Negotiating Over Dinner?

Loading

Rand-Paul-filibustering

Rand Paul took the rare and risky measure of filibustering in an effort to illicit an answer from the Administration on a critical stray from the Constitution – drone strikes on American citizens in America.  In a show of solidarity with Paul’s historically lengthy (almost 9 hours), and audacious move, twelve Republican Senators went to dinner with President Obama.   Alright, so there may be another term more appropriate than “solidarity” to describe their exit stage left – still, surely they must have wished him well while out dining and pretending to be negotiating spending cuts with Obama.  Or, perhaps they were more inclined to demonstrate solidarity with Obama than with Paul.

What were they really doing?  The media is painting a rosy picture of this momentous dinner and sells it as proof of effort from the President, and evidence of how far he is willing to go to make a deal and be accommodating, or reasonable.  Adulation from the Washington Post is typical, “The GOP’s tax orthodoxy remains too strong, and the fear of conservative primary challenges too fresh, for a bit of outreach to wildly change the odds. But at least the president will have done everything he can, and everyone — including many Republicans — will know it.”

Obama goes to dinner with 12 Republicans and this is going to accomplish the goal of an agreement on real spending cuts? Not a chance.

Lindsey Graham SC
Bob Corker TN
Kelly Ayotte NH
John McCain AZ
Richard Burr NC
Saxby Chambliss GA
Dan Coates IN
Mike Johanns NE
Pat Toomey PA
Tom Coburn OK
Ron Johnson WI
John Hoeven ND,  and Barack Obama, WH,

. . . . all collectively accomplished exactly what?

  1. A crowd does NOT negotiate anything.
  2. A meaningful negotiation is held between two or three, not a baker’s dozen and its entourage.
  3. Over dinner  that baker’s dozen might as well be a throng treating itself to a pointless Party on the taxpayer’s dime.
  4. A dozen Republicans showing up for dinner shows pandering, not reasonableness in negotiating.
  5. A dozen Republicans showing up for dinner gifts the tax-and-spend President the photo op he needs.
  6. A dozen Republicans showing up for dinner lets Obama off the hook and out of the corner he’s in, providing him fodder for more tales he can then tell to the media which is more than willing to applaud.

Does anyone really believe this dinner will lift gridlock and move Obama from his ideological stance? . . . . Well, other than the media? It seems more and more of the public is disbelieving.

Dinners are used for stimulating or promoting familiarity.  These 12 don’t know who Obama is yet? Four years and this bunch is still not clear? Serious and meaningful negotiations are done in a boardroom in private, or in a cave in the hills, but not over a lavish dinner with a parade of limousines and security agent Escalades putting on a very public exhibition of extravagance.

ABC views this particular performance as marking a new approach for Obama.  Really?  How insightful is that? Some hard negotiations are mandatory, not just necessary, to bring spending under control.  We shall not hold breaths for fear of turning blue on the outcome of this new outreach.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
105 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@retire05: For the record I called you an Old Fool and an Uptight Old Biddy. No dishonesty there lol As mentioned, your dishonesty has been documented.
.

Richard Wheeler
get lost

@Richard Wheeler:

For the record I called you an old(73) fool.

Ummm, your post #40 never admitted to saying

You are one uptight old biddy aren’t you?

from post #34.

Spin all you want. You’ll just wind up dizzy.

You like to sling mud, but you damn sure want to call in the troops when you think mud is being slug at you. So let’s see; your resume should include:

emasculated Dervish who can only lob insults and perjoratives but needs backup when confronted

@Richard Wheeler:

For the record I called you an Old Fool and an Uptight Old Biddy. No dishonesty there lol As mentioned, your dishonesty has been documented.

Nothing like admitting the truth after you have already been called on it.

.

@James Raider:

Now THAT’s funny.

For the easily amused, perhaps.

@retire05:@retire05 You’re a stupid frustrated old lady Insult me all you want. I laugh at you.
When you question the HONOR of a Veteran who not only served his country but was a prisoner of war, I’ll call you what you are—SCUM

BTW I can’t help it that no one defends your bullshit other than poor little bees.

Semper Fi

@Skookum: I sure hope so!

@Richard Wheeler: Just I understand Richard, you believe that the mere act of serving in the military means you are, and always will be a person of honor and thus integrity? And if a person was a prisoner of war, that strengthens the bond even more? In other words, no vet, and especially no vet who was at one time a prisoner of war, can ever be dishonorable? I am just trying to get a clear vision of your stance here, thank you.

Scott in Oklahoma
and Richard take the right to offend other he aim at, and won’t let him go,
he stick to it on and on, showing a despicable side of him.
he won’t accept the same response, he himself trigger,
by his insults, and encourage other libs to join in.

@Richard Wheeler:

retire05 You’re a stupid frustrated old lady Insult me all you want. I laugh at you.

