Mark Kelly Warns: Don't filibuster gun control

It seems Rand Paul and Co have stirred the kookoo's nest, we have non other than THE Mark Kelly warning the Senators to not filibuster new gun control measures circulating through the senate. Innocently enough, it has to do with universal background checks, so they say...

I covered this topic of Rand and the other senators that have been helping him lately here: Rand Paul threatens filibuster on gun control

Gabby Giffords' husband Mark Kelly appeared on Fox News Sunday on March 31 to warn GOP Senators not to filibuster universal background check legislation as it proceeds toward a vote in the Senate.

During the week prior to Kelly's warning, Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Jim Inhofe (R-OK), all vowed to "oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for additional gun restrictions."

This has sent the signal that a filibuster is coming if that's what is needed to defend 2nd Amendment rights, and Kelly says this would be a mistake.

According to Kelly, if Paul, Cruz, Lee, Rubio, and Inhofe follow through with this opposition they will be held accountable by their constituents. What is apparently lost in all this is the idea that maybe these Senators are doing exactly what their constituents have asked them to do--stand in the way to prevent 2nd Amendment rights from being diminished any further.

I find it funny that he said that they would be held accountable by their constituents, which won't really be a problem because, unless he didn't get the memo, that's why they are in congress, because they stand up for their rights.

There is already background checks in place, and the new types of legislation they are proposing has many many open ends that could lead beyond what they claim can happen. Mark Kelly tried to purchase one of these "weapons of war" as they call it, even though he says we need to get them off the streets.

What better face to put up for opposition than Mark Kelly, they will use the Gifford's incident just like they've been using Aurora and Sandy Hook, because it adds shock value, and he's the perfect spokesman to keep pushing propaganda.

I want to limit bad people from doing bad things, but you can't control evil, and no matter how much we debate guns, the simple fact is that guns aren't the only way for people to kill others. We can't give up our freedoms little by little until we have nothing left, we have to take a stand and say NO, you've pushed us too far now, back off! So, I hope they filibuster Gun Control legislation, because it will go beyond universal background checks. They will stuff vaguely worded articles into non controversial bills, and pass it one way or the other. Don't believe me? On average most senators don't read any of these bills, and usually the majority that understands it just ram them through when everybody is asleep.

This is the age of accountability, and it's time we direct that sentiment towards our handlers more so now than ever before, this is a new time and new age, expect more control and erosion of civil liberties unless you do your part.

this was a little bit more long winded than I wanted it to be, but oh well, I said my piece.

Interview with Rand Paul on the filibuster




TLDR:

Anti Gun assault is in full swing, ignorance is running rampant, remember freedom is the greatest thing you can have, so say NO to control.

www.breitbart.com...

It needs to be filbusted why does a person need to ask permission to own a firearm?

Really someone explain it to me?

Background check did not stop the Newton shooter, Didn't stop the Columbine shooters.

So again why?

Originally posted by neo96
It needs to be filbusted why does a person need to ask permission to own a firearm?

Really someone explain it to me?

Background check did not stop the Newton shooter, Didn't stop the Columbine shooters.

So again why?

It's just another "feel good" proposal. You me, and dupree could argue this, and a lot of people wouldn't get it. I blame fear, and lack of understanding personally.

Originally posted by neo96

Really someone explain it to me?

I'll try, but not sure if you will Grasp the Concept.

There are a Lot of Americans walking around who are a Few Nuggets short of a Six-pack.
Background checks will help stop some of these folks from attaining Firearms.
Is it Foolproof , of course not, But it will some some of them.
Of course we could go the other Route, and Ban all Firearm Sales.
Would that suit you better.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


So background checks stop bad people from doing bad things?

No they don't.

Basically background checks are for people who haven't done anything yet, but what they might do, and punish the rest of us who will never commit a crime.

Some people won't grasp that "concept".

Use a weapon of mass destruction that all laws are, and who cares about the collateral damage.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by neo96

Really someone explain it to me?

I'll try, but not sure if you will Grasp the Concept.

There are a Lot of Americans walking around who are a Few Nuggets short of a Six-pack.
Background checks will help stop some of these folks from attaining Firearms.
Is it Foolproof , of course not, But it will some some of them.
Of course we could go the other Route, and Ban all Firearm Sales.
Would that suit you better.

Yeah, background checks would help sure... if the states that are already heavy handed on gun control would actually report on their current mental health cases. Often times they don't update this information, or just never submit it. So even if we add a new law, there are existing laws that already cover these types of cases.

This is a snowball effect, it starts out as minor things such as extended background checks, then it gets to gun registration, then it leads to gun confiscation. So no matter how many laws they pass, they already don't comply with current laws. I say no thanks to further infringement.

States fail to report mental health stats for background database

23 states so far don't report accurately

So even though a judge had found Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho to be mentally ill two years before his 2007 rampage, that information never made it into the database, the report shows.

Cho was able to pass several background checks to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people and then end his life.

With this administrations record on gun running, why would anything about gun control be believed by we the people? As for Mr. Kelly I would like to know if he would be a prime candidate for a psyche eval? I question his emotional and mental stability after his wife's shooting. Lets be realistic here for a moment, have his actions been sound as of late? With that attempt to straw purchase for the police Mark Kelley in my humble opinion is the poster child for why the argument needs to be made on a intellectual level not an emotional one.

reply to post by Tw0Sides

There are a Lot of Americans walking around who are a Few Nuggets short of a Six-pack.

Like the ones whom think that all guns should be banned and that the government and the police are more capable to protect them and their families than themselves?

Background checks will help stop some of these folks from attaining Firearms.

