Pot, Meet Kettle...

[2ndsojourn]

From sigcurious:
"Anyone else happen to catch the interview and hear what he had to say or what kinds of questions they asked him? "

I caught the end of it. He's going to be buying more guns in the future and reporting how easy it is.

[Jo6pak]

I would hope it would be easy for a man with no criminal record and no mental health issues. And presumably a high military secuity clearance.

[barnbwt]

Jeez, can't they just add him to the list of prohibited purchases if he's afraid it's too easy for him? Besides, he's all uber-trained in astronaut-foo; why shouldn't he get a gun if he wants it? (And he obviously wanted this rifle) I'll bet his biggest suprise was that his NICS went through in mere minutes as opposed to the hours/days-long delays we had been seeing.

Does hypocrisy abound among the anti-gunners? It certainly does. At the heart of their ideology is the idea that the privileged will have access to self-defense while the unwashed masses do not.

There are those with a moral compass, and those who live and die by contradictions. I'll give Mr. Kelly the benefit of the doubt and assume his morals have been compromised by tragedy as opposed to politics (although this sad fate has been very beneficial for him politically--bit of a Faustian covenant to tie his prominence to those who exploit tragedy)

TCB

[Venom1956]

I actually love when this stuff happens. Hurts their credibility more the our arguments ever could.

[Truth Addict]

He lost all credibility to me when he told the story about the guy that showed up during the shooting of his wife. He told the story in front of the Senate committee on gun violence. Basically he argued that CCW was a bad idea. He said that a second tragedy ALMOST happened when a man with a CCW ALMOST shot the person who was tackling the original shooter. Yeah, let's pass laws on things that AMOST happened or MIGHT happen. In my CCW class, it was made VERY clear that when you come to the aid of another with your firearm, you must know the situation enough to determine who the bad guy is. Otherwise, using your firearm is not warranted.

[Skadoosh]

Originally posted by scrubcedar
Understanding the pathology involved, I find the exploitation of these people, with or without their cooperation, to be nothing short of despicable, cynical, and the mark of a person without a functioning conscience. No I'm not talking about anyone here, I'm talking about the people using them as a dog and pony show.
Just leave these poor sad people alone, of course his actions are conflicted and inconsistent.
Say a prayer for him folks, don't curse him.

Except that he is making it his life's work to support anti-gun legislation. He has gotten on the soap box and publicly denounced high-capacity mags and assault weapons. That is a why he is no longer the object of sympathy my eyes. Instead I now see him as a despicable hypocrite.

[scrubcedar]

I understand your point Skadoosh. However after tragedies like this I've seen person after person take this route. It's not a healthy or productive thing, and I've seen the large majority of the people who walk down it end up showing self destructive behavior, up to and including suicide.

They should be trying to find a pathway that includes a normal life, not bathing yourself in the tragedy over and over again. "he is making it his life's work to support anti-gun legislation" exactly, you hit it right on the nose.

Our Psychologists when they saw people going down the"poster boy"route, and becoming a fanatical advocate for something, steered the patients and families away from it with all their strength.
This is the easy pathway that brings pat's on the back, and sympathy from every quarter, but you never start to get the distance and perspective from the tragedy you absolutely must have for survival.

What these people are doing is the equivalent of repeatedly handing an alcoholic a bottle of whiskey. Does the alcoholic bear the final responsibility for taking the drink? You bet. Does that make you any less of a scumbag for handing him the whiskey? I'll let you decide.

[Tom Servo]

Hurts their credibility more the our arguments ever could

Not with the base. Imagine a few gun-control folks sitting around a coffee shop talking about it.

"Did you hear about Mark Kelly? He bought one of those AR-15 rifles."

"Uh huh, I know. He went to a gun store and everything. That's scary. I heard the people who work there don't even bathe. That was pretty brave of him."

"Yeah, right? I can't wait for them to ban those things. It's good that he's turning it over to the police. I just feel so bad that his wife was shot with one of those."

And that's their base in a nutshell. Kelly's credibility with them won't be hurt a bit by it since their agenda thrives on ignorance and hypocrisy.

What these people are doing is the equivalent of repeatedly handing an alcoholic a bottle of whiskey.

To some extent. Kelly and Giffords have been through the unthinkable, and I've no doubt they're being manipulated by their peers. That can be some pretty strong pressure.

That said, nobody marched him into that store and forced him to buy that rifle.

[NWPilgrim]

When someone puts themselves in the public spotlight and makes it their mission to drive a policy, they have to be dealt with, sympathy or no.

It is not mean spirited to call him a hypocrite, it is a fact. He should be called out on the facts of his statements versus his actions. And the fact we do so does not indicate one way or another whether we are sympathetic to his and his wife's trauma. We are responding to his public words and actions.

Mark Kelly has made it his mission to deprive other citizens of the means to protect themselves freely, while he scrambles to acquire those very same weapons and accessories. And he shamelessly uses his wife as a media prop.

[Theohazard]

Although I am confused, as I did not think AZ had any waiting period, yet he did not take immediate possession of it according to the article.

He probably got delayed by NICS. It happens all the time and often for no known reason.

