March 29, 2013

Mark Kelly, Gabby Giffords' Husband, Turns Out To Have Been Telling the Truth
— Ace

So it appears, unless something extremely risky was done here (retroactively creating a video to prove his alibi).

There was previously doubt -- which I expressed my own self -- about why Mark Kelly was buying a .45 and a dreaded assault weapon, and whether his claim about doing it to "raise awareness" was just a sham excuse to avoid the charge of gun-control hypocrisy.

I got this wrong, and I'm sorry for that. I thought he was lying because I couldn't see what he'd be trying to prove-- that he got cleared by the background check too quickly? What sense would that make? He's an astronaut and a Navy officer; of course the background check would be quick, and of course he'd get his gun.

But that's actually the point he's trying to demonstrate-- that Universal Background checks are okay because look how fast they are. That purpose didn't occur to me.

Again, sorry about this one. And, note, I'm not endorsing his political point -- I'm simply saying that this claim about why he bought the guns appears genuine.


Posted by: Ace at 03:38 PM | Comments (408)
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

1 But why was he doing it?

Posted by: I lurk, therefore I am, Go Navy, Beat Army! at March 29, 2013 03:40 PM (k0CeE)

2 Not trusting him was kinda like rape!

Posted by: Puff Juddly at March 29, 2013 03:41 PM (9+B2u)

3 The point isn't how easy it is. It's how easy it is for government to subvert the process and disenfranchise millions of gun owners.

Who have a RIGHT to self defense.

This can't be said enough. It's not about the current government, thought there's some questions about their ethical and moral self imposed limitations. (they seem to have none).

It's about a government that could come later.

And First?

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 03:42 PM (Kpn/z)

4 Background checks that are compulsary for individual sales and registration are NOT cool and that is what they are pushing for.

Posted by: Gmac - Waiting for the revolution at March 29, 2013 03:42 PM (IanLz)

5 Wait... if he had this video the whole time why didn't he release it right away? 

Posted by: liquidflorian at March 29, 2013 03:43 PM (Kx/oz)

6 So the already have a Universal Background check is that what Kelley is saying.

Posted by: Hanoverfist at March 29, 2013 03:43 PM (HiKk0)

7 But Kelly and his people still want to create a govmint database so that Obama can come on over to my house and confiscate his little heart out. Nope. Still nope.

Posted by: J. Moses Browning at March 29, 2013 03:44 PM (pfRd+)

8 So the background checks will be easy for all? Like there are no problems with your local DMV or the TSA or the Insurance Companies, or the IRS? Yeah I trust the Gov to handle things properly.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 29, 2013 03:44 PM (9Bj8R)

9 He was legal.  Great.  I would assume he was.  What, therefore, was he trying to prove?

Posted by: I lurk, therefore I am, Go Navy, Beat Army! at March 29, 2013 03:45 PM (k0CeE)

10 maybe I didn't explain the background. I'm not arguing his policy is right. I'm saying that the previous doubt about his story -- that he'd done this to make a political point -- was ill-founded.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 03:45 PM (LCRYB)

11 >>>Wait... if he had this video the whole time why didn't he release it right away?

Posted by: liquidflorian at March 29, 2013 08:43 PM (Kx/oz)

How dare you question my motives? My wife was shot in the head, and uh, shut up, that's why.

Posted by: Mark Kelly, your better at March 29, 2013 03:46 PM (9+B2u)

12 And for this we should give up... what?

Posted by: navybrat at March 29, 2013 03:46 PM (SWuSg)

13 The story doesn't add up. He says in the video he's going to buy "a gun", then proceeds to purchase two, one being an AR-15. Could have made the video as cover.

Posted by: slatz at March 29, 2013 03:47 PM (PIOWA)

14

 

The whole 'Universal Background Check' thing is just a cloaking device to impose a National Registry on us.

 

Barky and the Dems want a National Registry.

That is how they could enact confiscation of the guns that are already out there....the ones that they deem are "in the wrong hands".

 

Posted by: wheatie at March 29, 2013 03:47 PM (UMBJ2)

15 Ace,

There's a difference between what Kelly is showing and what the democrats are trying to do.  The background check system that Kelly is illustrating here was already in place BEFORE all this shit happened.  When you go to a gun store and buy a firearm, the dealer makes a phone with your information.  In the space of minutes, the dealer is informed whether or not you passed the background check.  Nothing new is shown here.

The UBC is forcing those engaged in PRIVATE sales to undergo the background check which requires a form 4473 to be filled out.  That's what we're against because then all sales or transfer are recorded with the make and model of the weapon, i.e. national registration.

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 03:47 PM (doBIb)

16 You know, I'm a lifetime NRA member with several weapons, but I think there are two recommendations the NRA is nuts to oppose:  the one gun a month proposal, and the background check at gun shows.

Unless you have an FFL and are in the business, the only person who needs to purchase more than one gun a month is a straw buyer.  Also, I have no problem with background checks at gun shows as long as the data is not stored

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 03:47 PM (HqXYa)

17

Too fast or too slow, depends on the agenda. 

 

Reminds me of a tale from medical school.  A med student scrubbed in and assisting a very demanding senior surgeon who was famous for berating the students and interns and we all were afraid to offend this surgeon.  Big Shot Surgeon tied a surgical knot and tilted the sutures toward the student and demanded that he trim the ends.  The student, much to everyone's alarm, glibly responded, "How would you like them trimmed, sir?  Too short or too long?"

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at March 29, 2013 03:47 PM (p8Mda)

18
No, he's wrong, because Universal Background Checks would cause all kinds of machinations for a private seller to a private buyer or just an inheriting of a firearm.  So it will not be quick.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 29, 2013 03:48 PM (IY7Ir)

19 The fact that the background checks we do now are "easy" doesn't prove a point at all. First, the federal government has no authority whatsoever over a private, intrastate sale, so there are constitutional issues here. (FWIW, Massachusetts does require checking eligibility for private sales) But when you get past that, sure the NICS is easy. It's also fucking ineffective at Preventing the Next Sandy Hook, Aurora or Virginia Tech. (all NICS guns)

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 03:48 PM (OZPoa)

20 He was denied his AR-15 because that dealer found out he was a straw purchaser.

Posted by: Obamao at March 29, 2013 03:48 PM (JtyGg)

21 So Mark Kelly acted stupidly when he and his wife appeared before Congress?  trying to purchase the weapons in question?  The damage control after the purchase attempt?  or All the above?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 29, 2013 03:48 PM (k9TQr)

22 Fuck Mark Kelly.  He's been using his wife like an organ grinder's monkey to get face time for his ugly ass to subvert the Constitution.  And not exerting any control over his dumbass daughter's dog on the beach.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2013 03:49 PM (G8Vj+)

23 I suggest this guy took the video and then selectively edited his commentary to fit the blowup. It could have easily been done for the suspected purpose - that it was too easy for him to get a weapon of mass murder.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 29, 2013 03:50 PM (xFfjV)

24 >> I'm not arguing his policy is right. I'm saying that the previous doubt about his story -- that he'd done this to make a political point -- was ill-founded. Huh?

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 03:50 PM (OZPoa)

25

I live in AZ and we've had an instant background check for at least a decade.

No one is against a backround check. We ARE against a universal one since it contains a registry provision and would be a huge PITA.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 03:50 PM (zoJ1H)

26 But aren't you saying he was making a different point? Not no point.

Posted by: Beagle at March 29, 2013 03:51 PM (sOtz/)

27 For me to buy the story, he would have to say in the video "I'm going to buy an AR-15 to show how quick the background check is and how it won't encumber anyone". So, fail.

Posted by: slatz at March 29, 2013 03:51 PM (PIOWA)

28

Don't think for a minute that these background checks for sales between individuals will be free either.

 

FWIW I have an ID I can put down on the counter and have a purchase in my hands shortly there after, Kelly isn't proving anything by showing how fast the current system is working. It is the system they want to put in place that is going to force all sales to go through the NICS system and be held in a national database that gets my hackles up.

Posted by: Gmac - Waiting for the revolution at March 29, 2013 03:51 PM (IanLz)

29 again I'm not saying his political point is right -- I'm saying his claim about why he bought the gun (to make a political point) was accurate. As for retroactively making up the video-- the trouble is that the gun store people ratted him out. Now, if he's faking this, that means they could just rat him out again and say "That video was from eight days later, after he was caught" or whatever. I suppose it's technically possible but I haven't heard anyone make that claim.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 03:51 PM (LCRYB)

30 You know, I'm a lifetime NRA member with several weapons, but I think there are two recommendations the NRA is nuts to oppose: the one gun a month proposal, and the background check at gun shows.

Unless you have an FFL and are in the business, the only person who needs to purchase more than one gun a month is a straw buyer. Also, I have no problem with background checks at gun shows as long as the data is not stored

Posted by: Ombudsman

****************

 

Sure you are troll bitch. ESAD.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 03:52 PM (zoJ1H)

31 You know, I'm a lifetime NRA member with several weapons, but I think there are two recommendations the NRA is nuts to oppose: the one gun a month proposal, and the background check at gun shows. Unless you have an FFL and are in the business, the only person who needs to purchase more than one gun a month is a straw buyer. Also, I have no problem with background checks at gun shows as long as the data is not stored Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 08:47 PM (HqXYa) Nothing a person says before the word "but" means shit. And the "need" argument in ANY form can kiss my dick.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 29, 2013 03:53 PM (MBqvE)

32 Tilikum, ESAD is too easy on such.  ESAL   Let them remember the taste.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 29, 2013 03:53 PM (k9TQr)

33 I couldn't care less why he bought them. He's still pimping his wife for all that she's worth.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 03:54 PM (piMMO)

34 Shorter Ace: I thought Mark Kelly was a liar. I apologize, he's just an idiot.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 29, 2013 03:54 PM (T0NGe)

35 IllTemperedCur, that hash sure reminds me of one of the trolls I've seen here.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 03:54 PM (zoJ1H)

36 >> Unless you have an FFL and are in the business, the only person who needs to purchase more than one gun a month is a straw buyer. Also, I have no problem with background checks at gun shows as long as the data is not stored Umm, no. I've bought multiple guns at a time on several occasions. And there's no purpose to repetitive background checks of law abiding citizens. I'd support a national firearms buyers card before I'd support this.

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 03:54 PM (OZPoa)

37 >>>Huh? maybe there's too much backstory here. This was a breitbart story. I joined in myself. Mark Kelly snitched on for buying a gun. The accusation was made he was a gun-control hypocrite, buying an AR-15 while supporting a ban. He claimed, in response, he was attempting to make some political point. People doubted him. Well he's released a video now of his gun purchase that day and it does appear he was buying the guns to make a point.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 03:55 PM (LCRYB)

38 Mark Kelly is still an asshole using his wife to advance pointless gun control legislation so fuck him.

Posted by: mugiwara at March 29, 2013 03:55 PM (hpYnL)

39
Let's not go all "birther" on the video.  The other side likes that and it defeats our own points.

My point is absolute, he should have shot that baby seal that attacked his dog.




No that wasn't it, it was no univ. bckgrnd check, period.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 29, 2013 03:55 PM (IY7Ir)

40 Tilikum, ESAD is too easy on such. ESAL Let them remember the taste.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD

**********************

 

I knew I liked you for a reason.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 03:55 PM (zoJ1H)

41 Well he's released a video now of his gun purchase that day and it does appear he was buying the guns to make a point. Yeah...he didn't do a very good job of it.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 29, 2013 03:56 PM (T0NGe)

42 So, the The National INSTANT Criminal Background Check System works quickly? where's the beef?

Posted by: willy at March 29, 2013 03:56 PM (HtLqT)

43 Never apologize to the other side

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 29, 2013 03:57 PM (8sCoq)

44

I'm not arguing his policy is right. I'm saying that the previous doubt about his story -- that he'd done this to make a political point -- was ill-founded.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 08:45 PM (LCRYB) 

I don't understand how this video isn't political, in the current spectrum. He was making a point about background checks. Criminals will not go through this system. That's why they're criminals. Do we check if a person has a mentally ill person in their family? That would probably be against health information privacy regulations. Yes, it took 5 mins for the background check, apparently the FBI is pretty efficient in this area. Thank goodness one area of govt is efficient.

 

Posted by: Molly at March 29, 2013 03:57 PM (X+WbL)

45 16

Posted by: Ombudsman

 

DIAFS, soonest

 

No one gets to set limits on what I want to do as far as purchases go.

Posted by: Gmac - Waiting for the revolution at March 29, 2013 03:57 PM (IanLz)

46 And to club the clueless concern harping troll, background checks are performed by dealers at gun shows. 

The only loop-hole per se is when two private individuals sell a weapon between themselves.

In order to argue persuasively, one should have a modest command of the facts.  Plus a grip on reality.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 29, 2013 03:57 PM (k9TQr)

47 Nobody "needs" more than one comment.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at March 29, 2013 03:57 PM (0dZJc)

48 >>>19 The fact that the background checks we do now are "easy" doesn't prove a point at all. I don't think you understand the backstory that people (including me) doubted his claim "I was making a video to prove a point." Since he did make a video, that means he was honest about that. Doesn't mean his point is correct. But that he did go to that gunstore for the reason he said he did. if you didn't follow this story google "mark kelly site: breitbart.com."

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 03:58 PM (LCRYB)

49 If you look at the video there are 5 parts to it. 1. In the home with Gabby. 2. In the driveway by himself. 3. At the store, pocket cam. 4. In the truck by himself. 5. Back home with Gabby. The times he mentions he's showing how great the system works, is in the parts where he's not at the store. In the part by the store he says nothing about it. And that part is definitely edited. If he had set out to record himself getting a murderous firearm of death without waiting more than five minutes, he could have used the same store footage. Who knows when he recorded the rest of it.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 29, 2013 03:58 PM (xFfjV)

50 >Mark Kelly is still an asshole using his wife to advance pointless gun control legislation so fuck him. he parades his brain-damaged wife around like he's a demented pimp fuck him

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 29, 2013 03:58 PM (8sCoq)

51 Ace,

We're not arguing about the speed of the check process.  Every legit buyer knows how fast they are. 

