Gabby Giffords Turns Slimewad

[peach174]

Gabby Giffords was my representative.
She was the one who was irresponsible and she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed, all because she refused to have the police there at that meeting.
She knew that there had been several threats so she wanted to look like she trusted the people and said no to the police being there.
Had they been there, they would have stopped him and 6 people including a child would still be alive today.
Now she is promoting gun laws that will not work and lying to boot about it.
It's despicable politics at it's dirtiest.

It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy.
Blaming the victim would mean that she knew nothing about any threats and she did. She knew that there was at least three of them.
It was in our news and newspapers about these possible threats. That is why she did not want the police there. She said " I trust the people of Arizona so I do not want the police there". It was a political stunt and it backfired on her big time.
Being irresponsible has consequences and 6 people are dead because of her terrible decision just to look good in front of her voters.

Perhaps if she had security at her events, it would not have happened:

Giffords Shooting The Security Problem Phoenix New Times

Latest developments in Arizona shooting - CNN.com

It is (or was) a common practice for lawmakers not to hire security for town hall events:

Gabrielle Giffords shooting Lawmakers averse to hiring security

The partisan hack (not you Peach, the partisan hack TK) is correct here, and his links here all bear out, that Congressional Representatives don't normally tote goons with guns around and prefer to be accessible to their constituents without that wall of class stratification. It's standard procedure for them, and it is after all their job; they're not supposed to be some kind of elite and inaccessible Duke/Duchess who's audience we have to beg while kissing their ring. And it's not unusual for them to get death and violence threats, especially with rhetorical flamemongers running around inciting violence with "break their windows, break them now" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will".

But it's worth noting, Peach, that by taking this despicable partisan-hack tactic of blaming the victim for 19 people shot, you yourself are fueling the same rhetoric. So you're basically part of the problem. In effect your attempt to foist responsibility for Giffords' head wound into "she was asking for it" is a cowardly act of trying to excuse away your own part in the rhetoric that shot her.

Thanks a lot for that, asshole.

Nice, you totally spun my links. The fact she never had security (armed with guns no doubt) in the first place was the reason she was shot, and 18 others were killed. She wouldn't need a gun if she had had armed security that day. It is still teaching a valuable lesson to all existing congressmen and women to have security present at their events. It was a false sense of security that got those people killed. No, she doesn't have to 'point a gun at the crowd.' People were or are put in routine danger when lawmakers don't employ security at their events.

Oh thank you, that's the point I forgot.
For Peach -- none of TK's three links there back up your fable of Giffords telling police to stay away. So your record as a fiction writer remains unsmudged.

Thanks for that heads-up, Tempartisan Kormhack.

I never said she told police to stay away. You said that.
She had several incidents happen before that shooting and she should have listened to her staff and should have had a couple of cops there.

Are you unable to read your own words??

Not only DID you say that - you made up a quote from her. I'll put it in blue this time:

Gabby Giffords was my representative.
She was the one who was irresponsible and she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed, all because she refused to have the police there at that meeting.
She knew that there had been several threats so she wanted to look like she trusted the people and said no to the police being there.
Had they been there, they would have stopped him and 6 people including a child would still be alive today.
Now she is promoting gun laws that will not work and lying to boot about it.
It's despicable politics at it's [sic] dirtiest.

It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy.
Blaming the victim would mean that she knew nothing about any threats and she did. She knew that there was at least three of them.
It was in our news and newspapers about these possible threats. That is why she did not want the police there. She said " I trust the people of Arizona so I do not want the police there". It was a political stunt and it backfired on her big time.
Being irresponsible has consequences and 6 people are dead because of her terrible decision just to look good in front of her voters.

As you've already have been shown by your fellow traveler partisan hack's links, meeting one's constituents is normal policy for Congressional Representatives -- you know, the practice you're ridiculously trying to hawk as a "political stunt"? The political stunt any average Rep pulls as part of their job? That one?

Once again as before I put your blatant speculation fallacies in purple above, which is really part and parcel of the "I'll just make up my own reality" mentality you seem to think nobody willl notice.

But here's another more interesting piece of the post puzzle I didn't even notice before ---

>> It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy. <<
​

Holy shit.
You just not only pinned murder and assault with deadly weapon on Gabby Giffords --- you called Jared Loughner the "victim".



So let us get this straight....
By holding a meet-and-greet with her constituents, which every Rep who's doing their job does, Gabby Giffords got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally, went to the hospital herself with her brains hanging out and having lost the ability to speak ---- and her "victim" is Jared Loughner.



You're a sick individual, Peach. You need to get to a mental health facility, like yesterday.

Like I said you are not putting it into context.
If you read that with the other persons words in between those quotes to whom I was talking to, maybe you would get it.
Of course putting it the way you have done it does not make any sense at all.

I said none of what you are trying to accuse me of.
You are the one that is not reading it right.
Read it again.

What I said was Gabby knew of several different instances of threats. The week before the shooting there was a gun found at one of her town hall meetings in Douglas
There had been a break in at one of her offices. She had also been warned of other instances
Her staff had warned her that she should have some sort of security at her meetings and she said no.
Had she used some common sense and had accepted the 2 off duty officers at that last meeting things might have not been so terrible.

Tell me exactly where I said the victim was Jared Loughner, because I never did say that.
There were 18 people shot and 6 were murdered. And you say I am the one who is sick?
Read your own words Pogo - Gabby Giffords got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally.


If you get several warnings and do not do something about it, you have the tragedy that occurred.
You are the one who does not want to hear that she should have used some common sense before the shooting happened.

 

[Listening]

Gabby Giffords was my representative.
She was the one who was irresponsible and she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed, all because she refused to have the police there at that meeting.
She knew that there had been several threats so she wanted to look like she trusted the people and said no to the police being there.
Had they been there, they would have stopped him and 6 people including a child would still be alive today.
Now she is promoting gun laws that will not work and lying to boot about it.
It's despicable politics at it's dirtiest.

It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy.
Blaming the victim would mean that she knew nothing about any threats and she did. She knew that there was at least three of them.
It was in our news and newspapers about these possible threats. That is why she did not want the police there. She said " I trust the people of Arizona so I do not want the police there". It was a political stunt and it backfired on her big time.
Being irresponsible has consequences and 6 people are dead because of her terrible decision just to look good in front of her voters.

The partisan hack (not you Peach, the partisan hack TK) is correct here, and his links here all bear out, that Congressional Representatives don't normally tote goons with guns around and prefer to be accessible to their constituents without that wall of class stratification. It's standard procedure for them, and it is after all their job; they're not supposed to be some kind of elite and inaccessible Duke/Duchess who's audience we have to beg while kissing their ring. And it's not unusual for them to get death and violence threats, especially with rhetorical flamemongers running around inciting violence with "break their windows, break them now" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will".

But it's worth noting, Peach, that by taking this despicable partisan-hack tactic of blaming the victim for 19 people shot, you yourself are fueling the same rhetoric. So you're basically part of the problem. In effect your attempt to foist responsibility for Giffords' head wound into "she was asking for it" is a cowardly act of trying to excuse away your own part in the rhetoric that shot her.

Thanks a lot for that, asshole.

Nice, you totally spun my links. The fact she never had security (armed with guns no doubt) in the first place was the reason she was shot, and 18 others were killed. She wouldn't need a gun if she had had armed security that day. It is still teaching a valuable lesson to all existing congressmen and women to have security present at their events. It was a false sense of security that got those people killed. No, she doesn't have to 'point a gun at the crowd.' People were or are put in routine danger when lawmakers don't employ security at their events.

Oh thank you, that's the point I forgot.
For Peach -- none of TK's three links there back up your fable of Giffords telling police to stay away. So your record as a fiction writer remains unsmudged.

Thanks for that heads-up, Tempartisan Kormhack.

