From the archive: This story is more than 5 years old.
Comments on
Flake, Giffords part ways on background check bill
Slain aide Zimmerman honored with room dedication
Posted Apr 16, 2013
Mary Shinn Cronkite News Service
Minutes after he shared a stage with former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Tuesday, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said he still plans to oppose a bill supported by Giffords that calls for expanded background checks for gun buyers. The pair appeared together as Vice President Biden helped dedicate a room in the Capitol Visitor Center for slain aide Gabe Zimmerman.
Who the hell cares what Kelly has to say? How many times does he have to prove himself a scumbag for it to stick with some people? He should just go back to buying the AR-15’s that he says should be illegal and return to the background where his proper place has been all along.
Props to Senator Flake for starting to think this through rather then get caught up in the hysteria-based knee-jerk reactions. Background checks are all well and good, but there is such a thing as going too far with it.
Gun control after every tragedy is shamelessly paraded around as a solution, “we need more laws” the unthinking chant in unison led in that chant by the Democrats pushing more gun laws instead of solutions! Well in the same spirit let’s talk pressure cookers. Why does anyone need a pressure cooker? Pressure cookers kill, that’s a fact, and they are dangerous. Who needs a pressure cooker? Pressure cookers were used by Grandmothers of another generation to make that inedible cut of meat bought at the local butcher from God knows what animal called beef of course and make it tender! We don’t have that problem anymore folks, our cattle are corn fed and tender! We need to pass laws making it illegal for these cagy Grandmothers who might see an opportunity to cash in and sell their existing cookers to criminals. Passing a pressure cooker on from one generation to the next needs to be a crime a person obviously needs a background check before they can own a pressure cooker. Why does a pressure cooker have to be so big? We can limit their size and save American babies, right? Who but the looniest among us could be against making babies safe, banning pressure cookers and/or regulating the amount of food they can hold (cause we know they are not really being used for cooking) and then and only then can we rest at night knowing our American children are safe!
Please join me in banning or heavily regulating unneeded devices of death that pressure cookers are!
Bill says: Can any Democrat tell me why the perpetrator(s) of the Boston bombing should not get the death penalty or be interrogated with enhanced techniques?
Bill says: After listening to Chris Matthews and the other leftwing nuts speculate that the Boston bomber was a radical White rightwing male group, it will be interesting what actually the case is, my guess is if the bomber has a little pigment in his skin they will MOVE ON to another story real quick!
Rather than flinging names about, why not try to point to substantive policy disagreements you might have - and explain why your approach is better? The former approach is tiresome and unproductive.
Just because these stories get repetitive doesn’t mean I have to. I have made my positions clear in past comments. Kelly is a hypocrite, he has proven that to any reasonable-thinking person, and if the anti-gun lobby had any brains whatsoever they would do whatever they could to distance themselves from him.
After a few minutes of thinking Dylan, I’ll grant your request to state what I think we should do instead…
What I am opposed to is closing what’s referred to as the “gun show and private party loophole” in its current form. If I own a gun (which I don’t), and I’m not a dealer or anything like that, then I should have the right to sell that gun to whomever I please for however much I please. Requiring a background check for private citizens transacting with one another is unnecessarily inconvenient. It would make it either impossible, or make the seller and/or buyer have to throw even more money at a dealer to do the background check, which in my mind is pretty much an additional tax, one so expensive that it would hinder any proposed sale itself.
What I propose instead is to throw out the idiot thinking that public records are somehow not public, and make it easier for John Q. Public to check someone’s background in this context. If we can have an easily-accessed sex offender registry, then we can certainly put together an equally easily-accessed can’t-buy-a-gun registry. I have to believe that such a thing wouldn’t be that difficult or expensive to put together, and wouldn’t infringe on anyone’s rights any more then they already have been.
There, Dylan, my “substantive policy disagreement” and why my approach is better…again. Satisfied now? Good. Now I can go back to pointing out Mark Kelly’s blatant hypocrisy and his shameful and disgusting exploiting of his wife’s tragedy.
