The story goes like this.
Mark Kelly is the retired American astronaut husband of Gabby Giffords - the Democrat Representative who was shot in the head by her stalker, nut-job Jahred Lee Loughner, in January 2011. She survived the assassination attempt but resigned her position due to her brain injury.
And because she's a Democrat, and because she was shot, you can imagine how rabid anti-gun she is. And apparently, so is her husband......
Because Kelly and Giffords started a “not-for-profit” gun control advocacy group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, amid the "wave" of recent mass shootings. Kelly has been dragging his brain-injured wife all around the country in recent months in support of expanded background checks for gun purchases, and to advocate to take people's guns away. And of course, to collect, ummmmm............not-for profit money to fill their coffers, you know, for their cause. In much the same way as all these celebrities have non-profit organisations which delivers almost zero bang for the donated buck! But I digress......
A few days ago, a photo caught Mr Astronaut Kelly buying an AR-15 and a semi-automatic handgun (and in some reports 30 round hi-capacity magazines) at a gun store in Tucson, Arizona.
So, what did he do when he realised he was sprung? He rushed off to Democrat-friendly CNN and claimed that he had purchased the guns to show America just how quick and easy it was to make these gun purchases. He also then quickly published the leaked photo on his Facebook page and claimed that it had been his plan all along to purchase the guns and then hand the AR-15 over to the police as a publicity stunt. Yeah right. Whatever you say Marky. It makes complete sense to make a huge issue of how easy it is to purchase guns, but then keep the handgun and hand in only the rifle, which the police would have to sell and not destroy, according to Arizona law.....
So, what exactly was he going to prove if what he says is true? That any law-abiding citizen with a clean background check could purchase these weapons with little difficulty?? Wow, and this from an astronaut and a former Navy Officer who is as clean as a whistle! What a publicity stunt! Not. However, if he could have organised a transgendered, one-armed, dwarf Lesbian illegal immigrant to pass a background check, then we're talking! He sure passed up a big-time opportunity to be hailed a hero by the Left, big time!
In any case, the ginormous hole this hypocrite has dug for himself just keeps getting deeper and deeper.
Here is where it gets interesting. Because he was buying a traded-in AR-15 rifle and not a new rifle, he needed to wait 20 days to take possession.... and could only take possession after he had passed an extended background check.
So, the question is this: If Kelly wanted to prove how easy it was to purchase an AR-15 "assault" rifle, why not buy a brand-new spanking AR-15, which he could have claimed immediately instead of waiting 20 days and clearing another background check? Why purchase a trade-in which prolongs the background check process?
Bottom line is that Mr Kelly has lied. His intention all along was to purchase a cheaper second-hand rifle for his own use, instead of buying a new expensive one.
And when he got caught, and being the Lefty bleeding heart HYPOCRITE he is, he started lying and doing a typical Liberal cover-up to deceive. And oh what a tangled web we weave, when we set out to deceive, huh Mr Kelly?
This idiot has been caught, and caught good! Love it.
|Here's Mr Hypocrite doing the dirty and buying, shock, horror, guns!|
|Here's Mr Hypocrite on CNN walking back the truth, back to outer space....|
Why did Mark Kelly pick a rifle for which he has yet to do a background check?
Kelly, a gun regulation advocate and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has explained that he bought an AR-15 rifle last week because he wanted to show how "easy" it was to buy an "assault weapon."
Yet if that were really his purpose, why did he purchase a traded-in rifle for which he must wait 20 days--and for which he must still complete a background check? Why not purchase a new rifle he could have claimed immediately?
Kelly may have completed the background check process for the pistol he bought, but not for the AR-15. On March 12, after Breitbart News contacted Diamondback Police Supply, the store where Kelly bought the weapons, the store's owner Douglas MacKinlay provided the following statement to the media:
On March 5, 2013 Mr. Mark Kelly purchased a Sig Sauer 45 caliber pistol and a Sig Sauer M400 5.56 AR style rifle from my company, Diamondback Police Supply Co. in Tucson, AZ. The rifle, having been purchased in trade from another customer, cannot be released to Mr. Kelly or any other customer for a minimum of 20 days in accordance with local ordinances. Mr. Kelly did not ask for any modifications to the rifle, nor are we making any. Once the hold period is up, Mr. Kelly must then show proper identification, complete the Federal Firearms Transfer Record (Form 4473) and successfully complete the NICS background check prior to his taking physical possession of the firearm.The "local ordinances" that apply to the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm AR-style rifle required that the AR-15 be placed on hold for 20 days because it was second-hand. If Kelly's goal was to show how easy the background check system really is, why didn't he buy a new "assault rifle" so he could take possession of it immediately, thereby allowing him to finish the background check on day he originally walked into the store--March 5?
When CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Kelly on Monday what it was like going into a gun store and "buying an AR-15." Kelly said that for such a "deadly" weapon, "especially with the high capacity magazines, it's a pretty easy thing to do, even with the background check."
He went on to say: "public access to these [weapons] is too easy, as I demonstrated the other day."
Yet Kelly has not completed the process of taking possession of the AR-15.
Kelly has openly stated that his plan from the beginning was to buy such a firearm and hand it over to the police (even though, as Breitbart News reported, under pending legislation the police would likely have to sell the AR-15 rather than destroying it, returning it to the streets).
In that case, wouldn't any AR-style rifle do?
Instead, he picked one that required a 20-day waiting period and extended the background check process for weeks.
Is there a chance Mark Kelly picked the AR-15 simply because he wanted it--at a discounted price?