Gun-Owning Gabby Giffords: We Must “Do Something” About Gun Violence

Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on gun violence yesterday. She labored over her words as she called on lawmakers to “do something” about gun violence:

 “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. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Thank you.”

 Gabby Giffords has been a poster child of sorts for gun control ever since she was shot by Jared Loughner 2 years ago at a meeting she was holding with constituents. But she wasn’t the only federal official shot.

There was a federal judge that was not only shot, but killed. Why don’t they call it the “Judge John Roll shooting?” Well, the media claim rather authoritatively that Judge Roll wasn’t actually the target of Loughner. Giffords was. They claim Loughner didn’t even know who John Roll was. I don’t know how the media “just know” these things.

I think they obsess over Giffords because she is a liberal Democrat and a woman. Loughner is a white guy who the media and Anti-Defamation League were able to tie to right-wing, anti-government, conspiracy theorist groups, which is what they do with every white person that is critical of the government. (Never mind the fact that former classmates of Loughner described him as being an “extreme, left-wing radical.”) So, the fact that he shot and killed a federal judge who was considered a conservative just didn’t fit in with their narrative. Therefore, they chose to completely ignore his assassination and instead focus on an injured victim.

But what would Judge John Roll say about Sandy Hook and gun violence if he were alive today? I think he would come out on the side of gun rights because in 1994, he ruled on a case brought forth by Sheriff Richard Mack that challenged the Constitutionality of the Brady Act that had been signed into law a year before by President Clinton. Among other things, this legislation imposed a 5-day waiting period on handgun purchasers and required local law enforcement officials to check prospective buyers’ backgrounds to determine whether they are prohibited from owning guns for reasons ranging from being convicted felons to having mental illness.

In his written opinion, Judge John Roll ruled parts of the Brady bill unconstitutional. He wrote:

“The Court finds that in enacting section 18 U.S.C. 922(s)(2), Congress exceeded its authority under Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution, thereby impermissibly encroaching upon the powers retained by the states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The Court further finds that the provision, in conjunction with the criminal sanctions its violation would engender, is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

So, he stood up for states’ rights in determining their own gun laws and against federal laws that sought to encroach on states’ rights.

Later in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Giffords’ husband spoke and paid lip service to the 2nd Amendment by saying that he and his wife Gabby are gun owners. That’s a little hypocritical, don’t you think? Not just because they’re gun owners and gun grabbers at the same time. But with all the talk about the need for mental health screenings and making sure those with even a history of mental illness are barred from ever owning a firearm, Gabby Giffords owns a gun? She may not be mentally ill per se, but she suffers from brain damage. And isn’t it a little irresponsible for Gabby’s husband to own a gun himself presumably in the same house as his wife? Not only that, but Giffords’ husband Mark Kelly admitted that Gabby “struggles to walk, and she is partially blind.” These people should not be owning guns according to their own rules.

If these politicians really want to “do something,” and they think guns are the problem, they should get rid of their own guns first.



  • Randy Renu

    Where were the police and why did they NOT protect Gabby Giffords? Once again the police show AFTER the crime has been committed to clean up the carnage and capture the bad guy. Gabby learned nothing from her experience. The police did not protect her or the judge at a public meeting and most certainly cannot protect her at home; thus her rationale for having a gun versus a cell phone for self protection. In her current mental and physical condition, I assume even using a cell phone to call for help would be a challenge. I feel sorry for what happened to Gabby, but in her situation having a gun or not would have made no difference one way or the other. Bad people, like the one who shot former President Reagan cannot be stopped, no matter how well they arm their security forces.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Randy Renu...Excellent points, but too rational for the left to comprehend.

    • LittleMoose

      The police had no obligation to protect Gabby Giffords. The Supreme Court ruled that police are not obligated to or have any duty to the victims of criminal acts. The main function of the police department is to arrest criminals and investigate crimes. (Warren
      v. District of Columbia 1981) Why don't we just turn the government over to the crooks? Oh, sorry, we already have.

      • Carlos Ramos

        The main function of the police department is to arrest criminals and investigate crimes. (Warrenv. District of Columbia 1981)

        This being the case, then why the need to arm them and Napolitanos corrupt outfit with the very weapons they are attempting to confiscate from we Citizens? ??

        • Conservativesniper

          I would make the argument that since, by definition, criminals don't follow the law, there already is a high probability that criminals have significant enough firepower to kill cops. An opposing competent point of view would propose that LEO's need to be armed as well to defend themselves from imminent violence, because I'm pretty sure the criminals aren't going to just lay down their weapons and put their hands behind their back in anticipation of being cuffed when confronted by LEO's. Otherwise,.... well, I'll let you do the math, Carlos.

          Why does DHS need to be armed as if they are going into combat? Good question. They do have to follow the law and the Constitution, do they not? I remember a very popular, fairly recent movie that portrayed a time when only the government, military and police had guns. That movie was called Schindler's List.

    • frank907

      According to the supreme court, law enforcement has no duty to protect. Their duty is to investigate, arrest and bring to the court system the perpetrator of a crime. The perp in this case had multiple contacts with law enforcement (a liberal sheriff and dept) that, if handled proerly, would have resulted in an adjudication that he was mentally ill. Current law forbids firearms purchases by the mentally ill and other categories. It could also have resulted in treatment that may have helped him.
      That is not the agenda behind gun control. If it was they would be focusing on traffic deaths, hospital errors, and other categories that kill a lot more people. The agenda is to prevent a 1776 event.

    • jong

      I agree with you IF the person is unknown and the danger is the same as every day. This is not true. What has not been brought out is that Jared and Gabby had a history in that Jared had acted out before with Gabby. Gabby also directly invited Jared to the meeting at the supermarket knowing full well that the guy was a loose gun on deck but, not quite as literally as it turned out. Gabby is a victim of her own liberalism as were a judge and a little girl just to name two. I shed not a tear for the witch for she knew what could happen the others as far as I know did not.

    • RG

      If we provide the mentally ill with needed medical attention, there will certainly be less violence. Loughner's family didn't have the resources to get him the help he needed, and he eventually became a danger to himself and society. Wouldn't it be better to offer public mental health services to prevent this sort of thing from happening?

      Of course, we can just pile them up in prisons after the fact because it's easier to brand them as "evil" after they hurt someone. Never mind the fact that it costs more to house an inmate than to treat a mental health patient.

    • Dara Walker

      Q: IF Gabby Giffords IS actually a gun owner - WHY did she NOT CARRY IT to her public meeting?

      If she HAD, she MIGHT have been able to ACTUALLY SAVE some lives... Just sayin'

      • Conservativesniper

        Maybe she didn't have a concealed carry permit at the time.

    • WhiteFalcon

      Also, it was a private citizen with a concealed carry license that stopped the attack and he did it without using his gun. Police were nowhere to be seen at the time, and her body guards were worthless.

    • pete

      Her ARMED body guards had more responsibility to protect her than the police, and they failed! Had she been personally armed herself instead of depending on them so much, perhaps she could have been a REAL hero and stopped the shooter before he killed her friend the judge and the little girl!

  • Screeminmeeme

    Thanks for the information about Judge Roll. Just shows how the leftist media will suppress information in order to push public opinion in their direction.

    And your argument that Gabbie shouldn't even own a gun is perfectly reasonable. When I heard her husband say that she was a gun-owner, I thought.........She owns a gun? Shouldn't their rules apply to her too?

    Same-o. Same-o.

    • DrSique

      No because, in the Orwellian world that liberals live in, some animals are more equal than others and liberal politicians are the most equal of all.

  • JohnGalt

    Just like the Sandy Hook parents, your personal tragedy Giffords, does NOT confer upon you a moral or wisdom superiorty over the rest of us.

    Not in the Least.

    IF you TRULY want to understand guns as opposed to using heinous crimes to force your political agenda, read John Lott's authoritative works on the subject. The hands down benefits of plentiful guns in the possession of law-abiding, responsible citizens are richly illustrated and supported in his seminal "More Guns, Less Crime".

    This particularly book is widely known as one of the most exhaustively researched and statistically complete books, regardless of topic, EVER in the entire field of human social study.

    Facts, statistics and deep, consummately supported research, VERSUS groundless, overwrought, feminized emotional media noise and politically-oriented lying propaganda.

    You decide.

    • maryannela

      thanks for being so eloquent,

  • ed357

    Gifford's and her husband have nothing to fear and will keep their guns.........

    after all they are government officials and will be exempt from the governmental gun confiscation.


    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

  • Spyder Dalton

    Then go after the pharmaceuticals that are pushing the anti-depressants that these people are on that increase depression and thoughts of suicide!!!!!

  • Burt Fisher

    I'm not interested in her opinions about gun safety. She made a conscious decision to appear in public, presumably thinking that she would be safe. She was wrong. So now what gives her the right to tell me what is, and isn't safe about guns? She had her chance, and she nearly died for her mistake in judgement. So now if she wants to "try something else", there is no reason to believe that she has any idea if this will work better than it did before. Especially this advice coming from someone who is brain damaged, literally. I'm sorry to be so harsh here, but it's time to talk facts, and not lean on emotions or feel sorry for someone. Let's "move on" and try to protect people from getting murdered by this unending stream of psychopathic left-wingers.

    Do we remember why the Gun Control Act of 1968 was made? It was because of some high-profile murders by left-wing / commies, such as Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and whoever shot MLK. None of those were so-called "guns in the street" but instead, assassinations. So why were laws made to get guns off the streets, such as "waiting periods" and "background checks"? Answer: it's not about guns, it's about control.

