Gabrielle Giffords Leaked AR-15 Hypocrisy Pose From The Past

Leaked by an anonymous law enforcement source:


“We were told she wanted to toughen her image. She asked to come out and she wanted to shoot a rifle. She had one of our guys out there to show her how to shoot an AR-15.”

Full story over at Brietbart.

Thanks LE-Anon!  If she wasn’t operating (no pun intended… really) on a reduced mental capacity now  (I’m assuming this by her slow as molasses speeches and glazed look) I’d be harder on her.  I still think her AR-15 buying-to-hand-over-to-the-police husband started this whole crusade.

A snippet of Gabrielle Giffords facebook statement:

I grew up with guns, and I like owning them. So does my husband Mark. It’s an interest we’ve shared ever since we met. It’s part of my heritage as an Arizonan and it’s my right as an American. Being able to shoot a gun is something I haven’t been able to do since I was shot – because my right arm is paralyzed, and I’m less mobile than I was.

Riiiiiiight… so you and you husband like guns, but you don’t want the rest of us to have certain types of guns with certain features and certain magazine capacities.  *shrug* sounds legit. *eye roll*

Thoughts?  Oh yea and *dat awkward “I’ve never held a rifle before” trigger discipline*.

Hat tip: Thomas, Eric, Scott


66 responses to “Gabrielle Giffords Leaked AR-15 Hypocrisy Pose From The Past”

  1. America’s royalty, because the the commoner doesn’t know what’s best.

  2. Sivl32 (elvis) Avatar
    Sivl32 (elvis)

    Now, how do you become a model to be on targets? Can you imagine passing some guy on the streets that you’ve shot at multiple times, do you instinctively whip out your gun? Do you tell him you’ve shot him, do you thank him? idk I guess, i think… I wanna be on a target…?? maybe.. sorry for this post it’s late and i’m tired.

    1. I actually know a guy who was the model for some Police Department targets. Funny thing is, he worked for get PD and most officers know him. So a ALOT of coppers shot their co-worker.

  3. I found her trigger discipline awkward too, but at least she has it. Let’s not nitpick safe gun handling :)

    1. Spencer Avatar

      ^Yep. I’ve seen enough bad trigger discipline in my day to just be happy that she has the muzzle in a safe direction and her finger off the trigger.

  4. Whats wrong with her trigger discipline? Its not on the trigger, and doesnt need to be anywhere near it as she is clearly done shooting and is now posing for pics. Its safer there than in the ‘ i might need to pick my nose soon, so i am keeping this finger ready’ operator pose.

  5. These ass-clowns are such hypocrites. Those pigs like DiFi and Bloomberg are so out of touch with the people they are suppose to represent. They get elected and then they roll out their own agendas, never mind what the commoner wants. Sure they’ll make a public appearance every once in a while surrounded by armed guards and kiss babies, but then it’s back to their castles walls and their serfdom.

  6. Owning guns and liking guns while advocating for stricter gun control is not hypocritical. As a responsible gun owner, I don’t want idiots with guns walking the streets. If you know how to handle guns and are a sane person, you should be fine with limits on them because you’ll be the only bad-ass in town with a gun. And how many deer or cans do you need to shoot before you have to change clips, honestly? If you need to fire that many bullets to hit your target, you shouldn’t have a gun anyway.

    And your frequent criticizing her for talking slowly is disgusting. I’d like to see you survive and assassination attempt with a bullet to the head and see how well you speak on national television, you bloody fucking snot-nosed ass-wipe.

    1. Owning guns and liking guns while advocating for stricter gun control is not hypocritical.

      However, we’re not simply talking about “guns” and “stricter control,” Mark has been advocating a BAN on semi-automatic rifles—that is to say, he does not think people should be able to buy or own them. Except for him, apparently. And that IS hypocritical. If your position is that “nobody needs 30 round magazines” or “military style assault rifles” then yes, it’s hypocritical and inconsistent to go out and buy those very same items.


      too late boss, idiots with guns walk the streets already. We’re the doctors, lawyers, bloggers and IT Professionals who walk the streets with guns responsibly. You must be from Chicago with your utopian idea of a city.

      I will agree the criticizm of her mental state is a bit low brow, Mike.

      (if troll: 8/10)

    3. Brian,
      You need to do some more research into what the second amendment is about. Nay, you need to do more research into what is meant by personal freedom and liberties. It is not up to YOU or any legislature to determine what is “adequate” for the american people to defend themselves with. Every citizen, who is sane and legally allowed to own firearms have the right to determine what is best form of self defense.

      Regardless of what you choose to believe (which is your RIGHT, I may add) the second amendment was put in place so the people could be armed EQUAL to any potential threat – foreign or domestic.

      1. Then where can I buy nukes? I at least need to get some VX if I want to feel safe.

        The second amendment was written to allow trained individuals not associated with the military or other services to own firearms as part of a militia. When the entire second amendment is read in full, that is still the purpose of it. However, most people like to choose what they like to read, which is what happened in 2008 with Heller. It was also only to prevent the federal government from restricting gun control. That went out in 2010 with McDonald. So now states can’t regulate themselves on gun control either.

        I don’t believe the second amendment says anything about being armed equally, it just says armed.

        1. I can get you vx, dont mess with nukes though, need too much storage space

        2. James Maddison Avatar
          James Maddison


          You are mistaken. You should read the federalist papers if you want to know what the framers meant. James Madison speaks to this specifically.

          1. Madison included the Second Amendment to assure anti-federalists that militias would not be prohibited.

            1. Brian,

              In fact, Maddison above is correct. You need to go and read federalist papers.

              paper 46 excerpt:
              Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

              Paper 28 excerpt:
              If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

              paper 29 excerpt:
              What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen…The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

              so please spare us all TROLL BRIAN<

        3. Guns= easy for a persob to descriminate from innocents and a threat therefor falls under 2A

          Nuke= not able to descriminate between innocents and a threat and thereby infringes on other peoples rights….not covered under 2A.

    4. whatever Avatar

      Brian – One word for you……TYRANNY.

      Try taking on a group of well armed thugs with a 10 round magazine? I would prefer to have the same stuff the bad guys have, thank you very much.

      If you want to tell other people how to live their lives and what decisions to make – you should move to California. they need more people like you

      1. Don’t get in fights with your drug dealers.

        And it’s called government. The government tells plenty of people how to live their life. File taxes, don’t kill people, don’t have abortions, don’t smoke weed, don’t drive drunk, don’t bring fruit across state lines without a permit, don’t shoot fireworks here. I’m not saying it should, but I’m saying it does. But not gun control? Shouldn’t government, at least state government, have the right to say “you need to do a background check to make sure this guy is sane and won’t blow you away and take the rest of your guns the minute you sell him one?”

        1. Government tells people not to have abortions?

        2. “I’m not saying it should, but I’m saying it does. But not gun control?”

          On the one hand you acknowledge that the government does tell us how to live our life with the disclaimer “I’m not saying that it should, but…” and then turn around and say “Shouldn’t government …”

          And that’s where we disagree I guess. The reason it does in cases that it shouldn’t is because nobody stood up, organized, and actively and powerfully agitated against those restrictions. We’re trying not to make that mistake.

          For what it’s worth, I view gun rights in the same way that I view abortion rights—I’m pro choice in both respects (don’t want one? Don’t get one) and think the current laws are fine. There are those who try to get their foot in the door with “reasonable restrictions” in regards to both things, but it would never end there if they got their way. I also think weed should be legal (even though I don’t touch the stuff) and I think banning fireworks is silly.

          1. I meant: I’m not arguing the point that government should or should not regulate in general, which is the argument made by some people. Some people want a type of anarchy of “do what you like and stay out of my business.” I’m not arguing for or against regulation, I’m saying that it does regulate as a fact. So if it has the ability to regulate, why can’t it regulate guns? There are limitations on free-speech (fire in a movie theater, national secrets), why can’t there be limitations on gun ownership? Saying it’s the second amendment and can’t be infringed doesn’t hold up if the first amendment is infringed all the time. Even then, if it’s not regulated on the national level as stated by the constitution, why not at the state level? (Because McDonald v Chicago extended that restriction to include the states in 2010). Either way, there are hundreds of laws on the books already that aren’t enforced at all because of budget limitations or conflicting regulations. The ATF has the same number of agents as it did in 2004, before Obama, before Gabriel Giffords was shot, before Aurora, Sandy Hook, and several dozen other shootings and it hasn’t had an actual dedicated director since 2006. And it’s only allowed to inspect dealers once a year, and it can’t require dealers to keep track of their inventory. That’s all just bad business.

