Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gabby Giffords: Gun Control for Women's Sake Now
breitbart.com ^ | 9/13/2014 | AWR Hawkins

Posted on 09/14/2014 8:17:16 AM PDT by rktman

On September 12, TIME magazine ran a column by gun control proponent Gabby Giffords, in which she argued that gun control must be expanded for women's sake.

Giffords' starts the column by revisiting the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) under Bill Clinton. She says that law has been good--"annual rates of domestic violence have dropped by more than half" since its passage--but she does not think it goes far enough.

She wants a more stringent VAWA, one that expands gun control beyond marriage and into dating relationships. This would include new gun control laws for boyfriends, "partners," etc. And as Breitbart News reported on July 30, it would mean new gun laws for stalkers.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; giffords; guncontrolnazis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
Yup. More range time for women would help with their gun control. More center of mass hits.

As an aside, in this todays reno gazette journal the following appeared with regards to the background check initiative the nannies are pushing here in NV.

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/13/fact-checker-gun-background-check-claims-true/15153955/

I actually was surprised for the most part that the "fact checker" found the nannies to be liars. The one glaring mis-step is the reference to gun shows yet again and the intimation that there aren't any checks done there. Other than that, not bad for the "fact checker" this time.

1 posted on 09/14/2014 8:17:16 AM PDT by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rktman

DOH! Activate link in 3..2..1

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/13/fact-checker-gun-background-check-claims-true/15153955/


2 posted on 09/14/2014 8:17:48 AM PDT by rktman (Ethnicity: Nascarian. Race: Daytonafivehundrian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Did she write it all or was it ghost written and given her name to boost the profile?


3 posted on 09/14/2014 8:18:53 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Hey Obama: If Islamic State is not Islamic, then why did you give Osama Bin Laden a muslim funeral?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, you have no other rights; your only have things they allow you to do.


4 posted on 09/14/2014 8:19:42 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (Bomb ISIS; bomb them again; bomb them again; kill all survivors; take no prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman
A good reason to reject her appointed successor Ron Barber with a real American, Martha McSally Lt. Col. USAF Ret.
5 posted on 09/14/2014 8:20:22 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Wait a minute, I thought we were all equals and were to treat all people equally. IF this is true, why laws to supposedly protect women. Furthermore, if women can fight in combat, as defense officials suggest, they certainly should be able to defend themselves without anyone’s assistance.


6 posted on 09/14/2014 8:23:23 AM PDT by rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

No, I think I’ll keep my right to bear arms, you stupid, useless, dangerous woman.


7 posted on 09/14/2014 8:23:23 AM PDT by chris37 (heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

8 posted on 09/14/2014 8:26:44 AM PDT by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Women shouldn’t be drinking sake and handling firearms.


9 posted on 09/14/2014 8:28:54 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

My wife is getting more and more into gun control.

The Sig, the Kahr, the Shield, the Airweight. Yep, she’s got them all under control.


10 posted on 09/14/2014 8:31:00 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s ((If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

mx. mark kelley-giffords more than likely penned it since I’m not sure she can put it together. Odd how the lib/prog/socialist/dhimmikkkrat anti’s use brain damaged folks to try to get there point across.


11 posted on 09/14/2014 8:31:24 AM PDT by rktman (Ethnicity: Nascarian. Race: Daytonafivehundrian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Boo Yah! Center of mass!


12 posted on 09/14/2014 8:32:41 AM PDT by rktman (Ethnicity: Nascarian. Race: Daytonafivehundrian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
Without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, you have no other rights; your only have things they allow you to do.

Yes. My long-ago tagline:

Without the Second, the rest are just politician's promises.


13 posted on 09/14/2014 8:34:50 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Thank you for self-censoring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rktman

             

14 posted on 09/14/2014 8:37:23 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Make more women victims, got it Gabby!


15 posted on 09/14/2014 8:39:28 AM PDT by gortklattu (God knows who is best, everybody else is making guesses - Tony Snow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rey
Wait a minute, I thought we were all equals and were to treat all people equally. IF this is true, why laws to supposedly protect women. Furthermore, if women can fight in combat, as defense officials suggest, they certainly should be able to defend themselves without anyone’s assistance.

All laws that give special status to any group should be ruled unconstitutional. Women, gays, minorities, etc. should not have special "privileges". I can see an exception for severely handicapped people in necessary instances.

16 posted on 09/14/2014 8:39:35 AM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rktman
Yup. More range time for women would help with their gun control. More center of mass hits.

Amen!

17 posted on 09/14/2014 8:40:48 AM PDT by depressed in 06 (America conceived in liberty, dies in slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

More gun control for women’s sake, because women naturally have the upper hand in any physical struggle with a male attacker so if there are no guns involved the woman has a much better chance of defending herself against rape.

Got it.


18 posted on 09/14/2014 8:45:08 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

I want to ask her one question. Why is it alright no matter what gender you are for her or certain others to be protected by guns and not us?


19 posted on 09/14/2014 8:46:05 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Did she write it all or was it ghost written and given her name to boost the profile?

Did she write any of it?
20 posted on 09/14/2014 8:49:06 AM PDT by Shannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson