As Giffords pleads case, NRA pushes back
WASHINGTON — Severely wounded and still recovering, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords begged lawmakers at an emotional hearing on Wednesday to act quickly to curb firearms because “Americans are counting on you.” Not everyone agreed, underscoring the national political divide over gun control.
Giffords' 80-word plea was the day's most riveting moment, delivered in a hushed, halting voice two years after the Arizona Democrat suffered head wounds in a Tucson shooting spree that killed six people and two months after 20 first-graders and six women were slain by a gunman who invaded Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
At the same hearing, a top official of the National Rifle Association rejected Democratic proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. He said requiring background checks for all gun purchases would be ineffective because the Obama administration isn't doing enough to enforce the law as it is.
Even if stronger background checks did identify a criminal, “as long as you let him go, you're not keeping him from getting a gun and you're not preventing him from getting to the next crime scene,” said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president. He said poor enforcement is “a national disgrace.”
Giffords, who retired from Congress last year, focused during her brief appearance on the carnage from armed assailants.
“Too many children are dying,” she said at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now.”
Guiding her in and remaining to testify was Mark Kelly, the retired astronaut who is Giffords' husband. The couple, who both owns guns, has formed a political action committee called Americans for Responsible Solutions that backs lawmakers who support gun restrictions.
“We're simply two reasonable Americans who realize we have a problem with gun violence, and we need Congress to act,” Kelly said.
The session played out in a hearing room packed to capacity. While both sides appealed to their followers beforehand to arrive early and fill the room, most in the public audience of about 150 appeared to be gun-control sympathizers, including relatives of the shooting victims at Virginia Tech.
“There should be gun control,” said Neeta Datt of Burtonsville, Md., who with Christa Burton of Silver Spring, Md., was first on line for public seats. Both are members of Organizing for Action, the Obama political organization that is pushing his legislative agenda.
The hearing kicked off a year in which President Obama and members of Congress are promising to make gun restrictions a top priority. Obama has proposed requiring background checks for all gun sales and reviving an assault weapons ban and a 10-round limit on the size of ammunition magazines, and several Democrats have introduced bills addressing those and other limitations.
At the Capitol, senators' remarks during the hearing illustrated the gulf between the two parties.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, joined others in lauding Giffords but expressed little interest in curbing firearms.
“Unfortunately in Washington, emotion I think often leads to bad policies,” said Cruz, a freshman elected with strong Tea Party backing. He said gun control efforts too often “restrain the liberties of law-abiding citizens,” not criminals.
Republicans blamed the nation's gun troubles on a list of maladies including a lack of civility, violent video games and insufficient attention to people with mental problems. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the panel, said that while he welcomed the renewed focus on guns, “The deaths in Newtown should not be used to put forward any gun-control proposal that's been floating around for years.”
Democrats countered that a need to improve gun restrictions was obvious. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said omitting gun limits from the debate “is like not including cigarettes when discussing lung cancer.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the committee's chairman, said he hoped his panel would write gun-control legislation next month, though he did not specify what it might contain. In his opening remarks, he voiced support for requiring broader background checks that would help keep criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms, and he has introduced legislation that would make it a federal crime for someone to purchase a gun for a person who would not be legally allowed to have one.
Under questioning from Leahy, LaPierre said that in a reversal his organization no longer supports universal background checks for gun purchasers as it did years ago.
“Back in '99 you said, ‘No loopholes, nowhere,' ” said Leahy, referring to testimony delivered more than a decade ago. “Now you do not support background checks for all.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Law enforcement, intelligence agencies want to ‘like’ you on social media
- N.H. kidnapping suspect held on $1M bail
- Highway funding overhaul sought
- Move over, Mickey, here comes Crayola
- UCLA inundated by burst pipe
- Chemical plan inspection program ‘broken’
- Lone clinic in Miss. for abortions still stands
- Girl struck by plane on beach succumbs
- Obama’s many rules often violate statute
- Swift action expected of VA’s new secretary
- Appeals court upholds nation of origin labels for meat