Let me clarify a bit. I put "her" [ideas, thoughts, beliefs, policies] in quotes because Mark Kelly always says "Gabby and I" and "we", and I have doubts as to her cognitive capacity to actually be involved in formulating any of those ideas. That's why I'd like to see an interview of her where she is alone and must answer detailed questions about their organization's policies without the help or coaching of her husband (sample question: Please cite research or explain your reasoning in determining that 11 rounds constitutes a "high capacity" magazine. Why not 11 or 9 or 3?). It's possible she can think clearly, and could write lucid answers (though her writing arm is paralyzed), but she certainly doesn't have any speaking capacity beyond fairly primitive. As for the "common sense gun safety" term, I put that in quotes because those of us supporting the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms know that phrase to be a euphemism for ending those rights. As a congressperson she voted for the national concealed carry reciprocity act, supported the NRA Eddie Eagle education program, and voted to end restrictions on handgun ownership in Washington, D.C., so she wasn't among the most rabid of gun grabbers in congress (though the rest of her voting on gun rights issue is very poor). No matter how she voted, or what she believed and believes, her injury and the injuries and deaths of the others in the same shooting incident are tragic, and Mr. Kelly's use of her to promote whatever it is he is promoting is very sad to me.
....I understood you, and the significance of the quotes. And I hear your list of seeming evidence - based on her voting history - that she indeed supported the 2a.
But here's a few reasons why why I say that voting history means nothing - and I mentioned this above:
1) she has been a lifelong member of a party, one of whose defining platform agendas is gun control. This is so significant to me I can't describe it! Without humor, I equate it to someone who was a KKK member but asked for recognition from blacks cause he supported desegregation. Small acts of support can only be received as dubious when you are a member of a group who collectively does the opposite.
2) I'm sure you are aware of how it is a well known strategic technique for dems in gun loving states to vote pro 2a to ensure reelection and dem numbers in the congress - right? I would laugh if it weren't so fake, the 'support' dems show for the 2a for political expediency! You understand right?
3). Similarly, it is also a well known overall strategy to pick and choose when to be pro or anti 2a. For example, she voted pro as you cited, but also voted anti on numerous other occasions: the grotesque UN arms trade treaty, HiCap ban, assault weapons ban, etc.. So how can one possibly not question the sincerity of pro votes when there were an equal number of anti votes? I don't know...this is so intensely significant to me.
To restress my sentiment, I'd say a legislator being a victim of gun violence, while a member of a party whose platform is legislating away the 2a, is as poetically judicial as a legislator who was a lifelong supporter of criminal rehab, work furloughs, understanding why, and overall leniency for violent criminals, being the victim of recidivism.
And I tell you, though this is off the guncontrol aspect of this, dems - Gifford - are also members of a party who have been conspiring - since Wilson and Roosevelt - to destroy constitutional republicanism and impose socialism (communism, despotism, tyranny). The list of hellish experiences Americans have and will experience as a result that party's policies is sickening and I'd go dizzy listing but a few.
I don't fell sorry for politicians who directly or by default (by association), have lead us to the brink of despotic darkness - and you know that is precisely where we are now.