Gabrielle Giffords' Husband Mark Kelly Bought an AR-15 Rifle -- Do You Buy His Explanation?

Categories: Morning Poll
kelly-ar.jpg
Facebook
Mark Kelly buying an AR-15 rifle.
Buying an AR-15 rifle is probably at the top of the list of things you would never expect former Congressman Gabrielle Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly, to do.

However, that's exactly what Kelly did at a Tucson gun shop, and it looks like not everyone's buying his explanation.

Brietbart.com, which has a right-wing slant, is the outlet that broke the story.

The article says the "editor of Guns & Patriots newsletter" got a tip that Kelly bought an AR-15 -- "sometimes described as an 'assault rifle'" -- and "high capacity" magazines, too. Kelly has been lobbying for gun-control measures, including banning sales of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

According to Brietbart, this "editor of Guns & Patriots newsletter" then asked people at Kelly's organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, about Kelly's purchase.

Three days later, Kelly made the following post on his Facebook page:

kelly-guns.jpg

Kelly then told CNN that he bought the rifle because "it's important for me to have firsthand knowledge about how easy it is, or how difficult it is, to buy a weapon like that."

Do you really think Kelly was buying the rifle just to examine the process and really planned on turning it over to Tucson PD, or did he only say that after someone saw him buying it?

Cast your vote below:


My Voice Nation Help
119 comments
valleynative
valleynative

The gun store has cancelled the transaction.  It might have been interesting to see it play out, since it would have made Kelly guilty of falsifying his answers on the federal background check form and being a "straw buyer".

I suspect though, that the feds would have let him slide and prosecuted the gun store for selling it to him.


JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@ctglobaldocs Still waiting for an answer from your "colleagues" on whether Bill/William Stoler has ever filed a lawsuit that wasn't dismissed by the court?  The Maricopa County Superior Court website seems to show that ever lawsuit he's filed has been dismissed.  The Okon case he boasts about has been dismissed.  Anything?  Anything at all for us?  Any lawsuit anywhere you want to share?

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

I wonder what Mark Kelly is doing to ensure his wife can't get hold of those guns.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@ctglobaldocs A quick look at the Maricopa County Superior Court website shows the following lawsuits filed by Bill/William Stoller - not one of which appears to have been succesful:

CV2003-013513-Rainbow Village Apartments Dismissed 4/28/2001

CV2003-023073-Dismissed 6/2/2004

LC2004-000761-ASU Appeal dismissed 10/10/2005

CV2005-018296-Dismissed 12/13/2006

LC2005-000802-ASU dismissed 11/10/2005

CV2006-012324-Dismissed 7/25/2007

CV2006-012325-Dismissed 3/20/2007

LC2006-000367-Dismissed 12/11/2006

LC2008-000065--Disposition unclear, last docket 10/28/2009

LC2008-000097--Disposition unclear, last docket 8/11/2008

Have I missed any?

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@ctglobaldocs Still waiting for an answer:

One question for you Art, has Stoller ever filed a lawsuit that wasn't dismissed by the court? I don't know, maybe a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court that he won or something. Give us a little taste of how succesful Stoller's been in all these lawsuits that you folks keep talking about.

Betty's Bail Bonds
Betty's Bail Bonds

I like that on the poll there was the option " His story is probably a blend of fact and fiction" ;)

ctglobaldocs
ctglobaldocs topcommenter

My contacts sent the following,

"Tell those bloggers to put their money where their mouths are and debate the gun control and Sandy Hook affair on CT America's global forum CT America's Global Discussion Forum at http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/125501 

For a lead in, they can get a taste of who they'll be up against.  The guy who did the March 8, 2013 is a New Yorker who fought the Sinaloa cartel in Phoenix for seven years, and he's investigated the CT stuff on the East Coast with "boots on the ground."
See 

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-125501/TS-724959.mp3  

Art McNamara, for CT America and CT Global

ctglobaldocs
ctglobaldocs topcommenter

Here's a press release we just received, which cites Mr. Hendley's article.  They're really going after Gabby's husband:

Worldwide Release              March 14, 2013

These are opinions based on known facts.


www.NodisInfo.com HAS EXPOSED THE SANDY HOOK, AURORA, and 9/11 FALSE FLAGS.

LEAD IN:  www.FaceBook.com 's CEO MARK ZUCKERBERG is a a MAJOR ZIONIST PLAYER in the SANDY HOOK GUN GRAB SCAM, which has been irrefutably exposed by www.NodisInfo.com

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS' SPACE CASE HUBBY MARK KELLY is a PAID GUN-GRABBING SHILL, as evinced by the poorly-crafted propaganda post on his www.FaceBook.com page, as cited below by MATTHEW HENDLEY of www.PhoenixNewTimes.com .

