TexasCHLforum.com

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;

Liberals are hypocrites. What else is new?

per his comments the AR15 is not for him, but rather the Tuscon PD. Sounds like a straw purchase; he lied on the 4473.

If he's got money to throw around like that and has no intention of keeping it, I'd be happy to take it off his hands. I could use another AR15 because the ones I have must be all defective. None of them has been used “to kill a lot of people very quickly,” and must therefore be defective.

JJVP wrote:

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;

So he passes all of the background checks that he wants to have done on EVERY sale, and this proves something?

STINKIN' LIBERAL HYPOCRITE!!!

jimlongley wrote:So he passes all of the background checks that he wants to have done on EVERY sale, and this proves something?

Is he only promoting and backing background checks? Your point would be valid if he wasn't also promoting outlawing the gun and magazine he purchased.

the sad thing is Marc Kelly used to be a great person, with no leftist ideals....
then he went to nasa
followed by his giffords encounter, proving LOVE makes us do dumb things

So a NASA astronaut, without any criminal record, or history of mental illness, is able to legally purchase a firearm. This proves what? That decent law abiding American citizens have the right to arm themselves should they chose to. That if they want to, on an impulse, purchase a rifle after they've purchased a pistol they can? I'm not following how this damages the pro 2nd amendment movement.

I think it proves he is mentally unstable and should not be allowed to purchase a firearm.

jmra wrote:I think it proves he is mentally unstable and should not be allowed to purchase a firearm.

That's it, you have solved it, it's "Catch 22"!!!

If you are sane, you can buy firearms, but buying firearms is an irrational act proving you to be insane, therefore you are ineligible to buy firearms, and if you don't buy firearms, you are sane and can buy firearms, which act makes you insane . . .

Dadtodabone wrote:So a NASA astronaut, without any criminal record, or history of mental illness, is able to legally purchase a firearm. This proves what? That decent law abiding American citizens have the right to arm themselves should they chose to. That if they want to, on an impulse, purchase a rifle after they've purchased a pistol they can? I'm not following how this damages the pro 2nd amendment movement.

It doesn't...........unless liberal liars (but I repeat myself) use the same logic that Kelly uses to justify taking that right away from a law-abiding citizen. His point isn't that he—a qualified citizen—was able to buy this rifle. His point was that nobody should be able to buy this rifle.........that's the damaging part. Another celebrity using his celebrity as a bully pulpit for crushing individual liberty. He also bought a 7-8 round capacity 1911. Betcha he also thinks that there's no place in the world for a 15 round Glock 19. There is a whole class of people like Kelly who are at the fusion of limousine liberals and country club "conservatives." DC is full of them.....cocktail circuit republicans (in name only) think that the 2nd Amendment "gives us permission" to have a handgun for self-protection in the home and a $40,000 Purdy shotgun for upland bird hunting. They are universally horrified by the word "militia" in the 2nd Amendment, and they contort themselves to jump through unimaginable hoops to try and explain it away........"it means the national guard"..........."it only applied during the revolution"............."the militia is armed with muskets"............"militias are all crazy radicals".........(my favorite) "the founding fathers would have never understood assault rifles" (tell that to George Washington, whose troops assaulted lots of enemy positions with rifles).........etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum..........and the absurdity of it all is that "militia" is actually defined in the federal code for anyone to see, and it includes the definition of the "irregular militia"..........which is us! And they most particularly despise modern sporting rifles like the AR and AK because they are the miltia weapons of today.

They would rather die than accept the historical FACT that the founding fathers very deliberately wanted "weapons of war" in the hands of the citizenry so that government could never again do to the citizens of the new nation what the Crown had done to the colonists. And yet today, we pay a MUCH higher percentage of our incomes in taxes and fees to government than the colonists ever paid to the crown. We have tens of thousands of laws on the federal books, many of which countermand one another, when the new nation had a tiny fraction of those laws. Back then, we had few laws because men (and women) were expected to regulate their own behaviors. They called it "virtue." Today, we have thousands upon thousands of laws because government increasingly assumed responsibility for regulating our behavior.........and virtue is publicly mocked in the culture while licentiousness is promoted.

Our society is suffering from a terminal illness if left untreated. How different is Mark Kelly from Sarah Brady? Sarah Brady claimed to be a republican.....and yet she saw no inconsistencies in her political philosophy in attempting to eradicate the 2nd Amendment. Both Kelly and Brady have spouses who suffered devastating brain injuries at the hands of a crazy person with a gun.........Brady's husband shot with a .22 caliber revolver, and Kelly's shot with a 9mm Glock. Kelly's political affiliation is a mystery (my Google-Fu has been unable to find any party reference for him), but one assumes he's a democrat for no other reason than that of marital harmony. But it almost doesn't matter. Both parties have plenty of examples of people who have to jump through hoops to try and explain the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and Brady and Kelly are just two people who have decided that the proper response to their own personal tragedies is to restrict the freedoms of other law abiding citizens.

jmra wrote:I think it proves he is mentally unstable and should not be allowed to purchase a firearm.

Or fly a plane.