Former congresswoman turned anti-gun activist Gabby Giffords is at it again.
Now, I understand her shooting turned her into an anti-gun activist. I disagree with her, but I can see how what happened would push her toward gun control advocacy. It’s not like she had firm pro-gun principles to begin with, unlike someone like Rep. Steve Scalise.
But that doesn’t mean she’s any less wrong for her current position.
And in a recent op-ed about gun control in Virginia, she shows her wrongness clearly.
Virginia is no stranger to the trauma of gun violence. It was more than 15 years ago that we all watched in horror the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, and mass shootings have continued since. Just last year before Thanksgiving, there was a mass shooting at a Walmart in Chesapeake, leaving empty seats at people’s dinner tables and in their homes during the winter holidays.
Tragically, in between shootings that grab national headlines, there is daily gun violence ripping families apart: taking the lives of young and old, women and men. People’s lives are cut too short, taking them from us before they were supposed to go — leaving loved ones and communities heartbroken, and looking for change.
…
If radical Republicans take control of the state Senate and keep the House of Delegates, much of the progress we’ve made over the past 10 years will be lost. Not only will they not fix the problem, they’ll also go backward, weakening gun laws and making the problem worse. MAGA Republicans running for office this year have pushed to remove background checks, overturn extreme risk protection orders (sometimes known as “red flag” laws) and have rejected safe firearm storage requirements.
So pro-gun lawmakers are “radical” because they want to repeal a handful of recently passed gun control laws or oppose new ones, but the woman who actually said “no more guns” is just a middle-of-the-road person concerned about violent crime?
I’m sorry, but I kind of have a hard time taking anyone seriously who thinks opposing a few policies–most of which are very recent creations–is radical while also wanting to basically repeal the Second Amendment and its 230 years of history.
Which is more radical?
“She misspoke,” some might argue, citing the fact she was shot in the head, which caused damage to her brain. “You have to cut her some slack because of that.”
No, I don’t.
Either Giffords is cogent enough to speak for the organization that bears her name or she isn’t.
If not, that’s fine. We all know what happened to her and I, for one, wouldn’t think negatively if she didn’t take this up-front position as a spokesperson for gun control. I’d understand entirely.
But that’s not what’s being presented. She does interviews and has op-eds published in her name.
That means her “no more guns” comment was her actual belief. It’s what she wants, yet has the temerity to call us radicals.
Of course, this is nothing more than a rhetorical device meant to paint opposition to gun control as extremism. We’ve seen it before and we’ll continue to see it going forward because that’s about all they have.
After all, there’s no conclusive evidence that gun control actually works.
So, they spin it and call anyone who opposes it the radicals, because keeping our rights is a radical notion.
Well, if that’s so, then call me radical because I’m like a lot of folks in that we’re not going to be bullied into giving up our rights.