• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Gabby Giffords at gun control hearing in Olympia today.

Ranb

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
11,477
Location
WA USA
I attended a House Judiciary Committee hearing this afternoon in Olympia for I-594 (universal bkgd checks in WA), I-591 (gun rights) and HB1561 (change restrictions on short barreled rifles). About ten years ago there was a spat of anti-gun bills scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary, it was the first hearing I ever attended and there were so many in attendance that I had to watch the hearing on a monitor from another room. I signed up to speak but was too far down the list to actually do so. This hearing had over 200 people show and filled two overflow rooms so people could watch.

Open carry is not prohibited in WA, including some parts of the Capitol Campus. There were several people one carrying; I noticed two men with long guns on their chest, one a bolt rifle and the other an AR-15. Both looked like poorly dressed dorks. One old man chastised the bolt gun holder for carrying with a closed bolt; the owner opened it. When the man with the bolt gun was allowed into the hearing room, one of the security guards seemed to be cautioning him. I was on the other side of the glass from them but I could only imagine that the man was being told to behave himself. I think a few security guards followed him into the hearing room.

Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelley were the first to speak for I-594. Mark Kelly spoke in length about gun violence in general as well as his wife's shooting injury. He went on to talk about how much support bkgd checks had. Nothing about the registration scheme or potential ban on private sales. He spoke about how I-594 would protect 2nd amendment rights but did not explain how blocking some private sales to non-felons would do so. In other words I thought he was blowing a lot of smoke, for over eight minutes. You can watch the hearing at this link. http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014010151

Gabby Giffords made a brief statement after her husband was finished. Her voice was a bit hesitant and her speech of little substance, an appeal to emotion like most of the I-594 supporters.

Brian Judy representing the NRA also spoke about how the shootings previously mentioned involved shooters who obtained their firearms after passing a bkgd check. Judy did mention the registration scheme inherent in I-594 and went on to question WAGR’s claim that 80% of criminals obtain firearms in private transfers.

While I was waiting in the hallway for my turn to speak during the I-594 hearing, Giffords and her group left the room. She was walking without assistance but favoring her right leg, much like I have difficultly with my ankle at times. I had to admire her recovery from the gunshot injury she received three years ago. It’s hard to imagine surviving such a traumatic injury much less recovering enough to walk and speak at a hearing. I hope she has capacity for more recovery. I caught Mark Kelly’s eye and gave him a nod and smile while others in the hallway cheered for them.

I finally got a chance to speak when HB 1561 was heard. Out of the hundreds of people that showed up for the initiatives, only about a dozen seemed to be there for the short barreled rifle bill. Rather sad in my opinion after two years of encouraging people to support the bill. Turns out I’m just as insignificant as HB 1561. :)

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Sadly, Jared was the only person with a gun that day on the corner and killed 3 people including a child. Sorry someone else did not have a gun to stop the carnage.
 
Sadly, Jared was the only person with a gun that day on the corner
He was not the only person with a gun at the scene that day.

and killed 3 people including a child. Sorry someone else did not have a gun to stop the carnage.
Loughner killed six people; the carnage was stopped when an unarmed man tackled him. Where are you getting your information from?

Ranb
 
Last edited:
He was not the only person with a gun at the scene that day.


Loughner killed six people; the carnage was stopped when an unarmed man tackled him. Where are you getting your information from?

Ranb

OOPS, typo. Begging for forgiveness and a thousand apologies. Mea Culpa - 6 not 3. Sure, cops responding to the scene had guns, but no one did while the active shooting by Jared was going on.
 
Last edited:

This is the dilemma. Two people with guns both have to think very fast. Fortunately, Zamudio made the right call. He very clearly recognises his good fortune. The gun seems to have given him the confidence to act and he was sharp enough and fast enough to realise that he absolutely should not use it.
How many of us would have made the wrong decision?

Other people were brave enough to act while unarmed. They also had more information.

Lets face it- sometimes, an armed man would reduce the carnage in such an event, but unlike in the movies, he is unlikely to have all the information he needs to act. He is just as likely to make things worse.
 
WTF. From that link.

The legislature is considering two bills to expand this right, and as Slate's David Weigel reports, the Arizona Citizens Defense League is preparing legislation that would require the state to offer firearms training to politicians and their staff. The bill is tentatively titled the Giffords-Zimmerman Act in honor of the wounded congresswoman and her slain aide.

:confused:
 
OOPS, typo. Begging for forgiveness and a thousand apologies. Mea Culpa - 6 not 3. Sure, cops responding to the scene had guns, but no one did while the active shooting by Jared was going on.
Except for your apology, the rest of your post was 100% fail. So where are you getting this stuff from and why are you trying to derail the thread?

Ranb
 
Except for your apology, the rest of your post was 100% fail. So where are you getting this stuff from and why are you trying to derail the thread?

Ranb

So who had a gun besides Jared during the shooting?
 
Last edited:
I guess the politicos don't read the Second Amendment all the way through- "...keep and BEAR arms...". It says to me that open carry is also a right, not just having. Especially if one misreads "bare". CC restrictions are infringing too, but that is not today's point.
 
So who had a gun besides Jared during the shooting?
DId you read the link provided below? The one with "armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man" in the url????? You are really woefully ill-informed on the realities of the shooting.
There was someone there with a gun, ready to act, and it was almost a tragedy for two more people and their families. The brave man who disarmed the shooter, and the armed citizen who almost shot an innocent man. Thankfully he didn't.

Daredelvis
 
I guess the politicos don't read the Second Amendment all the way through- "...keep and BEAR arms...". It says to me that open carry is also a right, not just having. Especially if one misreads "bare". CC restrictions are infringing too, but that is not today's point.
As the gun nuts can't seem to read the "A well regulated Militia" part (gun owner != gun nut).

Daredelvis
 
DId you read the link provided below? The one with "armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man" in the url????? You are really woefully ill-informed on the realities of the shooting.
There was someone there with a gun, ready to act, and it was almost a tragedy for two more people and their families. The brave man who disarmed the shooter, and the armed citizen who almost shot an innocent man. Thankfully he didn't.

Daredelvis

Can't discuss without throwing personal insults which definitely shows a lack of ideas and failure to advance the debate on the part of the insulter. GONG!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Can't discuss without throwing personal insults which definitely shows a lack of ideas and failure to advance the debate on the part of the insulter. GONG!!!!!!!!!!
It is not an insult to inform someone (you) that they are in error. Can you show us the sources you used to backup the false claims you made in post #2? This is the third time I've requested that you supply us with the source for your information.

What I find insulting is that you probably expected us to believe the "facts" you posted without having any rational reason to believe them yourself. Each time you fail, it is another attempt at derailing the thread.

Ranb
 
It is not an insult to inform someone (you) that they are in error. Can you show us the sources you used to backup the false claims you made in post #2? This is the third time I've requested that you supply us with the source for your information.

What I find insulting is that you probably expected us to believe the "facts" you posted without having any rational reason to believe them yourself. Each time you fail, it is another attempt at derailing the thread.

Ranb

Another failure to advance the conversation, although TOS does encourage us to attack the post but not the poster. Yes sadly, it was 6 and not typo 3. Yes, a guy came out of a shop into the carnage, but still was not on the corner as the killing of 6 went on that day. No derailing.
I hope that all our sins are so grievous as to make a typo.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, Jared was the only person with a gun that day on the corner and killed 3 people including a child. Sorry someone else did not have a gun to stop the carnage.
This post is factually incorrect on two levels.
OOPS, typo. Begging for forgiveness and a thousand apologies. Mea Culpa - 6 not 3. Sure, cops responding to the scene had guns, but no one did while the active shooting by Jared was going on.
This post doubles down in the previous post's factual incorrectness.
This post tries to set the record strait (with link).
This is the dilemma. Two people with guns both have to think very fast. Fortunately, Zamudio made the right call. He very clearly recognises his good fortune. The gun seems to have given him the confidence to act and he was sharp enough and fast enough to realise that he absolutely should not use it.
How many of us would have made the wrong decision?

Other people were brave enough to act while unarmed. They also had more information.

Lets face it- sometimes, an armed man would reduce the carnage in such an event, but unlike in the movies, he is unlikely to have all the information he needs to act. He is just as likely to make things worse.
This post is a discussion of the evidence provided in the link in the previous post.

Can't discuss without throwing personal insults which definitely shows a lack of ideas and failure to advance the debate on the part of the insulter. GONG!!!!!!!!!!
This post does not seem to address the three times the first two quoted posts above were corrected, but it does have some irrelevant whining.

Another failure to advance the conversation, although TOS does encourage us to attack the post but not the poster. Yes sadly, it was 6 and not typo 3. Yes, a guy came out of a shop into the carnage, but still was not on the corner as the killing of 6 went on that day. No derailing.
This post is totally off of the rails.

If a post contains factually incorrect information on JREF, it will probably be corrected. If additional posts continue to insist that a non-existent version of events is true, move goal posts, and ignore evidence provided in other posts, that post will probably be corrected (again with a notation of how it is factually challenged). If I see it, and it looks like a version of events that only exists in Glenn Beck's mind, I will correct it, and point out that it is factually challenged. That is how it works. That is not a personal attack. While I do have an opinion about how you arrange pixels on the forum, I have no opinion on you as a person one way or the other. Other than your version of events were substantively incorrect (and I'm not talking about the 3 vs. 6 "typo").

Daredelvis
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom