Gabbie: A gun almost murdered me

[slimmer13]

Gabby's total stupidity is what get her shot in the first place. When she publicly admits to that then there might be cause for a conversation about what happened. Till then, screw her and and her POS fly boy husband. They should have sent her up with him and left both of them out there in orbit along with their commie buddy bloomburg.

How so? I'd be fascinated to hear how it's her fault a madman shot her in the head.

You can disagree with her and her husband. You can call them hypocrites, misguided, wrong, even stupid, but blaming her along with the crudeness of your other post, #31, says something about your character.

 

[MountainBear]

Please keep in mind that the following comments are not aimed at anyone in particular. If they bother you, well, I'm sorry, I don't know where the safe zone is for you.

The left and the anti-gun crowd rely on two specific items that I would like to call out. The first is emotions. They trot out the families of tragedies that tug at the heartstrings of America and rely on knee jerk reactions to get things shoved through (in the case of Oregon, as an "emergency"). They cannot translate data into facts that support their position, so they act accordingly. I feel sorry that this woman was shot, I wouldn't wish that on many people, but she is the poster child for exploiting emotions.
The second thing is name calling. When their emotional arguments crumble as the data comes in and doesn't support their position, they resort to referring to us as extremists, kooks, crazy people, wannabe's, etc. Some names get nastier than that. They resort to that because they cannot win based on facts and logic.

Here's where some of our number really need to pay attention. DO NOT RESORT TO THEIR TACTICS! Is this woman incorrect in her assertions about the right, guns, and probably a whole lot else? Absolutely. But when we resort to name-calling, even amongst ourselves, we are no better than the anti's. This forum is public. Anyone can get on here, take a screen shot, and all of a sudden, that we have facts and logic on our side matters a whole lot less, because we look like a bunch of jerks. I understand it feels good to flame on a woman who is obviously wrong on so many levels, but honestly, I wish we would rise above that.

I think if we stuck to facts and logic, and left the other juvenile crap to the anti's, the pendulum would swing so far in our favor, it would break off its pivot. That's just my two cents. Rant over.

 

[P7M13]

It's interesting, the approach: make people aware of gun violence, and the proposed solution, remove guns.

It would be equally interesting to adopt the approach, no guns in video games, no movies with guns, and no hyper focus by the media on guns.
People are sheep, and copy what they see.
I bet, there would be a more and faster results by messing with the media messages first. However, tinker with people's first amendment, and see all the hell that breaks loose.

Curiosity: in the Kali gun buyback, did gun violence decrease? IIRC Washington DC is a gun free zone, yet aren't there a lot of gun crimes there?

Either way you look at it, it's a slippery slope.

Added Edit: The title of the OP is misleading. In her Vogue article, she did not state "A gun almost murdered me," she stated, "I was nearly murdered with a gun." Despite the grammar mistakes in the article, there is a big difference between the two statements above.

 

[billdeserthills]

That was a tragedy, Gabby. But a nut job almost murdered you!

And right after that, he turned Gabby into a nut!

 

[Member 5605]

What about the poor Cal fan they are using as a target? Who speaks for him?????

Brutus Out

#CalFansMatter

 

[Mikej]

Please keep in mind that the following comments are not aimed at anyone in particular. If they bother you, well, I'm sorry, I don't know where the safe zone is for you.

The left and the anti-gun crowd rely on two specific items that I would like to call out. The first is emotions. They trot out the families of tragedies that tug at the heartstrings of America and rely on knee jerk reactions to get things shoved through (in the case of Oregon, as an "emergency"). They cannot translate data into facts that support their position, so they act accordingly. I feel sorry that this woman was shot, I wouldn't wish that on many people, but she is the poster child for exploiting emotions.
The second thing is name calling. When their emotional arguments crumble as the data comes in and doesn't support their position, they resort to referring to us as extremists, kooks, crazy people, wannabe's, etc. Some names get nastier than that. They resort to that because they cannot win based on facts and logic.