I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!
We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.
Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:
Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:
TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.
User Guidelines
Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.
We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.
We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.
Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.
Keep in mind:
A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
Ask questions. Search out answers.
Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.
TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:
Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.
Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.
Flagging
Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.
Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.
What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.
We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.
We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.
2
6 comments on this story
Who the hell cares what Kelly has to say? How many times does he have to prove himself a scumbag for it to stick with some people? He should just go back to buying the AR-15’s that he says should be illegal and return to the background where his proper place has been all along.
Props to Senator Flake for starting to think this through rather then get caught up in the hysteria-based knee-jerk reactions. Background checks are all well and good, but there is such a thing as going too far with it.
Gun control after every tragedy is shamelessly paraded around as a solution, “we need more laws” the unthinking chant in unison led in that chant by the Democrats pushing more gun laws instead of solutions! Well in the same spirit let’s talk pressure cookers. Why does anyone need a pressure cooker? Pressure cookers kill, that’s a fact, and they are dangerous. Who needs a pressure cooker? Pressure cookers were used by Grandmothers of another generation to make that inedible cut of meat bought at the local butcher from God knows what animal called beef of course and make it tender! We don’t have that problem anymore folks, our cattle are corn fed and tender! We need to pass laws making it illegal for these cagy Grandmothers who might see an opportunity to cash in and sell their existing cookers to criminals. Passing a pressure cooker on from one generation to the next needs to be a crime a person obviously needs a background check before they can own a pressure cooker. Why does a pressure cooker have to be so big? We can limit their size and save American babies, right? Who but the looniest among us could be against making babies safe, banning pressure cookers and/or regulating the amount of food they can hold (cause we know they are not really being used for cooking) and then and only then can we rest at night knowing our American children are safe!
Please join me in banning or heavily regulating unneeded devices of death that pressure cookers are!
Bill says: Can any Democrat tell me why the perpetrator(s) of the Boston bombing should not get the death penalty or be interrogated with enhanced techniques?
The lunacy of the Left is killing us!
Bill says: After listening to Chris Matthews and the other leftwing nuts speculate that the Boston bomber was a radical White rightwing male group, it will be interesting what actually the case is, my guess is if the bomber has a little pigment in his skin they will MOVE ON to another story real quick!
@Bret Linden,
Rather than flinging names about, why not try to point to substantive policy disagreements you might have - and explain why your approach is better? The former approach is tiresome and unproductive.
@Dylan Smith
Just because these stories get repetitive doesn’t mean I have to. I have made my positions clear in past comments. Kelly is a hypocrite, he has proven that to any reasonable-thinking person, and if the anti-gun lobby had any brains whatsoever they would do whatever they could to distance themselves from him.
After a few minutes of thinking Dylan, I’ll grant your request to state what I think we should do instead…
What I am opposed to is closing what’s referred to as the “gun show and private party loophole” in its current form. If I own a gun (which I don’t), and I’m not a dealer or anything like that, then I should have the right to sell that gun to whomever I please for however much I please. Requiring a background check for private citizens transacting with one another is unnecessarily inconvenient. It would make it either impossible, or make the seller and/or buyer have to throw even more money at a dealer to do the background check, which in my mind is pretty much an additional tax, one so expensive that it would hinder any proposed sale itself.
What I propose instead is to throw out the idiot thinking that public records are somehow not public, and make it easier for John Q. Public to check someone’s background in this context. If we can have an easily-accessed sex offender registry, then we can certainly put together an equally easily-accessed can’t-buy-a-gun registry. I have to believe that such a thing wouldn’t be that difficult or expensive to put together, and wouldn’t infringe on anyone’s rights any more then they already have been.
There, Dylan, my “substantive policy disagreement” and why my approach is better…again. Satisfied now? Good. Now I can go back to pointing out Mark Kelly’s blatant hypocrisy and his shameful and disgusting exploiting of his wife’s tragedy.