A FEDERAL JUDGE was killed in the Tucson CIA MK-ULTRA ATTACK that seriously wounded KELLY's wife GABRIELLE, so SPACESHOT is GUILTY of being an ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT to MURDER, CONSPIRACY, MISPRISION of FELONY, and a host of other crimes.

OLD WHITE ASTRONAUTS don't last very long in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, so KELLY better SING LIKE A CANARY soon and tell us what REALLY happened.

More to come.

Art McNamara, for CT Global

Peter Fullmer
Peter Fullmer

It's easy to make the argument that one doesn't "need" an AR-15 because they still have multiple other options for defense, hunting, recreation, and collecting. However, it's also easy to make the argument that one doesn't "need" a Ferrari because there are more fuel efficient alternatives that are cheaper to maintain and insure, and their speed and handling capabilities are more than you could ever need for any paved road in this Country. I don't believe his story one bit. Anyone, especially the spouse of a politician, should know that purchasing a weapon only to turn in into a local police department to prove a point is just a terrible waste of thousands of dollars. Everyone in the state of Arizona should know the steps to acquiring a firearm at a gun store, so I don't see what point needs to be made. I'm sure he just purchased an AR-15 for the same reason anyone else does: he had the money, and he wanted one, which is perfectly fine. The only problem with it is the hypocrisy and the bullshit story. Just be honest and say something like "Nobody really needs an AR-15, but I still think they're cool, so I'm going to go buy one now just in case I can't get one later. I don't really agree with banning assault-type rifles, but I kinda have to say this shit because I'm the husband of a Politician who was shot."

ctglobaldocs
ctglobaldocs topcommenter

From our colleagues, who directed us to www.NodisInfo.com, which will enlighten you.

They wrote, 

"Thanks for more information on this shill Mark Kelly.  The attempted murder of Mr. Kelly's wife Gabrielle and the actual murder of the federal judge were an obvious CIA MK-ULTRA "false flag" prior to the failed gun grab.  You should alert the bloggers to the detailed research and analyses done by www.NodisInfo.com .  It's being covered up by the mainstream, and most alternative media are too scared to report it.  After all, they're risking their jobs and lives."

Brad DeShane, for CT America and CT Global

marcy
marcy

I have little fear of gun violence and among life's many risks it rants exceeding low in my life.

I have a far higher likelyhood of getting killed or maimed by someone operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner.  I'm even more likely to die of heart disease or cancer.  

But I do understand that when tragedy strikes someone's life there is a natural tendency to try to imagine how it could have been prevented or make it so it "never happens again".  Rarely are such feelings rational or productive.

Gun violence is a symptom, more laws aren't the solution

marcy
marcy

JohnQPublic

The US Supreme Court made it clear in Heller v District of Columbia that the right to bear arms, whether for hunting or self-defense is NOT tied to being a part of a militia:

 "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

You can, therefore, stop telling us all about what a militia is and how it is relevant to gun control.

Scott Leamy
Scott Leamy

I went in to the local grocery store today to buy candy bars. I wanted to see how easy it is for people to get fat eating this stuff. I decided to return them, of course after I ate a few.

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

I too wonder about his real motivation in buying the AR-15. Of course he can buy one! But how many people out there believe that it's a good thing than anyone can buy one of these things, no questions asked, at a gun show? Does it not seem likely that at least some of the persons who do this are doing it to avoid the background check, which means that they are probably prohibited from owning firearms? Or that any Tom, Dick or Harriet can legally purchase as many guns as s/he wants, only to turn them over to a representative of one of the drug cartels?

marcy
marcy

@JohnQ.Public @ctglobaldocs 

I think I can answer that one, their frivolous lawsuits never get much further than the clerk's trash can.  But they do get passed around for giggles and grins.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@marcy And, as I've said before, I don't think gun control is effective in stopping violence so don't respond to a thoughful (but brief) analysis of the Heller decision by proclaiming that I'm a gun grabber out to deprive you of your precious weapons.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@marcy Scalia further acknowledged, “The [Militia Act of 1792] is significant, for it confirmed the way those in the founding generation viewed firearm ownership: as a duty linked to military service.” While the Court's decision in Heller is a contemporary interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it does not change the fact that the enactment of the 2nd Amendment and the Militia Acts of 1792 are inextricably linked in American history and law and are part of the same discussion, Scalia’s judicial activism notwithstanding.While Scalia’s opinion in Heller disengaged the 2nd Amendment from militia service, even Scalia acknowledged that the concept of militia service was core to the enactment of the 2nd Amendment which is entirely consistent with everything that I’ve written below.So Marcy, only a liar and a fool would hold out your one quote from the Heller opinion for the entire proposition that there is no historical linkage between the 2nd Amendment and militia service.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@marcy It is true that Justice Scalia rewrote 200 years of judicial precedent in the Heller decision and Scalia used the most tortious logic imaginable to overcome prior USSC decisions to get there.Scalia acknowledged that a well-regulated militia was the very underlying purpose for which the 2nd Amendment was enacted, but took an amazing leap of faith to opine, “It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment's prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”One would think, however, that if there were other important reasons for enacting the 2nd Amendments that our thoughtful framers would have made a tiny little mention of them, but they didn’t.