Here's where some of our number really need to pay attention. DO NOT RESORT TO THEIR TACTICS! Is this woman incorrect in her assertions about the right, guns, and probably a whole lot else? Absolutely. But when we resort to name-calling, even amongst ourselves, we are no better than the anti's. This forum is public. Anyone can get on here, take a screen shot, and all of a sudden, that we have facts and logic on our side matters a whole lot less, because we look like a bunch of jerks. I understand it feels good to flame on a woman who is obviously wrong on so many levels, but honestly, I wish we would rise above that.

I think if we stuck to facts and logic, and left the other juvenile crap to the anti's, the pendulum would swing so far in our favor, it would break off its pivot. That's just my two cents. Rant over.

Thank you MountainBear.....THIS ^^^ can't be emphasized enough. Way too frequently I'm shaking my head reading threads here with some of the comments. Other times I'm reading and thinking, "Damn! If only this person would send THIS to our elected officials/news paper editorial board." There's a lot of preaching to the choir here, and even though it's enjoyable reading folk that believe like I do, it's not really productive. Hows about getting some of the good stuff out to the masses?

 

[acp]

lol Dij

 

[BanjoGeek]

How so? I'd be fascinated to hear how it's her fault a madman shot her in the head.

You can disagree with her and her husband. You can call them hypocrites, misguided, wrong, even stupid, but blaming her along with the crudeness of your other post, #31, says something about your character.

Me and my character are real comfortable with each other. Yes, I am crude at times but I think the gifford woman was the first to get crude when she uses her position and misfortune to try and take rights away from law abiding Americans. If her BGC promotion is so important, why was it not important the day before the attack upon her? When her and her husband use the position of a member of congress to try and take away from law abiding Americans then the crudeness was in her corner.

Her fault? Let's take a look: A high profile member of congress holds an outdoors rally of some sort knowing all the while that there are credible threats against her life. She has no security in place. When the shooter begins there is no one in close proximity that is armed thus the people there are left to the mercy of the perp. If that isn't total stupidity and in fact irresponsibility the crude will I be.

It took that situation for her and fly boy husband to hook up with bloomburg to go after our rights without due process. Why didn't they do that the day before the shooting and why should their promotion of BGC's have any credibility whatsoever? I stand by my original statements (#31 & 32). Me out.

 

[3MTA3]

Taking the long view of history that America was lost back during the Great Depression with all of the reforms put in place by a President whose wife urged him repeatedly to declare himself a Dictator to deal with the nation's problems. Yep Franklin D. Roosevelt and Eleanor. All of the alphabet programs [WPA, CCC, etc] were "new" Progressive [think socialist] ideas. As Maggie Thatcher is reported to have said, "Socialism works great until it runs out of other people's money". Well, IMHO, we have reached that point now in the span of one long generation. The worker's collective marched off with "that America" into the night in the 1930's singing "this land is your land; this land is our land". "That" America has not been seen since. I am happy I grew up in the early 50s/60s. I remember the feel of that former American freedom. Honestly, I miss it. What to do? I don't have a clue! Just my closely held opinions and that's all they are. An old guy's opinions. Pops

^^^ Nailed it. Folks, if you want an eye opener read "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes. If you went to a public school I guarantee they didn't teach you any of the history you will read in that book.

 

[Hrethgir]

"I was nearly murdered with a gun. At a meeting with my constituents in Tucson, Arizona, a troubled young man opened fire..."

That's what I just copy/pasted from the beginning of the article. Did they reword the article, or was the original post just paraphrased in such a way as to get everyone riled up?

 

[thirtycal]

"I was nearly murdered with a gun. At a meeting with my constituents in Tucson, Arizona, a troubled young man opened fire..."

That's what I just copy/pasted from the beginning of the article. Did they reword the article, or was the original post just paraphrased in such a way as to get everyone riled up?