  • Doc

    When all these gun grabbing democrats give up their guns I will believe they are on the level but they have to give theirs up first. They still won't get mine because I sold all of them. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

  • frank907

    I agree, we must do something about gun violence. How about rolling back the clock to when people who were mentally ill could be involuntarily commited. The man who shot Gabby Giffords had multiple contacts with law enforcement and school officials that should have resulted in an adjudication that would have made him unable to buy a firearm. Laws that punish the law abiding for the crimes of a few insane is insane in itself.
    You can thank the ACLU and liberal judges for the current state of affairs. A ruling that you can't incarcerate someone because they are nuts emptied out the institutions of the mentally ill and made it nearly impossible to to treat them. That is where all the homeless came from.

    • frank907

      By the way, the same sheriff's dept. that flubbed the Gifford's shooter also raided the home of a Marine with swat and shot him dead while serving a search warrent. Why could they not just wait until he was at work and knock on the door? The guy pulled 10 to 12 hour shifts miles away. Police swat tactics are way overused.

      • Spencer Patton

        Do a little Research on the Marine and his family ties and you might understand why the S.O. sent in the swat team.

        • Conservativesniper

          Take your own advice Spencer Patton and do a little research.

          Learn that the Pima County Sheriffs Dept. deputies, who murdered Jose Guerena did not allow him to receive ANY medical attention for over an hour after being shot 22 times. He bled out and died. He was a veteran of Iraq and had done nothing wrong to merit being murdered in his own home by the IDIOTS employed by the Clarence Dupnik. He was honorably discharged from the USMC and was gainfully employed. He was buried with full military honors. It turns out the IDIOTS in the PCSO were at the wrong address. Mrs. Guerena has retained counsel and I hope she gets EVERYTHING she's asking for in her suit. I think she's asking for 9 figures. In my opinion, the sheriffs deputies who disallowed medical attention to Mr. Guerena should be tried for murder among other things. The IDIOT cops were at the wrong address and murdered an innocent man.

          But, why don't you bring us all up to speed to help us understand why the IDIOTS in the PCSO should not be held responsible for their behavior. Include links to verifiable third party sources, because I think you are gullible as hell and therefore have judgement which is suspect.

        • frank907

          I did the research long ago. His family are not saints, but the only thing in the record on the Marine was that he was in a car on a traffic stop and mj was found in the car. He was not detained or arrested. He had no priors and no convictions.He had served honorably in the Corps. A tiny investigation would have shown that he was absent most of the day at work at a mine. Watch him leave for work, observe him arrive at work and radio back to town to do the warrant. Why assault the place where a wife and child are present? That's nuts. I know many fine officers and I know some bad ones as well. The worst are wannabes that want to throw their weight around so that they can feel big. If you know any officers, buy them a cup of coffee and ask them. If they aren't one of the wannabes you will get a straight answer. If they are one of the wannabes they will brag about their exploits.

      • Conservativesniper

        Why didn't the ATF wait until David Koresh was at the local bar on a Friday night and detained and questioned him there instead of the ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC tactic of using a LIVE TV crew to document their approach and 'assault' on the Branch Davidians at their Mt. Carmel compound? That's why the feds got 4 of their own killed that day. The Branch Davidians watched the feds roll up on their location on LIVE TV. Because they are STUPID!! It seems there is very little, if any, forethought put into SWAT ops.

        I agree with you frank907, SWAT personnel are way overused to do law enforcement that can be handled by patrolmen.

    • Hiram Holiday

      Isn't it odd that those who are so concerned about violating the civil rights of the mentally ill have no qualms about violating the civil rights of law abiding citizens.

      • frank907

        Not at all. It is an emotional response and there is nothing reasonable about emotions. Most violence is an emotional act. People who can't control their emotions and act on them are very dangerous. They justify their emotional acts by rationalizing them. Yep, I know it is nutty, but factual. Have coffee with a cop sometime and listen to what they have to deal with. We have many people who are 13 emotionally inhabiting 40 something year old bodies! Unfortunately, they vote!

    • Conservativesniper

      It isn't liberal judges and the ACLU to blame, it is left wing politicians who passed legislation BACK IN THE 1980'S

      • frank907

        Actually, the ACLU and judges are the horse, the legislatures are the cart. They didn't pass any laws until after the court decision. They were making policy based on case law. You got the cart in front of the horse. The pivitol case was Joyce Brown VS New York. (I think, if memory serves, by NYACLU) That set the bar at the level that they have to be a danger to themselves or someone else to be involuntarily commited. That standard is nearly impossible to meet. Then there is denial. Most people don't want to get involved so they don't report.

        • Conservativesniper

          Thanks for the info, Frank.

  • Tells it like it is

    Gun control will not solve the problem. A change in culture and morals will go a long way towards ending violence against the defenseless.

    Violence is not generally a conservative problem. nor is it a general US population problem. The vast majorities of Americans obey the laws. Violence is a 'rat cultural problem. Who conducts the knockout game? Who has flash mobbing of stores? which is more prevailent, white on black violence or black on black violence or black on white/asian/hispanic violence? Look at where the murders and violence are mainly concentrated, In large democrat conclaves. It is long past time for the 'rats and thier low information voters to show some community responsibility, clean up their act and start behaving like adult humans instead of the degenerates they are.

    • Spencer Patton

      When People dont follow God and His directives in their lives there are no absolutes and everyone will do what is right in their own eyes. The Democratic Party voted to exclude God and Israel from its Parties charter. So If you want a Moral Nation then as an Individual Turn back to God and then tell others about him, Lastly start voting for those that do have a real desire for a Judao/Christian Ethic.

  • Breeze13

    I am sorry what happened to Gabby, however, why are these elite gun owners always willing to give up MY rights, but not their own?
    "The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from it's government."
    Thomas Paine

  • Maxwell Friedlander

    Gabby Giffors is coming across as another phony Liberal. She should set an example by giving up her guns.

  • eyemall

    She's a hypocrit........

  • Joel Patti


  • Joel Patti


  • Joel Patti


  • Doodlebug

    I haven't heard the complete GG speech. Did she say guns should be confiscated or was the tone of her speech, "we need to do something." I'm sure that by now, GG knows that the jerk who took lives that day was a deranged s.o.b. I am glad that she done so well with her injury and wish we could bring the others back but, as long as we let the deranged druggies out running on the streets, things won't change. Except if obummer suceeds in banning guns. Then the change will be, the deranged druggies will have guns, we will have none to protect ourself or our family, neighbors etc.

  • Troy Tyler

    Sure this lady is aganist guns if I had been shot I probally have a few words to say to. But there had to be a reason for her being shot..Like it or not and we may never know but there is a reason, something triggered the shooter. Maybe it was her stance on something, but there was a reason.Like the school shooting I read a report about this shooter was at the school the day before. he had a problem with someone at the school.(true or false I don't know).The media has messed the facts up on this shooting.Have we got the real truth?But there was still something that triggered him..There is always something or someone that is a trigger...I'm not an expert but I still think something or someone triggered this drug head to do what he done, the ideal was planted in his mind someway, shape or form..It's hard to image that someone wakes up one morning and decides to kill a bunch of kids..Besides this guy planned this he tried to buy guns and ammo.The day before.This was not a spur of the moment thing

  • ste1021

    Need help with your liberal cause? Drag Giffords before the press and get the sympathy vote. Good grief!

  • maryannela

    If she had her gun with her that day, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think women should empower themselves and be able to protect themselves. I can't understand she and her husband, they now want to head an organization to deal with our 2nd amendment rights and they want to raise $20 million, that should help them both, the citizens of this country that believe in the 2nd amendment and are law abiding, no so much. She is liberal, pure and simple, that d idn't change before the incident or after.

  • BrassRing

    Let's see; she used to be pro-gun. Now that she has brain damage, she isn't.

    Sounds about right.

  • freedomringsforall


  • Spencer Patton

    Miss Giffords is just like Jim Brady and is being exploited by the Liberals around her to futher their cause. What is Equally disheartening is her Husbands inability to see this and joining the cause and not Protecting Her the way he should. It is understandable that this incident has been catastrophic to them personally but to allow it to sway them to join in the Attempt to destroy the country they Love is unbelivable and wrong.

  • loverofcats

    That's right Gabby - too many children being killed - by abortion every 93 seconds!

  • camdenme2

    Poor Gabby,too much of the koolaid !!!

  • caskinner

    The left are always exempt from the laws. Being a liberal and a hypocrite are one in the same.

  • TXLady706 TXLady706

    Gabby was shot in the head. That disqualifies her FAMILY from owning a gun (keeping one in the house.) I feel sorry for her, but if they want to go down this path, then they should be the first to bite the bullet and show that they are good little "examples"
    One could make the case that Kelly is suffering form emotional trauma and is in PTSD

  • WhiteFalcon

    I agree we need to do more about gun violence. All honest and mentally sound people should arm themselves and be ready to defend themselves, and when they do, the spineless government should stay off their backs.

  • pete

    Sorry to say this, but Gabby looks more every time I see her like a person of low mental capacity. And I don't mean the "low intelligence" voter. She may be perfectly lucid in her mind, but the look on her face is so reminiscent of many of the mentally handicapped I work with every day. It is very possible she is now no more capable of cognizant thought than any of them. She needs somebody to lead her when she walks, they need people to lead them when they walk. She seems to need coaxing at every turn and constant watching, as do they.