Search found 3 matches

by The Annoyed Man
Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:34 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Gabby Giffords Husband Buys an AR-15
Replies: 22
Views: 3312

Re: Gabby Giffords Husband Buys an AR-15

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....
by The Annoyed Man
Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:08 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Gabby Giffords Husband Buys an AR-15
Replies: 22
Views: 3312

Re: Gabby Giffords Husband Buys an AR-15

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.
by The Annoyed Man
Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:58 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Gabby Giffords Husband Buys an AR-15
Replies: 22
Views: 3312

Re: Gabby Giffords Husband Buys an AR-15

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.

Return to “Gabby Giffords Husband Buys an AR-15”