‘AR-15 Stunt’ Provokes gabby Giffords Photo Leak

[Danno 1,228]

Mark Kelly’s ‘AR-15 Stunt’ Provokes Giffords Photo Leak

Mark Kelly’s campaign against “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 rifle has sparked a local backlash. On March 13, a Tucson, Arizona radio host published a photograph of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords holding an AR-15 rifle at a gun range. Giffords has since confirmed that the photograph is authentic.

James T. Harris, blogging at the website of “101.4 FM The Truth,” wrote:

What is wrong with this picture? Absolutely nothing, and prior to the aggressive progressive opportunistic fear mongering in the wake of Sandy Hook, this picture would have raised no eyebrows and garnered little public attention.

However, in response to the exploitative political scheming of Mark Kelly, persons connected to Congresswoman Giffords released this photo in response to what they perceived to be her husband’s hypocrisy.

Subsequently, Breitbart News confirmedthe authenticity of the image through law enforcement sources in Arizona, and obtained a copy of the photograph from a source who requested anonymity.

Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/03/mark-kellys-ar-15-stunt-provokes-giffords-photo-leak/#ixzz2NpGkJi18

Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

[X Factor 1,112]

This is not nearly as bad as Kelly getting caught buying an AR15.

By the way, why was she shooting at an image of a Berkeley student?

I guess because he has a gun

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

and a 30 round mag in that AR.

[Danno 1,228]

and a 30 round mag in that AR.

Or as Rach Madcaw would say "an extended 30 round magazine".

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is not nearly as bad as Kelly getting caught buying an AR15.

By the way, why was she shooting at an image of a Berkeley student?

And wearing a Breitbart Shirt. It looks shooped.

[Danno 1,228]

You know, I find myself agreeing with Maddow on a lot of topics but when she covered the whole Cruz / Feinstein discussion I could not believe how far out in space she was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeY27YgAnxY

First, its clear Cruz completely backed Feinstein into a corner during that discussion - all she could do is ramble. Cruz comments back that he understands her passion but that she had not answered the question (would congress pass laws on the first amendment like they are trying to do with the second - ie ban certain books). Then Maddow goes on some crazy rant about how he was being sexist towards her??? Seriously, was she on drugs during this taping? He said no such thing.

Later on in that discussion Feinstein states that the 1st amendment is regulated in that child pornography is illegal. At this point, I realized she doesn't even realize how Cruz had trapped her. Following the logic of the argument that day, congress would need to ban cameras most often used in the making of such pornography.

This really breaks down to a simple thought. Anytime a bill puts a blanket ban on a group of devices used by the population safely - its laziness, pure and simple laziness. It is logical to assume that ANY problem can be addressed without affecting a percentage of the population through bans and that there are SOME problems that simply can not be solved by government. Unfortunately, we have people in our government, like Feinstein, who do not have the intelligence to come to such a conclusion!

Maddow is a clever debater, no doubt, in fact she is made for tv style debate where the time constraints work in her favor to throw stuff out there with no time to for examination.

Her problem is her personality is annoying to a lot of people where as say James Carville who kinda does the same thing yet is likable, even though you may disagree with him.

Anyway her whole point in the above video is rather stupid.

-She sounds like "10 round magazines would go a long way is limiting the damage people do... yet the boys in Columbine used.... 10 round magazines.

-there are tens of millions of mags over ten rounds all across the country..... can't get that genie back in the bottle. But a law will somehow be meaningful.

But as I have said before, it's not about making a difference but rather using each event as a means to move us closer to the ban.

These people in their hearts believe nothing will make a difference until you stop the supply of guns and start grinding them up... one class at a time.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

And wearing a Breitbart Shirt. It looks shooped.

Looks like a campaign photo to get gun owner's votes. Who'da thunk it?

"Can I get me a Huntin' license here?" (photo of John Kerry, who served in VietNam, with someone else carrying a gun and dead goose)

"We do skeet all the time at Camp David"(photo of Obama holding a shotgun for the first time in his life)

Funny how when they want votes, they NEVER go for the fascist vote.

Neither Mark Kelly nor Gabby Giffords needs to worry about getting a vote anymore.

[Karee 4,190]

Anyway her whole point in the above video is rather stupid.

-She sounds like "10 round magazines would go a long way is limiting the damage people do... yet the boys in Columbine used.... 10 round magazines.

20 children are dead in Newtown. Something must be done about that. It doesn't matter if what is done will have an effect on stopping future massacres. The politicians run around getting their 2 minutes on Piers Morgan Live saying something must be done, but never really offering any viable solution.

Remember 20 children are dead... Something must be done.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

20 children are dead in Newtown. Something must be done about that. It doesn't matter if what is done will have an effect on stopping future massacres. The politicians run around getting their 2 minutes on Piers Morgan Live saying something must be done, but never really offering any viable solution.

Remember 20 children are dead... Something must be done.

I agree, can someone explain something to me? The assault weapons ban that went from 1994 to 2004, what problems did it cause? The constitution didn't collapse, the government didn't take over, no one had their house overran and said, wow, I wish I had an ak with a bigger clip. So why is this such a big issue now?

[Karee 4,190]

I agree, can someone explain something to me? The assault weapons ban that went from 1994 to 2004, what problems did it cause?

What problems did it solve? That might be a better question.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

What problems did it solve? That might be a better question.

I read the wiki on it: Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness." A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[12] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[13] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[14] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

Might have helped, might not.

[Karee 4,190]

I read the wiki on it: Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness." A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[12] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[13] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[14] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

Might have helped, might not.

Interesting information. IMHO, it seems like the energy/feigned outrage of the politicians should be focused elsewhere. I'm all for reducing gun violence, but I think they need to look at policies that actually work. Looks like this one doesn't.

It's a tough problem. There's definitely too many people dieing in this country from firearm related violence. No doubt about that.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Interesting information. IMHO, it seems like the energy/feigned outrage of the politicians should be focused elsewhere. I'm all for reducing gun violence, but I think they need to look at policies that actually work. Looks like this one doesn't.

It's a tough problem. There's definitely too many people dieing in this country from firearm related violence. No doubt about that.

The hard part is trying to find the middle ground; how do you reduce gun violence without infringing on the 2nd amendment?

[Karee 4,190]

The hard part is trying to find the middle ground; how do you reduce gun violence without infringing on the 2nd amendment?

No easy answers. Both sides have a point. Maybe Chris Rock was onto something with charging $1000 a bullet or whatever it was. That would probably get shot down in some court case though.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

No easy answers. Both sides have a point. Maybe Chris Rock was onto something with charging $1000 a bullet or whatever it was. That would probably get shot down in some court case though.

The word we are looking for here is compromise. Both sides need to, in order to get any more leg room.