Denise Gitsham responds to SDUT gun editorial

Guest Column Guest Column 12 Comments

Share

by Denise Gitsham, candidate for Congress, CA-52nd District
from her Facebook page

In the spirit of Star Wars – the UT strikes back!

Here are the facts: In November, the UT printed a story riddled with inaccuracies about my candidacy. I agreed to give them a second chance, and provided them with a statement prior to their deadline. Again, they chose to make a point rather than educate the public.

Here’s the statement I sent them, which never went to print. I hope it resonates with some of you, as I am certain that common sense reform, as always, is the answer.

My heart breaks for the victims of gun violence, but it is the responsibility of Congress to push for policies that will actually make us safer rather than just feel better. Around the country, jurisdictions with the strictest gun laws are also some of the jurisdictions with the most gun violence. I fully support closing sensible loopholes – particularly for those on the federal government’s terrorism watch list, and those related to gun show and Internet sales – all of which should be done within the context of protecting our constitutional right to bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment.

Share

Comments 12

  1. This is the kind of lack of understanding you get from a candidate about gun laws and the role of government when their only qualification to run for congress is hiring Revolvis.

  2. Hey Denise, you can save yourself a lot of time and money and drop out now.
    You sound like a RINO.

    If I want an anti gun congressman I’ll just keep Peters.

  3. Her consultants really screwed this up by their unsurprising arrogance in blowing off the UT’s interview requests. Then they threw their client under the bus.

    But rest assured, her consultants will make sure they keep cashing those checks.

    Problem for Denise is her consultants can only win LOW turnout elections in off-year specials. 2016 is a Presidential Year and congressional races by law have to go to November runoffs.

  4. Unfortunately this was predictable with all the dodging prior. While I would still choose Ms. Gitsham over Peters in a heartbeat, I cannot approve of your stance while fully knowing the flaws in the No Fly List. Of one example would be a case where a certain Sen. Ted Kennedy ended up on the list and it took him 3 weeks to get off. Imagine how much longer for your average innocent citizens and constituents. For me, this isn’t sensible. If you have an epiphany, let me know (and as for the rest, I personally can get semi-on-board with. Speaking as an individual). Merry Xmas All.-JD

  5. Usmc dawg and Freedom Lover:

    You submitted comments. They weren’t approved. You are apparently one in the same person.

    Rule 1. Pseudonyms are ok, but select one and stick with it. It’s bad form to attempt to appear like you’re more than one person commenting on the same subject.

    Rule 2. If your IP didn’t give you away as being one in the same, your choice of passe terms to refer to females was a dead giveaway. No name calling here. Disagree with someone, call them out for their politics or positions, but do it without getting in the gutter.

    Ok, sweetie?

  6. If only there were a local San Diego group that could have helped educate you on Second Amendment issues before you made your….statement.

    The obvious problems with the “no fly” list are you are taking away a Constitutionally protected right without due process and the terrorists who attacked in Tennessee, Ft. Hood, Garland, and San Bernardino were not on the “no fly” list.
    If a person is on the “no fly” list because due process is impossible because the person is a foreigner…then that person can’t buy a gun anyway. So it’s unclear what you believe you are attempting to accomplish.

    Regarding the gun show or internet “loophole”, there isn’t one. There is a federal law (that means it’s in all 50 states) against selling a gun to anyone who cannot legally own one. It doesn’t matter if you do the sale at a gun show or over the internet or at a gun shop or out of the back of a car. Again, selling a firearm to someone who cannot legally own one is ALWAYS illegal in all 50 states. So…no “loophole”.

    Passing a law making it really REALLY illegal might make people feel better, but it won’t make us safer.

    You’re running for Congress, Denise. Hearing a statement like yours at a Christmas party from the receptionist after 1 too many egg nogs is explainable. The backlash here is due to the total lack of details, thought, and effort that went into your….statement.

    If you did this on your own, I encourage you to take advantage of the many resources in areas where you’re weak. If this statement and publishing it was the result of advice given to you, I’d encourage you to get better advisors. This just isn’t good enough.

  7. Is Revolvis running your campiagn, Denise? If they are, I’m worried about them– every single one of their candidates spouts platitudes about “sensible” gun regulations which violate my natural, God given right to defend me and my family.

    I am torn on your opponent, because she supports abortion, but your position on the Second Amendment is puerile at best. Go back to the drawing board (aka the Constitution) and try again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *