public back 50 years in gun technology, and some of the guns being banned are useful for home defense. And, the ability to quickly eject a magazine and easily check to make sure that a gun is unloaded is a feature that also saves lives.
Problem is, none of this is about saving lives. It is about controlling lives. Always has been, always will be.
I'm sorry that Gabriel Giffords was shot in the head by a psychotic nutjob, but the letter looks like it was written by a child and the 'We must do something..." disease is impregnated within it. It's all preposterous.
Again, I'm waiting for anyone to tell us if he/she would witness GG's Will if she was reading the usual Will "mantra" in this fashion in front of him/her.
And, riddle me this: if his/her grandma in GG's state had executed a Will leaving the family fortune to her new health aide, whether he/she wouldn't cry foul & sue the aide.
The unsavory tactic behind this whole charade has a long precedent in American politics, dating back to Reconstruction. If I recall my high school American History, it is called "waving the bloody shirt."
It turns out that the "handwritten note" is a fraud and all Garage Mahal can do is try to double down on the "how dare you?" nonsense.
Typical.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा