well, almost....
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/14/Mark-Kelly-s-AR-15-Stunt-Provokes-Giffords-Photo-Leak


:bigpuke: source
http://www.targets.net/html/Targets/TQ-21/TQ-21.html

rkt88edmo;842099030 said:

---

well, almost....
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/14/Mark-Kelly-s-AR-15-Stunt-Provokes-Giffords-Photo-Leak


:bigpuke: source
http://www.targets.net/html/Targets/TQ-21/TQ-21.html

---

Reminds me of a homeless guy I once saw just off the Vegas strip who was wearing a Cal hat. Sigh.

dimitrig;842099041 said:

---

Reminds me of a homeless guy I once saw just off the Vegas strip who was wearing a Cal hat. Sigh.

---

He probably got that way rooting too hard for Cal sports. #suffering

I guess people aren't allowed to change their thoughts on subjects due to things that happen to them?

Solid.

I bet a Furd is behind this.

Interesting article to wake up to...

chitownbear;842099084 said:

---

Don't you know you can contract leprosy from reading Breitbart?

---

Didn't you know you could get herpes watching MSNBC?

Sonofoski;842099107 said:

---

Didn't you know you could get herpes watching MSNBC?

---

I did hear that on Fox News. It must be true...

fair and balanced

Cal should sue the target paper company. Why in the world would we allow people to shoot at photos of Cal?

Cal Panda Bear;842099124 said:

---

Cal should sue the target paper company. Why in the world would we allow people to shoot at photos of Cal?

---

Don't we have the Cal logo protected and doesn't this use infringe on those protections and damage our brand?

Cal Panda Bear;842099124 said:

---

Cal should sue the target paper company. Why in the world would we allow people to shoot at photos of Cal?

---

These folks are afraid of their own shadow.....

If only our sport's opponents feared us like these wackos.

HaloBear;842099052 said:

---

I guess people aren't allowed to change their thoughts on subjects due to things that happen to them?

Solid.

---

Your point would be valid if she proposed a ban on Glock semi-auto pistols, the weapon she was shot with, or if her husband didn't recently seek to buy the very weapon their anti-gun organization seeks to limit / ban. But they did try to purchase one and since she is jumping on the anti-AR 15 movement after previously making a point to be photographed with one at a campaign event with law enforcement types, it merely shows she was previously and still remains a crass political opportunist and hypocrite.

Solid.

tequila4kapp;842099179 said:

---

Your point would be valid if she proposed a ban on Glock semi-auto pistols, the weapon she was shot with, or if her husband didn't recently seek to buy the very weapon their anti-gun organization seeks to limit / ban. But they did try to purchase one and since she is jumping on the anti-AR 15 movement after previously making a point to be photographed with one at a campaign event with law enforcement types, it merely shows she was previously and still remains a crass political opportunist and arguably a hypocrite.

Solid.

---

Okay. Let's not go there.

P.S. Read her response to the photo leak. She makes a good point.

But anyways, at least we can all agree on one thing -

ykes

Cal Panda Bear;842099185 said:

---

P.S. Read her response to the photo leak. She makes a good point.

---

Nice letter.

Their Americans for Responsible Solutions website says they seek to limit the sale assault weapons. Her husband reportedly tried to buy one last month.

I can't help but laugh at the Cal hat. Agreed, likely a Furd is behind it. That is a good one, props to the Cardinal. That's good rivalry sh*t.

tequila4kapp;842099195 said:

---

Nice letter.

Their Americans for Responsible Solutions website says they seek to limit the sale assault weapons. Her husband reportedly tried to buy one last month.

---

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/11/gabby-giffords-husband-buys-assault-weapon/?hpt=po_t1

Quote:

---

Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords and an outspoken advocate for new gun control measures, purchased an AR-15 assault rifle in Tucson recently as a demonstration of what he says are unobtrusive background checks.

In his Facebook message about the AR-15 purchase, Kelly wrote it was "scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet.

"We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole," he concluded.

He added on CNN that he was "looking forward at some point to buying a gun at a gun show, and also possibly selling a gun."

---

The dude was trying to make a message by showing how easy it can be to buy assault weapons.

BobbyGBear;842099196 said:

---

I can't help but laugh at the Cal hat. Agreed, likely a Furd is behind it. That is a good one, props to the Cardinal. That's good rivalry sh*t.

---

Youre definitely not helping your cause of being a Furd troll. Why would you laugh at that?