I never said she told police to stay away. You said that.
She had several incidents happen before that shooting and she should have listened to her staff and should have had a couple of cops there.

Are you unable to read your own words??

Not only DID you say that - you made up a quote from her. I'll put it in blue this time:

Gabby Giffords was my representative.
She was the one who was irresponsible and she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed, all because she refused to have the police there at that meeting.
She knew that there had been several threats so she wanted to look like she trusted the people and said no to the police being there.
Had they been there, they would have stopped him and 6 people including a child would still be alive today.
Now she is promoting gun laws that will not work and lying to boot about it.
It's despicable politics at it's [sic] dirtiest.

It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy.
Blaming the victim would mean that she knew nothing about any threats and she did. She knew that there was at least three of them.
It was in our news and newspapers about these possible threats. That is why she did not want the police there. She said " I trust the people of Arizona so I do not want the police there". It was a political stunt and it backfired on her big time.
Being irresponsible has consequences and 6 people are dead because of her terrible decision just to look good in front of her voters.

As you've already have been shown by your fellow traveler partisan hack's links, meeting one's constituents is normal policy for Congressional Representatives -- you know, the practice you're ridiculously trying to hawk as a "political stunt"? The political stunt any average Rep pulls as part of their job? That one?

Once again as before I put your blatant speculation fallacies in purple above, which is really part and parcel of the "I'll just make up my own reality" mentality you seem to think nobody willl notice.

But here's another more interesting piece of the post puzzle I didn't even notice before ---

>> It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy. <<
​

Holy shit.
You just not only pinned murder and assault with deadly weapon on Gabby Giffords --- you called Jared Loughner the "victim".



So let us get this straight....
By holding a meet-and-greet with her constituents, which every Rep who's doing their job does, Gabby Giffords got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally, went to the hospital herself with her brains hanging out and having lost the ability to speak ---- and her "victim" is Jared Loughner.



You're a sick individual, Peach. You need to get to a mental health facility, like yesterday.

Like I said you are not putting it into context.
If you read that with the other persons words in between those quotes to whom I was talking to, maybe you would get it.
Of course putting it the way you have done it does not make any sense at all.

I said none of what you are trying to accuse me of.
You are the one that is not reading it right.
Read it again.

What I said was Gabby knew of several different instances of threats. The week before the shooting there was a gun found at one of her town hall meetings in Douglas
There had been a break in at one of her offices. She had also been warned of other instances
Her staff had warned her that she should have some sort of security at her meetings and she said no.
Had she used some common sense and had accepted the 2 off duty officers at that last meeting things might have not been so terrible.

Tell me exactly where I said the victim was Jared Loughner, because I never did say that.
There were 18 people shot and 6 were murdered. And you say I am the one who is sick?
Read your own words Pogo - Gabby Giffords got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally.


If you get several warnings and do not do something about it, you have the tragedy that occurred.
You are the one who does not want to hear that she should have used some common sense before the shooting happened.

I think you mean shot....several fatally.

Pogo won't read what you wrote except to find fault in your verbage.

 

[Pogo]

Gabby Giffords was my representative.
She was the one who was irresponsible and she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed, all because she refused to have the police there at that meeting.
She knew that there had been several threats so she wanted to look like she trusted the people and said no to the police being there.
Had they been there, they would have stopped him and 6 people including a child would still be alive today.
Now she is promoting gun laws that will not work and lying to boot about it.
It's despicable politics at it's dirtiest.

It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy.
Blaming the victim would mean that she knew nothing about any threats and she did. She knew that there was at least three of them.
It was in our news and newspapers about these possible threats. That is why she did not want the police there. She said " I trust the people of Arizona so I do not want the police there". It was a political stunt and it backfired on her big time.
Being irresponsible has consequences and 6 people are dead because of her terrible decision just to look good in front of her voters.

Nice, you totally spun my links. The fact she never had security (armed with guns no doubt) in the first place was the reason she was shot, and 18 others were killed. She wouldn't need a gun if she had had armed security that day. It is still teaching a valuable lesson to all existing congressmen and women to have security present at their events. It was a false sense of security that got those people killed. No, she doesn't have to 'point a gun at the crowd.' People were or are put in routine danger when lawmakers don't employ security at their events.