What we're arguing against is the deception about "universal".  The dems want all sales and transfers to undergo the check process, especially private ones.  The only way to make that happen is to have private sales go to an FFL holder and initiate the check.  This means a record of who is selling/buying what is recorded.

That's what at issue here.  Forget the head-fake about the background check speed.

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 03:59 PM (doBIb)

52 I apologize to anyone offended by this post.

Posted by: Craig Poe at March 29, 2013 03:59 PM (BVkEs)

53 Sure he was...

hey Ace there are already universal background checks in that sense...

does he have proof that any of the SandyHook or St Gabby guns were illegally gotten?

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 03:59 PM (LRFds)

54 How does Mark propose to get around the whole ID card thing? By definition, asking someone to produce any form of identification is raaaaaaciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiist. Could we just use biometrics and that facial recognition software thingie that the NSA has developed?

Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 29, 2013 04:00 PM (9P+hO)

55 Bullshit.

Posted by: Truman North at March 29, 2013 04:00 PM (I2LwF)

56 7 J Moses browning,

ask FPS Russia how innocuous the Feds are...

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:00 PM (LRFds)

57 16 You know, I'm a lifetime NRA member with several weapons, but I think there are two recommendations the NRA is nuts to oppose: the one gun a month proposal, and the background check at gun shows.

Unless you have an FFL and are in the business, the only person who needs to purchase more than one gun a month is a straw buyer. Also, I have no problem with background checks at gun shows as long as the data is not stored

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 08:47 PM (HqXYa)

Ombudsman, you may know, the PRIVATE gun purchase at gun shows is by far the exception to the rule. I can bring my rifle there and privately sell it without the background check, no different than Uncle Henry's (here in ME). The vast preponderance of weapons sold at gun shows are through dealers and they absolutely go through background checks.

Posted by: Molly at March 29, 2013 04:00 PM (X+WbL)

58 This is as Muddy as a White River Catfish and why is he bottom feeding?

Posted by: clemenza at March 29, 2013 04:00 PM (HMQ8k)

59 look, just ignore this post. You don't know the background for it. it's a breitbart story but I can't retract over there given that they themselves should decided if they want to retract. I'm going to disengage from the post now... honestly, you have to read the background to know what I'm talking about. I never linked it here so you might have missed it.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 04:01 PM (LCRYB)

60 47 Bertram Cabot Jr.,

FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS BERTRAM!

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:01 PM (LRFds)

61 he parades his brain-damaged wife around like he's a demented pimp


fuck him

Posted by: Jones in CO

*********

 

 

I wish you'd say how you really feel and stop holding back.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:01 PM (zoJ1H)

62 Now HERE'S news you can use.

A new Pasadena City College class called “Navigating Pornography”.

http://tinyurl.com/ck626qf (thecollegefix.com)

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 04:01 PM (Kpn/z)

63 Late to the debate, but let's make this a two topic thread. Gabby was trotted out for testimony to say how horrible it is that too many children are dying.

While 3000 unborn kids a day are offed on demand??

*crickets*

Posted by: Tobacco Road at March 29, 2013 04:01 PM (4Mv1T)

64 My checks go through in a snap, too.  My argument isn't about the inconvenience of it.  My argument is about how invasive it is when dealing with family and friends, not to mention the need for (and inevitability of) national registration.

Posted by: SARDiver at March 29, 2013 04:02 PM (V1Qx2)

65 Yes. He was making a point. The problem with his point is that it addresses a concern nobody on the pro-gun side GAS about.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:02 PM (piMMO)

66 I thought HE was the one who first Twatted the photos in the gun shop. ????? Which would be a screwy way of making his point, to release the still photos and wait 2 weeks to release the video.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 29, 2013 04:02 PM (MBqvE)

67 The dbag is going to try and shoot down the ISS.

Posted by: Attila at March 29, 2013 04:02 PM (Cs2tJ)

68 59 47 Bertram Cabot Jr.,

FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS BERTRAM!

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 09:01 PM (LRFds)


You must be a straw commenter.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at March 29, 2013 04:02 PM (0dZJc)

69 Bullshit. The guys a Leftist. The Left isn't agitating for keeping background checks the way they are, they want checks al la Schumer where the government then keeps records of everything a gun buyer does. Which does what? Makes it easier for the Feds to compile a database of owners. Which is what they're after.

Posted by: Catmman at March 29, 2013 04:03 PM (C8XlI)

70 58 Ace,

What kelly is pretending he was on about and what the issue of "instant background checks" DiFi and Schoomah want is about the database Ace not the eligibility checks.

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:03 PM (LRFds)

71 20 He was denied his AR-15 because that dealer found out he was a straw purchaser.

Posted by: Obamao at March 29, 2013 08:48 PM (JtyGg)



Yep.  And, he should fucking be prosecuted for lying on his 4473.  Which won't ever happen in this lifetime.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke's award-winning solid gold diaphragm at March 29, 2013 04:03 PM (7xeJQ)

72 67 Bertram Cabot Jr,

I am a goddamned one man fast and furious ese....

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:03 PM (LRFds)

73 Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 29, 2013 08:58 PM (xFfjV) Very interesting observation. I think you might be right.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 29, 2013 04:03 PM (T0NGe)

74 The only way to make that happen is to have private sales go to an FFL holder and initiate the check. This means a record of who is selling/buying what is recorded. ------------------------------------------ There's a way to do this that is dead-simple -- plus the solution borrows heavily from ObamaCare: Create a new class of FFL holders that function, in effect, as Notaries Public to document the transaction. They're not as qualified as real FFL dealers are, in much the same way that Nurse Practioners aren't really Doctors, but ... so what? These gun sale documenters would not be FFL-FFL holders, but just FFL holders. Or something. Lower the standards - it's the only way to meet the demand.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 29, 2013 04:03 PM (9P+hO)

75 Jared Loughner's parents are pieces of work.  Like Leroy Brown with a few of them missing, in the brain.  Apparently his parents kept telling him he needed help.  His Dad took his shotgun away and even disabled his car.  But guess what Jared still got a handgun.  Why?  Because his parents, with whom he was still living with, never bothered to go through the channels to get him at least involuntarily committed for observation.  I hope they end up living in a cardboard box.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 29, 2013 04:04 PM (k9TQr)

76 >>>>Well he's released a video now of his gun purchase that day and it does appear he was buying the guns to make a point. So apparently the point he's trying to make is its really easy for an employee of the government with pretty high security clearance is able to easily buy a legal firearm. Shocking.

Posted by: Buzzion at March 29, 2013 04:04 PM (+VNGo)

77 Bullshit Ace,

What he is saying on this video is the exact opposite of why he said he bought the AR 15 when interviewed by wolf blitzer.

He said then that he was terrified that someone could buy an AR 15 so easily.

Also if you actually watch the fucking video he released he was buying a .45 to prove the point that background checks were pretty painless. Not one word about the AR 15 for which he has not filled out a background check form for and won't be.


Posted by: robtr at March 29, 2013 04:04 PM (rTgOf)

78 >> Doesn't mean his point is correct. But that he did go to that gunstore for the reason he said he did. Got it.

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 04:04 PM (OZPoa)

79 This seems perfectly legit to us!

Posted by: all the people who bitched about James O'Keefe's "edited" ACORN video at March 29, 2013 04:04 PM (9+B2u)

80 i thought people were following this story. I just happened to have seen it on Breitbart. I'm glad it didn't get wide play as it turns out to be wrong (it seems). anyway without that background it makes no sense. I have to retract because I'm ethically required to retract. This retraction doesn't make sense if you didn't follow the story and I'm not in the mood to put up links demonstrating that I was wrong. Just, once again, I am not talking about the gun control issue myself. I am speaking of doubt about Mark Kelly's story about what happened in the gun store that day. Not about gun policy. NOT about gun policy. Just his story about that day. anyway I've said this enough times. please don't argue gun policy with me any more as my post is not intended to be about it. you are free to argue about that yourselves but I can only say so many times that's not my reason for posting this. This is a purely hygeinic "I was wrong about something."

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 04:04 PM (LCRYB)

81 There's a way to do this that is dead-simple -- plus the solution borrows heavily from ObamaCare: Create a new class of FFL holders that function, in effect, as Notaries Public to document the transaction.

They're not as qualified as real FFL dealers are, in much the same way that Nurse Practioners aren't really Doctors, but ... so what?

These gun sale documenters would not be FFL-FFL holders, but just FFL holders.

Or something.

Lower the standards - it's the only way to meet the demand.



I know what you're getting at, but that just makes things even more clusterfuck-y.

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 04:05 PM (doBIb)

82
Now that he has a video, it does occur to me though "who put him up to it?".  All of a sudden I am thinking there was more of an anti-gun lobby idea here that wasn't of his own plan.

I mean astronaut, smart enough to come up with it, but now I am questioning.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 29, 2013 04:05 PM (IY7Ir)

83 81 Guy Mohawk,

Do recall GM I am very much in favor f reverse engineering their Net's webs....


Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:06 PM (LRFds)

84 Tip quote Andrew Breitbart about why background checks are so fast. So?

Posted by: Dave C at March 29, 2013 04:06 PM (ajoLO)

85 This is a purely hygeinic "I was wrong about something."

Posted by: ace

***************************

 

 

 

 

Do we have a not so fresh feeling? /

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:07 PM (zoJ1H)

86 Because his parents, with whom he was still living with, never bothered to go through the channels to get him at least involuntarily committed for observation. I hope they end up living in a cardboard box.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 29, 2013 09:04 PM (k9TQr)



Those assholes have been protected every fucking step of the way because of their ties to the local donk party.  Plus they interceded with the sheriff's office to go easy on their retardo son.  If Mark Kelly was really concerned about justice for Saint Gabby, he'd be pounding their asses 24/7.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2013 04:07 PM (G8Vj+)

87 Sure you are troll bitch. ESAD.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 08:52 PM (zoJ1H)

And the "need" argument in ANY form can kiss my dick.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 29, 2013 08:53 PM (MBqvE)

  

Fuck you both.  Especially Tilikum, you cunt.  I AM a lifetime NRA member, and have been for 20 years.  Do you want me to fax you my membership card?

Have you ever purchased more than 12 handguns year?  I doubt it.

Bottom line, boys, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.   I'm thinking of elections here.  If the Republicans concede those two meaningless points it will take the issue off the table and tilt it towards us for 2014 and 2016.


Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 04:08 PM (HqXYa)

88 47 Are you sure your name is Bertram?

Posted by: Genus at March 29, 2013 04:08 PM (2v7XD)

89

AP and CH, you nailed it.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:08 PM (zoJ1H)

90 You know, I'm a lifetime AAP member with several books, but I think there are two recommendations the AAP is nuts to oppose: the one book a month proposal, and the background check at newspaper stands.

Posted by: Omsdoucheman at March 29, 2013 04:10 PM (uPbpg)

91 Ombudsman, fuck you lying piece of shit. You are a troll and I recognize your hash. If you have a gun, put it in your mouth and pull the trigger you wannabe fascist.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:10 PM (zoJ1H)

92 Apparently it is too easy for the spouse of a Congressman to get a weapon.


Posted by: Obamao at March 29, 2013 04:10 PM (JtyGg)

93 Anybody who doesn't think a NICS check is fast has never had one. Also, National INSTANT Criminal Background Check System. (ignore the "CB" or "BC", depending. The government also calls the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies "CMS")

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 04:11 PM (OZPoa)

94

Tobacco road @ 62

 

Yeah, but are those "children-children"?

 

With the moral relativists of the Left, it's about how Humpty - Dumpty wants to define words.  This only means what they say it means, when the say it.

 

Gabby Giffords is personally a nice person and a tragic victim.  But she is also a useful prop by the Left.  Notice how Judge Rolle, who was actually murdered, is never mentioned,  because he was a Republican, and basically a non- person.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch, writes at March 29, 2013 04:12 PM (Md8Uo)

95 Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 09:10 PM (zoJ1H) *** Whoa! Whoa! Whoa, dude.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:13 PM (piMMO)

96 Fuck him

Posted by: TejasJudio de la Frontera at March 29, 2013 04:13 PM (0Vc6l)

97 Our argument isn't with you, Ace. It's with Mark (My wife's my Meat Puppet) Kelly.

He's making claims and acting like he's all good for doing something that doesn't apply and doesn't mean shite.

We understand you are retracting your harsh opinion based on what you thought he was doing.

We have lower standards than you so we're going to slam this d'bag for being a . . . d'bag regardless of whether he admitted up front he was being a  . . .  d'bag.

{{Ace}} why so sensitive and tense Ace? Feeling a little . . . Anxious?

Time to get laid or whack off. Your choice but do one or the other soon. I'm getting concerned.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 04:13 PM (Kpn/z)

98 If the system worked for Mark Kelly, why does he want to change it?

Posted by: gastorgrab at March 29, 2013 04:13 PM (FX38i)

99 Who cares if he was genuine, he's still an opportunist asshat.

Posted by: Andrew at March 29, 2013 04:13 PM (HS3dy)

100 Ace, your integrity is maintained, but Kelly's still a major butt munch.

Posted by: Molly at March 29, 2013 04:14 PM (X+WbL)

101 So the Govm't is bad because the background check system works? WTF??!

Posted by: barky the precedent at March 29, 2013 04:14 PM (Y5Ovc)

102 Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 29, 2013 09:04 PM (k9TQr) Did his parents think he was a precious pearl and not want to hold him accountable for anything? God give me the strength to realize and admit it if my kid goes batshit insane.

Posted by: Elizabethe at March 29, 2013 04:14 PM (qPCAa)

103 Unless you have an FFL and are in the business, the only person who needs to purchase more than one gun a month is a straw buyer. Also, I have no problem with background checks at gun shows as long as the data is not stored

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 08:47 PM (HqXYa)


HqXYa - Definitely one of the paid Obamao minions -

Kind of hard to get that matched pair of Ruger Valqueros with sequential serial numbers for cowboy action (or just because!) if you can only buy one at a time.