You complain about being insulted while you insult me? Now, that’s funny, Richard. Also hypocritical on your part.

When you question the HONOR of a Veteran who not only served his country but was a prisoner of war, I’ll call you what you are—SCUM

I see; so having, at one time, served honorably, although McCain admits he broke under duress while captive of the NVC, and gave them information he should not have given, no matter what a veteran may do after his return home, no dishonorable action, should ever be attributed to him as he has some kind of perpetual “get out of jail free” card? During a hearing on our missing POWs in Vietnam, McCain called the families and POW activists “whiners, vultures and lunatic fringe” when all they wanted was to know where their loves ones were, and if they were still alive, held captive in Vietnam or Cambodia. When the National League of POW/MIA Families ask Senator McCain to help the family of a Marine 2nd Lt. find his body, left behind in Southeast Asia, in order to bring him home and bury him with his parents, McCain’s response was that it had been too long ago and it was time to move on and he would not help them. In fact, McCain would not help any of the families retrieve their loved ones, although a number of them were being brought home. By then, John McCain had become best buddies with John Kerry, who he refused to speak to for years. But where John McCain refused to help those families, Congressman Sam Johnson made it a goal of his to bring our boys home.

No, Richard, McCain’s service to this nation, and what he endured while captive, does not give him a pass to turn his back on other families who lost loved ones in Southeast Asia or do the things he had done since taking office as a Senator. Whatever honor John McCain had, he long ago sold it for 30 pieces of silver.

retire05
where is MATA? SHE COULD ADD UP A LOT ON THAT WAR,
SHE WAS SITTING ON THE FIRST ROW,
and sometimes came with a bit here and there,
she had her painfull memories on the VIETNAM WAR.
HOPE SHE COME TO REENFORCE YOUR COMMENT.
SHE HAS A LOT MORE TO SAY,
BYE

KERRY HAS NOW A NEW JOB , WHERE WHAT HE DID BEFORE TO THE VETS, HE COULD VERY WELL REPEAT IT ON A NEW STAGE, THE THOUGHT CAME WHEN I HEARD HIM TELLING OF THE MILLIONS HE WILL GIVE THE HATERS OF AMERICA, IS HE NOW ON THEIR SIDE AND WILL DEFEND THEM
OVER AMERICA ? LIKE THE OTHER

@Scott in Oklahoma: I respect your many years as a police officer and I believe a fire fighter.Thank you. Mac as a Viet Nam Vet and a POW earns my respect.
Read closely the old ladies #60 ”admits he broke under duress and gave them information he should not have” Then she goes on with more digs and insults . My opinion of her stands.
Again thanks for your service.

Semper Fi

@Richard Wheeler: Richard, I too respect the sacrifices made by our Vets, but honor, integrity and personal respect are fluid things that need to be maintained, not just given due to what once was. In McCain and Graham’s case, by showing the disrespect that they have shown towards Paul and others, they have cheapened themselves, their history and the honor they once had; they need to walk off into the sunset before they do their own reputations, the conservative movement and our country more damage.

@Richard Wheeler:

Mac as a Viet Nam Vet and a POW earns my respect.

That is not the question. The question is do you continue to give him that respect when he actually turned his back on the families of those who were still MIA/CIA?

Read closely the old ladies #60 ”admits he broke under duress and gave them information he should not have

Mike Wallace: (voiceover) People who know McCain will say he can hold a grudge. He also has a legendary temper. But if McCain can be hard on his friends and even harder on his enemies, he can also be very hard on himself.

Sen. McCain: I m-made serioius, serious mistakes and did thing wrong when I was in prison, OK?

Wallace: What did you do wrong in prison?

Sen. McCain: I wrote a confession. I was guilty of war crimes against the Vietnamese people. I intentionally bombed women and children.

Others, held at the Hanoi Hilton, did not break, even though their treatment at the hands of the NVC was worse than the treatment doled out to John McCain. He also was not the longest held POW. It is not disputable that John McCain was provided special treatment, having his wounds treated by doctors while other POWs received no medical treatment whatsoever. Ask yourself, Richard; why did Congressman Sam Johnson refuse to campaign for John McCain both times McCain ran for president?

the old ladies

Obviously, unaware that you will reach advanced years sometime in the future, you subscribe to the practice of age discrimination. Wonder how you will react when that same policy is applied to you? You cannot control yourself, can you, Richard? Every response to me must contain some insult that you feel necessary to lob.

You should change your moniker to hirudo medicinalis californias

@Scott in Oklahoma:

they need to walk off into the sunset before they do their own reputations, the conservative movement and our country more damage.

That time has come, and gone.

Scott: I respect your opinion though I may disagree. The old fool seems to slough off Mac was TORTURED. Claims others were tortured worse and didn’t give up info Suck it up Mac.She is without class— and without the trace of a sense of humor.
She throws insults and forgets? Enough of her.

Semper Fi

Mc Cain will regret his words and GRAHAM too,
but they will try to fix it,
too bad it’s done now and not forgotten.
RAND PAUL,has demonstrated the right way to get answers on a very important matter touching directly the AMERICANS, HE HAS SHOWN A PATRIOTIC WAY TO GET RESULT,
THAT WAS VERY SMART AND AN EXAMPLE TO THOSE WHO ARE FRUSTRATED ENOUGH TO START A REVOLT,
WHICH A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION DEMANDING , INSISTING FOR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE IT.

@retire05:

I think you forget to provide that evidence for the Democrat’s “gun grab”.So do you have that proof, or were you just full if it again?

@Tom:

Exactly what proof are you looking for? Is the list put out by Dianne Feinstein not enough for you? Are you so indoctrinated that you don’t realize that every bill that has been filed by Democrats on gun control is simply aimed at control, and not a solution to keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys? Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. How’s that working out?

“Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them ALL in.” – Dianne Feinstein at the time she personally held a concealed carry permit.

@Richard Wheeler:

The old fool

What kind of person can’t even respond to anyone without lobbing insults against someone else?

retire05
richard wheeler is the old fool here, he only say foolish things,
or insults,

@retire05:

I linked to Feinstein bill and it specifically addresses current weapons as “grandfathered”. There is no part of that legislation that speaks to “grabbing” guns from anyone. So again, please provide evidence, or retract. I understand that you don’t seem to care if your comments are littered with inaccuracies and outright lies, but I feel it’s my duty to point out to you that those are your only honorable choices at this point.

@Tom:

“Grandfathered” is an ambiguous term. If I want to leave my gun collection to my kid, am I then going to be required that my kid go through hoops in order to own them legally? Will my guns have to be registered with some bureaucratic agency so the government knows what I am leaving my kid? Will there ever be an additional “inheritance” tax on weapons? Why not? Dems want to tax everything else. How does banning clips of more than ten rounds protect anyone when you can change a clip out in less than 4 seconds if you have practiced even minimally with them, or even tape them together to give you more than 10 rounds?

Not one bill proposed by the Democrats will do a thing to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and some of the laws being proposed are redundant. They already exist on the books. How has that worked out in places like Chicago and St. Louis where the criminals still manage to get their hands on weapons? It is all smoke and mirrors, designed for “feel good” purposes but the only thing it will do is prevent law abiding citizens, who have never been charged with a crime and are not suspected of anything, from owning those items. Criminals will still have no problem getting them. That’s why we call them “criminals.”

@retire05:

As I thought. Nothing. Again.

@Tom:

Nothing. Again.

As I suspected; you don’t like the message so you want to kill the messenger. No surprise, Tom. You have few answers for the many questions posed to you.

@retire05:

You didn’t prove nor retract your idiotic claim. I really find it amazingly pathetic that you continue to show your face having been proven a liar so many times. But then again, you’ve probably been operating without integrity for so long, that doesn’t even occur to you.

Dianne Feinstein’s latest (dumb) comments:

“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than ten rounds (whereas criminals will simply tape 10 round mags together). We have federal regulations and state laws tht prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet its legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150 round magazines (perhaps no one has told Ms. Feinstein that it is illegal to hunt humans with a baseball bat, a knife, a hammer, an axe, a vehicle, or a cast-iron skillet?). Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.,”

So let me see if I understand her correctly: only when someone reloads, generally in less than 4 seconds, does a cop have the time to shot the perp? Really? And what is that cop doing while the perp is firing his own weapon? Is the cop alone? No other cops have responded to a criminal shooting at people where they could take a shot while the criminal is firing at someone else? Get down on your hands and knees and see how far you can crawl in less than 4 seconds, Senator Feinstein. Does Feinstein not understand that you can’t aim at two people at the same time? And what about those “brave bystanders” who Feinstein thinks will still be armed in order to assist ending a shooting rampage by a criminal? Is Senator Feinstein now advocating for concealed/open carry laws in all states? If so, she needs to have a talk with the Democrats in Colorado.

But as we all know, if Senator Feinstein gets her way, all the criminals in the U.S. are now going to pay attention to her and only use weapons they obtained legally to commit crimes, right?

@Tom:

You didn’t prove nor retract your idiotic claim. I really find it amazingly pathetic that you continue to show your face having been proven a liar so many times. But then again, you’ve probably been operating without integrity for so long, that doesn’t even occur to you.

Is it possible for you to debate an issue without name calling? Seems not.

retire05
tom deserve to be drop in the garbage with his insults targeting you.
he is feeding on you,
nobody pay attention to his comments because he pick on you.
same as richard wheeler does.

@retire05:

This is hardly a debate. It’s you trying to change the topic as if no one will notice. It’s you refusing to back up your claim with facts and evidence after repeated requests.