marcy
marcy

@eric.nelson745 

You cannot legally purchase a gun for the purpose of turning it over or selling to to someone you know is prohibited from possession.


david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@eric.nelson745 lol my initial reaction though was "can you blame him? with all the crazies out there likely now targeting them for their stance" 

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@eric.nelson745 lets see if he gives it to the police as he says...if he does so, i have every inclination to believe him 

ctglobaldocs
ctglobaldocs topcommenter

@marcy @ctglobaldocs We're just the messengers, but know a typical Cloward-Piven "ridicule your opponent"tactic.  Better get a new gig, marcy.

Why don't you address the issues?  Answer:  Because you can't.

Art McNamara, for CT America and CT Global

marcy
marcy

@JohnQ.Public @marcy 

My single quote makes it clear that the right to gun ownership is NOT conditioned upon a militia.  That is sufficient to refute your argument to the contrary and was in no way intended to be a historical analysis of the militia in the US.  

Of course militias and the 2nd amendment are linked, the second amendment mentions militias.  

I was pleased that a majority of the US Supreme Court acknowledged that the right to bear arms, as envisioned by the authors of the Bill of Rights, was not limited to militia service.  I find it difficult to believe that anyone who understands American history would have a contrary opinion.  

marcy
marcy

@JohnQ.Public @marcy 

No John, it wasn't Justice Scalia who rewrote 200 years of precedent, it was a majority of the US Supreme Court.

And like it or not, there it is.  And since it has been the law of the land for the past 5 years I think it is long past time for you to drop the militia as an argument.

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

@marcy @eric.nelson745 When did that stop the "straw buyers" from purchasing as many guns as they had $$$ and then turn them over to the cartels? Yes. There should be a limit in the number of guns you can buy each month. That would definitely slow the flow of guns going south.

teknik
teknik topcommenter

@marcy @eric.nelson745 the only thing is, how many people see criminals simply as potential customers and figure if they are taking the guns to some other neighborhood, who cares? they'll just shoot each other up.


the bottom line is that criminals have a lot of guns and someone sold those guns to them.


lets stop making it so easy for criminals to arm themselves.

azcumsquelcher
azcumsquelcher

@david_saint01 @eric.nelson745 why? He has so much credibility to lose if it becomes apparent that he bought the gun with intentions on keeping it. In the last several months Mark Kelley has become the spokesperson for gun control in America. This is his 15 minutes of fame and he'll do anything to preserve it. Taking a $1500 loss when you've been making an astronaut's salary is probably not a big deal, especially when the other option is disappearing into irrelevancy and being labeled a fraud.

marcy
marcy

@david_saint01 @eric.nelson745 

If his intent was to turn it over to the police why didn't he take possession at the time for sale and drop it off with the police?  What purpose was there in leaving it at the shop and only taking home the .45 handgun?

Even stranger, Arizona law requires the police to RESELL guns to licensed dealers so that AR15 would end up back on a dealer's shelf.  

So, again, I suggest that Mark was either lying or he is a fool.

ctglobaldocs
ctglobaldocs topcommenter

@marcy @ctglobaldocs 

I'm no conspiracist here at all.  

We're not even the ones investigating it, but have looked at the evidence, and it's overwhelming, IF you look beyond the mainstream.

The CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE should alert you.  

ADAM LANZA never used a gun in his life, he was a 20 year old autisic young man, and he was in New York State on the day of the shootings, yet he traveled to CT, and methodically killed 26 people with DEAD ON ACCURACY in RECORD TIME?

And, NO, I don't want your swamp land in Florida, either.

Next?

Art McNamara

marcy
marcy

@ctglobaldocs @marcy 

In your case the ridicule is well deserved.  Your "issues" are a figment of your imagination and have been well addressed elsewhere, repeatedly.

In the future if you wish to engage in a discussion I'd suggest not posting a dozen conspiracy theories at once.  Try focusing on one. We can start with your delusional "Sandy Hook False Flag".  I believe that's the one where nutters like you insist, with zero evidence, that an "assault weapon" wasn't used in the murders.  


Tommy_Collins
Tommy_Collins

@JohnQ.Public @ctglobaldocs JQP, if you dumb yourself down any further you will soon be on par with JAF. Nah, I don't see you being able to dumb yourself down that much... sorry..

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@ctglobaldocs I dunno how to dbate, mssr mcnmara seeing as a dunno how to reed or rite and need ma babysitter to done reed for me mssr mcnamar.  i done not no paid blogger like you done be mssr mcnamara so how can i done debate mssr mcnamara.  you said dit youself mssr mcnamara that i done need ma babysidder to done reed for me, member mssr mcnamara.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@ctglobaldocs Since a dunno how da reed or rite, imma gonna posta miss marcys answr cause i done think she done said it rite.

In your case the ridicule is well deserved. Your "issues" are a figment of your imagination and have been well addressed elsewhere, repeatedly.

In the future if you wish to engage in a discussion I'd suggest not posting a dozen conspiracy theories at once. Try focusing on one. We can start with your delusional "Sandy Hook False Flag". I believe that's the one where nutters like you insist, with zero evidence, that an "assault weapon" wasn't used in the murders

ctglobaldocs
ctglobaldocs topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public @ctglobaldocs Read?  Didn't know you could, thought your babysitter was doing that for you.

Now, why don't you address the real issue that's causing you to debate gun control?  The Sandy Hook false flag that even a five year old can spot as a hoax.  Then put a post up on www.NodisInfo.com and talk your crap.

Just face it, you little wannabe Marxist rat, you lost this war and are going to pay a huge price - no job, no food, no gas, your cash is worthless, your country is $16.7 TRILLION in debt.

And so-called savious like Senator Kyrsten Sinema have THROWN YOU UNDER THE BUS.

Don't you get it?  Kyrsten is now on the same team as JOE ARPAIO!  She doesn't give a rat's butt about you.

Art McNamara 




JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@ctglobaldocs You post so much tripe and dribble that its hard to read any of it.  Want me to pick apart your bullshit, repost it and I'll do so.

ctglobaldocs
ctglobaldocs topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public @marcy Mr. Public, our contacts sent a fairly detailed response to your posts in another blog.  What's your response?


ctglobaldocs
ctglobaldocs topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public @marcy The original colonial militias consisted of PRIVATE VOLUNTEERS who had PRIVATELY OWNED GUNS in their possession at home.

And you're debating this for HOURS?  

ASU Law students, by any chance?  Needa brain transplant?  

LOL

Art McNamara

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@marcy "My single quote makes it clear that the right to gun ownership is NOT conditioned upon a militia"....as of a 2008 USSC holding that has the very thinnest of judicial precedent and significant contrary precedent.  As long as you're will to acknowledge that militia services is inextricably linked to, and served as the basis for, the 2nd Amendment on a histrorical basis, I'm willing to acknowledge that the new law of the land as of 2008 per Justice Scalia is that the Court's contemporary view is that there is no longer any linkage.

ctglobaldocs
ctglobaldocs topcommenter

@marcy @JohnQ.PublicThe original colonial militias consisted of PRIVATE VOLUNTEERS who had PRIVATELY OWNED GUNS in their possession at home.

And you're debating this for HOURS?  

ASU Law students, by any chance?  Need a brain transplant?  

LOL

Art McNamara

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

@marcy @eric.nelson745 It really doesn't matter what I think. That's where things are headed. And if you suddenlyl NEED to purchase more than one gun at a time, SOMETHING IS UP.

marcy
marcy

@eric.nelson745 @marcy 

The cartels have 100's of people who can buy guns for them.  Limits are only a limit for the law abiding.  And who are you to tell my how many guns I can purchase per day, month or year?

marcy
marcy

@teknik @marcy @eric.nelson745 

How does it make it more difficult for criminals to arm themselves?

It is already illegal for someone to sell a weapon to someone they know is prohibited from owning.  If criminals are your customers, you are also a criminal.

Background checks don't stop non-felons from buying weapons and reselling them to felons.  It's currently against the law to do so and it is still done.  

It is never difficult for criminals to get guns, laws only make it more difficult for people who are NOT criminals to get guns.

justsayin
justsayin

@marcy @david_saint01 @eric.nelson745 From what I understand, he bought a used one and has not completed the paperwork. Also it takes longer, about 20 days I believe, for a used weapon as opposed to a much shorter time for a new gun. Sorry, I just dont buy it. Did he tell any one his plans like a reporter so they could verify it was for a test as he maintains. Just sayin

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...