Posted by: Obamao at March 29, 2013 04:14 PM (JtyGg)

104 Whoa! Whoa! Whoa, dude.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse

*******************************

 

Sorry, but I have no tolerance for assholes like him.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:14 PM (zoJ1H)

105 I'll make these cocksuckers a deal. I'll submit to a universal background check for every gun I buy as soon as everyone submits to the same for every vote they cast.

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 04:14 PM (OZPoa)

106 Notice how Judge Rolle, who was actually murdered, is never mentioned, because he was a Republican, and basically a non- person. Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch, writes at March 29, 2013 09:12 PM (Md8Uo) Bingo. For now, non-persons are simply not talked about. History indicates that the left gets more energetic about that exclusion as time goes on.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i][/b][/s][/u] at March 29, 2013 04:14 PM (bxiXv)

107 Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 09:10 PM (zoJ1H)


Ombudsman has been here a loooong time!  You need to chill.

Posted by: Tami[/i] at March 29, 2013 04:15 PM (X6akg)

108 Notice how Judge Rolle, who was actually murdered, is never mentioned, because he was a Republican, and basically a non- person.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch, writes at March 29, 2013 09:12 PM (Md8Uo)



Personally I think his family has too much dignity to be part the the travelling ghoul show that the JEF and Debbie Washmygash-Shit put together.  But the MFM needs to be dragged over 40 miles of bad road for never mentioning him.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2013 04:15 PM (G8Vj+)

109 Hey, dumbass somebody shot your 'ol lady, you better be packin'.

Posted by: tony redenzo at March 29, 2013 04:15 PM (1MsBy)

110 When they ran my background check it took about five minutes and what the guy *said* was that they didn't make any record of the sale or if I even bought something or not. I don't think that's so bad, is it? The problem is really that, with good reason, we don't trust the SOBs to leave it at that. If all I had to do to sell/give a gun to my son or neighbor or friend was submit a background check on-line that I could see but the sale/gift wasn't recorded, I think that would probably be okay, too. I could print it off and throw it in a file so that if my neighbor turned out to be a psycho my butt was covered. But *facilitating* the sale of firearms is not what any of the gun grabbers are interested in doing. (Also... still need ammo. Common guys, you've got enough already!)

Posted by: Synova at March 29, 2013 04:15 PM (7/PU+)

111 RCJB @ 93

I understand and agree. It's just the day she testified, the irony to me was simply deafening.

Posted by: Tobacco Road at March 29, 2013 04:16 PM (4Mv1T)

112 100 Bark,

No Bark the govt is bad because your party protects the reputation and identity of the "near slayer of St Gabby murderer of that meaningless GOP Judge" and then uses her special needs ass to try to form a database....

because I know that you know that we KNOW that your retarded Puppet from Scranton Slow-Joe admits you want all the guns.

Now go golf and have the lionesses get a moonshot for Xmas buddy....

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:16 PM (LRFds)

113 Ombudsman has been here a loooong time! You need to chill.

Posted by: Tami

 

**************

 

He's a long term P.O.S. poster then. Fuck him.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:17 PM (zoJ1H)

114 And like James O'Keefe is willing to do, I want to see the entire unedited video. I don't want to see this POS highly selectived edited video he put out.

Posted by: Dave C at March 29, 2013 04:18 PM (ajoLO)

115 Ombudsman may be (is) wrong but he is not a troll.

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living... at March 29, 2013 04:18 PM (gh4OI)

116 Whatever. I still don't like him. He's still an opportunistic weasel.

Posted by: L, elle at March 29, 2013 04:18 PM (0PiQ4)

117 102 Obamao,

I have 3 sets of matching pistols, although I did just give my favorites to my dad...

Yeah I must be a psycho...Ombudsman is at best a Fudd and at worst is a Manchin.

"Ewase me wast Mr Schooma!"

//Fudd

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:18 PM (LRFds)

118 "Unless you have an FFL and are in the business, the only person who needs to purchase more than one gun a month is a straw buyer. Also, I have no problem with background checks at gun shows as long as the data is not stored" I call bullshit. I bought a .22 pistol, an SR40, and a 10/22 takedown model in the space of one month. They are all for me. I'm not an FFL nor am I buying them for someone else. Morevoer, I want to buy a bolt action rifle, a semi-auto rifle (like a mini-30), and a compact handgun (I got my eyes on an SR9c). What if I want to buy them in a month, a week, a day or one hour? What business is it of yours or anyone else's how many fucking guns I buy in a month. It's my money and I'll do what I want with it. The only person I have to answer to in this matter is the loverly Mrs. Macaroon.

Posted by: Macaroon at March 29, 2013 04:19 PM (bw8pg)

119 >> Ombudsman may be (is) wrong but he is not a troll. I didn't care to take the time to verify the hash. He's a regular but, if that is him, he's just wrong on this point.

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 04:20 PM (OZPoa)

120 How about background checks on EBT recipients?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 29, 2013 04:20 PM (IDSI7)

121 Ombudsman, fuck you lying piece of shit. You are a troll and I recognize your hash. If you have a gun, put it in your mouth and pull the trigger you wannabe fascist.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 09:10 PM (zoJ1H)

 Um... no.    I've been posting on this site for 5 years.   You DON'T recognize my hash, because in the past three weeks I changed ISPs and got a new computer.  Let's have a discussion like reasonable adults. 

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 04:21 PM (HqXYa)

122 sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 09:16 PM (LRFds) Toadly misses the sarc within the irony within the joke.

Posted by: barky the precedent at March 29, 2013 04:21 PM (Y5Ovc)

123 Mmmmm... macaroons.

Posted by: Elizabethe at March 29, 2013 04:21 PM (qPCAa)

124 >> Posted by: L, elle at March 29, 2013 09:18 PM (0PiQ4) I see you got the link thing fixed :-)

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 04:21 PM (OZPoa)

125 Then renounce your membership Ombudsman.

Posted by: Hanoverfist at March 29, 2013 04:21 PM (HiKk0)

126 so do I understand this right- Kelly's purpose in buying the guns was to demonstrate to the yokels that even with new GC legislation, we'd still be able to buy guns, and thus we (the yokels) have nothing to fear? Fine. Whatever. Fuck him still. Moving on...

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 29, 2013 04:21 PM (8sCoq)

127

Ombudman is a POS and should take my advice.

Any scumbag who claims someone who buys more than one gun at a time is a straw buyer isn't on our side. Michael Moore has a lifetime membership too. He can ESAD too.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:21 PM (zoJ1H)

128 119 Jay guevera,

"background/drug cjhecks" on EBT and voting are wrong/racist but I need a rectal exam and a trip to mental hygiene if I decide I want to buy a whole SASS rig in a month I guess...

what kind of horsefuck NRA Lifetime shit is that?

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:21 PM (LRFds)

129 121 bark,

No was deadpanning back at the irony in the nick....

sorry I was not more clear Bud.

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:22 PM (LRFds)

130 Sold two, traded one, bought three, in the course of 60 days. All mine, and in my safe. Screw the one a month club.

Posted by: Tobacco Road at March 29, 2013 04:22 PM (4Mv1T)

131 > Ombudsman may be (is) wrong but he is not a troll.

He's a regular but, if that is him, he's just wrong on this point.

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 09:20 PM (OZPoa)

 

Thanks for the defense, all.   I could be wrong.  Let's discuss

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 04:23 PM (HqXYa)

132 You know, I'm a lifetime NRA member with several weapons, but I think there are two recommendations the NRA is nuts to oppose: the one gun a month proposal, and the background check at gun shows. *** So, 12 guns a year is okay? Who says what's an acceptable number?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:23 PM (piMMO)

133 fwiw - a woman would have to go jump through more governmental hoops to buy a gun for self-defense against a rapist Than to get an abortion should she become pregnant from the rape itself. _

Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 29, 2013 04:23 PM (9P+hO)

134

79 i thought people were following this story. I just happened to have seen it on Breitbart. I'm glad it didn't get wide play as it turns out to be wrong (it seems).

anyway without that background it makes no sense.

I have to retract because I'm ethically required to retract.

This retraction doesn't make sense if you didn't follow the story and I'm not in the mood to put up links demonstrating that I was wrong.

 

 

Uh, ace?  You did talk about it here.  http://ace.mu.nu/archives/338341.php[/b]

 

Just, once again, I am not talking about the gun control issue myself. I am speaking of doubt about Mark Kelly's story about what happened in the gun store that day. Not about gun policy. NOT about gun policy. Just his story about that day.

anyway I've said this enough times. please don't argue gun policy with me any more as my post is not intended to be about it. you are free to argue about that yourselves but I can only say so many times that's not my reason for posting this. This is a purely hygeinic "I was wrong about something."

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 09:04 PM (LCRYB)

 

As for this part I think you might be overly defensive due to your need to put up the retraction.  Possibly thinking that people being critical Kelly are actually critical of you.  So a bit of talking passed eachother could be going on

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 04:24 PM (GULKT)

135 130 Ombudsman,

who but a gaia assaulting teahadist could ever want to buy more than a DVD a week?

You don't shop for me Mr. Lifetime.

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:24 PM (LRFds)

136 Ace, props to you for staying on the straight and narrow. That's how we know you're the good guy.

Posted by: Synova at March 29, 2013 04:24 PM (7/PU+)

137 I don't care what his excuse is. I don't care how justified he thinks he is. I don't trust him and to be brutally honest, his wife's injuries has nothing to do with my rights. Any time anyone talks about "common sense" gun laws, they are talking about confiscation and I'm not interested in hearing their viewpoint past that.

Posted by: NR Pax at March 29, 2013 04:24 PM (U+O64)

138 Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 09:21 PM (HqXYa)

Then don't posit assumptions for others that are not evident by talking to just folks here.

Such as "the only person who needs to purchase more than one gun a month is a straw buyer"

Clearly you misspoke and the caveat about the data being stored indicates a faith in the Gov't being honest about it  and not the normal shitweasels they usually are.

Na'mean?

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 04:24 PM (Kpn/z)

139 Ombudsman may be (is) wrong but he is not a troll.

No, he's an asshole who thinks the Bill of Rights goes too far and needs to be restricted.

He needs to take a goddamn hard look in the mirror and decide if he's for fascism or freedom.

Posted by: Omsdoucheman at March 29, 2013 04:25 PM (uPbpg)

140 Great work guys! Now that we've agreed on the number of guns it's okay for us - all of us - to buy, let's talk about how much ammunition we - all of us - really need.

Posted by: Liberals at March 29, 2013 04:25 PM (9P+hO)

141 Whatever the issue, right or wrong, telling another commenter to put a gun in his mouth is in no ways kosher.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:25 PM (piMMO)

142 131 neidermeyer's Dead Horse,

Dianne Feinstein evidently/////

hey i changed my mind...what the fuck was I thinking thinking fighting her on anything was wrong?

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:25 PM (LRFds)

143 Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 09:22 PM (LRFds) *high-fives*

Posted by: barky the precedent at March 29, 2013 04:25 PM (Y5Ovc)

144 Hey Andy. Yes indeed I did. I said thank you to you on that thread but you cut out I think before you saw it. So, I'll say it again, a big thank you, Andy! Btw, I nominate Andy to be blog manager. He's a problem solver. And takes down trolls ruthlessly and efficiently.

Posted by: L, elle at March 29, 2013 04:25 PM (0PiQ4)

145

BTW ombdiuche, backround checks are required at gun shows when purchased from an FFL dealer.

Waste of time talking to you. You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not rationally come to.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:26 PM (zoJ1H)

146 And let's not tell each other to put gun to mouth and shoot

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 29, 2013 04:26 PM (8sCoq)

147 You know, I'm a lifetime NRA member with several weapons, but I think there are two recommendations the NRA is nuts to oppose: the one gun a month proposal, and the background check at gun shows.

***

So, 12 guns a year is okay?

Who says what's an acceptable number?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 09:23 PM (piMMO)

 

OK. you got me.  I'm just trying to think of a way to prevent straw buyers before the fact.

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 04:26 PM (HqXYa)

148 Later. See you on the ONT

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:26 PM (piMMO)

149 Here's the thing about "one gun per 30 days". I've never heard ANYONE put forth a coherent, logical case for the policy. Other than "fuck the rednecks", which seems to be the operative motivation for 99% of gun control policy. Caving on this just to try to win a fucking midterm election is stupid and craven.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 29, 2013 04:26 PM (MBqvE)

150 Kelly's a tool.

Posted by: EROWMER at March 29, 2013 04:27 PM (kxlCQ)

151 OK. you got me. I'm just trying to think of a way to prevent straw buyers before the fact.

Ask Eric Holder. He's an expert.

Posted by: Omsdoucheman at March 29, 2013 04:27 PM (uPbpg)

152 140 NDH,

agreed...

the Bud Philpott advice for the lovelorn is over the top but I am sorta ranklish at being called a goddamned straw buyer myself.

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:27 PM (LRFds)

153 In January I bought a gun from a guy at a gun show. Had to fill out the background check. Thought nothing of it.

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 29, 2013 04:27 PM (8sCoq)

154 I'm just trying to think of a way to prevent straw buyers before the fact. ---------------- Nail Bloomberg with a felony conviction and send his ass to jail ... that'd be a start.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 29, 2013 04:27 PM (9P+hO)

155 No one gets to decide what I "need".  No one gets to decide that. 

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2013 04:28 PM (P6QsQ)

156 142 bark,

Bark lifelong Wolverine fan here...can you pick Ohio State for the National Championship next year?

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:28 PM (LRFds)

157

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 09:08 PM (HqXYa)

 

I know your name.  You may not be a troll.  But on the issues you are running your mouth on you are proving yourself to be the dumbest motherfucker on the blog this week.  And erg, Hector, raykon and moo moo have all been around.

