Gabby Giffords Husband Buys an AR-15

[philip964]

Geez my liberal female facebook friends are just gushing with happiness over Gabby Giffords husband purchasing guns to show how we need background checks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/1 ... lp00000009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of their comments:

"They are amazing!"

"Grown-ups and Heroes. We have almost forgotten what that looks like."

"Isn't that the truth???"

"They make me want to stand a little taller. I think that's such a good thing for us all."

In their eyes they can do no wrong.

[G26ster]

Geez my liberal female facebook friends are just gushing with happiness over Gabby Giffords husband purchasing guns to show how we need background checks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/1 ... lp00000009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of their comments:

"They are amazing!"

"Grown-ups and Heroes. We have almost forgotten what that looks like."

"Isn't that the truth???"

"They make me want to stand a little taller. I think that's such a good thing for us all."

In their eyes they can do no wrong.

Well then just tell your female friends that's why you purchased yours. Want to be "just like them."

[gclooney]

I thought Astronauts were supposed to be smart...

[TexasGal]

He has astronaut and aristocrat confused.

[The Annoyed Man]

GUN SHOP OWNER SAYS MARK KELLY HAS NOT COMPLETED BACKGROUND CHECK FOR AR-15
Breitbart.Com

Another liberal liar...

Why did Mark Kelly pick a rifle for which he has yet to do a background check?

Kelly, a gun regulation advocate and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has explained that he bought an AR-15 rifle last week because he wanted to show how "easy" it was to buy an "assault weapon."

Yet if that were really his purpose, why did he purchase a traded-in rifle for which he must wait 20 days--and for which he must still complete a background check? Why not purchase a new rifle he could have claimed immediately?

Kelly may have completed the background check process for the pistol he bought, but not for the AR-15. On March 12, after Breitbart News contacted Diamondback Police Supply, the store where Kelly bought the weapons, the store's owner Douglas MacKinlay provided the following statement to the media:

On March 5, 2013 Mr. Mark Kelly purchased a Sig Sauer 45 caliber pistol and a Sig Sauer M400 5.56 AR style rifle from my company, Diamondback Police Supply Co. in Tucson, AZ. The rifle, having been purchased in trade from another customer, cannot be released to Mr. Kelly or any other customer for a minimum of 20 days in accordance with local ordinances. Mr. Kelly did not ask for any modifications to the rifle, nor are we making any. Once the hold period is up, Mr. Kelly must then show proper identification, complete the Federal Firearms Transfer Record (Form 4473) and successfully complete the NICS background check prior to his taking physical possession of the firearm. [emphasis added]

I am SOOOOO facebooking this....

[Syntyr]

I am SOOOOO facebooking this....

Good one TAM.

Here is an open letter about this whole thing I stumbled across. It is well put and reminds me of something you would say ;)

http://www.examiner.com/article/mark-ke ... pen-letter

Dear Capt. Kelly,

Houston, we have a problem: Your story makes no sense.

You’re against rifles like the semiautomatic AR-15, which look like weapons of war, when you know full well the military doesn’t use them, but instead uses the select fire-capable M16. Yet you go to a dealer to buy a .45, a sidearm, which was actually, in your words, “designed for the military.” I’m not following your logic here.

You say as you were leaving the gun store, you noticed a used AR-15 and bought that, too. You then complain about your background check, and use that to attack private sales which don’t undergo background checks. I’m not following your logic here.

You say you have not taken possession of the gun yet, but when you do will turn it over to the Tucson Police. Why? If you wanted to buy them a gun, you could have just given them the money. If you wanted to prove how easy undocumented sales are, you could have bought one privately and taken possession of it instead of going through the trouble of proving you’re not a prohibited person. I’m not following your logic here.

The most troubling thing is, you didn’t “admit” that was your intent until after your purchase had been reported by alternative media and people were commenting on what appears to be hypocrisy of the highest order, compounded with implausible excuse-making. You then told CNN that making a Facebook announcement was something you and your “people” had a plan for, but you didn’t know when, like it’s some kind of big decision you have to consult a team on. I’m not following your logic here.

You’re a trained combat pilot and astronaut. If anyone should be an unquestionable example of unerring logic and straight reporting, it’s you.

I see from comments on related articles and your own Facebook page that people are skeptical, and dismissing your story as disingenuous damage control. And it hasn’t been helped by a new video interview released this morning by USA Today (one of those ethical Gannett newspapers!) which does its best to give you cover, beginning with the title “Mark Kelly buys assault weapon to make a point,” but ends up failing miserably in that goal, and actually makes things worse, if you can believe it -- and why wouldn’t we?

“Gabby Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly, announced that he bought an assault weapon to make a point about gun control,’ the video caption explains. “He plans to sell it over state lines.”

That’s reiterated in the video voice-over narration, which then says you “will eventually turn it over to police.” How, if you sell it? And why, all of a sudden, are we getting a totally different story here? I’m not following the logic here.

Then, in one of those “Authorized Journalist”/"legitimate media” moments that drops the jaw of a mere #justablogger like me, the announcer says “Kelly and his wife are gun owners and say they support the First Amendment.”

I kid you not.

Here’s the thing, Captain: 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a) states “It shall be unlawful … for any person … except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce.”

And if you were really planning to do that, there's this little matter of section 11.a. on the ATF Form 4473 ...

Were you planning to break federal law to make the case for new ones? I’m not following your logic.

Actually, I’m just not buying your story. And based on what I’m seeing, neither is anyone else, especially anti-gun liars with an agenda pretending that they do in order to give you cover.

Also see: "Background check bill bogged down by backlash" by Dave Workman.

UPDATE: AWR Hawkins adds new challenges to Kelly's story, including a local ordinance I knew nothing about that puts a 20-day extended background check hold on the transfer of rifles purchased in trade from another customer, and the fact that the Tucson Police "would likely have to sell the AR-15 rather than destroying it, returning it to the streets."

[RPB]

Thanks TAM

Kelly has not completed the process of taking possession of the AR-15.

Gun Shop Owner Says Mark Kelly Has Not Completed Background Check For AR-15

Kelly, a gun regulation advocate and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has explained that he bought an AR-15 rifle last week because he wanted to show how "easy" it was to buy an "assault weapon."

Yet if that were really his purpose, why did he purchase a traded-in rifle for which he must wait 20 days--and for which he must still complete a background check? Why not purchase a new rifle he could have claimed immediately?

Kelly may have completed the background check process for the pistol he bought, but not for the AR-15. On March 12, after Breitbart News contacted Diamondback Police Supply, the store where Kelly bought the weapons, the store's owner Douglas MacKinlay provided the following statement to the media:

more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ound-Check" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[VMI77]

Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.

Yeah right.

http://patdollard.com/2013/03/gabby-gif ... leaks-out/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently, in his grief, he was just confused about what he bought: http://www.examiner.com/article/media-b ... b_articles

The MSM wouldn't lie, and it turns out he only bought a "military style" rifle, NOT an "assault weapon."

Evidently, people who fly around the country promoting gun control measures cannot possibly buy an “assault weapon,” but can only purchase “military-style” or “AR-15-style” rifles. That wouldn’t look good, it would look bad, very bad and very hypocritical if reported the same way that the press reports such purchases by an average member of the National Rifle Association.