            1. You can thank 86 FOPA for the once-a-year inspections. It’s clear you know nothing regarding FFLs. Dealers do keep inventory (black book) and they keep a record of firearms sold (ATF form 4473). When ATF does inspections they look at these.

              Don’t get me started on title 2 firearms. It’s practically an anal exam.

              1. According to the ATF, only 50-75% of dealers at guns shows are licensed and therefore hopefully follow regulations and keep logs. It’s not everybody, but it’s a large portion of dealers that are unlicensed. On top of that, many illegal sales are made through licensed dealers.

                1. i see that first statistic on wikipedia, but the article wont load. you have a link? id like to see that. first time ive seen it.

                  many illegal sales are made through a few licensed dealers.

                  private sales are legal here in texas. if i go to a gun show tomorrow with my 10/22 and some dude wants to buy it cash, he can. its up to ME to make sure he isnt crazy or a felon or anything TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. if he mentions something of him being a felon or exhibits anything i dont think “feels” right, then i dont sell him the gun.

                  normally i do a bill of sale with the firearm. also, i dont sell many guns and i dont sell to people i dont know. if they have a state issued CHL, then they are good to go.

                2. found it

                  “Both FFLs and nonlicensees sell firearms at these shows. FFLs make up 50 to 75 percent
                  of the vendors at most gun shows.” yeah the other 25% sell food and holsters and backpacks and jewelry…

                  so, no…not really boss.


                  1. You just said nonlicensees sell firearms. FFLs make up 50-75% of vendors.

                    Both FFLs and nonlicensees sell firearms at these shows. FFLs make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at most gun shows. The majority of vendors who attend shows sell firearms and associated accessories and other paraphernalia. Examples of accessories and paraphernalia include holsters, tactical gear, knives, ammunition, clothing, food….

                    Also from the document you just posted, page 1:
                    The Brady Act, however, does not apply to the sale of firearms by nonlicensees, who make up one-quarter or more of the sellers of firearms at gun shows.

                    1. Non licensees can’t be dealers boss. Do you really think private firearms sales are bad? I’d do a quick NICS check on anyone who bought a gun from me: 1. If it were free. 2. It took no more than 10 mins and 3. I could do it from my phone. Sadly. FBI won’t let us do this.

            2. The ATF has the same number of agents as it did in 2004, before Obama, before Gabriel Giffords was shot, before Aurora, Sandy Hook, and several dozen other shootings

              In equally relevant news, my house has the same number of doors and windows as it did in 2004. My car has the same number of tires, and i own the same number of lawnmowers.

            3. “So if it has the ability to regulate, why can’t it regulate guns?”

              Well it can, guns ARE regulated. I guess the issue is that there are those who want to pass additional regulations that we find unpalatable, so we will work against that.

        3. somebody who cares Avatar
          somebody who cares

          Brian. you mention a lot of things here. It s clear your a troll.

          However, i would like to point out that the Bill of Rights, does not protect your right to buy fireworks. But it specifically states the the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

          Your argument is pointless.

          I don’t think Whatever – was talking about his drug dealers. I am pretty sure he was talking about jack booted government thugs. Hence, his mentioning of TYRANNY!

          The amount of Tyranny a man will live under is the amount he will put up with. Evidently you are willing to live under an unlimited amount of tyranny and being told what to do.

          I am sure you agree with Bloomberg trying to ban large sodas.

          Just because YOU have no self control does not mean the rest of us do not.

          1. I’m worried about people that don’t have self control that do have guns, and how they are getting them legally. And, as I just mentioned above, there are limits on the First Amendment, so why can’t there be limits on the Second?

          2. Also, it says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It does not say “person;” it says “the People.” Why would it say this if it meant individuals? The Fifth Amendment clearly says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… etc etc.” The Fifth Amendment specifically says, “No Person.” If the Second Amendment confers an individual right, why doesn’t it say so? When Congress stated the right to bear arms as the people’s right, it meant the people could put in place control over the exercise of this right as the people deemed necessary, the people here being not-the-federal-government, ie: the states. So again, states should be allowed to regulate themselves if nothing else. However, the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment in 2010 in McDonald v Chicago, meaning now not even the states can regulate themselves.

            1. Well, crap, then I guess the Fourth Amendment does not apply to individuals either.

              Or the Ninth.

              Or the Tenth.

              Do you even read what you write before you post, or are you actively trying to sound like an idiot?

              1. The Fourth Amendment spells out “to be secure in their persons,” which means individuals.

                The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that there is no Ninth Amendment right to possess an unregistered sub-machine gun. The Ninth Amendment doesn’t confer any rights, nor does it take any away. It says “Just because these rights are written down here, doesn’t mean there aren’t other rights conferred to the United State, the States, the People, or to Persons.” However, just because the Ninth Amendment says there are other rights, it doesn’t mean everything is a right.

                The Tenth Amendment says nowhere that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved for the States, the people, or that guy over there. It again spells out the people, not individuals.

                These types of arguments have been going on in the courts since the ratification of the Constitution and that the Founding Fathers wrote and voiced these sorts of arguments themselves. I’ve just chosen a side.

                1. It is convenient how people like you have a tendency to randomly omit parts of Amendments that neatly undermine, if not outright destroy, your idiotic argument.

                  In truth, the Fourth Amendment starts with:

                  The right of the people…

                  By your “logic”, neither you nor I actually possess this right, but only some asinine combination of the both of us.

                  Because THAT makes sense.

                  The rest of your comment goes downhill from there into a mad death spiral of strawmen (I never said any of the Amendments “confer any rights”), red herrings (my comment had nothing to do with automatic firearms), and other pointless logical fallacies you were desperately hoping on one would notice or call you on.

                  Way to double down on stupid.

                  Oh, and when all nine then-seated Supreme Court Justices – even those in the dissent – agreed that the Second Amendment protects, and always has protected, an individual right… well, that might say something about your “side”.

            2. Re-read your Constitution.

              The states are referred to as “the States”.

              “the Conventions of a number of the States”
              “legislatures of the several States”

              Every mention of the individual citizens collectively refers to them as “the people”

              “right of the people peaceably to assemble”
              “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”
              “The right of the people to be secure in their persons”
              “deny or disparage others retained by the people”

              This makes sense, since states do not (and cannot) have rights, despite the proliferation of the misleading term “states rights”.

              The Tenth Amendment is perhaps most revealing, since it specifies the States OR the People, thus legally delineatign the two:

              The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR to the people.

              Hence “the people” always means the individual citizens, considered collectively.

              Aside from that, the Nasty Guard and the Reserves should never have existed in their present form, and should be immediately disbanded, as should the entire standing army.

              “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”
              James Madison

              “What a deformed monster is a standing army in a free nation,” Josiah Quincy

              “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Elbridge Gerry

              The fact that the “militia” has been twisted into a standing army that deploys constantly around the world at the behest of the federal leviathan should itself be cause for outrage , but I digress.

              1. sorry, delineating. Can’t type.

            3. You can not give up other peoples unalienable rights through popular vote, that is why they are unalienable. you may choose to not exercises your rights if you feel like it; however, seeing as the bill of RIGHTS(hint: they can not be taken from you), and congress has declared that it is the right of the people, and a individual right, that would indicate no one can take them from you no mater what the people voted through direct democracy, or representative with out the act being unconstitutional.

              To review for your middle school finals:
              rights: can not be taken without due process (declaring you unfit) and are fundamental to a free society.
              liberties: you must prove that you have the responsibility necessary to granted the liberty of doing what ever is in question, driving for example.

              If 99.9% of everyone everywhere wanted to for example deny Piers Morgan the first amendment no mater how strongly they felt they could not legally do so.

              If you get any headaches trying to understand just get a glass of water take some tylenol and just read a sentence at a time.
              here is a thesaurus ( and a dictionary ( in case you have trouble with large words

              5/10 troll made me respond, because of how little you understand about rights, and how ignorant you are of others explanations.

      2. Spencer Avatar

        “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”

        1. Then we shouldn’t be doing a lot of things if that’s your argument. Death penalties would be revoked for every state. Jails wouldn’t exist because I don’t think I can imprison someone if they wronged me and a jury found him guilty.

          The authority of the government is derived from the people it governs. We gave the government its authority. If you feel its authority is unjust, then start a movement. If the majority of people agree, then we’ll figure something else out.

          1. The beautiful thing that we created is this thing called voting, and we’ve voted in people we think are smart enough to do what’s right by us. It’s a republic, not a democracy. If you don’t like the system then vote people out. If you want democracy then get ready to go to every fucking PTA meeting, town hall meeting, state assembly, national congress, and treaty organization because you won’t have time for anything else.

            1. Absolutely. But voting isn’t the only hallmark of our system of government—we’re also allowed to petition our government, and speak out against it when it does something we don’t like, and that’s what we’re doing.

              I didn’t vote for Bush, but he was elected (well, close enough, I guess). Does that mean I should have just shut up and not agitated against the invasion of Iraq? Fuck no. We have the right to speak up whenever we want, not just during elections.

              1. Speaking up is what I’m doing too.

                1. i commend your efforts for speaking up. You certainly are the david in a room full of goliaths, with machine guns.

                  1. and railroad destroying, people seeking bullets. In clips, no less.

                2. Yes, and I have not complained that you are doing so. I appreciate good discussion and debate.

            2. Voting is a suggestion box for slaves, and over 230 years we have become ever more enslaved to the mob. Democracy really is the god the failed.

          2. Now you are just being facetious or stupid.

            According to the Crimes Act of 1790 treason, piracy, counterfeiting, and Crimes against the law of nations (not accepting U.S. passports and legal status) were the only federal crimes.

            Things have changed over the years, but until you understand how the states and federal government are supposed to interact, and how that has changed over the years you have no clue.

      3. Mr. Jonz Avatar

        Please, we have more than enough authoritarian a-holes here in California.

    5. “I like guns but I want them regulated”
      “Bad-ass in town”

      Yeah, I really want to take you seriously, but I can’t. Come back when you understand better what the Second Amendment was made for. If you’re so concerned about bad guys with the wrong tools in the end, perhaps it’s time to stop being the “only badass in town with a gun” and start teaching and educating; yknow, like a proper educated person should.

      I am NOT and was NEVER fine with any of these stupid laws precisely because they are pointless and make no sense. Why 10-round magazines? Why accept to ban the scary black AR-15 when your 100% wooden Mini-14 can achieve the same result? Why ACCEPT bans that supposedly restrict what people “don’t need”? Who is there to tell me what I “need” and what I don’t? I’m responsible, this should be the only guarantee and assumption the government should have, because this is treating humans like humans, not like dumb idiots. There are plenty of laws that condemn acting like an idiot with a gun, it’s not by putting more laws and more restrictions you’re gonna change anything. There are idiots, there are criminals. Deal with them, we will never live in an utopian society; we wouldn’t need weapons if we did.

    6. elephantrider Avatar

      “If you know how to handle guns and are a sane person, you should be fine with limits on them because you’ll be the only bad-ass in town with a gun. And how many deer or cans do you need to shoot before you have to change clips, honestly? If you need to fire that many bullets to hit your target, you shouldn’t have a gun anyway.”

      Brian, based on these statements you are clearly either anti-gun, a troll, or both. There is a clear lack of understanding and logic to your statements. Fuck off, and don’t come back.

      Giffords is clearly a massive hypocrite, or a liar. Guns were ‘good’ when she needed to “toughen” her image (smacks of Dukakis riding an M1 tank). Now that she is an unfortunate victim and a perfect anti-gun media/political tool, guns are bad. So either she was lieing about liking guns before hand, or is a massive hypocrite now.

      It is ridiculous that her and her shit-bird husband are taking this opportunity to oppose “AWs,” when she was attacked by a handgun. She shoudl be in favor of banning handguns, although I believe that she and the rest of teh Democratic anti-gunners really are in favor of a full firearm ban.

    7. come-and-take-it Avatar

      I have no intention of shooting cans or deer with an AR-15 and must say your invective is disproportionate to the note you are responding to. I think you have anger issues and should not be allowed to own a firearm of any kind. Please send your name and email address to [email protected]. We will be back to you shortly.

    8. Brian,

      You are in favor of 2nd amendment right infringement, and you have a filthy mouth.

    9. NetRanger Avatar

      She didn’t survive an assasination attempt, at least not her’s. The judge died. He was the one that far left loonie was programmed to kill.

    10. Jim Minor Avatar

      Brian, you just don’t get it. A high capacity magazine (not a clip, a clip is used on an M-1 Garand as an 8 round Enblock clip) is for multiple reasons but hunting isn’t one of them. During the LA riots in 1992 the Korean shop owners had high capacity magazines (in a time before the communist California regime came to power) on the roofs of their buildings. It kept their businesses from being looted, trashed and burned like the others in the area were. The spirit of the Second Amendment was not for hunting purposes, it was put there to give the people the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government if ever needed. At the time, that had just happened with the British so it was important enough to them to make sure it didn’t happen again that it was placed second only to freedom of speech. When the government doesn’t fear retribution from the people, that is when the people are taken advantage of.

