In typical hypocritical form, Mark Kelly, a gun control advocate is caught purchasing one of the types of guns that he wishes to have outlawed. He thinks it is ok for him to own such a gun, but he wants to restrict or completely cut out everyone else’s opportunity to buy said gun.

Mark Kelly walked into a gun store a few weeks ago and bought two weapons, one a Sig Sauer 45 pistol and the other a, er, Sig Sauer assault rifle, news of which was subsequently leaked to Breitbart.

CNN invited him on to ask him about it and Kelly accepted. Why’s he buying guns that he thinks should be banned? Simple, said Kelly to Wolf Blitzer. As a prominent spokesman for gun control, he needs to know firsthand just how easy it is for someone to walk in off the street and purchase an incredibly dangerous weapon.

Why he needs this firsthand knowledge, I have no idea. No one on either side is disputing that it’s easy to buy an AR-15 if you have no criminal record; there’s a new story on the wires every day about how they’re selling like hot cakes coast to coast.

The whole point of the gun debate is that gun-rights advocates think it should be easy to get one. (Also, if he thinks there’s been a significant gap in his gun knowledge until now due to his lack of personal experience, why has he been out there trying to set national policy?) But okay — let’s give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he was just curious to see how simple it was.

If you want to prove that a nut whose record is clean can get a dangerous weapon quickly, just walk in and ask the seller what he can give you from Dianne Feinstein’s list that’ll put an assault rifle in your hands ASAP.

Subjecting himself to a 20-day waiting period ends up proving the opposite, that the dealer in this case is scrupulous about observing local gun laws and that it’s difficult to grab an AR-15 as an impulse buy if you’re purchasing it second-hand. It’s more plausible that he sincerely wanted the gun and was hoping to get a price break on it by buying it used than that he was trying to “prove” something.

But then, you don’t need to reach the circumstances of the AR-15 purchase to find the “lesson” here odd. Watch the clip below and you’ll see Kelly say that he plans to keep the Sig Sauer pistol he bought. If he’s serious about reducing gun violence, though, why give semiautomatic pistols a pass?

The lunatic who shot his wife didn’t use an assault rifle, he used a Glock 9 mm with a high-capacity magazine. And if he hadn’t accidentally dropped a second magazine while he was trying to reload, he would have been able to keep firing despite there being a crowd of people around him.

Needless to say, Kelly has every right to protect himself and his wife, especially after what happened, but the logic by which a rapid-fire, potentially high-capacity weapon becomes more acceptable if it’s smaller, easier to carry, and more readily concealable escapes me. It’s like supporting vegetarianism by declaring buffalo and shark strictly off-limits but making an exception for chicken and beef. If you want to make a point about gun control, why not reject all semiautomatics and stick to revolvers?

 

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.







panties.com Sexy Lingerie


Click Here to Earn Massive Wealth Online!