By Henry Decker

WATCH: Gabrielle Giffords Stars In New Gun Control Ad

February 11, 2013 1:22 pm Category: Memo Pad 11 Comments A+ / A-

Americans for Responsible Solutions, the new Super PAC led by former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly, has released a new ad lobbying for gun control in advance of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.

Giffords, whose speech is still affected after being shot in the head during a 2011 mass shooting, narrates the 30-second spot:

“We have a problem — where we shop, where we pray, where our children go to school,” Giffords says over images of memorials from the Tuscon, Oak Creek, and Newtown shootings.

“But there are solutions we can agree on; even gun owners like us,” she continues as onscreen text reminds viewers that “9 out of 10 Americans support universal background checks.”

“Take it from me: Congress must act,” Giffords concludes, on camera with her husband. “Let’s get this done.”

The ad will air in the Washington, D.C. media market on Tuesday night, coinciding with the State of the Union address. President Obama is expected to use his speech to pressure Congress to pass his proposed gun safety measures; Giffords will be one of more than 20 survivors of gun violence in attendance.

WATCH: Gabrielle Giffords Stars In New Gun Control Ad Reviewed by on . Americans for Responsible Solutions, the new Super PAC led by former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly, has released a new ad Americans for Responsible Solutions, the new Super PAC led by former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly, has released a new ad Rating:

More by Henry Decker

Another Republican Gives Up Obamacare Fight

Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania is the latest Republican to retreat from the Obamacare wars. On Thursday, the federal government approved Governor Corbett’s plan to expand Medicaid in the Keystone State, making it the 27th state in the nation to adopt the controversial provision of the Affordable Care Act. Corbett had initially opposed expanding Medicaid

Read more...

This Week In Crazy: ‘Dr. Chaps’ Ruins The Ice Bucket Challenge, And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five: 5. Kimberly Guilfoyle Like many Americans, the hosts of Fox News’ The Five are concerned about ISIS’ violent rampage across the Middle East. Unlike any

Read more...

The Tape Doesn’t Lie: Mitch McConnell Is Serious About Another Shutdown

One week ago, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) gave an interview vowing that a Republican Senate majority would attach partisan riders to spending bills in an effort to blackmail President Obama into rolling back his agenda — a tactic that would almost certainly lead to another government shutdown — his campaign tried to walk

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Myers/100001512942781 Jim Myers

    If you have never encountered Road Rage.

    If you have never encountered a heated argument between friends, family members, co-workers or even complete strangers.

    THEN I CAN UNDERSTAND THE OUTRAGE OVER THE CONCEPT OF GUN CONTROL.

    However, if you have ever seen any of these take place, you should have the mental capacity to understand that nearly EVERYONE is capable of doing things that under normal conditions would NOT seem rational.

    Where do we draw the line?

    I have no problem with hunting rifles, shotguns, or even revolvers.

    I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, SEMI-AUTOMATIC HANDGUNS AND RIFLES, AND HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES IN THE HANDS OF THE GENERAL POPULACE.

    They are designed to MAIM AND KILL THE LARGEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE in the shortest amount of time.

    And the targets are becoming, more increasingly, INNOCENT CHILDREN.

    WHEN IS THAT MORE ACCEPTABLE THAN LIMITING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO MILITARY AND POLICE USE?

    Why is there so much debate over limiting semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles, 30 round, (or more), magazines, etc.

    SURELY THE LIVES OF INNOCENT CHILDREN MUST HAVE SOME VALUE IN OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/bob.brindell.7 Bob Brindell

      This id the same post from the other day. Not an original thought!

      Innocent children are our most valuable commodity. They must be protected. Get guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, rid the streets of pedifiles and preditors. Eliminate all the sickos who harm innocent children and the reat will take care of itself.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Myers/100001512942781 Jim Myers

        Replying to Bob Brindell -

        I agree with you – background checks are a primary initiative that MUST be a first line of defense. And, yes I did read the article.

        The comments I made are a conglomeration of a few of my previous comments.