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 04:28 PM (GULKT)

158 OK. you got me. I'm just trying to think of a way to prevent straw buyers before the fact. **** Criminals and those will ill intent will find a way to purchase guns regardless if it is through legal means or not. Those who are hellbent on committing a murderous spree will do so by any means available, guns or not.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:28 PM (piMMO)

159 Let's have a discussion like reasonable adults. Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 09:21 PM (HqXYa) You lost that right when you opened calling us criminals and unreasonable. Passive-aggresive horseshit. Shouldn't have opened that way, *might* have been a discussion. Won't be now, because you led with your dick.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i][/b][/s][/u] at March 29, 2013 04:28 PM (bxiXv)

160 Hell. I tried to leave but it just keeps pulling me back in.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:29 PM (piMMO)

161 Sorry everyone. I'm not in a tolerant mood- especially on this issue.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:30 PM (zoJ1H)

162 Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 09:26 PM (HqXYa)

Not gonna happen.

I'm quite sure the cops and the gov't would LOVE to arrest criminals before the fact.

Trouble is that pesky constitution keeps getting in the way.

The universe is unfair. life can suck. Deal with it and leave your assumptions about my or anyone else's motives out of the law.

M'kay?

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 04:30 PM (Kpn/z)

163 Bottom line, boys, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'm thinking of elections here. If the Republicans concede those two meaningless points it will take the issue off the table and tilt it towards us for 2014 and 2016. Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 09:08 PM (HqXYa) That's just stupid. How many bites you gonna let them take before you realize - ZOMG! Fuckin' cannibals! Here's your sign...

Posted by: JQP at March 29, 2013 04:30 PM (ts0yx)

164 How many steak knives am I allowed per month? 

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2013 04:30 PM (P6QsQ)

165
I go alot further than most people, I don't think we should have checks at all. 

Didn't stop Tucson, Aurora, or Newtown.  and never will.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 29, 2013 04:30 PM (IY7Ir)

166 >>  This is a purely hygeinic "I was wrong about something."

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2013 09:04 PM (LCRYB)

 

This is strange and scary behavior....but this world needs more of it

Posted by: Albie Damned at March 29, 2013 04:30 PM (Yhu4q)

167 >...can you pick Ohio State for the National Championship Is there a good golf course nearby?

Posted by: barky the precedent at March 29, 2013 04:30 PM (Y5Ovc)

168 How many ounces may I drink?

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2013 04:31 PM (P6QsQ)

169 Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 09:23 PM (piMMO)
OK. you got me. I'm just trying to think of a way to prevent straw buyers before the fact.

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 09:26 PM (HqXYa)

 

Jesus, people.   Convince me of the error of my ways, like adults do.  We're on the same team here.  Ad hominem attacks add nothing.  That's what the libs do.

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 04:31 PM (HqXYa)

170 Gun Control....uh we mean Gun Safety. Anyone who believes a group that tries to change its position like this deserves the raping they're gonna get.

Posted by: Hanoverfist at March 29, 2013 04:31 PM (HiKk0)

171 Um... no. I've been posting on this site for 5 years. You DON'T recognize my hash, because in the past three weeks I changed ISPs and got a new computer. Let's have a discussion like reasonable adults.

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 09:21 PM (HqXYa)

 

Now I know you're fucking stupid. 


Posted by: Ombudsman at November 01, 2012 06:17 PM (HqXYa)

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 04:31 PM (GULKT)

172 What's your favorite soft drink and why

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 29, 2013 04:32 PM (8sCoq)

173 Ombudsman, I feel certain that if you really THINK through the issue rather than relying upon emotion, you will see that limiting gun purchases to law abiding citizens does nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on them. All it does is help to ensure that law-aiding citizens are out-gunned.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:32 PM (piMMO)

174 166 bark,

Several...Hell Bark go to king's island while you're at it...

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:32 PM (LRFds)

175 >> Btw, I nominate Andy to be blog manager. He's a problem solver. And takes down trolls ruthlessly and efficiently. If this were a democracy, we'd have a brand new blog. However, I'm going to post something in the morning post tomorrow that you morons are going to love.

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 04:32 PM (OZPoa)

176 I wonder if Mr. Kelly has any land for sale?

Posted by: nip at March 29, 2013 04:32 PM (lGVXf)

177 I agree with you, Ace. A well thought-out post and response. Nice.  A merry Good Friday to you all.

Posted by: Mary Clogenstein from Brattleboro VT at March 29, 2013 04:32 PM (kZDEr)

178 170 Buzzion,

just a lucky coincidence....

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:32 PM (LRFds)

179 Convince me of the error of my ways, like adults do.

--------


Okay how about this?  I have a constitutional right to bear arms.  There is nothing in Line 2 about how many Big Brother may allot me per month. 

Also, I am a free born citizen. 

I'm not so sure about you.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2013 04:33 PM (P6QsQ)

180 It's very worrisome to think that I have to put myself on Obama's list to buy a gun. Unlike him, I'm a real American.

I won't be buying a gun (legally) today.

Posted by: Ray Sist, McChrystal's ol boy at March 29, 2013 04:33 PM (ZdbBe)

181 However, I'm going to post something in the morning post tomorrow that you morons are going to love. *** Shirtless pics of Tebow? A new kitteh video? A brutal takedown of Jim Carrey?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:34 PM (piMMO)

182 You know my State has a mandatory 2 week background check that is  far more comprehensive than the Federal check alone. And then the permit to buy is only good for one year for a long arm. Handguns are dealt with individually.
Yet the wait is unprecedented because of the Obama Demand. And the entire State is out of ammo.

Posted by: pat at March 29, 2013 04:34 PM (jlQR7)

183 So the existing system works fine?  Gee...

Posted by: Hand Solo at March 29, 2013 04:34 PM (VueZd)

184 Ace I respect your stones for retracting and you are right that is "ethical" but Kelly didn't prove shit....

he answered a serious quiz on the value of Pi with "APPLESAUCE!"


Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:34 PM (LRFds)

185 No, we can't give an inch on this issue bc any concession gives validation to the idea that guns are inherently bad. It also encourages the gun grabbers to keep pushing the issue. No.

Posted by: L, elle at March 29, 2013 04:34 PM (0PiQ4)

186 Jesus, people. Convince me of the error of my ways, like adults do. We're on the same team here. Ad hominem attacks add nothing. That's what the libs do.


So only reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, or can we use your same logic on the 1st, 4th and 5th?

Posted by: Omsdoucheman at March 29, 2013 04:34 PM (uPbpg)

187 Is there any demonstrable benefit to having more than 20,000 laws on the books?

Does anyone really need one more law that won't be enforced? 


Posted by: willy at March 29, 2013 04:34 PM (HtLqT)

188 They do the same check Mark Kelly did at gun shows. Where does this "They don't do background checks at gun shows" bullshit come from?

Posted by: The Generic, Award Winning Moron at March 29, 2013 04:35 PM (MhA4j)

189 The more I read what Ombud writes, the more I'm convinced that whatever his motives or the length of his recorded commenting here is, he's a "concern" troll.

Worried about how the Republicans need to give in on just one or two more Democrat ideas and they'll be in like flint in 2014.

boooosh wahhhhh.

I'm done talking adult to a puppet

or a meathead == "dead from the neck up"

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 04:35 PM (Kpn/z)

190 How about we limit ombsdouche to one post a month. That would be good right?

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:35 PM (zoJ1H)

191 never apologize to them.


never

Posted by: Lanny the poker man at March 29, 2013 04:35 PM (Dll6b)

192 I will buy as many fucking guns as I want to as i often as I would like to ombudsman, and I to am a NRA member so go blow yourself

Posted by: Irishacres at March 29, 2013 04:36 PM (HVff2)

193 So only reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, or can we use your same logic on the 1st,

-----------




How many times a month do you really need to go to church anyway?  One oughtta do it.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2013 04:36 PM (P6QsQ)

194 Ommie, can I call you Ommie, you lead with your mouth and not your brain on your argument.  Guess what I got a NRA card around here also.  Have also bought firearms at a gun store and at gun shows from dealers.  Both places did background checks.  I also have a friend who sells as a private individual antique firearms at gun shows, he is not required to do checks or anything but he still keeps a record of what he sold to whom just in case.

So you badly failed on multiple fronts.  Now nut up and apologize.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 29, 2013 04:36 PM (k9TQr)

195 So if ergie posts here for 5 years does that mean it's not a troll?

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:36 PM (zoJ1H)

196 Ombudsman,

I've had to get a background check for every gun I have ever bought at a gun show. There is no "gun show loophole". This is not about crime fighting it is about making it a pain in the ass to own a gun. Give 'em this inch and the yard they will take is saving those records permanently. De facto registration. You will have to go through a dealer and get a background check to give your kid a .22.

I picked up a gun today I had on lay a way. While I was at the shop I noticed a .22 I would like to have (it was just like one I had when I was a kid) and a .45 Glock. The gun I picked up is a vintage M1917 in .45 acp. One of the reasons I wanted it is because I want a 1911 or some other auto loader in the same caliber so I can share ammo. If money was no object I would have walked out with all three today. As it is I still might get back and get the .22 if I can come up with a good line of shit to feed the wife. I don't think I can justify the Glock right now. Dammit.

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living... at March 29, 2013 04:37 PM (gh4OI)

197 I would consider everything they say and/or do after the moment that they repeal the "Gun Free Zone" act and require all establishments to recognize a cc permittee the right to enter their establishment armed.

If they did that they would be part way towards convincing me that they truly do want to stop senseless deaths.

Until then; BITE ME.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 04:37 PM (Kpn/z)

198 Hi you guys! Idaho is cold..... colder than Colorado in January. Where should we go next? We are thinking Europe.

Posted by: Sasha and Malia at March 29, 2013 04:38 PM (jucos)

199
I think Ombuds got the point by now.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 29, 2013 04:38 PM (IY7Ir)

200 Tell you what ombuds, you apologize for insulting us law abiding, multiple firearm purchasing folk, and I'll apologize for going postal on you. How about it?

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:38 PM (zoJ1H)

201 And just again in case anyone missed it especially Ace himself:  Ace did post on this topic here.  http://ace.mu.nu/archives/338341.php

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 04:39 PM (GULKT)

202 I know I'm not as smart as Ace, but this whole thing still doesn't make much sense. "Hey, I'm gonna make this video about how easy the NCIS system is so you won't be scared of it so we can expand it and have more government involvement." First, he's a real douche for going into a mans store with a hidden camera. Plus there's nothing in this video that couldn't have been put together last week. This gets dumped on a holiday Friday right before his appearance on Fox News Sunday where he would have to know he'd be sked about the story. I dunno, this whole thing still smells funny.

Posted by: Funeral guy at March 29, 2013 04:39 PM (3dHo2)

203 Sorry. Don't buy it. What exactly was he trying to "prove," and to whom? Any (legal) gun owner knows the drill on a NICS query. What was the point? And why did he try to buy a rifle being sold on consignment, that made the purchase atypically complex? It makes no sense.

Posted by: CTD at March 29, 2013 04:39 PM (VqiII)

204 It's still fucked up and stupid. Later.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 29, 2013 04:39 PM (FMeeD)

205 Okay how about this? I have a constitutional right to bear arms. There is nothing in Line 2 about how many Big Brother may allot me per month.

'shall not be infringed' is pretty clear. Even gun grabbers can understand it, put the word abortion in front and it's crystal clear to them.

Posted by: Retread at March 29, 2013 04:39 PM (zxitI)

206 As it is I still might get back and get the .22 if I can come up with a good line of shit to feed the wife.


"Honey, you can accessorize it!"

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 04:39 PM (doBIb)

207 Did I just say that out loud?

Whoops!

Posted by: Ray Sist, McChrystal's ol' boy at March 29, 2013 04:40 PM (ZdbBe)

208 How is one gun a month going to help anything? Lanza was a crazy guy who plotted murder apparently for a long time. He could have bought twenty guns while he was doing his reported spreadsheet of famous mass murders. Most soldiers only carry one main gun and they somehow kill a lot of people.

Posted by: Beagle at March 29, 2013 04:41 PM (sOtz/)

209 174 Tease.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at March 29, 2013 04:41 PM (7Uwae)

210 >>>I want a 1911 or some other auto loader in the same caliber so I can share ammo

Now there's an idea I can get behind. Just did likewise with a new little pocket cannon to share chow with my 1911.

Posted by: Tobacco Road at March 29, 2013 04:41 PM (4Mv1T)

211 How about... In order to have a limit of one gun a month (which might be annoying but is quite a few guns if you don't skip months) SOMEONE has to keep track of what I bought last month and the month before and the month before. That limit, even if it seems reasonable, demands a government registry of each gun I buy and most probably who I buy it from as well. This "reasonable" measure requires universal registration and government lists. Is there a work around for that that I just don't see? Secondly, any argument based on "need" is faulty in concept. Rights aren't about needs. And it should stop right there, but from a practical standpoint, letting a policy be based on what a citizen needs or doesn't need invites argument about what a citizen needs or doesn't need since the concept has been conceded at the get-go. Is there *any* particular type of gun that a person "needs?" Obama trap shooting is entirely pointless. Does anyone *need* to hunt? Does a guy with a Historical musket manufacturing and black-powder hobby *need* to do that? Going there is a mistake. Period.

Posted by: Synova at March 29, 2013 04:41 PM (7/PU+)

212 He could have bought twenty guns while he was doing his reported spreadsheet of famous mass murders.


His mother was an enabler.  She straw-purchased weapons for him.

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 04:42 PM (doBIb)

213 Blahblahblah I want one of these:


http://bit.ly/10hBmcO

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 04:42 PM (Gk3SS)

214 If this were a democracy, we'd have a brand new blog.

And it would die in a week.

DON'T EFF WITH A THING THAT WORKS. It may not work the way you want to but it's a huge blog, very popular and screwy with the software and how the blog is formatted would be a death knell.

Trust me on this. Over the years I've seen this happen many times. You have too if you thought about it.

Some product works and is popular then some bright spark with a fresh new MBA decides THEY CAN IMPROVE IT.

They then proceed to destroy the very things that made that particular product more popular than others that SEEMED like it.


Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 04:42 PM (Kpn/z)

215 211 EC,

and they were good little activists in the family for the 'right causes" or we'd be hearing it non fricking stop....


Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:43 PM (LRFds)

216 >>>"Honey, you can accessorize it!"

Made me laugh. Can't even get my wife to LOOK at my new acquisitions. Like it's a penis, or something.