[chiefr]

"Mark Kelly has made it his mission to deprive other citizens of the means to protect themselves freely, while he scrambles to acquire those very same weapons and accessories...."

Well said.

[SPEMack618]

I would hazard a guess that Capt. Kelly, being a former Naval officer and astronaut, probably has security clearances up to the wazoo.

Pop always got delayed on his NICS checks, and that was the only reason he could fathom as to why it was taking so long.

[BarryLee]

Kelly is now saying this is part of plan to buy and sell guns in different venues to understand the process. I wonder if he hopes to eventually catch someone in a supposedly shady deal to support his position. Anyway, here’s the interview from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=sitena...elly-ar-15.cnn

[WillyKern69]

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/20...-in-the-ar-15/

This site is taking comments. I suggest you leave one. I started by typing hypocite. Lets see if it passes moderation.

Good luck,
WK

[Gaerek]

So, for those interested, I stopped by the store Kelly bought that AR from. I asked one of my buddies behind the counter, with a grin on my face, "So, which of you sold Mark Kelly the AR?"

He replied, "Even if I knew that, I couldn't tell you...you know that. But, I do know, because I saw it happen, that he was asked by several people what he was buying it for. He refused to answer anyone's questions. Even someone asking for the autograph of an astronaut, he just ignored them. Basically, unless the question was being asked by the salesperson for the purposes of the sale, he wasn't saying anything at all."

So, take that to mean whatever you'd like. I just thought you guys might appreciate some information that hasn't been through the MSM filter and spin machine.

[WillyKern69]

CNN bounced my comment. I just put "Hypocrite". I know people here are educated, but how long will the rest of America drink the MSM kool-aid?

WK

[Truth Addict]

It's showing no comments at all. I bet the majority of them were pro 2A and anti-hypocrite.

[Skadoosh]

And the plot thickens:



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...rds-Photo-Leak

I am wondering to what extent Gifford's injuries have impaired her judgement. I am also wondering if Kelly is not exploiting his wife.

[Tom Servo]

Giffords is attempting to backpedal a bit on this.

I guess the intention of those who have publicized these photos is to somehow call into question my belief that military style assault weapons should be more strongly regulated with background checks and other safeguards. I have never wavered in my support for those who serve our country. (...) Both sides of the gun violence debate usually miss the point. We don't have to choose between owning, using, and enjoying guns, on one hand, and preventing gun violence, on the other.

In 1994, the mantra was that there was no individual right to own guns, so they could take a few away.

In 2013, the mantra is that there is an individual right, but they could still take a few away.

[Gaerek]

Why is Gabby Giffords shooting Justin Beiber?

On a more serious note, we know that the gun grabbers will do whatever they can to meet their goal. If that means lying and misleading the public, then that's what they have to do. That's what they did to get the 1994 AWB passed, and that's what they're doing now. Can anyone tell me the true definition of Assault Weapon? I didn't think so. They define it by a loose standard of cosmetic differences, but then get the public believing they're banning fully automatic, high powered rifles. Tell me again what the difference is between an AR-15, and a Model 750? Oh yeah, the 750 is usually chambered in a much larger cartridge than the AR. Why is it they want to ban the AR-15 and not the 750? Right...because the AR has a pistol grip.

Having said that, I take what Giffords and Kelly say with a grain of salt. They say one thing, but their actions show something completely different. I personally do not believe they have the same ultimate goals as Feinstein (who just wants that pesky 2nd Amendment to disappear), but they are not our friends. Their crusade today seems to be about the "ease" of obtaining a gun, and standard capacity mags. But those are stepping stones to most anti-gunners ultimate goals.

Sorry about the rant...stuff like this gets me heated.

[Tom Servo]

Can anyone tell me the true definition of Assault Weapon?

Yep. Here it is from the folks who invented the term:

it's extremely difficult to develop a legal definition that restricts the availability of assault weapons without affecting legitimate semi-automatic guns. Most likely, any definition would focus on magazine capacity, weapon configuration, muzzle velocity, the initial purpose for which the weapon (or its full-auto progenitor) was developed, convertibility, and possible sporting applications.

[shaunpain]

Just lovely how that can't even answer their own question. Sheesh...

I come from a state with the two most recent Governors sitting in prison, so none of this really surprises me at all (Trotter gets a nod). Yes, it's unfathomable, unforgivable, incorrigible, but it's also business as usual.

We need a different approach. Calling these bozos out has never furthered our agenda. I think it actually empowers them and they end up doing more damage. How do you win an argument against a liar?

[Will Beararms]

Why did gun store sell to him in the first place? Don't they have the right to refuse service to anyone? If you own a gun shop, why on earth would you sell to someone crusading against the right of others to own a gun in the first place? I have seen gun store owners refuse to sell to people before. It's not uncommon.

[Ted D]

I was thinking the same thing Will Beararms.

[Skadoosh]

Will Beararms wrote:

Why did gun store sell to him in the first place? Don't they have the right to refuse service to anyone?

Why would they not sell to him? He is not on any restricted list or an ex-felon. In fact, I think they did us a favor by selling that rifle to him. This is a perfect case of not keeping the stupid from being stupid.