It’s not about making the country safer; it’s about Mark Kelly’s career

The PJ Tatler reports that Opportunistic Hypocrite™ will work to destroy his wife’s good friend Senator Jeff Flake – the Republican from Arizona – if he doesn’t kiss the ring of the hoplophobic left.

Gabrielle Giffords and Jeff Flake appear to be pretty close friends, says the Tatler.

Flake sat next to Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) and helped her to her feet every time she wanted to join in a standing ovation for President Obama at the 2012 State of the Union. When Giffords stepped down from Congress the next day, Flake stood by her side and held her hand.

But that apparently doesn’t matter to the Opportunistic Hypocrite, who has threatened to work to defeat Flake if he doesn’t vote how Mark Kelly wants him to vote.

Mr. Kelly, a retired Navy captain and astronaut, said Senator Flake is “a good friend” of Ms. Giffords. But he gave this warning Tuesday at a Monitor-hosted breakfast with reporters: “If there was the right candidate out there and he [Flake] didn’t support this legislation, … you know friendship is one thing … saving people’s lives, especially first-graders’, is another.”

On Monday, Flake posted on Facebook a statement that he will oppose the bipartisan legislation on background checks drafted by Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. The measure “simply goes too far,” Flake said.

Gee… I wonder who that candidate could be! It’s not like the “Senator Mark Kelly” option hasn’t been explored before! Especially recently, after Kelly trotted out his injured wife as a prop for his gun control efforts in the Senate.

 The man by her side Tuesday night and always, Giffords’ husband former astronaut Mark Kelly, is her partner in the gun control fight, but now in Arizona he is also being seen as a possible new star who could inherit his wife’s political career.

Jeff Rogers, a friend of Giffords and Kelly and former chair of the Pima County Democratic Party, told ABC News that Kelly would be “an ideal candidate to take on John McCain’s position in 2016.”

McCain, who along with Giffords’ successor Ron Barber (D-Ariz.), gave Kelly and Giffords his visitor pass for the State of the Union speech, will be 80 when he is up for reelection in 2016.

I admit, I would love to rid this government of the crusty old jackhole McCain, but he may be tougher to defeat than Jeff Flake, and frankly Uncle Fester needs a bit of time to prepare for a Senate run and a couple more years to look like a caring husband, who gave up everything to stand by his injured wife.

This is not about the safety of first-graders. History has shown that banning “assault weapons” hasn’t done a whole lot to prevent mass shootings (see: Columbine), and frankly, gun violence had already been on the decline when the Brady Background checks were enacted in November 1993, so it would be disingenuous to claim that background checks were somehow responsible for that reduction.

So why is Mark Kelly doing this?

I think he’s positioning himself for a Senate bid against Jeff Flake in 2018. I think a challenge to McCain in 2016 would be a bit more difficult, as McCain is an entrenched incumbent, but Flake is relatively new to the Senate, so maybe…

In short, I doubt this is about the safety of first-graders. This is about Mark Kelly’s political career.

 

Mark Kelly tries to intimidate Republican Senators who actually have the guts to protect our rights

 

“Don’t stand in the way of MY process, Senators! All dangerous EVVVILLLLL ‘assault weapons’ must be banned! Well, except for mine.”

Yup… the same winner who’s been using his wife as a prop to try and abrogate our Second Amendment rights, even as he purchases the very same weapons he wants out of our hands (on an ‘impulse buy’… Sure, Mark.), doesn’t like that Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and others are actually planning to stand in the way of his totalitarian agenda.

“They should listen to their constituents and certainly shouldn’t be getting in the way of the process, which is to debate the bill and to vote on the bill,” Kelly said.

“It doesn’t make any sense and I imagine that at some point, if they actually do this, their constituents will hold them accountable for those actions,” he added.

Listen to this guy. ‘Getting in the way of the process’? You’re right… how dare these men use the powers they have at hand to defend the Constitution from your emotionally-driven selfish whiny hypocrisy. This man deals in fear, shame, and lies. He has gone from a hero as an astronaut to appealing to the basest instincts of people, trying to whip us all into a herd mentality so we stampede to see who can surrender his rights the fastest so he can assuage his aching… whatever it is. I don’t have an ounce of respect for this honorless worm any longer. I hope gun rights activist and liberty lovers make his life personally uncomfortable by ratcheting up public pressure, and exposing and mocking his hypocrisy at every turn.

As to the Senators planning to filibuster any gun control bill in the Senate… Thank you, gentlemen. We have your back.

Gun Grabbing Nanny Bloomberg & MAIG At It Again

Per the NYT:

The commercial is an unambiguous appeal to gun owners: a middle-aged hunter, rifle in hand, vows that he will fight to protect the Second Amendment.The commercial is an unambiguous appeal to gun owners: a middle-aged hunter, rifle in hand, vows that he will fight to protect the Second Amendment But in a sensible, father-of-the-house tone, he also urges voters to support comprehensive background checks, “so criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can’t buy guns.”

The man behind the advertisement is not known for his kinship with the gun crowd: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the nation’s fiercest advocate of restrictions on firearms since the December rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Determined to persuade Congress to act in response to that shooting, Mr. Bloomberg on Monday will begin bankrolling a $12 million national advertising campaign that focuses on senators who he believes might be persuaded to support a pending package of federal regulations to curb gun violence. The ads, in 13 states, will blanket those senators’ districts during an Easter Congressional recess that is to be followed by debate over the legislation.

It goes without saying that authoritarian scumbags like Michael Bloomberg think they know better than we do. Given his propensity for going after large sodas and salt, there’s no level of micromanagement he won’t stoop to. On Meet The Press, to fellow anti-gun left-wing stool-pigeon David Gregory, he said:

“[W]hile I think we are going to win this [background checks], celebrating in advance isn’t the right thing to do. We’ve got to go out, we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us. … I don’t think we should give up on the assault weapons ban. But clearly, it is a more difficult issue for a lot of people. And I don’t know that that reflects the N.R.A.’s power. It may be just that people have different views about assault weapons than they do about background checks. … I think I have a responsibility, and I think you and all of your viewers have responsibilities, to try to make this country safer for our families and for each other. And if I can do that by spending some money and taking the NRA from being the only voice to being one of the voices, … then I think my money would be well spent … If 90% of the public want something, and their representatives vote against that, common sense says, they are going to have a price to pay for that.”

Bring it on. We’ll make it our business to punish you and your friends, Nanny.

Obama uses radio address to push anti-gun oppression…

So, Dear Leader used his weekly radio address to push abrogration of our Second Amendment-protected civil rights. He wants an ‘assault weapons’ (whatever that means) ban, a limit on magazine size, and of course, a national background check system. Yes, the same bill that the odious Jim Moran and the tools of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (talk about a misnomer!) pushed at the recent ‘gun violence forum’ here in Arlington.

“These ideas shouldn’t be controversial — they’re common sense,” Obama said. “They’re supported by a majority of the American people. And I urge the Senate and the House to give each of them a vote.”…  “Right now, we have a real chance to reduce gun violence in America, and prevent the very worst violence,” he said. “We have a unique opportunity to reaffirm our tradition of responsible gun ownership, and also do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or people with a severe mental illness. We’ve made progress over the last three months, but we’re not there yet. And in the weeks ahead, I hope members of Congress will join me in finishing the job — for our communities and, most importantly, for our kids.”

He keeps pointing out polls, as if a majority of uninformed citizens being in favor of such abrogation makes it right or lawful. Newsflash, Zero, these are the kinds of laws we, those who actually value our rights don’t plan to comply with. That’s why we have a Constitutional republic. It’s a check on unbridled majorities seeking to do harm to or oppress minorities. The left, and most ‘moderate’ sheep, seem not to grasp this concept (to be fair, neither do the religious ‘conservatives’ on the right) and think that 50% + 1 is a mandate to shred the Constitution. I can’t stress enough how terrifying that is. These people will not be stopped until the American people become educated on these issues, their agenda is exposed, and it’s made plain that gun owners will directly resist, unfortunately. Sack up, people. It may get ugly.

Oh, no! They don’t want your guns! They just want some reasonable, common-sense gun control! They don’t want a ban!

Please. Spare us the lies, Demonrats. You want it all. You want Americans disarmed. You want our rights dismantled. You have no respect for the people who elected you. You are scum. You are the enemy.

Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.

Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?

Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun… something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely.

In another exchange, Schakowsky proposed allowances for states and municipalities to ban guns–though such laws have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court:

Mattera: We’ll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated.

Schakowsky: I don’t know. I don’t know that we can’t. And there may be an allowance, once again, for communities–I have communities in my district that prohibited handguns within their borders. The rights of municipalities and states to view that as a sensible way to keep people safe–I don’t think it’s precluded.

Now do you understand, people? These aren’t lawful representatives of the people. They are tyrannical scum. They are lying, cowardly hemorrhoids, and they are not to be reasoned with. They need to be booted out of office. Now. For violating their oaths to uphold the Law of the Land. For trying to destroy the fundamental rights of the people whom they’re supposed to represent. For lying to the people who put them in power.

h/t: Breitbart