Posted by: Tobacco Road at March 29, 2013 04:43 PM (4Mv1T)

217 Trust me on this. Over the years I've seen this happen many times. You have too if you thought about it. *** Buy a successful restaurant and change the menu. We've all seen it.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:43 PM (piMMO)

218 another great episode of SHARK TANK we didn't watch together and discuss

Posted by: soothsayer, mcmahon, and tate at March 29, 2013 04:44 PM (8dspl)

219 To anyone I offended, I apologize. I'll try to comport myself with more dignity in the future.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:44 PM (zoJ1H)

220 Blahblahblah I want one of these:


http://bit.ly/10hBmcO

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 09:42 PM (Gk3SS)



What a horrible name.  They couldn't come up with a better one?   Like "Asskicker Mathilda"?

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 04:44 PM (doBIb)

221 209 Tobacco Road,

There's a 1911 Kit out that converts the 1911 to .38 special in SWC....


That *may* well be the new Sven pistol....

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:44 PM (LRFds)

222 What a horrible name. They couldn't come up with a better one? Like "Asskicker Mathilda"?
Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 09:44 PM (doBIb)



There's a name?   I was distracted by the missiles. 



Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 04:45 PM (Gk3SS)

223 Made me laugh. Can't even get my wife to LOOK at my new acquisitions. Like it's a penis, or something.

Posted by: Tobacco Road at March 29, 2013 09:43 PM (4Mv1T)



That could mean trouble for you down the road. 

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 04:45 PM (doBIb)

224 I'll try to comport myself with more dignity in the future.


------------



What?!  And ruin the atmosphere around here? 


Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2013 04:45 PM (P6QsQ)

225 212 Blahblahblah I want one of these: Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 09:42 PM (Gk3SS) One a month.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i][/b][/s][/u] at March 29, 2013 04:46 PM (bxiXv)

226 I'd like someone to explain how a 12 gun a year restriction would prevent straw buys. Because even a 12 gun a year policy would still allow the possibility of 12 straw buys per person, per year (assuming that the straw buyer doesn't get arrested and or prohibited for some reason). I would reckon that the average straw buyer only does it once or twice a year anyhow, and that it's mostly criminals' girlfriends or friends doing their buddy/lover a "solid". 12 guns a year does NOTHING to prevent this.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 29, 2013 04:46 PM (MBqvE)

227 There's a name? I was distracted by the missiles


Missiles.  Face.

Missiles shooting out of Face.



I got it!


"MISSILE FACE"

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 04:46 PM (doBIb)

228 32 is the funniest post this week. AnnaPuma you are my hero

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 29, 2013 04:47 PM (csi6Y)

229 What?! And ruin the atmosphere around here?


Posted by: mama winger

 

*************************

 

It's posts like that, that keep me coming back.

I was over the line and I try not to be like that. Don't want to stick up the joint.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:47 PM (zoJ1H)

230 Ace, sometimes I think you have too much integrity.

Does ThinkProgress or Media Matters or DailyKos or any of the leftist fever swamps EVER apologize for anything that they got wrong?  Ever?  No, they don't.  If the tables were turned, they would never apologize for their error.  So the story stays out there that some evil neanderthal Republican lied his ass off in order to prove some partisan point.  And that lie gets spread around the blogosphere about 20 times before someone with the truth is able to challenge the validity of that story.  But by that time, the original source of the lie is unknown, so the personal reputation of the original false rumor-spreader remains untainted.  And the lie remains because it spreads faster than the truth.  And eventually it becomes part of the "common wisdom".  And the narrative of evil-Republicans-hate-the-truth is pushed forward a little bit more.

Posted by: chemjeff at March 29, 2013 04:47 PM (BBWjt)

231 218 To anyone I offended, I apologize. I'll try to comport myself with more dignity in the future. Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 09:44 PM (zoJ1H) He was looking for a fight, You fell for it, that's all. Passive-aggressive games are *always* trolling, no matter what anyone does on another day.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i][/b][/s][/u] at March 29, 2013 04:47 PM (bxiXv)

232 I'm also (almost) willing to do the one gun a month thing as long as I get a credit for every month I don't buy a gun.

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 04:47 PM (OZPoa)

233 32 is the funniest post this week. AnnaPuma you are my hero



The lovely Miz Puma has a way with words.

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 04:48 PM (doBIb)

234 One a month. Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 29, 2013 09:46 PM (bxiXv)


If I had one of those, I'm thinking I could make a persuasive argument that such a restriction would not apply to me.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 04:48 PM (Gk3SS)

235 Stick = Stink

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:48 PM (zoJ1H)

236 While I was at the shop I noticed a .22 I would like to have (it was just like one I had when I was a kid)

If you really want it, go back with a good caliper.

Posted by: Ray Sist, McChrystal's ol' boy at March 29, 2013 04:48 PM (ZdbBe)

237 But Sven. I LIKE .45acp.

Showed my new subcompact to a friend who has never owned a gun, but is thinking about it. He said, "Let me see a bullet for it". Handed him one.

Him, "Damn, that's a big bullet."

Posted by: Tobacco Road at March 29, 2013 04:48 PM (4Mv1T)

238 Adam Lanza's weapons were bought for him by his mother.

Who would have easily passed a background check. Despite her incredible stupidity.

As for the idea that waiting periods or purchase limits will make a difference, those wouldn't have made any difference with Adam Lanza.

He had already been waiting with spiderlike patience for literally years, researching other mass killings in precise detail and methodically planning his own spree.

Meanwhile, we still don't have any admissible information about what psychiatric drugs the system had stuffed down Lanza's neck. Nor do we have that information about any of the other young male spree killers of recent years, thanks to "medical privacy" laws. Except in case after case, what has been anecdotally and informally voiced by friends and neighbors is that the killer in question had been doped to the eyeballs on various powerful meds.

Maybe, just maybe, if someone flips out and runs amuck, they should forfeit that right to medical privacy?

Posted by: torquewrench at March 29, 2013 04:48 PM (gqT4g)

239 Btw, Michigan and Kansas just went to overtime.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 04:49 PM (Gk3SS)

240 July 12. Whoo Hoo!

Posted by: Synova at March 29, 2013 04:49 PM (7/PU+)

241 If I had one of those, I'm thinking I could make a persuasive argument that such a restriction would not apply to me. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 09:48 PM (Gk3SS) You could just say no. I mean, who's going to stop you? People need to learn to say no.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i][/b][/s][/u] at March 29, 2013 04:49 PM (bxiXv)

242 >To anyone I offended, I apologize. I'll try to comport myself with more dignity in the future. Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 09:44 PM (zoJ1H) yeah, whoa there, old Paint, you're workin' up a froth

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 29, 2013 04:49 PM (8sCoq)

243 Showed my new subcompact to a friend who has never owned a gun, but is thinking about it. He said, "Let me see a bullet for it". Handed him one.

Him, "Damn, that's a big bullet."

Posted by: Tobacco Road at March 29, 2013 09:48 PM (4Mv1T)



You should have added, "Now imagine it flying at 900 feet/sec into something!"

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 04:50 PM (doBIb)

244  Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith, you are correct. (sigh)

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:50 PM (zoJ1H)

245 236 Tobacco Road,

then get a .455 Webley converted to .45 ACP with the half moon clips....

hell I want one just for the "Okey Dokey Indy!" factor

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 04:50 PM (LRFds)

246 I think everyone trolls a little bit now and then. Maybe inadvertently and then ego keeps you from admitting you screwed up so you double down and a total donnybrook ensues.

Speaking for others is a clue.

Oh wait. . .

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 04:51 PM (Kpn/z)

247

"He was denied his AR-15"

The glittering elephant in the room that seems to have escaped many...

Posted by: Kitty Frontage formerly known as Jess1 at March 29, 2013 04:51 PM (lbiWb)

248 yeah, whoa there, old Paint, you're workin' up a froth

Posted by: Jones in CO

************************************

 

 

 

I'm ok now. Will flog myself as pennance.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:51 PM (zoJ1H)

249
Sorry. Don't buy it. What exactly was he trying to "prove," and to whom?...
It makes no sense.

Posted by: CTD





Sorry.  The liberals have pushed back.  Time to roll over, show our bellies and beg for forgiveness.

Posted by:  Ur Nu Republican Party

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 29, 2013 04:51 PM (kdS6q)

250 Maybe, just maybe, if someone flips out and runs amuck, they should forfeit that right to medical privacy? Posted by: torquewrench at March 29, 2013 09:48 PM (gqT4g) It's kind of like a massive pharma study is being conducted on the public, but the data is being suppressed. *Someone* has been talking to the climatologists!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i][/b][/s][/u] at March 29, 2013 04:51 PM (bxiXv)

251

Ombudsman;

Its none of anyone's business how many guns I buy at a time. Its none of anyone's business why i buy those guns. But since you are so insistent I'll tell you why. Because people like you who are willing to give up their basic right to bear arms in order to protect themselves and their families and instead depend on someone else to do it for them deserve everything that comes to them, and just because you are a fool does not mean that I should suffer for your stupidity.

 

Gun ownership is a basic right that enables us to defend ourselves against each other in general, and against our government in particular.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at March 29, 2013 04:51 PM (J/5jZ)

252 Note: Any hope the Leftists had of their St. Gabby making her way back into the halls of congress should now be laid to rest by this video.

Posted by: IronDioPriest at March 29, 2013 04:52 PM (1dJQd)

253 You could just say no. I mean, who's going to stop you?

People need to learn to say no. Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 29, 2013 09:49 PM (bxiXv)



Someone with one of these?


http://bit.ly/XNg6cR

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 04:52 PM (Gk3SS)

254 He's probably positioning himself to run for public office in AZ.

Posted by: obladioblada at March 29, 2013 04:52 PM (gr0vk)

255 I once wowed a non-gun coworker by showing him a .45 acp case. I then showed him why some people prefer it over 9mm by dropping a 9mm casing into the .45.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:53 PM (zoJ1H)

256 Ombudsman,
You know, I'm a lifetime NRA member with several weapons, but I think there are two recommendations the NRA is nuts to oppose: the one gun a month proposal, and the background check at gun shows.

Unless you have an FFL and are in the business, the only person who needs to purchase more than one gun a month is a straw buyer. Also, I have no problem with background checks at gun shows as long as the data is not stored
.

So,
If I buy a piece, and another, that I really want, comes available, I should NOT be able to purchase because I've purchased one within 30 days?
WTF are you thinking? Are you thinking?
There is no semblance of a logical thought in your screed. All of us here are dumber for having read it.
I award you no points, and may GOD have mercy on your soul...

Posted by: ChrisP at March 29, 2013 04:53 PM (K8qMO)

257 I'll give him the benefit of doubt on the story since it would be absurd to stage it after the fact.

Posted by: Whatev at March 29, 2013 04:53 PM (A7Wh1)

258 To anyone I offended, I apologize. I'll try to comport myself with more dignity in the future. *** bygones!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 04:54 PM (piMMO)

259 Lanza's mental illness was primarily focused into murder by fps video games. But I mainly blame the obviously strong crazy. Take forty million teenage boys and expose them to fps games, as we have, and they still are not rampaging everywhere.

Posted by: Beagle at March 29, 2013 04:54 PM (sOtz/)

260 I'm also (almost) willing to do the one gun a month thing as long as I get a credit for every month I don't buy a gun.

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 09:47 PM (OZPoa)

 

Never surrender a single inch of ground unless it is part of a ruse, or you plan on losing.

Posted by: Ook? at March 29, 2013 04:55 PM (OQpzc)

261 >> They then proceed to destroy the very things that made that particular product more popular than others that SEEMED like it. They didn't understand the user requirements. As I understand it, you mo-rons would like links in comments, formatting in comments, sockpuppeting is a must, and you'd like some trolls to DIAF. Ain't happening with Pixy. Sorry. There may be more requirements, but those base ones require some rethinking

Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 04:56 PM (OZPoa)

262 >>>Gun ownership is a basic right that enables us to defend ourselves against each other in general, and against our government in particular.

How is it you say here?

Cut. Jib. Newsletter.

Well said, sir.

Posted by: Tobacco Road at March 29, 2013 04:56 PM (4Mv1T)

263  Niedermeyer's Dead Horse, gracias.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 04:57 PM (zoJ1H)

264 Really? "Ace" didn't know what Mark Kelly was doing? Who is this "Ace" guy and where does he find the time and energy to write so prolifically about his cluelessness? Ol' Bloomy better consider banning bacon and Valu-Rite vodka so the ewok starves on the the vine.

Posted by: Dion at March 29, 2013 04:57 PM (q+FIa)

265 So I sent my old Remington 700 to a customizer and had him configure it for 6.5X55 Swede and bed it into an H-S Stock. It's like having four rifles in one. 88gr/100gr/125gr/160gr loads. All shoot flat and stable. Varmint to Elk. With the 100gr loads my biggest group off the sandbags was .35 @ 250m I am officially a Swede junkie

Posted by: The Generic, Award Winning Moron at March 29, 2013 04:57 PM (MhA4j)

266 Elizabethe, I think you would do the right thing.  Even if it ripped you up inside.  I have not one iota of why Jared's parents kept not doing the next step.  especially when the father has taken the shotgun away and admitted to disabling Jared's car.  I wonder how many lawsuits the Loughners will now suffer because this is now public.  As I said, hope they end up living in a cardboard box.

Why thank you EC for the compliment.  I think.

Alexthechic in a giant mech...  yeah who's going to stop her from plugging into a nuke plant then?  Though that might render the raptors and emus superfluous and up for being served in a Thai curry.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 29, 2013 04:58 PM (k9TQr)

267 It's probably been mentioned above already..

Universal background checks have been coming with some additional baggage - you leave your gat with somebody else for X days/hours/minutes without a formal transfer it is unlawful - examples:
- letting somebody shoot your gun on a range (even the one on your back forty)
- letting your kid use your .243 for dear hunting at granpa's
- leaving your gun at the house when out of town on business  with the wife and kids still there.

Universal background checks so easy we'll make every gun owner a criminal overnight.

Posted by: Obamao at March 29, 2013 04:58 PM (JtyGg)

268 Well, if it were me… and my wife had been almost killed by a crazed gunman….I would armed to the teeth.

Posted by: redguy at March 29, 2013 04:59 PM (oqvI4)

269 Jesus, people. Convince me of the error of my ways, like adults do. We're on the same team here. Ad hominem attacks add nothing. That's what the libs do. Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 09:31 PM (HqXYa) Your concern has been noted. If I want to buy 2 guns tomorrow, I should be able to buy 2 guns tomorrow. If the local newspaper wants to print 2 editions tomorrow, then they should print away. If the local synagogue wants to hold services every night for the next month, then they can. If I want to stand on the street corner with a sign calling Obama a SCOAMF, then I can. These are all RIGHTS. Not a privilege. And no, this is not an issue that conservatives lose on, this is the issue the Dems lose on, big time.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at March 29, 2013 04:59 PM (Zd/NW)

270 Perhaps Mombudsman would be OK limiting himself to one self abuse session a month?

Posted by: The Generic, Award Winning Moron at March 29, 2013 04:59 PM (MhA4j)

271 I would consider everything they say and/or do after the moment that they repeal the "Gun Free Zone" act and require all establishments to recognize a cc permittee the right to enter their establishment armed. Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 09:37 PM (Kpn/z) Yes, yes, yes on getting rid of the Massacre Magnets...... errr, I mean Gun Free Zones. I'm not so sure about forcing private businesses into allowing CCW on their property. Pains me to say it, even leftist douchebag cocksuckers have property rights. And in return, I have the right to take my business and my money elsewhere.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 29, 2013 04:59 PM (MBqvE)

272 Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 09:44 PM (zoJ1H)

One gun/month is a bullshit, anti-freedom, creeping-totalitarianism-in-disguise plan.

Go off all you want on people who espouse it.

I'm on your side.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 29, 2013 04:59 PM (3Mkrp)

273 Where did those bastard teenagers get the gun with which they murdered that baby in cold blood?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 05:00 PM (piMMO)

274 Why thank you EC for the compliment. I think.


It was.  And you do.

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 05:01 PM (doBIb)

275 http://bit.ly/XNg6cR

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 09:52 PM (Gk3SS)

 

All you need is a Mr. Fusion, or a really long extension cord.

Posted by: Ook? at March 29, 2013 05:01 PM (OQpzc)

276 This post isn't gay, I'm confused. Where is the gay?

Posted by: RiverC at March 29, 2013 05:01 PM (KTytI)

277 People, please.  Maybe the disconnect is that I meant my comments from a POLITICAL perspective. 

Let's stipulate:
I agree completely that the government has no right to restrict the number of weapons you purchase per year.
 
That the government has no right to store a record of your weapons
 
I AGREE COMPLETELY
 
 My point is that if we don't win in 2014 and 2016, the Second Amendment is fucked.   We need to do whatever we can to get back control of the WH and congress.  The average low information voter will respond to the one gun a month proposal, and say "maybe these Republicans care about me after all".  .Yes, I agree it's unconstitutional, but we need to regain power or AM2 IS SCREWED

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 05:01 PM (HqXYa)

278 Hi Andy, links in the comments would be great for us fone users if you can just tap it like I can here if someone links someone in their nic. This takes me right to the site and I can just hit my back arrow and come back here. I guess a hyper-link is what I'm talking about but I'm not all techy so I'm not sure.

Posted by: teej at March 29, 2013 05:01 PM (xDlyw)

279 So who's for building a Nuclear Power plant

Posted by: RiverC at March 29, 2013 05:01 PM (KTytI)

280 Don't worry, the records will be electronic and I'll be hired to build the system.

There may be some.. .features

Posted by: RiverC at March 29, 2013 05:02 PM (KTytI)

281 Yes, I agree it's unconstitutional, but we need to regain power

---------------



This makes no sense to me.  At all.  In any way.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2013 05:03 PM (P6QsQ)

282 Yes, I agree it's unconstitutional, but we need to regain power or AM2 IS SCREWED


Do you read what you write?

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 05:03 PM (doBIb)

283

CBD, I will tell them what I think of them, but telling them to kill themselves is a bit much.

As I guest I try not to poop in the middle of the living room.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 05:04 PM (zoJ1H)

284 Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 10:01 PM (HqXYa)

So...rolling over and taking it up the ass it a good plan....but just this once?

Sorry.

My rights are not negotiable.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 29, 2013 05:04 PM (3Mkrp)

285 My point is that if we don't win in 2014 and 2016, the Second Amendment is fucked. We need to do whatever we can to get back control of the WH and congress. The average low information voter will respond to the one gun a month proposal, and say "maybe these Republicans care about me after all". .Yes, I agree it's unconstitutional, but we need to regain power or AM2 IS SCREWED

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 10:01 PM (HqXYa

 

The average low information voter will not know shit about that you dumbass.  They will only hear about efforts the democrats have suceeded at to make them "safer."

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 05:04 PM (GULKT)

286 OMG, I'm in love. Does this qualify as two firearms or one? http://tinyurl.com/cyy9d3g

Posted by: The Generic, Award Winning Moron at March 29, 2013 05:04 PM (MhA4j)

287 So who's for building a Nuclear Power plant<<<

In River City?  That's trouble.  Power with a capital P that rhymes with T and stands for trouble.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 29, 2013 05:04 PM (IY7Ir)

288 My point is that if we don't win in 2014 and 2016, the Second Amendment is fucked. We need to do whatever we can to get back control of the WH and congress. The average low information voter will respond to the one gun a month proposal, and say "maybe these Republicans care about me after all". .Yes, I agree it's unconstitutional, but we need to regain power or AM2 IS SCREWED *** Please put down the shovel.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 05:04 PM (piMMO)

289 The average low information voter will respond to the one gun a month proposal, and say "maybe these Republicans care about me after all



----------



Oh my.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2013 05:04 PM (P6QsQ)

290 ::: My point is that if we don't win in 2014 and 2016, the Second Amendment is fucked. ::: Oh come on, the Second Amendment is quite possibly the safest conservative idea these days.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 29, 2013 05:05 PM (csi6Y)

291 Michigan comes from 14 behind to defeat Kansas in OT.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2013 05:05 PM (P6QsQ)

292 @276 Agree to expensive stupid authoritarian and counterproductive things so later we will not have to agree to worse? What else is new?

Posted by: Beagle at March 29, 2013 05:06 PM (sOtz/)

293

Yes, I agree it's unconstitutional, BUT...

Posted by: Ombudsman

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 29, 2013 05:06 PM (kdS6q)

294 As I guest I try not to poop in the middle of the living room.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 10:04 PM (zoJ1H)

Yes, that may have been a trifle....aggressive.

So?

As I just wrote....my rights are not negotiable.

Anyone who seeks to deny me my rights is an enemy.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 29, 2013 05:06 PM (3Mkrp)

295 In my heart, I hope Pacific Rim does well in the cinemar!    <---- that's how my Brit friends use to pronouce 'cinema'.

There's a sad dearth of scifi movies and the ones that do make it through are complete pieces of shit.  I want a good scifi flick with story and the sfx, but mostly the story.

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 05:06 PM (doBIb)

296 Moving right along.

Gen. Franco is still dead.

Mark Kelly is still an idiot.

And somewhere out there is a hobo that needs hunting.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 29, 2013 05:06 PM (k9TQr)

297 I don't see how giving in on something that would require a registry would help politically in any way. But I can agree that, perhaps, it might be a good idea to figure out how to present the problems with the gun grabber's agendas in a firm but "reasonable" sounding way.

Posted by: Synova at March 29, 2013 05:06 PM (7/PU+)

298 Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 10:04 PM (GULKT) Hear, hear

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 29, 2013 05:06 PM (csi6Y)

299
Ha.  Don't know, did Oblabberdip pick all no. 1's again?

KU goes down.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 29, 2013 05:06 PM (IY7Ir)

300 264 The generic Award Wiining Moron,


6.5*55 is probably my favorite round...let me know how she works out for you.

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 05:06 PM (LRFds)

301 So...rolling over and taking it up the ass it a good plan....but just this once? You sure?? Maybe just the tip? Just this once??

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 29, 2013 05:07 PM (6Sldc)

302 Annnnnnd there goes another 25% of the remaining brackets. 

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 05:07 PM (Gk3SS)

303 Posted by: Andy at March 29, 2013 09:56 PM (OZPoa)

I'm not claiming to know how old you are but I'm guessing younger than me.

Take it from me, a lot of bitchin' about something is just that; bitchin'.

It's an exercise, it means nothing. Many time the ones bitchin' are the first to complain when changes are made.

Trust me on this. The blog should only be changed for security or viability (say if it becomes unable to be accessed by enough users of new technology. Which may happen).

don't make changes to emulate other blogs. They aren't AOSHQ are they? If you want the blog to look like everyone else, then start a new one. See how it works.

Anyone else notice that Breitbart finally changed THEIR comments?

After over a year, they realized that people were pissed about having to log in all the time and yet could reply to any commenter regardless. Someone finally changed a flag somewhere. And now you Stay logged in like every other site with Disqus.

My one concern is that we will lose the sequentialness of the comments. Something I think is necessary to hold each thread together. Using some other type of system could break that continuity. Being unable to look through all the comments for a particular one would suck (like most comments in other places, you have to keep loading and loading and loading and because the comments are not sequential sometimes where you think a comment should be isn't.

Another breaker for me would be the loss of sock puppeting. That adds so much character and entertainment I think the flavor of the blog would radically change and not for the better.

Let's not make changes just to make changes.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 05:07 PM (Kpn/z)

304

Isn't buying a gun with the intent of giving it to somebody else (even the local police) still a straw purchase?

 

My last instant background check took over a week to get back. I wasn't impressed considering I'm legal to own and actually had a TS when I was in the Air Force. Instant doesn't mean 8 days later.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at March 29, 2013 05:07 PM (G1aEt)

305 You have to rape the Constitution to keep it chaste. Totally makes sense. Oddly enough, it didn't work the last thirty-seven times, so I think we'll give it a miss, Mr. You're All A Bunch Of Stupid Criminals Why Won't You Be Reasonable And Why Are You Being Mean To Me.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i][/b][/s][/u] at March 29, 2013 05:07 PM (bxiXv)

306 Please put down the shovel.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 10:04 PM (piMMO)

Uh....not quite.

http://tinyurl.com/cjyp58h

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 29, 2013 05:07 PM (3Mkrp)

307 Anyone who seeks to deny me my rights is an enemy.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo

************************************************

 

I agree fully.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 05:07 PM (zoJ1H)

308 I'm not so sure about forcing private businesses into allowing CCW on their property. Pains me to say it, even leftist douchebag cocksuckers have property rights. And in return, I have the right to take my business and my money elsewhere. Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 29, 2013 09:59 PM (MBqvE) I agree with this. If a private individual/business decides they do not want firearms on the premises, then I will respect their private property rights. Of course if I take my business elsewhere, I am practicing my right to association.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at March 29, 2013 05:07 PM (Zd/NW)

309 Tell me, Jim Carrey, what caliber is this? http://bit.ly/ZteYdO

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 05:07 PM (piMMO)

310 First of my Final Four to go down. Damn.

Posted by: mugiwara at March 29, 2013 05:08 PM (hpYnL)

311 287 NDH,

3 most powerful words in the English language right now...

"I won't comply."

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 05:08 PM (LRFds)

312 Michigan comes from 14 behind to defeat Kansas in OT. teej hardest hit.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 29, 2013 05:08 PM (6Sldc)

313 We have Secret Service guys with guns around us all the time. They are here with us in Sun Valley too. Average people don't need guns You Guys.

Posted by: Sasha and Malia at March 29, 2013 05:09 PM (jucos)

314 #268: And no, this is not an issue that conservatives lose on, this is the issue the Dems lose on, big time.

That's exactly right. The dems are not, never have been, and never will be THE PARTY OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Posted by: Ray Sist, McChrystal's ol' boy at March 29, 2013 05:09 PM (ZdbBe)

315  OK.  You want to remain in the minority, defiant and 100% pure, and lose, or do you want to find a coalition and win?   Ronald Reagan disagreed

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 05:10 PM (HqXYa)

316 ::: Being unable to look through all the comments for a particular one would suck (like most comments in other places, you have to keep loading and loading and loading and because the comments are not sequential sometimes where you think a comment should be isn't. Another breaker for me would be the loss of sock puppeting. That adds so much character and entertainment I think the flavor of the blog would radically change and not for the better. ::: Both of these points. YES, and YES. These are my primary concerns about migration.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 29, 2013 05:10 PM (csi6Y)

317 Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 10:01 PM (HqXYa) ????? Which of the other Constitutional Rights are you willing to give up in order to win a midterm election? Especially since there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that what you're proposing would guarantee the election. I would submit that the LIVs wouldn't think that the GOP cares, they'd think "what a bunch of craven assholes, they'll say ANYTHING to win an election". And if they don't think that at first, the helpful MSM will remind them.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 29, 2013 05:10 PM (MBqvE)

318 This thread needs a stake thru its heart

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 29, 2013 05:10 PM (8sCoq)

319 I agree fully.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 10:07 PM (zoJ1H)

Huzzah!


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 29, 2013 05:11 PM (3Mkrp)

320 ::: 314 OK. You want to remain in the minority, defiant and 100% pure, and lose, or do you want to find a coalition and win? Ronald Reagan disagreed ::: Hey troll, WE'RE WINNING. Want us to lose? You first.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 29, 2013 05:11 PM (csi6Y)

321 Period.

Posted by: Ray Sist, privileged white potato at March 29, 2013 05:11 PM (ZdbBe)

322 Supposedly "instant" isn't "instant" if you have a common name and they have to figure out that you're the former TS holding veteran named Bob Smith and not the felon Bob Smith.

Posted by: Synova at March 29, 2013 05:11 PM (7/PU+)

323 I've got a Good Friday church service going on in one window, basketball in another window, and a gun thread in this one.  I hope I don't get all mixed up and start posting 2nd Amendment rants on my church thread.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2013 05:11 PM (P6QsQ)

324 Uh....not quite. http://tinyurl.com/cjyp58h Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 29, 2013 10:07 PM (3Mkrp) **** Holy cow! What sci-fi horror flick was that taken from?!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 05:11 PM (piMMO)

325
ONT for you nightwalkers is up.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 29, 2013 05:11 PM (IY7Ir)

326 What sci-fi horror flick was that taken from?!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 10:11 PM (piMMO)

It's real!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 29, 2013 05:12 PM (3Mkrp)

327 There's a sad dearth of scifi movies and the ones that do make it through are complete pieces of shit. I want a good scifi flick with story and the sfx, but mostly the story.
Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 10:06 PM (doBIb)




Ummm.   The reason I want to see Pacific Rim isn't for the story.  I want giant robots punching alien monsters in the face.  I will actually be truly pissed if there's, you know, plot and shit.


Oblivion may, just possibly may, have a shot at sfx and story.   Of course, there's the Cruise factor so that knocks the chances down more than a bit.


I was just watching the trailer for You're Next and I have to say I'm impressed that the trailer seems to explain the plot quite neatly while avoiding directly revealing one of the more interesting parts of the movie, unless you know what that is before you watch the trailer. 


Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Totes waiting until after March Madness. at March 29, 2013 05:13 PM (Gk3SS)

328 I still have the Gators and Louisville, for now. Yet more examples of why it is stupid to bet on almost anything, but especially basketball. Miami was there and ...bupkis.

Posted by: Beagle at March 29, 2013 05:13 PM (sOtz/)

329 My point is that if we don't win in 2014 and 2016, the Second Amendment is fucked. We need to do whatever we can to get back control of the WH and congress. The average low information voter will respond to the one gun a month proposal, and say "maybe these Republicans care about me after all". .Yes, I agree it's unconstitutional, but we need to regain power or AM2 IS SCREWED Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 10:01 PM (HqXYa) Please. Why is it every election the Dems all trot over to some shooting club to get a photo op of "shooting with the boys". Because the vast majority of Americans want the 2nd Amendment and want the govt to BTFO. Oh, and a picture of St. Gabby of Arizona when she was running for office. http://tinyurl.com/cm5eay7

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at March 29, 2013 05:13 PM (Zd/NW)

330 I got a 6.5X54 Manlicher that also shoots flat. But ammo is becoming a problem.

Posted by: pat at March 29, 2013 05:13 PM (jlQR7)

331 Let's not make changes just to make changes.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 10:07 PM (Kpn/z)

That should be "I hope Ace doesn't make changes just to make changes."

I got rhetorically carried away.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 05:13 PM (Kpn/z)

332

Ummm. The reason I want to see Pacific Rim isn't for the story. I want giant robots punching alien monsters in the face. I will actually be truly pissed if there's, you know, plot and shit.

 

Don't forget GlaDos

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 05:13 PM (GULKT)

333 Ombud... purity is unnecessary, and possibly unwise, but a limit on purchases, because it would DEMAND a national registry, is not the place to give up ground. Think of something else.

Posted by: Synova at March 29, 2013 05:14 PM (7/PU+)

334

ok, she has no idea wtf is going on. Sounds like a parrot at the end.

 

Posted by: RiverRat at March 29, 2013 05:14 PM (OR6sz)

335 It's real! *** It looks like something Caligula would have commissioned.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 29, 2013 05:14 PM (piMMO)

336

My advice for those of you wanting to meet a president, stay towards the back.

Why?

Remember when Hinkley tried to murder Reagan? Remember how the Secret Service guys whipped out Uzis?

If they cannot get the Prsident clear and the gunman is shooting from within the crowd, the SS has orders to spray the crowd.

How do I know this? My father pulled SS duty a few times. That includes for Reagan his hero.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 29, 2013 05:14 PM (zoJ1H)

337 Ummm. The reason I want to see Pacific Rim isn't for the story. I want giant robots punching alien monsters in the face. I will actually be truly pissed if there's, you know, plot and shit.


Ahh...you want "teh Shiny"!!!

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2013 05:14 PM (doBIb)

338 GlaDos, "That one a month limit thing on guns? I lied.  Deal with it."

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 29, 2013 05:14 PM (k9TQr)

339 314 OK. You want to remain in the minority, defiant and 100% pure, and lose, or do you want to find a coalition and win? Ronald Reagan disagreed Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 10:10 PM (HqXYa) Reagan was shot, and a fierce gun rights advocate. You need another strawman to make your next purchase.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at March 29, 2013 05:15 PM (Zd/NW)

340 Judging from the way DHS is arming themselves we might need to worry to much about 2014 and 2016.
'
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Posted by: Tobacco Road at March 29, 2013 05:16 PM (4Mv1T)

341 The fact that Ombusdman was not aware that you do get background checks at gun shows just demonstrates how fucking clueless he is on every subject here.  Obviously he's not utilizing his NRA membership to its most mediocre effect.  Perhaps you should read up or have sought knowledge before choosing to run your fucking mouth on what we should be doing on things you obviously have no clue on in any way shape or form.

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 05:17 PM (GULKT)

342 And Obama is trying to push through "Election Laws" to ease access to vote.

That'll work out well.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 05:18 PM (Kpn/z)

343 314 Ombudsman,

We can start our negotiations with the Soviets with "hey you guys rock!" YOU GUYS!

//Ghost of Reagan


"right"

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 05:18 PM (LRFds)

344 Passive-aggressive CHECK Permanent minority CHECK Purity accusation CHECK Citing Reagan CHECK Naw, that's never a troll.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i][/b][/s][/u] at March 29, 2013 05:18 PM (bxiXv)

345 Um. The background check is easy. The paperwork required to be kept and filed will be what is onerous to the average citizen. Also, there won't just be a background check. There will basically be a tracking of the weapon sold because you just know the serial number and type of the weapon will be required on the paperwork... What Kelly doesn't demonstrate is how this will be easier for private citizens... How will it be enforced? How much paperwork will be required?

Posted by: cid1999 at March 29, 2013 05:18 PM (X8X6q)

346 I'd prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around. 2ND amendment isn't to be negotiated any further, come and take it (them).

Posted by: Andrew at March 29, 2013 05:19 PM (HS3dy)

347 I said earlier about the hoorah about Lanza supposedly being an NRA member; "So what?"

That doesn't mean squat. Does my membership in any org dictate that they now are a party to may every action, good or bad?

Or reverse does it mean that because I'm a member, I'm a party to every stupid or dumb thing they do as a club or group?

Membership means squat. If he was President of the NRA, then maybe it might mean something.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 29, 2013 05:20 PM (Kpn/z)

348 278So who's for building a Nuclear Power plant.  I read that the NORKS are sending one.  By air mail. heh

Posted by: t-dubyah-d at March 29, 2013 05:20 PM (u6lBN)

349 299 sven let me know how she works out for you. *** My first trip after sighting in the scope (Bushnell Elite) I shot five groups under .35 @ 250 meters with Lapua Brass, Sierra Varminter 100 grain, Vihtavuori powder

Posted by: The Generic, Award Winning Moron at March 29, 2013 05:21 PM (MhA4j)

350 Ace, nothing about the video he's putting out substantiates his new cover story, and his new cover story definitely doesn't match that interview he did right after the fact.  Why the retraction?  He's a liar, and everybody knows it.  Retract the retraction!

Posted by: Ummberto Echo at March 29, 2013 05:21 PM (346rt)

351

Ace, here in AZ if your background check doesn't show any flags your purchase will go through most quickly. That is not the problem.

 

 

That astronaut shitbird wanted to buy the AR for political purposes. He is doing a straw purchase. He is not the end user. Thats a felony. It doesn't matter that he wants do give the gun to Dupnick of "the TEA Party shot Gabby" fame. That philandering cocksucker broke the law, and needs to do time.

 

 

Yes, a Navy Captain who flew a Space Shuttle wasn't flagged as a prohibited purchaser. The fucker probably had more security clearances than this Army puke who worked in the Building at Fort Meade. He wasn't going to be flagged unless he porked an underaged feline at high noon in Arlington.

 

 

Kelly is a sack of shit. He will always be a sack of shit, no matter what he claims.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my Hate cannot be found) at March 29, 2013 05:22 PM (ial2b)

352 314 OK. You want to remain in the minority, defiant and 100% pure, and lose, or do you want to find a coalition and win? Ronald Reagan disagreed :::

Hey troll, WE'RE WINNING.

Want us to lose? You first.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 29, 2013 10:11 PM (csi6Y)

 

First of all, don't call me a troll, you prick;.I've been posting on this site for 5 years.  Second, OF COURSE I want to win.   We're winning?  How?  The 2010 elections were a prime opportunity for us, but we nominated idiot Senate candidates that got killed.  We should rule the Senate now, if it weren't for the Delaware witch, etc.   I subscribe to the Buckley philosophy:  nominate the most conservative candidate WHO CAN WIN

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 05:22 PM (HqXYa)

353 349 The generic Award Winning Moron,

Nice...

I used to do some otherworldly iron sight shooting with my Swede....

I traded her for a MAS-36 not half assed to .308....


as the Crusader said in "last Crusade" "sven chose poorly".......

the happy ending is I have another Swede to see if she fits like the last finally.....

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 05:23 PM (LRFds)

354 But I can agree that, perhaps, it might be a good idea to figure out how to present the problems with the gun grabber's agendas in a firm but "reasonable" sounding way. Posted by: Synova at March 29, 2013 10:06 PM (7/PU+) I always liked pointing out that for 8 years, leftists screamed about how Dubya was going to suspend elections and rule by diktat, declare himself President for Life, blah blah. Not just from the loons at DU or DailyKos, but there were a fair number of "respected" leftist commentators and journalists who made the same argument. My point was, if Bush HAD done that, how would the leftists resist? Because I'm pretty sure that a renegade POTUS who suspended elections wouldn't be frightened by a bunch of smelly, dreadlocked hippies protesting with cheap guitars and giant paper mache puppet heads. No, the only way to resist would be through arms. And I would be on that barricade right next to the hippies, because that would be an unforgivable betrayal of the Constitution. It freaks out the leftists when I tell 'em that because they can't fathom person with principles.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 29, 2013 05:24 PM (MBqvE)

355

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 10:22 PM (HqXYa)

 

You truly are a braindead fuckup.  You should have quit while you were ahead.  Which according to your lie that you got a new hash was three weeks ago.

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 05:25 PM (GULKT)

356 354 ITC,

you always think of the person you shave in the mirror driving the car ITC...they would never in a million years cross party lines in that sense.

I would and Bush knew it I am pretty certain, just like Ogabe knows his side has his back.

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 05:26 PM (LRFds)

357 344 Passive-aggressive CHECK Permanent minority CHECK Purity accusation CHECK Citing Reagan CHECK Naw, that's never a troll. Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 29, 2013 10:18 PM (bxiXv) He just needed to be a "concerned Christian" and he would have hit all the targets.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at March 29, 2013 05:27 PM (Zd/NW)

358 357 AJPS, aka Craniac,


hey now the new hotness is "screw you Christ backer" in the concern corps....

Ghey marriage after all...

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 05:28 PM (LRFds)

359
He just needed to be a "concerned Christian" and he would have hit all the targets.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at March 29, 2013 10:27 PM (Zd/NW)

 

The "I've been coming here for 5 years" is more annoying than even that.  Congratulations dumbass, that's about how long erg has plagued this place.  Nothing in that Appeal to Seniority demonstrates that you are not acting like a troll now.

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 05:29 PM (GULKT)

360

I've been here for 10 years. Get off my lawn.

 

woop di do

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at March 29, 2013 05:30 PM (G1aEt)

361 359 Buzzion,

it can get funny though....

I've seen trolls try that card with former Cobs here....

hell one tried that with me back in '10....

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 05:31 PM (LRFds)

362 First of all, don't call me a troll, you prick;.I've been posting on this site for 5 years. Second, OF COURSE I want to win. We're winning? How? The 2010 elections were a prime opportunity for us, but we nominated idiot Senate candidates that got killed. We should rule the Senate now, if it weren't for the Delaware witch, etc. I subscribe to the Buckley philosophy: nominate the most conservative candidate WHO CAN WIN Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 10:22 PM (HqXYa) So we need to be the party of gun control. Co-opt that from the Dems and not let them use it against us. Sort of like how we should embrace Obamacare and "Immigration Reform" and do what the Dems want to do so that they can't use it against us. Brilliant strategy!!!!!! You should take that to Megan McCain post haste.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, aka MrCaniac at March 29, 2013 05:31 PM (Zd/NW)

363 362 Cranniac,

if we can just coopt the whole command market, and price control uber alles shit and maybe borrow :uh you didn't build THAT!" we're golden...GOLDEN my friend....


//Frum

Posted by: sven10077-ArkLaTex travelogue and Researcher at March 29, 2013 05:32 PM (LRFds)

364 So, the founders instituted our government to make it difficult to exercise our inalienable rights? Help me out here Mr. Shitstain, I mean Mr.Kelly.

Posted by: Minuteman at March 29, 2013 05:44 PM (dSE0q)

365 You truly are a braindead fuckup. You should have quit while you were ahead. Which according to your lie that you got a new hash was three weeks ago.

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 10:25 PM (GULKT)


First of all, the hash is true.  I'm pretty sure I was posting on this site before you

Second, buzzion, is this what now passes for dialogue on AOSHq? You disagree with me, and rather than a reasoned rebuttal, which is what Ace wants,  you call me a- what was it?- "braindead fuckup"?

Ace likes the edginess, I understand.  But a hostile, profane fratricide over subjects upon which we conservatives of good will can disagree is not productive, and frankly, offensive.  Come at me with an argument, not vitriol.  It adds no value



Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 05:46 PM (HqXYa)

366 22 Fuck Mark Kelly. Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2013 08:49 PM (G8Vj+) My exact first thought after reading this post.

Posted by: baldilocks at March 29, 2013 05:49 PM (Su0W2)

367 The intent is not for Universal Background Checks. It is to establish a universal gun registry. We do not need a registry for law abiders. We need one for criminals and mentals.