I'm the OP. I was pointing out the carefully crafted opening statement of that article, and asking if any of you interpreted it the way I did.

You quoted the article correctly (it had not been changed). I quoted it as I had interpreted it, which is why I used the words "in effect" in my post. The effect of that careful wording is to suggest that it was the gun that was at fault. Clearly, this is why the gun is mentioned before the person. By choosing to introduce the gun ahead of the person, the effect of that opening statement is to shift the blame to the gun, and away from the person. This was the author's intent.

The quoted statement (above) is extraordinarily manipulative, on purpose - not by accident - and I was pointing that out for all of you to see. I am disgusted by this type of careful and consistent manipulation of the general public by Gabby's Bloomburg-backed anti-gun hate group. I was hoping you all would be similarly disgusted and would take opportunities in the future to point this out to your fence-sitting friends and family.

And yes, I was trying to ryle you up.

thanks-
Thirtycal

 

[Oldtrader3]

Vugg Magazine has always been anti-the-masses!!!!

 

[The Heretic]

And a car almost killed me!

Multiple times!

Never had a gun try to murder me, but cars, boy they really have it in for me!

Oh - and motorcycles too! One crushed my foot! Another dumped me on I-90 and then went on down the road without me. My first motorcycle did something very similar.

 

[Ura-Ki]

MH60 PaveHawks! Them suckers were always trying to kill me! Cant get any where near one with out the damn thing bucking like a bull with a burr up his bumm

 

[XManSV]

She was pro-gun until the brain damage. Just sayin...

 

[The Heretic]

She was pro-gun until the brain damage. Just sayin...

Getting shot in the head has a way of changing some people's minds. It tends to invoke an emotional response.

Not agreeing with her, just sayin'

 

[XManSV]

Getting shot in the head has a way of changing some people's minds.

Meh F her. She swore to uphold and defend, not to be one of Bloomberg's anti 2A parrots, which is what she is now. She was here in Oregon in February pushing for more gun rights restrictions. Maybe what changed in her mind is that the integrity section was tore out.

 

[The Heretic]

Meh F her. She swore to uphold and defend, not to be one of Bloomberg's anti 2A parrots, which is what she is now. She was here in Oregon in February pushing for more gun rights restrictions. Maybe what changed in her mind is that the integrity section was tore out.

Most people react emotionally instead of thinking rationally.

More so when faced with violence.

We need to stop expecting people to respond to logic. Few people do.

I don't find it surprising that she changed sides. It doesn't help us to complain about it either, much less infer that most of us would act differently if we were in her place.

Attack the message, not the messenger. In this case, it is easy - the message is ridiculous and easily mocked. We don't need to mock her too; we just come across looking like anal orifices when we do.

 

[XManSV]

Most people react emotionally instead of thinking rationally.

More so when faced with violence.

We need to stop expecting people to respond to logic. Few people do.

I don't find it surprising that she changed sides. It doesn't help us to complain about it either, much less infer that most of us would act differently if we were in her place.

Attack the message, not the messenger. In this case, it is easy - the message is ridiculous and easily mocked. We don't need to mock her too; we just come across looking like anal orifices when we do.

Your opinion that making good on swearing to uphold and defend the constitution is actually optional is duly noted. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[The Heretic]

Your opinion that making good on swearing to uphold and defend the constitution is actually optional is duly noted. Thanks for the clarification.

I am being realistic.

She was a politician.

Almost all politicians lie.

Almost all politicians "go with the flow"; if their constituents want them to ban guns, they generally will advocate banning guns.

They are not seeking office because they want to uphold and defend the Constitution, they are in office because they want power, money and to control other people's lives.

The sooner you accept that, the sooner you will understand why politicians act the way that they do, whether they are in or out of office.

The possible exception to those rules are Libertarians. Unfortunately, most people don't want to hear the truth, so they don't like Libertarians, and they don't vote for them.

In the empire of lies, the truth is treason.