:rant

tequila4kapp;842099195 said:

---

Nice letter.

Their Americans for Responsible Solutions website says they seek to limit the sale assault weapons. Her husband reportedly tried to buy one last month.

---

1 + 1 = 3,217

Solid.

Panda - thank you for the response. The full text of the CNN interview gives a much different feel than the FB message. In that interview he said he bought the gun to gain first hand knowledge of buying through an FFL and doing a background check. He also justified the decision to keep the .45 he bought at the same time by saying they are longtime supporters of the 2nd Amendment and lifelong gun owners. Unless he is the rare lifetime gun owner and firearm enthusiast who has never purchased a gun he knows there is no difference relative to background checks based on type of gun being purchased and knows how obtrusive they are / aren't. As his story makes no logical sense it appears to me he fabricated a story to fit the facts after he was caught making the purchase.

Well, if it's from anything related to Breitbart, you take it with a grain of salt. Hat looks photoshopped in, so blame the furd.

C6Bear;842099517 said:

---

blame the furd.

---

Something we can all agree on

HaloBear;842099052 said:

---

I guess people aren't allowed to change their thoughts on subjects due to things that happen to them?

Solid.

---

fear mongering is not acceptable.

Cal Panda Bear;842099205 said:

---

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/11/gabby-giffords-husband-buys-assault-weapon/?hpt=po_t1



The dude was trying to make a message by showing how easy it can be to buy assault weapons.

---

I liked the response from the gun store owner.

Basically the owner said: why should it be difficult for a guy with a spotless record, who is an astronaut, a guy trusted to be a space shuttle commander, married to a former congressperson, etc, to exercise a right that is protected in the bill of rights?

Uhhh... what was the argument he was trying to make? That one of the cleanest most upstanding citizens should not be able to exercise a constitutional right so easily? It would be funny if it were not so disgusting.

Phantomfan;842099875 said:

---

I liked the response from the gun store owner.

Basically the owner said: why should it be difficult for a guy with a spotless record, who is an astronaut, a guy trusted to be a space shuttle commander, married to a former congressperson, etc, to exercise a right that is protected in the bill of rights?

Uhhh... what was the argument he was trying to make? That one of the cleanest most upstanding citizens should not be able to exercise a constitutional right so easily? It would be funny if it were not so disgusting.

---

I am not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that people without a criminal record should just be trusted implicitly? We've seen even astronauts and congresspeople do stupid ****. Why does anybody need an AR-15? To shoot ducks?

I personally own a handgun and shotgun for self defense and see no point in citizens owning assault weapons.

The crux of this debate ultimately comes down to the Second Amendment. It does not speak in terms of self defense or duck hunting. It is written and intended to provide individual citizens with the right to bear arms for purposes of forming a militia. A militia is by definition an armed group of citizens, an unprofessional army if you will. Now 221 years ago that meant muskets. Today an argument can be made that includes assault rifles, grenade launchers and surface to air missiles.

The only real solution is a Constitutional Amendment. Will trade you a ban on assault rifles, etc. for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Any takers ? Didn't think so.

slotright20;842100611 said:

---

I * ** see no point in citizens owning assault weapons.

---

Well the thing is, there really is no such thing as an "assault weapon." Every gun is lethal. Every gun can be used to assault people. The .223 round was adopted for military purposes because it is less lethal. "Assault weapons" have been illegal in CT since the early to mid 1990s, well before the Newtown shooting. That ban is ineffective entirely because the defining term has no meaning...this is a semi auto rifle that looks a particlar way. Change the aesthetics and the ban effectively doesn't exist anymore. This is fundamentally different from banning fully automatic guns or machine guns, because that legislation is based on how the firearm operates. It works.

We can have honest disagreements about whether or not these need to be in our society. That is healthy. I would just like a real solution so these tragedies don't happen ever again. My own opinion is something simple like mandatory gun locks and civil or criminal penalties to gun owners that don't comply would stop about 99.99% of these tragedies.

I hear you Tequila.

My point is the left wants a major concession from the right on something near and dear to the left. Are they willing to make a major concession on something near and dear to the right to make it happen ? And vice versa.

We can and should debate the mechanisms needed to implement these concepts. It is an easy "trade" for me, because philosophically I support each proposition.

But we are so polarized that it will never happen on either front. It will happen through other means - gun control through a twisted, precedent ignoring opinion by a liberal majority Supreme Court. Balanced budget through reactionary legislative response to economic calamity far beyond anything seen in last five years.