Posted by: Cluebat formerly from Exodar at March 29, 2013 05:55 PM (KUAE5)

368

First of all, the hash is true.

 

I already proved you wrong on that idiot. 

 

Also you didn't want reasoned dialogue.  You came in here spouting off complete idiocy and total cluelessness and hoped your unproveable assertion to being an NRA member would give you authority, which it doesn't.  All you did was acted like a troll.  And now you're being a whiny little troll.  And insulting everyone by claiming they must be a straw buyer if they buy more than one gun in a month does not sound like wanting to discuss a disagreement in goodwill.

 

As for how long you've been here.  Go tell someone who gives a damn.  So go find a mirror. 

Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 05:56 PM (GULKT)

369 Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 10:56 PM (GULKT)
 
OK, fine, then.   We'll agree to disagree.  I hope you have a blessed Easter

Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 06:01 PM (HqXYa)

370 Well Ommie you are a brain dead fuck up

Posted by: Irishacres at March 29, 2013 06:03 PM (HVff2)

371 In the AoSHQ spirit of retraction being good for the soul, I have to say Ombud does seem to be trolling.

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living... at March 29, 2013 06:24 PM (gh4OI)

372 Fuck that clown. He's still a fucking asswipe statist any way you cut it. Son of a bitch.

Posted by: maddogg at March 29, 2013 06:28 PM (xX+d4)

373 The "I've been coming here for 5 years" is more annoying than even that. Congratulations dumbass, that's about how long erg has plagued this place. Nothing in that Appeal to Seniority demonstrates that you are not acting like a troll now. Posted by: buzzion at March 29, 2013 10:29 PM (GULKT)\ --- I've been coming here for 5 years, and I'm sick of this shit.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at March 29, 2013 07:00 PM (Y5I9o)

374 Know I'm a little late to the game, but don't think you need to retract or apologize for your posts Ace.  If I remember correctly when Kelly first got called out he tried to cover his ass by saying that he was trying to show how easy it was for somebody to purchase a "weapon of war" such as the AR-15.  Now with this video he is trying to say that "see how easy a background check is, nobody should be concerned about universal background checks."  So now it looks as if he is trying to cover cover his ass.

Posted by: Jon at March 29, 2013 07:09 PM (FPiWz)

375 256 I'll give him the benefit of doubt on the story since it would be absurd to stage it after the fact. Posted by: Whatev at March 29, 2013 09:53 PM (A7Wh1) But your logic is undercut by the fact that it was more absurd for him to stage it before the fact.

Posted by: James I at March 29, 2013 07:29 PM (xem8G)

376 ...when Kelly first got called out he tried to cover his ass by saying that he was trying to show how easy it was for somebody to purchase a "weapon of war" such as the AR-15. Now with this video he is trying to say that "see how easy a background check is, nobody should be concerned about universal background checks." So now it looks as if he is trying to cover cover his ass.

You are not allowed to use facts.

Posted by: Obamao at March 29, 2013 07:36 PM (JtyGg)

377 I'm sorry the prick is breathing That's my apology

Posted by: TejasJudio de la Frontera at March 29, 2013 08:04 PM (Bhdia)

378 he is a lying piece of schise.....

any point he may wish to make needs to be viewed through the lens that he is a dishonest scumbag.

F him.

sideways, with a tanker's bar wrapped in concertina wire & heated white hot

with white phosphorus grenades added in as "love bumps" for his enjoyment.


Posted by: redc1c4 at March 29, 2013 08:37 PM (8MasJ)

379 PS: he's a lying, dishonest scumbag until he proves otherwise...

long row, small person, not going to happen.

Posted by: redc1c4 at March 29, 2013 08:39 PM (8MasJ)

380 Ace, not the point. Universal Background checks look into "mental illness" among other things. I'd be willing to wager pert near 100% of U.S. citizens have dealt with "mental illness" issues at least once in their lifetime. Ever been on Xanax? Zoloft? Wellbutrin to quit smoking? If so, are you out? Probably at least soon if not now with our medical records being digitized and distributed globally. You'll be toast at Dicks Sporting Goods. They sell nice slingshots though. Rock tax cometh then.

Posted by: Mohawk77 at March 29, 2013 11:09 PM (qlHMx)

381 HE'S A DAMN LIAR!!!!  HE GOT CAUGHT, SO HE HAD A BACKUP STORY!!!! BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.  HOW FAST A CHECK IS?  DOESN'T EVER CHANGE HOW FAST THEY CAN COME AND GET IT TOO!!!!  GEEZZZZZZZZ!!! WAKE THE F UP!!!!

Posted by: BULLSHIT KELLYS A LIAR at March 29, 2013 11:14 PM (tfxvk)

382 SORRY ACE, YOU ARE KIND, BUT NOT CORRECT ON THIS ONE!!!! THEY ARE GETTING PAID MAJOR GOVT/OUR TAX MONEY, TO SET US UP FOR CONFISCATION, AND HE WANTED THE GUN TOO!!!! WIN/WIN/ LIE/LIE

Posted by: BULLSHIT KELLYS A LIAR at March 29, 2013 11:16 PM (tfxvk)

Posted by: Vic at March 29, 2013 11:36 PM (53z96)

384 First, there is absolutely no money in the "I used to be an astronaut and flew on the Space Shuttle" business. Second, there is truck loads of money in the "Look at my poor innocent wife. An insane person shot her in the head. So, help me ban guns" business. I believe Wharton refers to it as the Brady model.

Posted by: VADM(Red) Cuthbert Collingwood (Mentioned In Dispatches) at March 30, 2013 12:27 AM (p4U6S)

385 My dogs are allowed to eat baby seals and your's are not.

Posted by: Cause I'm an astronaut and you're not at March 30, 2013 12:29 AM (p4U6S)

386 Gabby's eyeglass frames remind me of Nina Hartley - in a good way!

Posted by: MoJoTee at March 30, 2013 03:08 AM (e1kfW)

387 Again, sorry about this one. And, note, I'm not endorsing his political point -- I'm simply saying that this claim about why he bought the guns appears genuine. -- ace /"Because I could." WilliJeff Clinton/ "Why" anyone buys or owns a gun (or not) "is" the personal and private business of each American citizen. ...Depending on what "is" is? Our constitutionally protected 'God Given' Rights devolved via revisionism leaving "is" with "outmoded" antiquity covered by dusty layers of what "should be" also in the past as if sediment to either rot or calcify. If not yet, then too soon, applications for purchase will require your "reason" for wanting a gun. As if the authoritarians and bureaucrats are better judges than yourself regarding your very life. As far as Astrofuck Kelly's concerned, whatever. He's not the only hypocrite using the public limelight to make a buck off his wife's bloody loss. It's called blood money, Mark. Would that his agenda were strictly for his own benefit; but no. And there's the crux; Mark Kelly's agenda is to be an authoritarian, even if only an authoritarian's marionette that beats the rest of us for show and the roar of the crowd. It depends on what "is" is? 'To be, or not to be.' To authoritarians, "is" isn't any more.

Posted by: panzernashorn at March 30, 2013 03:16 AM (MhA4j)

388 All he proved is that background checks are easy for Air Force officers and Astronauts. What the hell difference does that make to me?

Posted by: Anthony at March 30, 2013 03:35 AM (sp4sr)

389 It only took how long for this explanation to come out? If this one don't fly, he will think of another. I could understand if there was something in his background that prevented him from owning a gun and he got one anyway, otherwise he's just a D Bag liberal tool.

Posted by: TC at March 30, 2013 03:50 AM (ygAxO)

390 The gun seller did not find Kelly to be 'genuine': he refused to deliver the rifle because he said Kelly misrepresented his purpose in obtaining the weapon.

Posted by: RecklessProcess at March 30, 2013 03:50 AM (Nwhrs)

391 How interesting that it's worth a special notice when we find that a liberal has told the truth. That's certainly says something about liberals.

As for the background check, it's quick and easy iff there's a single repository of all such information about each of us - criminal records, health records, etc. - that is publicly accessible. Is that what he wants? Really? And how soon before this process morphs from "reason to deny possession" to "reason to allow possession"?

I might be tempted to support such an information repository *if* it included citizenship status. But I know damned well it won't.

Posted by: Brown Line at March 30, 2013 04:50 AM (OI+pv)

392 He's full of it - He thought he could dictate one thing for the American people and then do whatever he wanted for his own family.  He got called out on it and if this was his explanation then he should have made it weeks ago.

If these bills are so great, why is Congress exempting themselves and other Federal Employees from it?

Posted by: 2nd Amendment Mother at March 30, 2013 04:56 AM (L4CWX)

393

Not trusting him was kinda like rape!

====================================

[golf clap]

Bravo! It would only have been better if it was the first comment.

Posted by: Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 at March 30, 2013 06:14 AM (Ph479)

394 So he's demonstrating that the system as it is right now works. So why the push to change things?

Posted by: Brian at March 30, 2013 06:26 AM (7jupj)

395 DGAF faggots in space are still faggots.

Why give a guy who's clearly named us the enemy the benefit of the doubt splitting semantic hairs?

Posted by: 0302 at March 30, 2013 06:38 AM (sRWlD)

396 I think we better move to Arizona! People in NJ need special permission to buy a BB gun.

Gun Ownership in NJ is not Easy!

I'm not an attorney, so I have a question.

If Arizona deserves a lawsuit from the DOJ for enforcing federal immigration laws, how come states can exceed federal regulations when it comes to "limiting" second amendment rights?


Posted by: oldhardhead at March 30, 2013 07:16 AM (nkBm0)

397 http://is.gd/QF77wC

The URL didn't work?
Gun Ownership in NJ is not Easy!

Posted by: oldhardhead at March 30, 2013 07:17 AM (nkBm0)

398 How come the left isn't celebrating Adam Lanza as a post-birth abortionist?

Posted by: Former Lurker at March 30, 2013 07:18 AM (Yoym7)

399 huh? lol

Posted by: Dan at March 30, 2013 07:47 AM (/7gN/)

400 Here's the question I would ask the backgound-check advocates: Would checks of the sort they advocate have stopped Newtown? I suspect not, given that neither the killer nor his mother had a criminal record, or a record of mental illness (as shown by admission to a psych ward). So, the Newtown tragedy requires that we implement such checks universally because ... ?

I suspect that this is like the TSA's using the underwear bomber as an excuse to install X-ray scanners in airports. They admitted, openly, that the scanners would not have stopped the bomber, but because of him the scanners needed to be installed because shut up. The real answer to "because" is "because it lets us expand our power over you"; but saying that would be just a little too candid.

Posted by: Brown Line at March 30, 2013 08:33 AM (D1fYH)

401 People immediately, viscerally dislike Mark Kelly because he has a devious, oily and creepy manner about him.

Posted by: Esau's Message at March 30, 2013 08:43 AM (WZq72)

402

401 - thank you, cut, jib, newsletter. Fuck Grabby Gabby DroolBib and her flyboy hubby; fuck em all, damned drool-bib-brigade DiFi dildoes.

"background chex" = defacto registration prior to conficatio... wait theres a knock

Posted by: OK, thank you, goodbye, off to caligrump's 5150 resort at March 30, 2013 09:59 AM (he33V)

403 #16, hey, one gun a month, Ombudsman?

How about when my father's buddy retired from collecting and sold me most of it? It would have been over a year at one gun a month. And because it was in Maryland, I still had to go get a Maryland state collector's license to buy multiple handguns. Of course this is when I was still technically a Maryland resident. Now I am quite happy in Tennessee.

Posted by: SGT Dan's Cat at March 30, 2013 10:07 AM (MFBDm)

404

I still don't believe it.  And he committed a felony in his background check application.

 

Suck on that Mark Kelly.

Posted by: Prescient11 at March 30, 2013 01:18 PM (KUAmO)

405 Fuck him sideways with a pineapple. I do not trust his politically driven motives.

Posted by: jasonj at March 30, 2013 06:21 PM (Cq0ow)

406

I've not kept up on this story for awhile.

I thought the gun seller stated he would have to do a background check that's why Kelly came back a couple days later to pick up his gun he wanted.

the seller then stated Kelly wanted the ar-15 as a spur of the moment purchase and the background check was already done so a quick follow-up was all that was necessary.

hopefully this is on topic.

Posted by: theyjustcantstop at March 31, 2013 04:26 AM (3PNYp)

407 16 You know, I'm a lifetime NRA member with several weapons, but I think there are two recommendations the NRA is nuts to oppose: the one gun a month proposal, and the background check at gun shows. Unless you have an FFL and are in the business, the only person who needs to purchase more than one gun a month is a straw buyer. Also, I have no problem with background checks at gun shows as long as the data is not stored Posted by: Ombudsman at March 29, 2013 08:47 PM (HqXYa) Ombudsman, what else should we have limits on purchasing? Coffee, twinkies, donuts? Look at the Fed laws on sudafed/cold meds, there are limits on how much you can buy per week or so. Grannies have been arrested because they bought 3 boxes of sudafed in a 7 day period for their family. Didn't matter that she had no intention to sell them to meth makers, they hauled granny off to jail. You don't think the gov won't use those new gun limits to jail people and make them felons? Should we put limits on knives, bows, nailguns, or baseball bats? There are plenty of people who get rejected everyday by the NICS system, only to get it cleared in a few days or a month. They have a system setup (special ID #s) for those who are chronically denied due to similar names etc. as real criminals. I've had checks take 25 minutes here in Oregon and other times been approved in 5 or less. At a gun show I had two guys get their guns before me even though I went in the system first. As for giving in to make sure you win elections, thats a nasty gamble and likely a pyrrhic victory. Thats just the sort of pragmatism that has lead us to where we are today. Compromising our beliefs away.

Posted by: JS at March 31, 2013 09:44 PM (jNIQD)

408 Riding on his poor wife's coattails.  Shame on the "man".   Publicity seeker all the way.

Posted by: Tiz Stockton at April 01, 2013 08:18 AM (crm9x)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
281kb generated in CPU 2.03, elapsed 4.9114 seconds.
62 queries taking 4.001 seconds, 644 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.