This should make for a great poster!

On Monday, during their first stop in Las Vegas, Giffords and Kelly, who pride themselves as gun owners and proponents of the Second Amendment, went to a gun range and shot - the first time the former congresswoman had done so since she was gravely wounded in her hometown of Tucson, Arizona in January of 2011. Giffords and Kelly also met with local leaders at the Latin Chamber of Commerce.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/02/giffords-shoots-gun-during-tour-to-promote-background-checks/

And what do you think of the background checks she is advocating?

Idéfix wrote:And what do you think of the background checks she is advocating?

I was never against keeping the mentally ill from owning guns. I am against  expanding "background checks" to the extent where you make it extremely difficult for law abiding citizens to own firearms, while the criminals can easily circumvent those laws. Any law is only as good as its enforcement. Something as simple as texting while driving or using handheld phones is so openly flouted( even more so in cars that come with built in Bluetooth), you think more criminals won't flout gun laws?

So, are you for or against the background checks that she advocates?

Idéfix wrote:So, are you for or against the background checks that she advocates?

Ha ha ha! Is this like a "If you are not with us, you are against us" type of question that you liberals so liked to mock? I am against that kind of far reaching checks. (In case you have not read what I already said above)

It was a simple question. Are you for or against what she proposes. I wonder why that felt like pulling teeth.

BTW, if you are not with us you are against us is not a question.

Idéfix wrote:BTW, if you are not with us you are against us is not a question.

OK. If you want to get technical "Are you with us? If not, you are against us." If you liberals had your way, only criminals would carry guns in America.

You are wrong about my views on guns.

Idéfix wrote:You are wrong about my views on guns.

Please educate us on your views on guns.

I have said this before, including on threads you participated in. This may not stop you from misrepresenting my view in future, but here it is anyway. 

I think the sale and possession of guns needs to be regulated by the government, and such regulation should be based on the type of weapon, not one-size-fits-all-weapons. 

Handguns and manual-loading rifles and shotguns should be legal for people to buy after a background check. The background check should flag anyone with a history of criminal convictions, or anyone diagnosed with a mental illness. 

People should be able to buy semi-automatic weapons, after a waiting period of a few days and a stringent background check. 

It should be illegal for anyone other than law enforcement and the military to buy or possess any automatic weapon that is capable of discharging more than one round per trigger pull. Manufacturers of such weapons should be subject to the same regulatory and export controls that apply to military equipment. The same restrictions should apply to high-capacity magazines. 

My view is fully consistent with the Second Amendment. The amendment clearly states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It is therefore not just permissible, but in fact necessary for the government to regulate the sale and possession of guns. It is also consistent with the legitimate interests of gun enthusiasts who want to use their weapons for self-defense and sport. The only groups that it inconveniences are the firearms industry and criminals. 

I also believe that the state has a plausible civil claim against weapons manufacturers, like the state has a claim against tobacco companies. This claim arises from the thousands of gun deaths each year and the consequent loss of economic output. Government should therefore compel the firearms industry to set aside a fraction of profits for educating gun owners in the safe operation of their weapons, much like tobacco settlement money is used for smoking prevention campaigns. 

So, if we liberals had our way, millions of law-abiding Americans would continue to own guns, many of them would undergo voluntary and free safety training paid for by the firearms industry, and thousands of American lives that are now lost to gun violence each year would be saved.

We know, as always, that no one law could prevent a shooting like this. But we also know that we must acknowledge a problem: an unacceptable rate of gun violence in this country. And we must acknowledge that a deadly problem like this brings a responsibility to find solutions. And that’s where we, as a nation, will need courage in abundance, as my former colleagues find the strength to recover from their wounds — and the bravery to try to make shootings like this one less likely in the future.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/06/15/gabrielle-giffords-congress-did-nothing-when-i-was-shot-lawmakers-need-courage-now/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_giffords-pe-8am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6cfc77f311ae#comments

We have a flip-flopper here

Idéfix wrote:I have said this before, including on threads you participated in. This may not stop you from misrepresenting my view in future, but here it is anyway. 

I think the sale and possession of guns needs to be regulated by the government, and such regulation should be based on the type of weapon, not one-size-fits-all-weapons. 

Handguns and manual-loading rifles and shotguns should be legal for people to buy after a background check. The background check should flag anyone with a history of criminal convictions, or anyone diagnosed with a mental illness. 

People should be able to buy semi-automatic weapons, after a waiting period of a few days and a stringent background check. 

It should be illegal for anyone other than law enforcement and the military to buy or possess any automatic weapon that is capable of discharging more than one round per trigger pull. Manufacturers of such weapons should be subject to the same regulatory and export controls that apply to military equipment. The same restrictions should apply to high-capacity magazines. 

My view is fully consistent with the Second Amendment. The amendment clearly states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It is therefore not just permissible, but in fact necessary for the government to regulate the sale and possession of guns. It is also consistent with the legitimate interests of gun enthusiasts who want to use their weapons for self-defense and sport. The only groups that it inconveniences are the firearms industry and criminals. 

I also believe that the state has a plausible civil claim against weapons manufacturers, like the state has a claim against tobacco companies. This claim arises from the thousands of gun deaths each year and the consequent loss of economic output. Government should therefore compel the firearms industry to set aside a fraction of profits for educating gun owners in the safe operation of their weapons, much like tobacco settlement money is used for smoking prevention campaigns. 

So, if we liberals had our way, millions of law-abiding Americans would continue to own guns, many of them would undergo voluntary and free safety training paid for by the firearms industry, and thousands of American lives that are now lost to gun violence each year would be saved.

That's a blast from the past!