Oh thank you, that's the point I forgot.
For Peach -- none of TK's three links there back up your fable of Giffords telling police to stay away. So your record as a fiction writer remains unsmudged.

Thanks for that heads-up, Tempartisan Kormhack.

I never said she told police to stay away. You said that.
She had several incidents happen before that shooting and she should have listened to her staff and should have had a couple of cops there.

Are you unable to read your own words??

Not only DID you say that - you made up a quote from her. I'll put it in blue this time:

Gabby Giffords was my representative.
She was the one who was irresponsible and she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed, all because she refused to have the police there at that meeting.
She knew that there had been several threats so she wanted to look like she trusted the people and said no to the police being there.
Had they been there, they would have stopped him and 6 people including a child would still be alive today.
Now she is promoting gun laws that will not work and lying to boot about it.
It's despicable politics at it's [sic] dirtiest.

It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy.
Blaming the victim would mean that she knew nothing about any threats and she did. She knew that there was at least three of them.
It was in our news and newspapers about these possible threats. That is why she did not want the police there. She said " I trust the people of Arizona so I do not want the police there". It was a political stunt and it backfired on her big time.
Being irresponsible has consequences and 6 people are dead because of her terrible decision just to look good in front of her voters.

As you've already have been shown by your fellow traveler partisan hack's links, meeting one's constituents is normal policy for Congressional Representatives -- you know, the practice you're ridiculously trying to hawk as a "political stunt"? The political stunt any average Rep pulls as part of their job? That one?

Once again as before I put your blatant speculation fallacies in purple above, which is really part and parcel of the "I'll just make up my own reality" mentality you seem to think nobody willl notice.

But here's another more interesting piece of the post puzzle I didn't even notice before ---

>> It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy. <<
​

Holy shit.
You just not only pinned murder and assault with deadly weapon on Gabby Giffords --- you called Jared Loughner the "victim".



So let us get this straight....
By holding a meet-and-greet with her constituents, which every Rep who's doing their job does, Gabby Giffords got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally, went to the hospital herself with her brains hanging out and having lost the ability to speak ---- and her "victim" is Jared Loughner.



You're a sick individual, Peach. You need to get to a mental health facility, like yesterday.

Like I said you are not putting it into context.
If you read that with the other persons words in between those quotes to whom I was talking to, maybe you would get it.
Of course putting it the way you have done it does not make any sense at all.

I said none of what you are trying to accuse me of.
You are the one that is not reading it right.
Read it again.

What I said was Gabby knew of several different instances of threats. The week before the shooting there was a gun found at one of her town hall meetings in Douglas
There had been a break in at one of her offices. She had also been warned of other instances
Her staff had warned her that she should have some sort of security at her meetings and she said no.
Had she used some common sense and had accepted the 2 off duty officers at that last meeting things might have not been so terrible.

Tell me exactly where I said the victim was Jared Loughner, because I never did say that.
There were 18 people shot and 6 were murdered. And you say I am the one who is sick?
Read your own words Pogo - Gabby Giffords got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally.


If you get several warnings and do not do something about it, you have the tragedy that occurred.
You are the one who does not want to hear that she should have used some common sense before the shooting happened.

I think you mean shot....several fatally.

Pogo won't read what you wrote except to find fault in your verbage.

It's not the verbiage -- that's kind of fun. Somewhere I'll get to use "commons sense" ( @Rikurzhen - upcoming plaigiarism!! ) ... and I dug the Parisian thing. Eet was ow you say, trés amusant.

It's her despicable classless partisan blinders that bring her to the point where she can post that a shooting victim is the perpetrator and the perpetrator is the fucking victim. And she just did it again.

None so blind as those addicted to partisan bullshit. Paris would have worked much better.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. It doesn't.
In fact, there's no way you can soundly draw that conclusion from what I said.

Thank you for proving my point.
See, if you COULD soundly draw that conclusion from what I said, you would have explained how you did so.
You did not provide any such explanation.
Why? You know you cannot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can't pass a background check, huh?
Bummer.

Can't repeal the 2nd Amendment huh?
Bummer.

no need to repeal it in order to have background checks...

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore necessarily infringe on the right to arms.

Further, they are based on the fallacy that a law can prevent people from breaking the law, removing any possibility that they will pass muster under any level of scrutiny.

And so, to constitutionally have background checks, you do indeed need to repeal the 2nd.

 

[Plasmaball]

Can't pass a background check, huh?
Bummer.

Can't repeal the 2nd Amendment huh?
Bummer.

no need to repeal it in order to have background checks...

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore necessarily infringe on the right to arms.

Further, they are based on the fallacy that a law can prevent people from breaking the law, removing any possibility that they will pass muster under any level of scrutiny.

And so, to constitutionally have background checks, you do indeed need to repeal the 2nd.

Federal Court Declares Universal Background Checks 8216 Weapons Offender Registry 8217 Constitutional Americans Against the Tea Party

HAHAHAHAHAAHHAA no, they are constitutional

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can't pass a background check, huh?
Bummer.

Can't repeal the 2nd Amendment huh?
Bummer.

no need to repeal it in order to have background checks...

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore necessarily infringe on the right to arms.

Further, they are based on the fallacy that a law can prevent people from breaking the law, removing any possibility that they will pass muster under any level of scrutiny.

And so, to constitutionally have background checks, you do indeed need to repeal the 2nd.

Federal Court Declares Universal Background Checks 8216 Weapons Offender Registry 8217 Constitutional Americans Against the Tea Party

Please cite the SCotUS ruling on the issue.

 

[Justin Davis]

Well, it was bound to happen.

Giffords is now utilizing her elevated position and all the sympathy she can muster to run ads against those who support the constitution.

Go figure.

She was never that good before and obviously isn't getting any better.

STFU Gabby.

Mad Gabby Former Congresswoman Unleashes Nasty Ads Against Pro-Second Amendment Candidates - Matt Vespa

Gun Grabbing Gabby Giffords.

 

[Plasmaball]

Can't pass a background check, huh?
Bummer.

Can't repeal the 2nd Amendment huh?
Bummer.

no need to repeal it in order to have background checks...

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore necessarily infringe on the right to arms.

Further, they are based on the fallacy that a law can prevent people from breaking the law, removing any possibility that they will pass muster under any level of scrutiny.

And so, to constitutionally have background checks, you do indeed need to repeal the 2nd.

Federal Court Declares Universal Background Checks 8216 Weapons Offender Registry 8217 Constitutional Americans Against the Tea Party

Please cite the SCotUS ruling on the issue.

Supreme Court Upholds Intrusive Government Background Checks WIRED
Gun background checks ruled unconstitutional

take your pick

 

[peach174]

Gabby Giffords was my representative.
She was the one who was irresponsible and she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed, all because she refused to have the police there at that meeting.
She knew that there had been several threats so she wanted to look like she trusted the people and said no to the police being there.
Had they been there, they would have stopped him and 6 people including a child would still be alive today.
Now she is promoting gun laws that will not work and lying to boot about it.
It's despicable politics at it's dirtiest.

It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy.
Blaming the victim would mean that she knew nothing about any threats and she did. She knew that there was at least three of them.
It was in our news and newspapers about these possible threats. That is why she did not want the police there. She said " I trust the people of Arizona so I do not want the police there". It was a political stunt and it backfired on her big time.
Being irresponsible has consequences and 6 people are dead because of her terrible decision just to look good in front of her voters.

Oh thank you, that's the point I forgot.
For Peach -- none of TK's three links there back up your fable of Giffords telling police to stay away. So your record as a fiction writer remains unsmudged.

Thanks for that heads-up, Tempartisan Kormhack.

I never said she told police to stay away. You said that.
She had several incidents happen before that shooting and she should have listened to her staff and should have had a couple of cops there.

Are you unable to read your own words??

Not only DID you say that - you made up a quote from her. I'll put it in blue this time:

Gabby Giffords was my representative.
She was the one who was irresponsible and she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed, all because she refused to have the police there at that meeting.
She knew that there had been several threats so she wanted to look like she trusted the people and said no to the police being there.
Had they been there, they would have stopped him and 6 people including a child would still be alive today.
Now she is promoting gun laws that will not work and lying to boot about it.
It's despicable politics at it's [sic] dirtiest.

It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy.
Blaming the victim would mean that she knew nothing about any threats and she did. She knew that there was at least three of them.
It was in our news and newspapers about these possible threats. That is why she did not want the police there. She said " I trust the people of Arizona so I do not want the police there". It was a political stunt and it backfired on her big time.
Being irresponsible has consequences and 6 people are dead because of her terrible decision just to look good in front of her voters.

As you've already have been shown by your fellow traveler partisan hack's links, meeting one's constituents is normal policy for Congressional Representatives -- you know, the practice you're ridiculously trying to hawk as a "political stunt"? The political stunt any average Rep pulls as part of their job? That one?

Once again as before I put your blatant speculation fallacies in purple above, which is really part and parcel of the "I'll just make up my own reality" mentality you seem to think nobody willl notice.

But here's another more interesting piece of the post puzzle I didn't even notice before ---

>> It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy. <<
​

Holy shit.
You just not only pinned murder and assault with deadly weapon on Gabby Giffords --- you called Jared Loughner the "victim".



So let us get this straight....
By holding a meet-and-greet with her constituents, which every Rep who's doing their job does, Gabby Giffords got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally, went to the hospital herself with her brains hanging out and having lost the ability to speak ---- and her "victim" is Jared Loughner.



You're a sick individual, Peach. You need to get to a mental health facility, like yesterday.

Like I said you are not putting it into context.
If you read that with the other persons words in between those quotes to whom I was talking to, maybe you would get it.
Of course putting it the way you have done it does not make any sense at all.

I said none of what you are trying to accuse me of.
You are the one that is not reading it right.
Read it again.

What I said was Gabby knew of several different instances of threats. The week before the shooting there was a gun found at one of her town hall meetings in Douglas
There had been a break in at one of her offices. She had also been warned of other instances
Her staff had warned her that she should have some sort of security at her meetings and she said no.
Had she used some common sense and had accepted the 2 off duty officers at that last meeting things might have not been so terrible.

Tell me exactly where I said the victim was Jared Loughner, because I never did say that.
There were 18 people shot and 6 were murdered. And you say I am the one who is sick?
Read your own words Pogo - Gabby Giffords got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally.


If you get several warnings and do not do something about it, you have the tragedy that occurred.
You are the one who does not want to hear that she should have used some common sense before the shooting happened.

I think you mean shot....several fatally.

Pogo won't read what you wrote except to find fault in your verbage.

You got that right.

It's not the verbiage -- that's kind of fun. Somewhere I'll get to use "commons sense" ( @Rikurzhen - upcoming plaigiarism!! ) ... and I dug the Parisian thing. Eet was ow you say, trés amusant.

It's her despicable classless partisan blinders that bring her to the point where she can post that a shooting victim is the perpetrator and the perpetrator is the fucking victim. And she just did it again.

None so blind as those addicted to partisan bullshit. Paris would have worked much better.

I have to idea of what you are talking about with Rikuzhen or Parisian thing, you seem to think that everyone should know what you are referring too.
I misspelled common sense one time and you are reading into something that is not there. It is simply a type o and that is all.

You really do have a problem. You are the blind one.
There is no partisan in anything I said. You are the one trying to do so.
I never said Gabby was the perpetrator nor the perpetrator the victim.
I think that you are totally unable to understand the meaning of personal responsibility or common sense that should be used by everyone in this country.