Already have them. They are not enforced! NEXT!

Of course we could go the other Route, and Ban all Firearm Sales.
Would that suit you better.

Isn't that what Biden and Feinstein have already said?????

Keep it up, I love it! The more you gun grabbers show your ignorance and lack of facts, the more strength those of us who believe in the Constitution gain!

Also to add, if you would have seen and heard everything Obama said in his last speech about the new gun laws he wants push, all in the name of preventing another Sandyhook?????

Not ONE of his new laws would have prevented it from happening!





EDIT to ADD, I think anyone who wants gun control, should have to answer the question of whether or not they believe in abortion, before an argument even ensues!

As a member on another thread made this statement,,,,,,,"If a casual murder of a child is okay in and abortion clinic, then you should not shed a god damned tear for those at Sandyhook!!!!"!!

The hypocrisy of the progressive left, is far beyond logical understanding!

Kelly is just trying to position himself to run against Jeff Flake in the next senate race.

This makes me want a filibuster even more.

Personally, I love what some of these up and comers are doing.

It's about time we have people in office that actually care and are not afraid to stand up for what is right.

I think Kelly might be off of his rocker, because, I have yet to meet a single person who actually wants anymore gun laws than what we have.

If we can't enforce the laws we already have, why would anyone think for a second that more laws would make a difference?

Kelly is just trying to get out of trouble for lying on a permit to purchase application. He thinks he is above the law I think he's trash

Originally posted by mikell
Kelly is just trying to get out of trouble for lying on a permit to purchase application. He thinks he is above the law I think he's trash

Yeah, I thought it was hilarious that they stopped the sale. It's scum like these control freaks that make my blood boil, they can publicly be hypocrites with tons of backlash, but nothing happens to them, they shrugged it off and continue on with some other draconian BS.

reply to post by eXia7

According to Kelly, if Paul, Cruz, Lee, Rubio, and Inhofe follow through with this opposition they will be held accountable by their constituents.

yes, they will be.
and most of us will be cheering them on to victory.
(in this case a stalemate but that's enough)

actions have consequences and this, they should never forget.
i guess we'll soon see exactly whom they represent.

as for Mark Kelley, he should be punished for soliciting a 'strawman' purchase.
and, attempting to subvert the system (endanger the dealer) by purchasing in a state outside of his 'residence' state.

aside from being a complete embarrassment, he's venturing into criminal territory, perhaps he's the one needing a psyche evaluation ?

Reply to post by daryllyn

Spot on with your post mark kelly? Who is he? I dont watch the tv too often... Or fill my head with "celeb" news... So who cares what he said? I hope to see the filibuster! And please, everyone encourage your senators/congressman and whoever you can to go against these treasonous laws. No more gun laws!


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by eXia7

 

According to Kelly, if Paul, Cruz, Lee, Rubio, and Inhofe follow through with this opposition they will be held accountable by their constituents.

yes, they will be.
and most of us will be cheering them on to victory.
(in this case a stalemate but that's enough)

actions have consequences and this, they should never forget.
i guess we'll soon see exactly whom they represent.

as for Mark Kelley, he should be punished for soliciting a 'strawman' purchase.
and, attempting to subvert the system (endanger the dealer) by purchasing in a state outside of his 'residence' state.

aside from being a complete embarrassment, he's venturing into criminal territory, perhaps he's the one needing a psyche evaluation ?

He is becoming somewhat of an outlandish character in reality. The guy is a complete shill, and he'll use the tragic incident that happened with his wife as leverage in the debate. That's why I said he would make a great puppet to push the agenda.

If senators such as Rand, Lee, Cruz keep fighting, Hopefully we can gain momentum

For those who are parrotting adminstration talking points.

Universal background checks is person to person, not business which means Grandfather dies leaves his guns by law you are not allowed to own them unless you pass a certain criteria written in DC pass it you might get to own them, that is if they have not been deemed "illegal".

It also includes a father giving a gun to his daughter for self defense pass a back ground check or it is illegal.

All the while that felon can go out there and still buy a glock or "assault weapon" out of the trunk of a car down the street.

reply to post by TheMistro81

Here is Mark's wiki.

What all happened as far as his recent gun buying incident, I am not clear on. Maybe someone would be kind enough to clarify.

I would look it up, but, the dinner has refused to cook itself, so I can't just now.

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by TheMistro81

 

Here is Mark's wiki.

What all happened as far as his recent gun buying incident, I am not clear on. Maybe someone would be kind enough to clarify.

I would look it up, but, the dinner has refused to cook itself, so I can't just now.

Mark Kelly, the celebrity poster child used by Colorado Democrats to testify on behalf of universal background checks, where he lied about the number of guns bought in Colorado without one, had his recent straw purchase of an AR-15-style “assault” weapon rescinded by the Tucson, Arizona gun store that sold it to him.

Kelly decided to buy the gun on a whim after passing a background check to somehow prove a point about how easy it is for law-abiding citizens to attain such guns. But after announcing to the media it was all a stunt and he was planning on turning the gun over to the police, the gun store owner has decided to cancel the purchase, as Kelly was not being honest about buying it for personal purposes.

Mark Kelly Straw Purchase

He was making a shill attempt at proving a point, but ended up being an example.

Reply to post by daryllyn

haha, thanks :-) Honestly, I'm just sick of hearing about people like jim carrey and so many other people who dont matter... They want to use their notariety to try to push an agenda. Its infuriating. I bet I'm not alone in feeling that way either.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I'm beginning to wonder about the soundness of that guy's logic.
He himself wanted to get his hands on an assault rifle.
Now that he was refused delivery of it, he must be pretty mad!