Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
To: pacificpundit
2 posted on
03/09/2013 4:37:25 PM PST by
EQAndyBuzz
(Got a problem? Nothing a drone strike can't fix.)
To: pacificpundit
I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a .45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don't have possession of it yet but I'll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do.
I fail to see what he intends to prove. That it only takes a few minutes to fill out the paperwork on a background check?
3 posted on
03/09/2013 4:37:26 PM PST by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: pacificpundit
...he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws. Most child porn addicts usually tell the court that they have it on their computer for "research" purposes only. Kelly is a sleaze.
6 posted on
03/09/2013 4:40:47 PM PST by
FlingWingFlyer
(Progressive, Marxist liberals do not evolve, they morph into fascists.)
To: pacificpundit
Hammers kill more people than “assault Rifles” so it is a good thing he did not buy a hammer.
7 posted on
03/09/2013 4:40:49 PM PST by
mountainlion
(Live well for those that did not make it back.)
To: pacificpundit
he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.Is he admitting to having a criminal background? Otherwise, if his record is clean, then the system worked just fine.
8 posted on
03/09/2013 4:41:09 PM PST by
kevao
(.)
To: pacificpundit
Is this the same Mark E Kelly that's named in the article?
Exactly what did he do where he shouldn't have bought a M4 rifle and a 1911?
To prove what???
10 posted on
03/09/2013 4:46:31 PM PST by
BCW
(http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
To: pacificpundit
He is exercising his right to keep and bear arms. Good.
11 posted on
03/09/2013 4:46:43 PM PST by
eyedigress
((zOld storm chaser from the west)/ ?)
To: pacificpundit
They told us the Brady Bill background check was the stringent new law.
Progressive laws always progress to tyranny.
To: pacificpundit
Let me get this straight.. We need “more stringent gun laws” so people like him won’t be able to buy them? What is he trying to tell us?
To: pacificpundit
...and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol ...He bought a 102 year old pistol? :-)
18 posted on
03/09/2013 4:51:28 PM PST by
TigersEye
(The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
To: pacificpundit
"What, haven't you seen a hypocrite before?" - Mark Kelly
20 posted on
03/09/2013 4:53:34 PM PST by
SpaceBar
To: pacificpundit
"Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol"
Wise choices. Especially should another 'rat, Jared type, attack.
21 posted on
03/09/2013 4:54:14 PM PST by
Paladin2
To: pacificpundit
Mark Kelly should be ashamed anyway...dragging his injured wife around, having her give a painful, pitiful plea to change our Constitution via statute.
There is a constitutional way of changing the Constitution, it is by the amendment process.
If these people succeed in getting the 2nd amendment changed via statute, what in the world will keep some other "aggrieved" group from mounting a successful challenge against ANY other part of the Constitution?
Mr Kelly and Ms Giffords should just stay home, live in peace and let us do the same.
22 posted on
03/09/2013 4:54:19 PM PST by
B.O. Plenty
(Give war a chance........)
To: pacificpundit
So he’s saying that astronauts should be prohibited from buying firearms because they’re unstable?
23 posted on
03/09/2013 4:55:19 PM PST by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: pacificpundit
Even though she’s not in Congress any more, she’s getting a government pension I’m sure (plus disability probably)... so they’re officially part of the “government ruling class” which makes them “special”. They don’t have to live by the same standards we low-life citizens have to adhere to.
To: pacificpundit
Mark E. Kelly, ... recently purchased an AR-15 (an "assault weapon," he called it)which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws. Apparently he's a convicted felon or he has been adjudicated mentally incompetent and the NICS check didn't flag him. Sounds like we need better database laws.
28 posted on
03/09/2013 4:57:53 PM PST by
TigersEye
(The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
To: pacificpundit
What happened to Gabby Giffords was a tragedy. What her husband is doing to her now, dragging her around as a spokespuppet for his political ambitions is an abomination.
When your wife is injured you care for her, not exploit her. Mark Kelly would need years of rehabilitation just to work his way up to flaming POS.
To: pacificpundit
31 posted on
03/09/2013 4:59:07 PM PST by
real saxophonist
(You can't take the sky from me)
To: pacificpundit
Kelly announced on his Facebook that he was not going to keep the AR-15, which he has yet to pick up from the store.So he was a straw purchaser?
To: pacificpundit
so is he buying these guns to terrify his disabled wife?
I wouldn’t care if he’s buying it to protect his wife. that would make sense.
37 posted on
03/09/2013 5:01:41 PM PST by
tioga
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson