Republican gun raffle in Giffords' county -draws criticism

1. 73

   Stacie Lposted 13 years ago

   By Brad Poole
   TUCSON, Ariz | Fri Sep 2, 2011 10:51am EDT
   (Reuters) - The Republican Party in Representative Gabrielle Giffords' home county is raising eyebrows by raffling off a Glock handgun -- the same brand handgun with which Giffords, a Democrat, was shot through the head in January.
   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/ … edType=RSS
   i watched this on the news and some commentators think it's extremely poor taste and insensitive..i happen to agree

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's incredible. But most Arizona Republicans are whackjobs!

      replyreport
2. 59

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   There was so much response to the publicity generated by this story that they are now raffling a second gun.  Insensitive doesn't begin to describe these people.  Sick, twisted morons are not merely insensitive.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You really hate it when constitutional rights are exercised.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No, sick twisted morons are guaranteed rights and I'm fine with that.  It would be nice if they showed a bit of responsibility and respect when exercising those rights, but if they did so, the teabaggers would quickly run out of recruitable troglodytes.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Responsibility and respect for whom? Are you saying that guns should never be raffled off where someone has been shot or just democrat congresswomen have been shot?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, I'm pretty sure that any reasonable person could have interpreted what I said to mean I'm OK with Republicans being shot.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not saying you said that. I'm asking who are we supposed to respect?

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     turnleftthenrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     It's not about who you are to respect, it is about respecting the law.  BTW the right to bear arms was not meant to right for all citizens to bear arms.  The 2nd amendment was the right to bear arms when it applied to state militias. Keep in mind the context of that amendment.  The revolutionary war was not just fought by government troops but by militias supported and organized by state and local officials.  The militias today would be called guerrillas...their tactics were considered guerrilla warfare--shooting from behind rocks, trees and hidden from sight.  The normal war etiquette was too line up in single line against your foe who did the same and volley shot into the opposing crowd.  The militias played a pivotal role in winning the war thus after the war the 2nd amendment came it being but it was not about giving gun right to single individuals...it was to support local and state sanctioned militias.  Sometimes, those of you on the right fail to read the amendment ... every word of it...so you go and support the right's talking points even when they are wrong.  Read it, examine it--go back and study some history--stop repeating Limbaugh's talking points....cuz you are sounding as idiotic as he is.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You may want to take this up with the Supreme court, I think they have a different view on the 2nd Amendment. But they are probably just as idiotic as me.

                        replyreport
                     2. 59

                        Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        The question of whether the 2nd applied to groups or individuals was settled with the Supreme Court's Hellar decision.  Agree with it or not, legally the case is closed.  Individuals have a right to carry, and local governments have the right to protect the citizens by placing reasonable restrictions on that right.

                        replyreport
                     3. 74

                        Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Aw, but reading the actual amendment takes personal effort.
                        It's so much easier to spout talking points.
                        Besides, it's a lot more fun to rewrite history than to study it.
                        Ask Sarah Palin. She's a Revolutionary War expert!

                        replyreport
                  2. 59

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     So the reference to Democrats was just something that spilled out involuntarily?

                     replyreport
3. 59

   turnleftthenrightposted 13 years ago

   The raffling of the gun is really not the issue. Raffling or selling guns by law enforcement is not uncommon...especially during time of austerity. However, the issue is the raffling of this particular gun, since it represents political violence.  For example, would law enforcement in Killeen raffle off the guns used by the Ft Hood shooter?  Probably not since the symbolic nature of the weapon would prohibit such a move.  Most likely, the weapons are in control of the Army not law enforcement there.  However, if law enforcement would have control of the weapons...they most undeniably would more likely destroy the weapons not raffle them.  The GOP in AZ however is so ideologically bent that this move is more about sticking their finger in the eye of the Dems, which Gifford represents, rather than doing what is right.  The right thing to do is to auction off the right of the winning bidder to choose how the guns are to be disposed of, rather than their outright ownership.  Law enforcement saw two things...1.  a political statement and 2.  a way to bring in some needed cash.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      In Detroit every once in a while the Police Department buys guns and melts them down. This makes a lot more since in view of the inner city gun violence epidemic.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I asked an inner city kid here in columbus about selling weed.
         
         He told me "Naw, the real money is in arms". The kid was 16yo at most.
         
         It's hopeless to control guns.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            turnleftthenrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You are right but it is hopeless to control or eradicate illegal drug use too but that doesn't prevent law enforcement from trying.  As long as this world manufactures arms, like drugs, eradicating their illegal use is impossible...but preventing or controlling their use is possible and we will have to keep on trying.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Brilliant
            
            Only murderers commit murders.  Might as well make it legal.
            
            I guess if we lived in a purely capitalist society everyone who wanted a gun could own one which of course would make us all safer.  

            replyreport
      2. 73

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         since=sense

         replyreport