        However, I stand by my statements. Even mild mannered people who easily pass a background check can slide down the rabbit hole of insanity with enough provocation. There is no test that can predict who that will be.

        And, yes, they could become killers under the wrong conditions. However, being limited to a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun will make the slaughter of dozens of people less likely than if they have semi-automatic rifles and handguns with high capacity magazines at their disposal.

        We will NEVER eliminate the sickos. But we CAN limit the amount of damage they do.

    • DEFENDER88

      You draw the line at not shooting anyone who is not attacking you.
      But if I am attacked, especially with a gun then I reserve the basic right to respond with equal or even greater force in self defense.

      Yes there are things that CAN be done to limit and perhaps stop the killing.

      That is the objective is it not? Stop the killing.

      In sum – 2 solutions that will go a long way toward working:
      1) Provide Adequate Armed security in all Gun Free Zones.
      2) ID and constrain young people(young men especially) who are put on these new anti-depressants then kill their parents then head to school, church, mall, theater, etc. Prozac(Virginia Tech), Effexer(Columbine), Zoloft, Ritalin, Livox, etc

      But banning Assault Rifles, magazine size and other Semi-Auto guns is NOT a workable solution.
      In fact it will have no effect, we have tried that and it has been shown to not work.
      Einstein defines it as insanity.
      “Trying the same thing over and over, that does not work, and expecting a different result”.

      Maybe we should ban all cars that can go over 50mph – that would save the lives of thousands of teenagers every year.
      Do you ban the car – no – you establish rules, provide licensing and training/testing, take actions to prevent the behavior, punish violators, etc.

      Surely no-one in this country needs a car that will go over 70mph.
      Lets ban them also as a danger to society.

      You seem to want to blindly ban guns so you can feel good about having done something without regard for what might actually work to limit or stop the killing. Not to mention studying the causes of the killings and why now and not 20yr ago.

      Is that what this is all about, you gun ban people feeling good about yourselves for doing something even if it does not work?

      I thought this was about doing things that will actually save lives.

      How about analyzing the problems then developing solutions that will actually work?
      What things have changed in this country to cause this? It was not like this 15yr or so ago.
      Hint – Before Gun Free Killing Zones with no security and young men on designer drugs.
      Lots of assault rifles have always been around.

      Banning assault rifles will have no effect on stopping the mass murders but will make instant criminals out of millions of good people in this country. While the criminals will still have theirs. 1/2 the trucks, and homes in the Mid-West, South and South East have an assault rifle in them for personal defense. Also rifles, of all kinds, are a tiny fraction of gun crimes in the US.
      So a ban on Assault Rifles, even if effective, would have very little effect on overall gun crime.
      Also banning drugs sure has worked well. Same way the ban on liquor worked.
      I expect a gun ban would work about the same.

      This is too important an issue to just throw crap at the wall and see if it sticks, ie “hit and hope”.

      I dont just “hope” providing Armed Security in Gun Free Zones will work, I “know” it will, it already has. But it is not “news”.
      It has proved to work. It is not 100%, nothing will be, but better then what is not working now.

      • http://www.facebook.com/bob.brindell.7 Bob Brindell

        Your well thought out reasonable approach is unaccepetable to the anti gun zellots be cause it is a well thought out reasonable approach that would stop the killing or at lease prevent must. They do not want a solution that works, they want all guns gone.

        • DEFENDER88

          Thanks.

          I know, but maybe we can cause a few who are just confused to actually start to think.

          I think the worst comment I saw was some poor young girl who said:
          “We should just do away with all guns then no one will need them.”
          Poor thing.

          A logical, reasoned study of the causes and thus leading to sensible solutions does not fit their true agenda of disarming us all.

          They are afraid to even see a picture of a gun. And they call “us” paranoid.

          That is to try to deflect the discussion to me and my character because they cannot refute my arguments no offer any real solutions.

          I get the feeling many live in gated, protected areas or colleges and have no concept of the fundamental right of “SELF defense”, forget the 2nd Amendment.

          Sure are a lot of arrogant, sanctimonious, self-righteous libs in here.

          They attack us because they cant forward solutions that will actually work – of course that does not fit their agenda.

          And that is why the NRA opposes Fed Level”Universal” Background checks – the next step to a Fed Register of gun owners and 1 step away from confiscation.

          We could compromise on a set of Fed standards run by the states but I dont see any compromising from these people.

          Early on, and even now they said/say “no-one is after your guns” then they scream for bans on assault rifles – liars.

          And the new proposed Feinstein Bill(To reinstall assault weapons ban) now being debated has a confiscation component in it.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Myers/100001512942781 Jim Myers

          Replying to Bob Brindell -

          If you have read any of my previous messages and responses, you should already know that I do not have a problem with revolvers, hunting rifles and shotguns.

          In the event I never made myself clear, I do not propose banning these specific items. ONLY fully automatic rifles, semi-automatic rifles and handguns, and high capacity magazines.

          Even President Reagan wanted them banned. Apparently he was also an anti gun zealot.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Myers/100001512942781 Jim Myers

        Replying to DEFENDER88 -

        Your analogy about cars does not hold water. The primary purpose of a car is transportation. When used irresponsibly, a car can easily kill or maim several people.

        The primary purpose of a fully automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or a semi-automatic hand gun, combined with high capacity magazines is to EFFICIENTLY Kill OR MAIM the greatest number of people in the shortest amount if time.

        When these devices are used AS THEY ARE INTENDED, they cause massive damage to the bodies of the victims, often resulting in death or severe trauma.

        Any other purpose is secondary to the primary purpose.

        • DEFENDER88

          Then I refer you back to my first statement.
          “You draw the line at not shooting anyone who is not attacking you.”

          I would argue that Assault rifles are also intended and used for DEFENSE. And if I am facing one I want one for defense.

          I think you are a good person and I actually share your well intended concerns about the killings but want solutions that will actually work and not leave law abiding people like me defensless.

          But I think your solutions, while well intended, are mis-guided and just will not work here.

          The horse is already out of the barn on this and the country is already awash with them(Assault Rifles).

          But even so -Assault rifles account for a small fraction of the killing. And a previous ban was shown to have no effect.

          And workable solutions like Armed Security in Gun Free Zones and control of people on drugs(especially young men) “will” have an immediate and sure limiting effect to limit or stop the killing.

          That is the objective is it not? Stop the killing.

          My assault rifle is not a danger to anyone who is not attacking me.
          It is “always” secure.

          I dont especially like them but I anticipate in the future to have to fight off a gang or two again. Call me paranoid if you want but I have been shot at enough to have earned it.

          The gangs have them and are not going to give them up even with a ban.

          A ban will create a black market worse than even the drug market.
          I think it will actually make things worse.
          People want the same firepower the gangs have. Have you not seen the mad rush to buy Assault Rifles since the ban talk started.
          Or do you think everyone else except you is just stupid?
          Not eveyone lives with the security that you seem to have.
          Also many feel the US is going to go thru a period of major civil unrest in the not too distant future.

          A ban will likely just take mine(since I abide by the law-Permitted, FBI Checked, Well Trained, etc) and leave me vulnerable until I can find one on the black market like everyone else will do.

          But I refuse to be vulnerable and defensless like I was before.

          I also hunt with it.

          And forget the 2nd Amendment – I have a basic fundamental right to defend myself with equal or greater force and it is not up to you to
          decide what I need to do that. The police cannot “Defend” me, nor you unless you live with them. My “Defense” is up to me.

          ps Overall gun violence has been declining for the past several years in the US as permitting has increased.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.campidonica Mark Campidonica

    Universal Background Checks are being pursued because both sides of the gun control debate support them. I would also add appropriate legal penalties (up to and including manslaughter) for those whose improperly secured weapons are stolen and used to comment crimes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bob.brindell.7 Bob Brindell

      You want inforcement of laws already on the books. What a good thought.

scroll to top