ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Gabrielle Giffords

Justice

Congressman Considers Gabby Giffords A ‘Prop’ For Gun Regulations

Congressman Joe Heck (R-NV) on Tuesday agreed that he considers former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), who was a victim of an assassination attempt two years ago, a “prop” in the debate over gun regulations.

Jon Ralston of Ralston Reports, uncovered the audio of Heck, speaking with conservative radio talk show host Alan Stock, agreed that Giffords was nothing more than a “prop” at the State of the Union:

STOCK: At the end of the president’s State of the Union when he said have a vote for Gabby Giffords, have a vote for this and that. I found that to be nauseating and you know what else is nauseating too is putting Gabby Giffords up there, who can’t even clap her hands, as a figure of somebody being — having shot her. I think it’s a shameful act putting her up there as a prop. I’m sorry. I really do.

HECK: Yeah, no I agree. I think again in the cloud of emotion surrounding Connecticut those who are anti-gun want to use that to limit their Second Amendment rights.

Listen to it:

Giffords has made a remarkable recovery since she was shot through the head at a town hall in a parking lot in Tucson, AZ, two years ago. In fact, the experience has prompted Giffords, along with her husband Mark Kelly, to found an organization called Americans For Responsible Solutions, devoted to combating gun violence.

Update

Heck’s office release this statement on the incident:

My statement was in reference to the idea of gun control grab coming out of Washington DC. Of course there is no way that I think that Gabby Giffords is a prop… Should I have come to her defense? You know, in a fast-moving interview, in retrospect, I should have said something but I didn’t. I was just looking to get past that and talk about gun control in general.

Justice

Meet The 9 Year-Old Girl Who Likely Would Be Alive Today If High-Capacity Magazines Were Illegal


In an exchange during today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on guns, a Republican witness attempted to defend allowing civilians to own 33-round or even potentially 100-round magazines. Capt. Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), explained in very personal terms why these magazines should be banned:

The shooter in Tuscon showed up with two 33-round magazines, one of which was in his 9mm. He unloaded the contents of that magazine in 15 seconds — very quickly. It all happened very, very fast. The first bullet went into Gabby’s head. Bullet number 13 went into a 9 year-old girl named Christina Taylor Greene, who was very interested in democracy and our government, and really deserved a full life committed to advancing those ideas. If [the shooter] had a 10-round magazine? Well, let me back up.

When he tried to reload one 33-round magazine with another 33-round magazine, he dropped it, and a woman named Patricia Maisch grabbed it, and it gave bystanders time to tackle him. I contend if that same thing had happened when he was trying to reload one 10-round magazine with another 10-round magazine, meaning he did not have access to a high capacity magazine, and the same thing happened, Christina Taylor Greene would be alive today. I certainly am willing to give up my ability to own a high-capacity magazine to bring that young woman back.

Watch it:

Politics

Gabby Giffords Launches Gun Safety Group, Calls For ‘Responsible Changes In Our Laws’

Two years ago, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head when a gunman opened fire in Tuscon, Arizona. Today, on the second anniversary of the shooting, Giffords and her husband unveiled a gun safety group to counter the influence of the gun lobby and “line up squarely behind leaders who will stand up for what’s right.”

The group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, will engage the public in conversation on gun violence and seek to weaken the NRA’s hold on lawmakers. In an op-ed for USA Today, Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly called on Congress to finally take action, which it has neglected to do in the 11 mass shootings since the Arizona shooting:

Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.

As a result, we are more vulnerable to gun violence. Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets. Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available. And gun owners are less responsible for the misuse of their weapons than they are for their automobiles.

Forget the boogeyman of big, bad government coming to dispossess you of your firearms. As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don’t want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home. What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence.

Since the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre that killed 20 children, Giffords has said “enough” to gun violence, and will advance commonsense measures through the new group.

The National Rifle Association’s response to the horrific shooting was of a different nature: It proposed arming teachers and eliminating gun-free zones. Some Republican lawmakers have followed the NRA’s suit, but fortunately gun safety advocates have introduced several gun safety bills in the new Congress and President Obama has pledged to clamp down on gun violence.

On Morning Joe, Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former top commander in Afghanistan, endorsed an assault weapons ban, saying, “I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine [..] That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”

Alyssa

Newtown, Connecticut

I lived the first seven years of my life within fifty miles of Newtown, Connecticut, where today two gunman killed at least 18 elementary school children and a number of adults. I’ve shot guns, owned by exceedingly careful and responsible adults in my family, which I mention in case anyone has the temerity to suggest that I’m a naive liberal with no experience with guns after they read what I’m about to say.

But I really want someone who advocates against gun control to balance the scales for me, to go ahead and try to explain to me why the inconvenience suffered by gun owners and prospective gun owners under much tighter restrictions on the purchase of guns and ammunition outweighs the death of children in their classrooms, a place where they’re not just supposed to be safe, but to thrive. Explain to me why their suffering is worse than that of the people who died, and lost family members, in the rampage at Aurora, Colorado, where they were drawn to a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises out of enthusiasm, because it’s a time when parents with infants can see a movie and trust that they’ll sleep through the screening. Please, balance out for me, the loss of Gabby Giffords’ potential with impatience at a waiting period, or frustration at not being able to fire a certain number of bullets per minute. Because this is the choice we make, every time. And I’m terrified to watch us make it again.

Alyssa

‘Columbine,’ ‘We Need to Talk About Kevin,” Jared Lee Loughner’s Competency Report, and the Value of Studying Mass Killers

After the shooting at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado in July, I finally started reading Dave Cullen’s Columbine, which I finished just as word broke that a white supremacist had killed six people and wounded three at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin before committing suicide. There’s been a lot of conversation, particularly in the wake of The Dark Knight Rises massacre, about the desirability of denying the people who commit these crimes press and memory. At the request of victims’ families, President Obama declined to use the name of James Holmes, who is accused of the Aurora shootings. But reading Columbine, and then re-reading Lionel Shriver’s We Need to Talk About Kevin, and then the recently-released forensic report on the mental health of Jared Lee Loughner, who recently plead guilty to killing six people and wounding 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, I realized why that impulse to erase mass killers has never quite resonated with me.

I don’t really want to understand James Holmes, or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or Jared Lee Loughner, or Seung-Hui Cho to understand them, or to come up with a policy solution that would prevent such killings from happening again, especially given the overwhelming obviousness of the role legal guns and ammunition play in making these death rates possible. But I want to read about them and their acts not to fathom the unfathomable, but to gain understanding of a more common humanity: what it means to parent a child gone badly wrong, how to value life in its normalcy rather than its extraordinariness, how men like these test our commitment to the due process of law.

One of the reasons that Columbine, in particular, is important, is that it dispels myths about both persons and policy that grew up in the wake of the shooting. Cullen’s reporting dismantled the idea that Harris and Klebold were social outcasts of some variety, or members of the Trenchcoat Mafia. The point ends up being, in this case as in others, not that schools should monitor social cliques more carefully or ban certain kinds of clothes from campus, but that officials and adults involved with the boys before their killings should have taken available warning signs seriously, and existing procedures should have been followed to their logical conclusions. If Detective Mike Guerra’s search warrant, based on evidence that suggested Harris might be constructing pipe bombs, had been authorized and executed, Harris and the writings on his website might have been recognized for the serious threats they were. If Wayne Harris, Eric’s father, who meticulously documented his son’s troubles, what he believed to be the roots of them, and the punishments he meted out to his son hadn’t believed that another boy was the problem, noting, “Brooks Brown is out to get Eric. Brooks had problems with other boys. Manipulative & Con Artist,” his serious approach to his seriously malevolent son, combined with functional law enforcement efforts, might have helped avert a disaster.

We like narratives that point to entirely unaddressed issues, often cultural ones, however useless they may be, because they give us something to do that doesn’t involve rectifying past mistakes. And it’s easier to institute a dress code than gun control laws—even if both infringe on personal freedom, gun owners have better lobbyists than teenagers. But we need to report on killers and their lives to avoid falling into easy, false narratives about causation, if only because it often proves more important to fix existing safeguards than to impose new ones.

And beyond policy, knowing the true stories of spree killings helps us value the lives of the people who were lost to random violence. In We Need to Talk About Kevin, the people killed by Eva Katchadorian’s son at his school were:

a basketball player, a studious Hispanic, a film buff, a classical guitarist, an emotive thespian, a computer hacker, a gay ballet student, a homely political activist, a vain teen beauty, a part-time cafeteria worker, and a devoted English teacher…Every one of them enjoyed something. Never mind whether this passion was pursued with any flash; whatever his parents claim, I gather Soweto Washington hadn’t a chance at going pro; Denny was (forgive me,Thelma) an atrocious actor, and Greer Ulanov’s petitioning New York congressmen who were going to vote with Clinton anyway was a waste of time. No one is willing to admit as much now, but Joshua Lukronsky’s obsession with movies annoying to many more students than just our son…Be that as it may, Joshua did love movies, and even his outright irksomeness didn’t keep Kevin from coveting the infatuation itself. It didn’t seem to matter infatuation with what. Soweto Washington loved sport and at least the illusion of a future with the Knicks; Miguel Espinoza, learning (at any rate, Harvard); Jeff Reeves, Telemann; Denny Corbitt, Tennessee Williams; Mouse Ferguson, the Pentium III processor; Ziggy Randolph, West Side Story, not to mention other men; Laura Woolford loved herself; and Dana Rocco—the ultimate unforgivable—loved Kevin.

Read more

LGBT

Hate Group Places ‘Bullseye’ On Target For Supporting Families With Pride T-Shirts

It seems that the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins finally got the memo about which LGBT organization Target is supporting with 100 percent of the sales of its LGBT pride month t-shirts. Today, Perkins sent out an “alert” email entitled “Put a bullseye on Target’s funding of left-wing group,” decrying the Family Equality Council for allegedly “shutting down Christian based adoption agencies”:

Minneapolis based mega-retailer, Target Corp. has announced that throughout the month of June (which President Obama has officially declared “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month”) it will be selling “gay pride” t-shirts with 100 percent of the proceeds to benefit the Family Equality Council, a national pro-homosexual organization bent on eliminating faith-based adoption agencies and redefining marriage throughout the nation.

The Family Equality Council’s clear objective is to pass legislation on the local and national level that would effectively shut down Christian based adoption agencies. We have seen this happen in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.[...]

This not-so-fashionable fundraiser shows that Target has its sights set on social engineeringPlease sign our petition letting Target know that you want them to take a position of neutrality on the redefinition of marriage and the right of Christian adoption agencies to operate as they have done throughout history.

Perkins’ email is incredibly troubling for numerous reasons, and FRC knows it. The use of “bullseye” is reminiscent of when Sarah Palin used crosshairs to target certain members of Congress, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), whose staff and supporters were the victims of a deadly shooting last year. Though FRC’s email included “bullseye,” the language was ultimately removed from the online version of the message, but “bullseye” is still evident in the URL (click to see full-size):

Additionally, the entire premise of the email is a lie. What happened in Massachusetts, Illinois, and DC with adoption agencies was voluntary. Religious organizations are completely entitled to discriminate in regards to which couples they allow to adopt. When marriage equality and civil unions become law, the state commits to investing in same-sex families. The agencies that shut down — mostly those run by Catholic Charities — did so completely voluntarily when they refused to stop discriminating when faced with the threat of losing taxpayer subsidies. Faith-based adoption agencies eliminate themselves when they disqualify themselves for public funding.

Perkins’ lambasting of the Family Equality Council as “social engineering” is also disturbing. Just two weeks ago, he accepted an invitation to have dinner with its president Jennifer Chrisler and her family. His only communication about the offer was through CNN, and so far a date has not been set. Given how ill-informed his attacks are, it raises the question of whether he honestly intends to open his heart to Chrisler’s family.

Economy

GOP Candidate Wants To Let Student Rates Double July 1, Work On More ‘Important Things’ Now

GOP Candidate Jesse Kelly

The Republican nominee for Gabby Giffords’ old congressional seat declared this week that he’s willing to let interest rates on student loans double on July 1 because Congress should “deal with the huge problems right now” instead.

Jesse Kelly, who gained notoriety after hosting an M-16 shooting event in 2010 to “remove” Giffords from her seat, was asked on MSNBC Wednesday about student loan interest rates, which are set to double next month. Kelly tepidly said he wanted to fix the interest rates, but then declared that he didn’t want to take up the issue until after Congress had dealt with the Bush tax cuts and the debt ceiling. The solution, according to Kelly, was to let the student loan rates double now, then “deal with that retroactively.”

TODD: First of all, are you in favor of trying to fix the interest rate on student loans so that it does not double?

KELLY: I am in favor of it, but I am in favor of taking care of that after we take care of the most important things right now, which is stopping the Obama tax increases, that’s making sure we don’t increase the debt ceiling without spending concessions. It’s things like that that the Congress needs to be sinking its teeth into right now.

TODD: So you would let it double? Because it’s going to double on July 1st? Let it double now, deal with it later?

KELLY: What I can say is I say the same thing the Speaker of the House is saying right now. Deal with that retroactively, deal with the huge problems right now.

Watch it:

The Bush tax cuts won’t expire until the end of 2012, and we will not hit the debt ceiling until a few months into 2013. If Kelly wants to wait until those other issues are resolved before dealing with student loans, rates could double for at least nine months. In that time, needy students could wind up paying as much as $750 in added interest payments.

Whether or not Kelly gets to put his plan into action will be determined next week. Voters in Arizona’s 8th congressional district will have a special election on Tuesday, June 12 to fill the remainder of Giffords’ term.

Health

GOP Nominee Running For Gabby Giffords’ Seat Says Health Care Is A ‘Privilege You Earn,’ Not A Right

Jesse Kelly, the Republican nominee in Arizona’s 8th congressional district best known for holding fundraisers with M16 automatic rifles, told an elderly gentleman at a campaign stop yesterday that health care is a “privilege” that people must “earn”, not a right.

Kelly, who is running to fill Gabby Gifford’s vacated seat — made the remarks while meeting with voters at the La Cholla Country Club yesterday. A senior citizen asked the candidate about his philosophical approach to health care and whether “health care is a right or a privilege?” Kelly hemmed and hawed before conceding that he believes health care “is a privilege to some extent.” He went on to say that health care is one of those “privileges you earn.”

VOTER: Do you think that health care is a right or a privilege?

KELLY: My belief system is this. The health care for anybody but especially for our nation. The highest quality and lowest cost can only be delivered without the government. What I believe is that all things we drive, we do, health care, anything, is a privilege to some extent. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those are inalienable rights endowed by your creator. If you’re claiming a right, if you’re going to say anything’s a right, if you’re going to say you have a right to a cell phone, then who has the responsibility to pay for it? That’s what I believe.

VOTER: So you’d put health care as a privilege then?

KELLY: Absolutely, absolutely. I believe that all things we have are. But they’re privileges you earn.

Watch it:

Whether or not you agree with Kelly’s belief that health care is just a privilege, it is still a reality that far too many Americans die each year because they can’t afford access to the health care they need or receive uncompensated care that is financed by those who have insurance. Since everyone is bound to fall ill — and some may suffer an unexpected medical setback, as the Giffords tragedy illustrated — a system in which 50 million Americans are uninsured is an inefficient and quite expansive waste of tax payer dollars and resources.

NEWS FLASH

Republican Who Hosted M16 Shooting Event To ‘Remove’ Giffords In 2010 Wins Nomination For Her Seat | Republican Jesse Kelly, a construction manager and Tea Party favorite, won the Republican nomination primary last night to fill the seat left vacant by the resignation of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). Kelly will face former Giffords district manager Ron Barber in the June 12th special election. Kelly, in his unsuccessful 2010 bid for the same seat, infamously hosted an M16 automatic weapons shooting campaign event to help supporters “get on target” to “help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office.” Just months later, a gunman went on a shooting spree at a Giffords community event in Tuscon, leaving six dead and a dozen wounded — including both Giffords and Barber. Giffords resigned her seat in January to focus on her recovery.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up