countrytimes.com
State Rep. DebraLee Hovey, R-Newtown, who last week on her Facebook page called on shooting victim Gabrielle Giffords to “stay out of my towns,” issued an apology Monday.
“The remarks I made regarding Congresswoman Gifford’s visit were insensitive and if I offended anyone I truly apologize,” Hovey said in a statement issued by her office, referring to Giffords’ visit Friday to Newtown.
“My comments were meant to be protective of the privacy of the families and our community as we work to move on, and were in no way intended as an insult to Congresswoman Giffords personally. Our community has struggled greatly through this tragedy, and we are all very sensitive to the potential for this event to be exploited for political purposes. This is what I wish to avoid,” Hovey said in her statement.
Former Democratic Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, went to Newtown, Connecticut met privately with several government officials before meeting with some of the families of the 20 children and six teachers killed in a massacre by lone gunman, Adam Lanza, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School last month. Giffords and Kelly have been increasingly involved in lobbying for stricter gun laws and improved access to mental health treatment
.
That Hovey should think for a minute that anyone would NOT be offended shows how out of touch she is.
Gabby Giffords has become the darling of America since her remarkable survival and come-back from the near dead. Her recovery and determination are often described as miraculous. She doesn’t just represent herself. So many were killed in the shooting spree that almost left her dead. Gabby Giffords and her desire for change represents more than just herself; she represents her aid, her friends, a judge, a child, so many who did not survive. Giffords speaks for all who cannot speak for themselves.
Hovey really doesn’t own any of the towns. She needs to tender her resignation. Her remarks were unforgivable. It doesn’t matter that she does not belong to the same political party as Giffords. It simply should not matter. Republicans! Teach this woman some manners and some sensitivity!
I am pretty sure if you are victime of a gun massacre you deserve the right to share in the pain of others who have suffered the same fate.
I’m sure Hovey could have expressed herself a bit better. Giffords, Kelly and Hovey are all entitled to their opinions, however.
That being said, Giffords and Kelly are gun owners and say they have two guns in their home, locked in a safe. I think it is worth questioning why a woman who has had a severe brain injury, who likely has had all the emotional lability that almost always accompanies that kind of injury, has access to firearms in her home.
@Emma
Maybe he has the keys? From what I have seen of her, she doesn’t really have the coordination to be firing weapons.
I think she is saying that to let people know she isn’t opposed to guns, just some guns. I own guns and used to target shoot. I also have collector guns. I still feel there needs to be some gun safety legislation and I was very opposed to undoing the 13 hand guns a year law.
Huh? I would think that would be all the more reason for some. I don’t think she meets the criteria of mentally ill? Could you explain more – please!
Not mentally ill, but brain injured. Sorry, didn’t mean to jargonize. Labile means unpredictably emotionally changeable. So that sometimes the injured person laughs hysterically or breaks down and cries piteously for no apparent reason. Not the same as mentally ill in the way you would think about it, but still a bit unpredictable with the highs and lows.
We see her at her best on TV, but I’m willing to bet that her husband copes with a whole lot more than the public will ever know.
I think that is a valid concern and thanks for the new word. I didn’t know it. I bet he copes with a lot also that we don’t know about.
I understand but it sound like what is being said is that a victim with certain injuries can’t have a gun for protection. Don’t want to dredge it all up but she has no opportunity for a fighting chance – and her husband doesn’t either? Doesn’t sound very constitutional to me.
I’m back to removing weapons vs supporting this kind of decision.
I don’t know the extent of her injuries. I guess her nearest of kin would have to make that decision.
There is a bit of irony hidden in what I was saying.
Absolutely. But I think what you said clearly demonstrates the need to look at more gun control. Not expand arming. I have supported the 2nd – we have guns. But…..the technology of weapons has developed well beyond the intent of the right.
I don’t think we should ever be afraid as a society to re-evaluate safety of guns just because some people fear their own government.