 

[peach174]

Gabby Giffords was my representative.
She was the one who was irresponsible and she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed, all because she refused to have the police there at that meeting.
She knew that there had been several threats so she wanted to look like she trusted the people and said no to the police being there.
Had they been there, they would have stopped him and 6 people including a child would still be alive today.
Now she is promoting gun laws that will not work and lying to boot about it.
It's despicable politics at it's dirtiest.

It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy.
Blaming the victim would mean that she knew nothing about any threats and she did. She knew that there was at least three of them.
It was in our news and newspapers about these possible threats. That is why she did not want the police there. She said " I trust the people of Arizona so I do not want the police there". It was a political stunt and it backfired on her big time.
Being irresponsible has consequences and 6 people are dead because of her terrible decision just to look good in front of her voters.

Nice, you totally spun my links. The fact she never had security (armed with guns no doubt) in the first place was the reason she was shot, and 18 others were killed. She wouldn't need a gun if she had had armed security that day. It is still teaching a valuable lesson to all existing congressmen and women to have security present at their events. It was a false sense of security that got those people killed. No, she doesn't have to 'point a gun at the crowd.' People were or are put in routine danger when lawmakers don't employ security at their events.

Oh thank you, that's the point I forgot.
For Peach -- none of TK's three links there back up your fable of Giffords telling police to stay away. So your record as a fiction writer remains unsmudged.

Thanks for that heads-up, Tempartisan Kormhack.

I never said she told police to stay away. You said that.
She had several incidents happen before that shooting and she should have listened to her staff and should have had a couple of cops there.

Are you unable to read your own words??

Not only DID you say that - you made up a quote from her. I'll put it in blue this time:

Gabby Giffords was my representative.
She was the one who was irresponsible and she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed, all because she refused to have the police there at that meeting.
She knew that there had been several threats so she wanted to look like she trusted the people and said no to the police being there.
Had they been there, they would have stopped him and 6 people including a child would still be alive today.
Now she is promoting gun laws that will not work and lying to boot about it.
It's despicable politics at it's [sic] dirtiest.

It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy.
Blaming the victim would mean that she knew nothing about any threats and she did. She knew that there was at least three of them.
It was in our news and newspapers about these possible threats. That is why she did not want the police there. She said " I trust the people of Arizona so I do not want the police there". It was a political stunt and it backfired on her big time.
Being irresponsible has consequences and 6 people are dead because of her terrible decision just to look good in front of her voters.

As you've already have been shown by your fellow traveler partisan hack's links, meeting one's constituents is normal policy for Congressional Representatives -- you know, the practice you're ridiculously trying to hawk as a "political stunt"? The political stunt any average Rep pulls as part of their job? That one?

Once again as before I put your blatant speculation fallacies in purple above, which is really part and parcel of the "I'll just make up my own reality" mentality you seem to think nobody willl notice.

But here's another more interesting piece of the post puzzle I didn't even notice before ---

>> It is not blaming the victim. The victim was the one who was the cause of that tragedy. <<
​

Holy shit.
You just not only pinned murder and assault with deadly weapon on Gabby Giffords --- you called Jared Loughner the "victim".



So let us get this straight....
By holding a meet-and-greet with her constituents, which every Rep who's doing their job does, Gabby Giffords got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally, went to the hospital herself with her brains hanging out and having lost the ability to speak ---- and her "victim" is Jared Loughner.



You're a sick individual, Peach. You need to get to a mental health facility, like yesterday.

Like I said you are not putting it into context.
If you read that with the other persons words in between those quotes to whom I was talking to, maybe you would get it.
Of course putting it the way you have done it does not make any sense at all.

I said none of what you are trying to accuse me of.
You are the one that is not reading it right.
Read it again.

What I said was Gabby knew of several different instances of threats. The week before the shooting there was a gun found at one of her town hall meetings in Douglas
There had been a break in at one of her offices. She had also been warned of other instances
Her staff had warned her that she should have some sort of security at her meetings and she said no.
Had she used some common sense and had accepted the 2 off duty officers at that last meeting things might have not been so terrible.

Tell me exactly where I said the victim was Jared Loughner, because I never did say that.
There were 18 people shot and 6 were murdered. And you say I am the one who is sick?
Read your own words Pogo - Gabby Giffords got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally.


If you get several warnings and do not do something about it, you have the tragedy that occurred.
You are the one who does not want to hear that she should have used some common sense before the shooting happened.

I think you mean shot....several fatally.

Pogo won't read what you wrote except to find fault in your verbage.

What about Pogo's own verbage.
Finds vault with mine while his is also not so great.
Yes Pogo I think you meant shot......several fatally - not got herself and 18 other people killed, several fatally.
And he is attacking my verbage and one misspelled. word.
Yes I said she got 18 people shot and 6 innocent people killed.
I should have said 18 people shot and 6 of them were fatal.
This is a message board and many of us make mistakes and typo's and that includes me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can't repeal the 2nd Amendment huh?
Bummer.

no need to repeal it in order to have background checks...

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore necessarily infringe on the right to arms.

Further, they are based on the fallacy that a law can prevent people from breaking the law, removing any possibility that they will pass muster under any level of scrutiny.

And so, to constitutionally have background checks, you do indeed need to repeal the 2nd.

Federal Court Declares Universal Background Checks 8216 Weapons Offender Registry 8217 Constitutional Americans Against the Tea Party

Please cite the SCotUS ruling on the issue.

Supreme Court Upholds Intrusive Government Background Checks WIRED

These are emplyment background checks not background checks to buy a gun.
Even you know this is is apples and oranges.

Gun background checks ruled unconstitutional

Not sure how you think a 10th amendment case that rules part of the Brady Act unconstitutional is an example of a SCotUS case that says background checks do not violate the 2nd amendment and are therefore constutitional.

Congrats on your stinky pile of fail. My statement remains sound:

-Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore necessarily infringe on the right to arms.
-Further, they are based on the fallacy that a law can prevent people from breaking the law, removing any possibility that they will pass muster under any level of scrutiny.
And so, to constitutionallyhave background checks, you do indeed need to repeal the 2nd

 

[Lakhota]

YES, the Second Amendment is obsolete!

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

 

[1776]

She was a dumb bitch before the bullet caused more brain damage....

 

[Valerie]

no, she wasn't...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Say, if a Muslim extremist doesn't represent Islam, why does a shooter suddenly represent millions of law abiding gun owners? Do you liberals have anything to say about that?

Your reasoning for gun control is an inherent double standard. Moreover, Mrs. Giffords employs her own double standards by pushing for gun control while beinng a gun owner, or allowing her husband to buy an assault rifle no questions asked. Funny how her positions changed when it came to her husband and her own personal preferences.

I guess liberals are the same way about people they support. Hey just forget she is using a tragedy for political reasons.

 

[Lakhota]

Say, if a Muslim extremist doesn't represent Islam, why does a shooter suddenly represent millions of law abiding gun owners? Do you liberals have anything to say about that?

Your reasoning for gun control is an inherent double standard. Moreover, Mrs. Giffords employs her own double standards by pushing for gun control while beinng a gun owner, or allowing her husband to buy an assault rifle no questions asked. Funny how her positions changed when it came to her husband and her own personal preferences.

I guess liberals are the same way about people they support. Hey just forget she is using a tragedy for political reasons.

You mean like Reagan's Jim Brady?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

no, she wasn't...

Yes, she was. She is even worse now.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

YES, the Second Amendment is obsolete!

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The second becomes obsolete when big government is obsolete. You may have not noticed but government keeps advancing their agenda not unlike two centuries ago. I will give up my guns when you give up your progressive government can take care of you policies.

 

[Lakhota]

Righties love it when retards like Palin and Nugent defend the NRA gun nutters - but then go apeshit and demonize someone like Gabby Giffords for defending sensible gun control laws like universal background checks. They don't like competition.