      Do you realize that in the 20th century, JUST because of gun control over 170,000,000 (that’s 170 million) people have been slaughtered? That would be the equivalent of taking the populations of Germany, France and Spain and killing every man, woman and child there. It started with the “ethnic cleansing” of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey in 1915. They were told to register their firearms, once they did the government knew who had them and how many so rounding them up was simple and easy. Cambodia, China, Germany, Angola are just a few examples… all the same story. It started with gun registration which led to confiscation and then slaughter. People wonder why we are so against registering our guns… it’s called history. It has a way of repeating itself if a lesson is not learned from it.

      Exactly what “gun control” would you propose that would work? Chicago is a prime example. The city with the toughest gun laws in the country also has the highest murder rate in the country. If passing more laws were the answer there would be no murder at all in Chicago. Do you realize that in Illinois to even buy a box of .22 ammo you must have a government issued ID card giving you permission to buy and possess ammunition? It obviously doesn’t work very well. I follow the letter of the law because I don’t want to lose my right to carry a firearm or go to jail. The criminal is illegally possessing the firearm and is committing an illegal activity with it, that is just more time to their sentence they are planning on serving if they get caught anyway.

  7. Giffords is little more than a puppet at this point. She and her husband are hopelessly emotionally damaged goods.

  8. that’s when the fascist left wing cunt had half a brain.

  9. Apparently Gabby and Mark had a privately owned Glock 19 sitting at home the day she was shot in the head with one in Arizona. They apparently never got rid of it, but we don’t know.

    As for the ease of buying a firearm, Mark Kelly apparently first showed at the gun shop with a Texas driver’s license. Even though the gun dealer knew who Kelly was, he still wouldn’t accept the out of state DL and told Kelly he had to have an Arizona ID, which Kelly went home and came back. (Like a good FFL should do.)

    Then he bought a brand new 1911 which he could take home that day. The AR-15 was used and had an automatic 20+ day holding period. So Kelly was looking for a bargain, not trying to show how easy it was to get a gun.

    Probably someone recognized him, and probably called a reporter or sent a tweet, saying “Kelly was buying a gun.”

    So then Kelly is left either trying to look to be the good anti-gunner and be used by the anti-2A or has to tell the anti-2A movement they are wrong. Either way he looks bad.

    Now the supreme irony in all this: Even if he turns the guns into the police, under Arizona law, the police are required to sell off the firearms and not destroy them. Or in other words, he’s out $1500+ in cash for no good reason, and those guns go back on the market.

  10. Renegade_Azzy Avatar

    Has anyone ever committed a crime with a Calico?

  11. dude, seriously, what the fuck. you had zero class in posting this. not the picture but the words typed below it. jesus christ.

    1. Dude — Go look at the freaking links. He isn’t saying something anyone else isn’t already.

  12. Cuban Pete Avatar
    Cuban Pete

    In all honesty what Gabby actually said was:

    “…. Uuuuh ggggggwup waah gguns, uuuun aah lllll….lllll…lllike onnunnng am. Ssssssooooo dddooddoooddoooo mmeeeh llllllooooser sssband Muuk.”

  13. Cuban Pete Avatar
    Cuban Pete

    I’m wondering how nobody has asked very direct questions about Mark Kelly.

    He retired from the USN, at the rank of O-6, on probably less than 75% base pay.

    That aint much (I ought to know ’cause my father did the same). He’s divorced with two teenage girls – that means that at least 1/2 of his retirement is going to the ex-wife PLUS CHILD SUPPORT AND EDUCATION for the girls

    There was no way that he was making ends meet. No f-ing way.

    That is until…..he and “Gabby” came up with their anti-gun foundation.

    Hallelujah! To paraphrase MLK, the mullah must be rolling in like water while self-righteousness flows out like a mighty stream!

  14. Somebody should ask Gabby why she liked Jew Boy Jared’s MySpace page. He only had two likes, and one was Gabby Giffords. I seem to be the only one who remembers that bit of ancient history.
    I’ll always think her job was to help Jared Loughner get that federal judge, but MK Ultra boy flipped his programming and got too trigger happy.