Posted on 02/03/2013 1:31:34 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Mark Kelly, husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, spoke to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday this week, reiterating his support for universal background checks and responding to the NRA’s anti-gun control arguments. Simply put, Kelly said, less people would die due to gun violence if the legislation were put in place.
Wallace looked to the example of Jared Loughner, the gunman who opened fire in Arizona, killing and injuring many, including Giffords. He passed a background check, Wallace noted.
Loughner clearly was mentally ill, Kelly said — and if his condition was entered into the background check system, presumably he would not pass. Arizona, he said, hadn’t entered 121,000 records into the system, and that could certainly make a difference given that 1.7 million have been rejected since 1999.
Wallace further asked what difference a limit a restriction on high-capacity magazines would be make. Kelly replied that it does matter, because the time spent reloading is time for others to restrain the person.
Next on the list was the controversial assault weapons ban, which the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre vehemently opposes. Previously, LaPierre has said, the ban didn’t work, so it’s not necessary now.
“I don’t know if it worked or not,” Kelly said. “I haven’t at all the statistics. Common sense tells me that if it is much more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and guns in general, we will save lives.”
Having served in the military, Kelly said he knows the value of assault weapons — in when used in mass shootings, more people die. He did agree with LaPierre that many gun laws need to be better enforced, but also asserted the need to close the gun show/private seller loopholes.
“This isn’t about the Second Amendment anymore,” Kelly said. “This is about public safety.”
There isn’t sufficient legislation, he continued, leading Wallace to point out the NRA’s political clout and ask how much, realistically, can be achieved on the gun control front.
Both sides of the aisle agree we need to do something, he said. It’s not going to be easy, but we need “common sense” answers. “I know the value of an assault weapon, and it’s to kill a lot of people very quickly,” Kelly added.
Asked for his message, “man to man,” to LaPierre (who was on in the next segment), Kelly said: He’ll say background checks don’t work, but that’s not true.
“I hope Mr. LaPierre can think about what would his members want,” he said. “Seventy-four percent of NRA members think it is a very reasonable thing to do to have a background check before buying a gun. … I hope he would listen to his membership because members of the NRA tend to be very reasonable on this issue.”
do what you gotta do.
Why is the SERIAL NUMBER and MODEL NUMBER needed for a background check?
It seems to me that you should ONLY check the person and be done with it. Nothing is gained with serial and model numbers,UNLESS someone is trying to build up a database for later confiscation (which, of course, our government denies they want to do)
Another Brady Bunch, trading on tragedy and sympathy to push their leftist agenda.
This sort of skin-deep reasoning amuses me. It's like the old story about the guy who encounters a drunk on his hands and knees groveling around in the street. The guy asks him what he's doing and the drunk replies, "I'm looking for my keys". The man, wanting to be helpful, joins the search asking, "Where did you have them last?"
The drunk points down the road. The man asks why he's is all the way over here and the drunk replies
"The light is better over here"
They know what the proximate cause is but they're either to lazy or just too dishonest to fix the root problem. It's easier to attack the innocent.
In any event, he's starting to get on my nerves. He's the Left's newest poster boy. He's everywhere.....like a beady-eyed little ferret that gets in your basement and annoys the hell out of you trying to get rid of it.
Leni
I take it they are openly talking sedition now!?!
And no, the Cops never caught him (or her).
Looks like I'm starting to dislike Astronauts as much as I dislike Clowns.
Yep, pretty mean comment, but I think people trying to abridge my God Given Constitutional Rights deserve all the ridicule I can muster.
Background check to help insure firearms don’t get into the hands of the mentally ill...certainly sounds like a good idea.
But, who gets to decide what is ‘mentally ill’?
Universal background checks on all firearms transfers...sounds like a good idea. But, will the criminals comply?
In point of fact, neither of these ideas would have prevented Newtown.
The only proper immediate response to an armed bad-guy is an equally or better armed good-guy. The police have no obligation to protect anyone, and are mere minutes away when seconds count.
Arm yourself, protect yourself, defend yourself.
Add presidents to that list.
Excuse me Mr Kelly...but yes it is.
If your wife (and why isn't her last name Kelly?) and her entourage had been properly equipped with modern semiautomatic weapons, it is very likely that she wouldn't have been shot in the head, that several other innocent bystanders would still be alive...
...and Loughner would properly have been turned into hamburger.
Mental health records don’t mean squat when the local Sheriff whitewashes the perps background.
You bet.
It’s always about the second amendment and property rights.
I should have the ability to gift my weapon to a relative or leave em to my heirs without incurring additional costs to Keep and Bear Arms.
FO and get yer head screwed on straight ....
Simply put, Kelly said, less people would die due to gun violence if the legislation were put in place.
This sort of thinking is intellectually bankrupt.
Less people would die if we made driving illegal too. It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Life is risk. And the freer the life, the greater the risk. This generation seems to have forgotten that.
I don’t want to live in a nice safe cage.
I watched Wallace this morning when he interviewed Wayne LaPierre. He was VERY rude and interruptive. What on earth is happening to Fox?
Wallace is a lefty, he just tries to hide it a bit.
I encourage those that did not watch the segment w/ LaPierre to do so (or read the transcript).
LaPierre was never combative or evasive. Wallace treated LaPierre like a hostile witness.
WALLACE: Mr. LaPierre, do you regret putting up that ad?
LAPIERRE: The point of ad was this — it wasn’t picking on the president’s kids. The president not —
WALLACE: It mentions them.
LAPIERRE: The president’s kids are safe and we are thankful for it. The point of that ad —
WALLACE: They also face a threat that most children do not face.
LAPIERRE: Tell that to people in Newtown. Tell that to people —
WALLACE: Do you really think the president’s children are the same kind of target as every school child in America? That’s ridiculous and you know it, sir.
Wallace is an effete elite fool.
ALL are equal, and all children deserve the same level of guards.
because of the MSM, and the fact all “news” flows through NYC, NYC should be a quarantene zone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.