Beware of Mark Kelly

It makes me sick that this man swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, and all this man does is **** on the 2nd Amendment.

What a piece of **** disgrace.

 

He is the one will sell anyone out for his own gain. He is like the administration, does not respect the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.

He has not earned my salute, period!

 

If this dirtbag sends a surrogate buyer wouldn't that be a straw purchase? I bet that would never be prosecuted. Too bad we can't send this POS back to space. Better yet, he can lead the charge to colonize Mars and we can send all the antis there.

 

This man just had his wife shot in the eff'n head!!

He is lashing out in his grief and anger. He is going in the wrong direction, and blaming the wrong thing. But that doesn't give anyone the right to call him a dirtbag just because he loves his wife ands he's angry.

THINK ABOUT IT!

 

And he is using 100% flawed logic. It does not matter who was shot or not. You don't take away rights because a loved one is hurt or worse. I've been cut by knives (colorful past) but I have no interest in banning them. In fact I collect stilettos and case folders.

Being the idea that I have a right to call him a gutter slut if I choose to your logic is also flawed.

 

He is a slime bag, and yes I got the right to say it

 

The overall majority of the liberal progressive left (anti-gun) crowd wants the civilian populace disarmed.

I know liberals that are only liberals based on social issues and are highly pro gun. They have weaponary on a scale that makes me jealous!

Gun Control = People Control!

 

Loc: Tack said it best in another post about Kelly. If a victim wants to use their experience to take away our freedoms they don't deserve our respect and should be treated accordingly, as dirtbags.

 

I hope that none of you folks ever have to endure what that man did.

 

If I do I sure the hell won't try to take away your freedom to purchase firearms!

 

No one is saying it's not a horrible thing to have to go through. No one wants to see a loved one hurt let alone to a point that they can lose their life. But what you are condoning is to throw away the baby with the bath water. Even when bad things happen we can';t allow that to be used as a tool to take away the rights of others. This man does not want guns around him. That is his right. But his rights are no more important than the rest of us.
I find grtatuitus nudity in movies and TV to be an overused and unimaginative way to make entertainment (not to mention it goes against my faith). I honestly do not want to see other naked people other than my wife. So I don't look at it...Unless it's my wife..
It's getting harder to find shows that do not use blatant sex to sell a show or movie. But should I then go on a crusade to abolish it? Should I stop reading this forum because of one section ? I don't look at the section and I do a little research before I watch new movies or shows. Because my rights are not more important.

Mr Gabby while I'm sure is an OK guy on many issues is wrong here. And he is acting like a childish asshat. It was very bad what happened to his wife. I respect that fact he does not like or want anything to do with guns. But he has no business trying to create situation to exploit of what really should be seen as an illegal agenda against my rights.

 

Plenty of serial killers were abused and neglected as children. They are just lashing out in grief and anger. They're just going about it the wrong way and blaming/killing the wrong people. That doesn't give anyone a right to call them bloodthirsty murderers.

You could say the same thing about Brady. THEY don't have any right to try to take away OUR rights, regardless of what has happened to them or their families.

 

Good post! Some of us may disagree with what he is doing, but I can understand why he is doing it. The woman he married ceased to exist when that low life SOB put a bullet in her brain. I would be angry and lashing out, too.

You know, one of the interesting things people are overlooking is the fact that he also bought a .45 the same day he bought the AR. He bought the .45 for personal use. He didn't intend to sell it, he didn't intend to donate it to a PD, he bought it for his own use.

Mark Kelly is a gun enthusiast who is practicing his Second Amendment right. He is also practicing his First Amendment right, even though some may disagree with his methods. The Constitution he swore to uphold and defend gives him the right to do exactly what he is doing.

Are there faults in the gun laws? Of course there are, and he is exercising his right to point some of them out. Personally, I am sick of career criminals having free access to firearms, so if he can slow down that trend I will support his actions. As a law abiding citizen if his actions can give me an arms advantage over some 17 year old meth addict that doesn't care about the law, all I can say is go for it. He is high profile enough to be heard, and he has a legitimate reason for doing what he is attempting to do.

 

Gabby wasn't shot with an AR 15, so why the conern over how easy it is to purchase one? She was shot with a handgun. An evil handgun. Oh wait, that is the same kind of gun he just bought and is keeping. Sorry.

 

If Mr Kelly was really interested in keeping firearms from ending up in the wrong hands, he would be lobbying for the strict enforcement of the current laws on the books. He should be raising hell about our own government selling guns to criminals and drug dealers (Fast and Furious).

Mr. Kelly should be mad about the light sentences and the revolving door that has become common place in our nations prisons in regards to people who commit crimes with guns.

But instead of Mr. Kelly focusing his efforts toward the incompetence of our Justice system and Government, he is using his injured wife as a political tool to disarm and punish law abiding citizens.

 

When in front of the Senate committee, the right thing for kelly to do was to tell feinstein that if Gabby had the same brace of armed bodyguards that she has 24-7, Gabby would probably be fine today. Who needs a gun when you can hire one or more, full time?

 

This gentlemen, is how we get our Freedoms stripped. Supporting a single emotion based agenda for a whole populace. Condoning his actions is abhorrent.

 

No, it's not the same type of gun he had just purchased. The shooter that destroyed his wife's mind and killed a few other people had a Glock with a 30 round magazine in it. Kelly's argument is against high capacity magazines, which are common in the AR class rifle. He's just misdirected in thinking magazine capacity has that much to do with what a sociopath is capable of doing.

Look, I know my viewpoint is unpopular with the all or nothing crowd, but other than people that must go into harms way, show me a reason why I would need a 30 round magazine for my Glock. It's certainly not concealable.

 

I would agree with you if it was not for the AR15 incident which he clearly bought for himself. He only came up with the giving it away story after the fact.

Think about it, if you were trying to do something for publicity would you not arrange some publicity?

Plus what does the fact that you can go into a store, pass a background check and buy a gun prove? Thats exactly how it is supposed to work assuming you have a clean background.

The whole story about giving away the AR15 is BS.

So with regard to your assertion that he is reacting because his wife got shot. I simply don't buy it. If he felt that strongly he would have gotten rid of his guns, all of his guns. He would not be out buying what he just told Congress no one should have.

I respect his service, but he is behaving in a very dishonest way over the whole gun control argument. He is just another elitist who thinks he should have guns but we cant be trusted with them. Another phrase would be an elitist scumbag.