Gabrielle Gifford's 'Americans For Responsible Solutions'

To cut the number of mass-shootings in America

More guns!	0.0%	[ 0 ]
Bigger guns!	10.0%	[ 1 ]
Give free guns to mental patients!	10.0%	[ 1 ]
Ban safety catches!	0.0%	[ 0 ]
Superglue pistols into the hands of kindergarten kids	10.0%	[ 1 ]
Bowls of free bullets outside hospitals, police stations and schools	0.0%	[ 0 ]
Deport that cheater O'Bama back to Ireland	30.0%	[ 3 ]
Prevent Americans gathering in groups of more than three: it just makes them easy targets	0.0%	[ 0 ]
Bullet proof long johns for all!	40.0%	[ 4 ]
It never happened! All those shootings are jest lies!	0.0%	[ 0 ]
Total Votes:			[ 10 ]

[BF-dragontshd-40]

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

I honestly thought Gifford was a Republican before gonk need to read moar. this is wat happened when you only know the incidence from NASA.gov
But okay, guys, for a person who got shot in the head, it is normal for phobias. Same logic as hydrophobia, arachnophobia, and canine-phobia. Her husband and his brother probably have to face the problem of dealing with deaths many time during their career (any current on-duty or off-duty can feel free to correct me). So guys, chill, everyone is afraid of death, just differ on degree.

Everyone chill while someone who obviously has a personal, biased and terrified position on the issue are making laws about it? Seriously? Well, ******** it. Let's just let the cop whose niece was raped be the lead investigator. We're sure they won't make a bad decision that is emotionally compromised, right?
There's a reason why judges and others recuse themselves. Because they are honest enough to admit they cannot make an impartial, unbiased opinion. It's why appraisers avoid appraising family members homes.

*flips thru an old moral book* only people that are not afraid of emotionally compromising their objective can be consider unbiased. So, avoiding family member? That *is* biased, dude. rolleyes
Wait, so you are not allowing someone with the first hand experience say anything? You just got thieved and you want to prevent it from happening again, would you get mad if I won't allow you to make a suggestion because you are "too emotionally attached"?

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

I honestly thought Gifford was a Republican before gonk need to read moar. this is wat happened when you only know the incidence from NASA.gov
But okay, guys, for a person who got shot in the head, it is normal for phobias. Same logic as hydrophobia, arachnophobia, and canine-phobia. Her husband and his brother probably have to face the problem of dealing with deaths many time during their career (any current on-duty or off-duty can feel free to correct me). So guys, chill, everyone is afraid of death, just differ on degree.

Everyone chill while someone who obviously has a personal, biased and terrified position on the issue are making laws about it? Seriously? Well, ******** it. Let's just let the cop whose niece was raped be the lead investigator. We're sure they won't make a bad decision that is emotionally compromised, right?
There's a reason why judges and others recuse themselves. Because they are honest enough to admit they cannot make an impartial, unbiased opinion. It's why appraisers avoid appraising family members homes.

*flips thru an old moral book* only people that are not afraid of emotionally compromising their objective can be consider unbiased. So, avoiding family member? That *is* biased, dude. rolleyes
Wait, so you are not allowing someone with the first hand experience say anything? You just got thieved and you want to prevent it from happening again, would you get mad if I won't allow you to make a suggestion because you are "too emotionally attached"?

So we should let people that have been the victim of rape make rape laws? There's a reason the legal system is supposed to be devoid of bias (impossible) and excess emotion. So stupid decisions aren't made, and in this case? They're completely unable to come up with a rational answer.
It Brady with boobs.

[BF-dragontshd-40]

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

I honestly thought Gifford was a Republican before gonk need to read moar. this is wat happened when you only know the incidence from NASA.gov
But okay, guys, for a person who got shot in the head, it is normal for phobias. Same logic as hydrophobia, arachnophobia, and canine-phobia. Her husband and his brother probably have to face the problem of dealing with deaths many time during their career (any current on-duty or off-duty can feel free to correct me). So guys, chill, everyone is afraid of death, just differ on degree.

Everyone chill while someone who obviously has a personal, biased and terrified position on the issue are making laws about it? Seriously? Well, ******** it. Let's just let the cop whose niece was raped be the lead investigator. We're sure they won't make a bad decision that is emotionally compromised, right?
There's a reason why judges and others recuse themselves. Because they are honest enough to admit they cannot make an impartial, unbiased opinion. It's why appraisers avoid appraising family members homes.

*flips thru an old moral book* only people that are not afraid of emotionally compromising their objective can be consider unbiased. So, avoiding family member? That *is* biased, dude. rolleyes
Wait, so you are not allowing someone with the first hand experience say anything? You just got thieved and you want to prevent it from happening again, would you get mad if I won't allow you to make a suggestion because you are "too emotionally attached"?

So we should let people that have been the victim of rape make rape laws? There's a reason the legal system is supposed to be devoid of bias (impossible) and excess emotion. So stupid decisions aren't made, and in this case? They're completely unable to come up with a rational answer.
It Brady with boobs.

You won't know the magnitude of rape if you don't experience it first. You don't know the feeling of a near death experience if you didn't have it. You don't know the feeling of sitting on tons of explosive if you didn't sit on it. Let me borrow a quote from Uchuu Kyodai: "Rules are made by humans. Humans are emotional animals."

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

I honestly thought Gifford was a Republican before gonk need to read moar. this is wat happened when you only know the incidence from NASA.gov
But okay, guys, for a person who got shot in the head, it is normal for phobias. Same logic as hydrophobia, arachnophobia, and canine-phobia. Her husband and his brother probably have to face the problem of dealing with deaths many time during their career (any current on-duty or off-duty can feel free to correct me). So guys, chill, everyone is afraid of death, just differ on degree.

Everyone chill while someone who obviously has a personal, biased and terrified position on the issue are making laws about it? Seriously? Well, ******** it. Let's just let the cop whose niece was raped be the lead investigator. We're sure they won't make a bad decision that is emotionally compromised, right?
There's a reason why judges and others recuse themselves. Because they are honest enough to admit they cannot make an impartial, unbiased opinion. It's why appraisers avoid appraising family members homes.

*flips thru an old moral book* only people that are not afraid of emotionally compromising their objective can be consider unbiased. So, avoiding family member? That *is* biased, dude. rolleyes
Wait, so you are not allowing someone with the first hand experience say anything? You just got thieved and you want to prevent it from happening again, would you get mad if I won't allow you to make a suggestion because you are "too emotionally attached"?

So we should let people that have been the victim of rape make rape laws? There's a reason the legal system is supposed to be devoid of bias (impossible) and excess emotion. So stupid decisions aren't made, and in this case? They're completely unable to come up with a rational answer.
It Brady with boobs.

You won't know the magnitude of rape if you don't experience it first. You don't know the feeling of a near death experience if you didn't have it. You don't know the feeling of sitting on tons of explosive if you didn't sit on it. Let me borrow a quote from Uchuu Kyodai: "Rules are made by humans. Humans are emotional animals."

And rationality and emotion are not even remotely related. You do NOT get good laws by emotional involvement. You get good laws by practicality, not panic.

[BF-dragontshd-40]

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

I honestly thought Gifford was a Republican before gonk need to read moar. this is wat happened when you only know the incidence from NASA.gov
But okay, guys, for a person who got shot in the head, it is normal for phobias. Same logic as hydrophobia, arachnophobia, and canine-phobia. Her husband and his brother probably have to face the problem of dealing with deaths many time during their career (any current on-duty or off-duty can feel free to correct me). So guys, chill, everyone is afraid of death, just differ on degree.

Everyone chill while someone who obviously has a personal, biased and terrified position on the issue are making laws about it? Seriously? Well, ******** it. Let's just let the cop whose niece was raped be the lead investigator. We're sure they won't make a bad decision that is emotionally compromised, right?
There's a reason why judges and others recuse themselves. Because they are honest enough to admit they cannot make an impartial, unbiased opinion. It's why appraisers avoid appraising family members homes.

*flips thru an old moral book* only people that are not afraid of emotionally compromising their objective can be consider unbiased. So, avoiding family member? That *is* biased, dude. rolleyes
Wait, so you are not allowing someone with the first hand experience say anything? You just got thieved and you want to prevent it from happening again, would you get mad if I won't allow you to make a suggestion because you are "too emotionally attached"?

So we should let people that have been the victim of rape make rape laws? There's a reason the legal system is supposed to be devoid of bias (impossible) and excess emotion. So stupid decisions aren't made, and in this case? They're completely unable to come up with a rational answer.
It Brady with boobs.

You won't know the magnitude of rape if you don't experience it first. You don't know the feeling of a near death experience if you didn't have it. You don't know the feeling of sitting on tons of explosive if you didn't sit on it. Let me borrow a quote from Uchuu Kyodai: "Rules are made by humans. Humans are emotional animals."

And rationality and emotion are not even remotely related. You do NOT get good laws by emotional involvement. You get good laws by practicality, not panic.

You do not get good laws by excluding the victim. What is the point of the law if it didn't protect the victim? I never said you should let a sociopath decide our legal system.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

*flips thru an old moral book* only people that are not afraid of emotionally compromising their objective can be consider unbiased. So, avoiding family member? That *is* biased, dude. rolleyes
Wait, so you are not allowing someone with the first hand experience say anything? You just got thieved and you want to prevent it from happening again, would you get mad if I won't allow you to make a suggestion because you are "too emotionally attached"?

So we should let people that have been the victim of rape make rape laws? There's a reason the legal system is supposed to be devoid of bias (impossible) and excess emotion. So stupid decisions aren't made, and in this case? They're completely unable to come up with a rational answer.
It Brady with boobs.

You won't know the magnitude of rape if you don't experience it first. You don't know the feeling of a near death experience if you didn't have it. You don't know the feeling of sitting on tons of explosive if you didn't sit on it. Let me borrow a quote from Uchuu Kyodai: "Rules are made by humans. Humans are emotional animals."

And rationality and emotion are not even remotely related. You do NOT get good laws by emotional involvement. You get good laws by practicality, not panic.

You do not get good laws by excluding the victim. What is the point of the law if it didn't protect the victim? I never said you should let a sociopath decide our legal system.

One shows compassion for the victim. Nothing more. They damn well don't typically have a good grasp on rational decisions.
It's why judges recuse themselves when they have significant emotional involvement in a case/situation, same as cops. So they can have justice, not revenge, and not paranoid decisions made with no thought of how it affects other law abiding citizens.

[BF-dragontshd-40]

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

*flips thru an old moral book* only people that are not afraid of emotionally compromising their objective can be consider unbiased. So, avoiding family member? That *is* biased, dude. rolleyes
Wait, so you are not allowing someone with the first hand experience say anything? You just got thieved and you want to prevent it from happening again, would you get mad if I won't allow you to make a suggestion because you are "too emotionally attached"?

So we should let people that have been the victim of rape make rape laws? There's a reason the legal system is supposed to be devoid of bias (impossible) and excess emotion. So stupid decisions aren't made, and in this case? They're completely unable to come up with a rational answer.
It Brady with boobs.

You won't know the magnitude of rape if you don't experience it first. You don't know the feeling of a near death experience if you didn't have it. You don't know the feeling of sitting on tons of explosive if you didn't sit on it. Let me borrow a quote from Uchuu Kyodai: "Rules are made by humans. Humans are emotional animals."

And rationality and emotion are not even remotely related. You do NOT get good laws by emotional involvement. You get good laws by practicality, not panic.

You do not get good laws by excluding the victim. What is the point of the law if it didn't protect the victim? I never said you should let a sociopath decide our legal system.

One shows compassion for the victim. Nothing more. They damn well don't typically have a good grasp on rational decisions.
It's why judges recuse themselves when they have significant emotional involvement in a case/situation, same as cops. So they can have justice, not revenge, and not paranoid decisions made with no thought of how it affects other law abiding citizens.

A good judge won't recuse even if heavy emotions are involved. Still, not allowing Gifford participate is too hash. Maybe she is a little broke. The handle is in our hand, not her or Mark or Scott. So, if this thing get pass, we only have ourselves to blame, not her or Mark or Scott. That at lease shows Gifford still have logic in her instead of hiding herself in the shadows.
I personally does not support gun control, so don't get me on that.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

You won't know the magnitude of rape if you don't experience it first. You don't know the feeling of a near death experience if you didn't have it. You don't know the feeling of sitting on tons of explosive if you didn't sit on it. Let me borrow a quote from Uchuu Kyodai: "Rules are made by humans. Humans are emotional animals."

And rationality and emotion are not even remotely related. You do NOT get good laws by emotional involvement. You get good laws by practicality, not panic.

You do not get good laws by excluding the victim. What is the point of the law if it didn't protect the victim? I never said you should let a sociopath decide our legal system.

One shows compassion for the victim. Nothing more. They damn well don't typically have a good grasp on rational decisions.
It's why judges recuse themselves when they have significant emotional involvement in a case/situation, same as cops. So they can have justice, not revenge, and not paranoid decisions made with no thought of how it affects other law abiding citizens.

A good judge won't recuse even if heavy emotions are involved. Still, not allowing Gifford participate is too hash. Maybe she is a little broke. The handle is in our hand, not her or Mark or Scott. So, if this thing get pass, we only have ourselves to blame, not her or Mark or Scott. That at lease shows Gifford still have logic in her instead of hiding herself in the shadows.
I personally does not support gun control, so don't get me on that.

Every damn thing she's out for is cosmetic. There's no rhyme nor reason to it, and thus, it deserves no credibility.

[BF-dragontshd-40]

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

You won't know the magnitude of rape if you don't experience it first. You don't know the feeling of a near death experience if you didn't have it. You don't know the feeling of sitting on tons of explosive if you didn't sit on it. Let me borrow a quote from Uchuu Kyodai: "Rules are made by humans. Humans are emotional animals."

And rationality and emotion are not even remotely related. You do NOT get good laws by emotional involvement. You get good laws by practicality, not panic.

You do not get good laws by excluding the victim. What is the point of the law if it didn't protect the victim? I never said you should let a sociopath decide our legal system.

One shows compassion for the victim. Nothing more. They damn well don't typically have a good grasp on rational decisions.
It's why judges recuse themselves when they have significant emotional involvement in a case/situation, same as cops. So they can have justice, not revenge, and not paranoid decisions made with no thought of how it affects other law abiding citizens.

A good judge won't recuse even if heavy emotions are involved. Still, not allowing Gifford participate is too hash. Maybe she is a little broke. The handle is in our hand, not her or Mark or Scott. So, if this thing get pass, we only have ourselves to blame, not her or Mark or Scott. That at lease shows Gifford still have logic in her instead of hiding herself in the shadows.
I personally does not support gun control, so don't get me on that.

Every damn thing she's out for is cosmetic. There's no rhyme nor reason to it, and thus, it deserves no credibility.

That depends on viewpoint. I personally think Mark and Scott are credible men. They sat on explosives before. But alas, personal opinion.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

You do not get good laws by excluding the victim. What is the point of the law if it didn't protect the victim? I never said you should let a sociopath decide our legal system.

One shows compassion for the victim. Nothing more. They damn well don't typically have a good grasp on rational decisions.
It's why judges recuse themselves when they have significant emotional involvement in a case/situation, same as cops. So they can have justice, not revenge, and not paranoid decisions made with no thought of how it affects other law abiding citizens.

A good judge won't recuse even if heavy emotions are involved. Still, not allowing Gifford participate is too hash. Maybe she is a little broke. The handle is in our hand, not her or Mark or Scott. So, if this thing get pass, we only have ourselves to blame, not her or Mark or Scott. That at lease shows Gifford still have logic in her instead of hiding herself in the shadows.
I personally does not support gun control, so don't get me on that.

Every damn thing she's out for is cosmetic. There's no rhyme nor reason to it, and thus, it deserves no credibility.

That depends on viewpoint. I personally think Mark and Scott are credible men. They sat on explosives before. But alas, personal opinion.

Which is all we are going off of. When someone decides the best policy is to disarm law abiding citizens, they are not thinking clearly. Same as those that constantly state 'well, learn martial arts'.
Wonderful. Sad part is, there are some who are unable to do physical activity. There's also the issue of those large among us who can literally pound the s**t out of anyone we need to, due to both strength and fighting ability.
All they're doing with this is taking away protective measures. The solution is making the mental health professionals required to report those they deem too dangerous to have a firearm, and stiffer sentences on those that use firearms in the commission of a crime. And yes, I am all for background checks on every purchase.

[BF-dragontshd-40]

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

You do not get good laws by excluding the victim. What is the point of the law if it didn't protect the victim? I never said you should let a sociopath decide our legal system.

One shows compassion for the victim. Nothing more. They damn well don't typically have a good grasp on rational decisions.
It's why judges recuse themselves when they have significant emotional involvement in a case/situation, same as cops. So they can have justice, not revenge, and not paranoid decisions made with no thought of how it affects other law abiding citizens.

A good judge won't recuse even if heavy emotions are involved. Still, not allowing Gifford participate is too hash. Maybe she is a little broke. The handle is in our hand, not her or Mark or Scott. So, if this thing get pass, we only have ourselves to blame, not her or Mark or Scott. That at lease shows Gifford still have logic in her instead of hiding herself in the shadows.
I personally does not support gun control, so don't get me on that.

Every damn thing she's out for is cosmetic. There's no rhyme nor reason to it, and thus, it deserves no credibility.

That depends on viewpoint. I personally think Mark and Scott are credible men. They sat on explosives before. But alas, personal opinion.

Which is all we are going off of. When someone decides the best policy is to disarm law abiding citizens, they are not thinking clearly. Same as those that constantly state 'well, learn martial arts'.
Wonderful. Sad part is, there are some who are unable to do physical activity. There's also the issue of those large among us who can literally pound the s**t out of anyone we need to, due to both strength and fighting ability.
All they're doing with this is taking away protective measures. The solution is making the mental health professionals required to report those they deem too dangerous to have a firearm, and stiffer sentences on those that use firearms in the commission of a crime. And yes, I am all for background checks on every purchase.

Looks like whether or not Gifford is too extreme depends on opinions, and I ain't gonna change your or mines.
I am all in for background checks. Like a terrorist gonna care about gun control or not.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

Old Blue Collar Joe

BF-dragontshd-40

A good judge won't recuse even if heavy emotions are involved. Still, not allowing Gifford participate is too hash. Maybe she is a little broke. The handle is in our hand, not her or Mark or Scott. So, if this thing get pass, we only have ourselves to blame, not her or Mark or Scott. That at lease shows Gifford still have logic in her instead of hiding herself in the shadows.
I personally does not support gun control, so don't get me on that.

Every damn thing she's out for is cosmetic. There's no rhyme nor reason to it, and thus, it deserves no credibility.

That depends on viewpoint. I personally think Mark and Scott are credible men. They sat on explosives before. But alas, personal opinion.

Which is all we are going off of. When someone decides the best policy is to disarm law abiding citizens, they are not thinking clearly. Same as those that constantly state 'well, learn martial arts'.
Wonderful. Sad part is, there are some who are unable to do physical activity. There's also the issue of those large among us who can literally pound the s**t out of anyone we need to, due to both strength and fighting ability.
All they're doing with this is taking away protective measures. The solution is making the mental health professionals required to report those they deem too dangerous to have a firearm, and stiffer sentences on those that use firearms in the commission of a crime. And yes, I am all for background checks on every purchase.

Looks like whether or not Gifford is too extreme depends on opinions, and I ain't gonna change your or mines.
I am all in for background checks. Like a terrorist gonna care about gun control or not.

The biggest thing is, criminals are not going to follow the law. All these things are is feel good legislation that does nothing but create more potential victims by removing their ability to defend themselves.