@Tom:

It’s you refusing to back up your claim with facts and evidence after repeated requests.

“Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them ALL in.”

Now, Tom, perhaps you would like to explain what Dianne Feinstein meant when she said that? And if she wasn’t intending to introduce legislations (as she has) to prevent law abiding citizens from having certain weaspons, just exactly what is her, and the rest of the left wing lunatics that agree with her, goal? Show me where any new law now being proposed is designed to keep certain weapons soley out of the hands of criminals but will have absolutely no effect on law abiding citizens.

Answer the questions; will I have to register the guns that I intend to leave to my kid? Will my kid have to go through extensive checks in order to inherit any guns I may have that are “grandfathered” in? Or will it be determined that my son doesn’t fit the “grandfather” clause and consequently have to turn them in?

You see, liberals, i.e. progressives, always want to pass laws that are for our own good, for the “common” good. How did that work out at Sandy Hill with that state’s restrictive guns laws that were praised by the Brady bunch? Did the shooter follow the Safe School Zone Act? Or did he choose that school because of it?

You want to have a discussion about guns in the hands of criminals, fine, I’m all for that. But none of these proposed gun laws will do a damn thing to prevent those who are already inclined toward criminal activity to stop from buying a hot gun on the streets of LA, Chicago or Washington, D.C. You see, Tom, laws are created for the law abiding who will follow them. Criminals just laugh at people like you.

Where do all of the guns being sold on the streets illegally come from in the first place?

They certainly didn’t all move out of legal hands and wind up on the streets by being stolen. Contrary to popular belief, stolen guns account for only 10 to 15 percent of all firearms used in crimes.

@Greg: They are coming from ILLEGAL straw purchases, traded for dope, traded at illicit pawn shops (worked some dope for guns cases thru those) as well as stolen. They are not normally legitimately purchased, as guns traded through licensed gun dealers are easy to track.

@Scott in Oklahoma:

Scott, the link that Greggie provided cites one source, Jay Wechtel, former ATF agent who left the agency in 1998. The problem is if you really read the NPR link, it is confusing as to what exactly it is saying.

According to FBI stats released in 2001 (the newest I could find) was a study done comparing the methods criminals used to get their weapons for 1997 and 1991.

The FBI report stated that first time felons obtained guns by purchasing them or trading them from a retail outlet in these percentages: 20.1%

retail store – 14.2%
Pawn shop – 4.2%
Flea market – .09%
and from the dreaded gun shows – .08% 8/10th of one percent

Family or friends: (which may have obtained the gun legally or illegally) 40.5%

Purchased or traded – 11.%
Rented or “borrowed” – 20%
Other – 9.5%

Street/illegal source: 30,9%
Theft or burglary – 7.6%
Drug dealer/off street 15.7%
Fence/black market 7.6%

The FBI report goes on to say:

“The percentage of inmates who purchased or traded from a retail outlet, such as a store or pawnshop, fell during this period for both those with prior sentences and those without them. For repeat offenders, purchasing from retail fell from 17% to 11%, and for first time offenders from 33% to 20%.”

For recidivists, the percentage of buying a weapon on the street was higher – 42.4% in 1997; getting a weapon from family or friend was also higher in 1997, 39.2% compared to 33.1% in 1001.

The survey was done with 51,152 prison inmates.

The fact is that most guns used in crime is NOT due to criminals being sold guns, and they damn sure are not buying them at the left wing feared gun shows.

@retire05: I confess I didn’t look at Greg’s link, I based my list on my experiences in law enforcement.

@retire05: #74
As you already know, the libs idea isn’t to keep guns out of the crook’s hands, but to keep them out of the hands of those who will defend the freedoms they have grown up with, and want their kids to grow up with. They are trying to disarm us from within.

@retire05: #78

We have federal regulations and state laws tht prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds.

You don’t need 15-30 round magazines to defend yourself against ducks. You MIGHT to defend yourself against intruders. Any hunter knows the idea of the restricted amount of ammo is to keep the hunters from shooting ALL of the ducks so there will be more for next year.

I remember many years ago reading different stories of cities banning cops from have semi-automatic pistols. The six shooter was all they were allowed. After MANY cops died while reloading, the cities finally allowed the cops to have the weapons they needed.

Even back then the cities were on the side of the crooks. I wondered if the crooks had infiltrated City Hall, or the police, or both. Otherwise, wouldn’t you want YOUR cops to have better weapons than the crooks?

Remember when the two bank robbers did all of the shooting in Los Angeles, and the cops shot back, but the crook’s body armor protected them. I always wondered why no cop thought to shoot them in the head. Aren’t they that good of shot?

Why do the liberals only allow the cops to have the weapons they need AFTER things like this happen? I guess it depends on what state you live. One Idaho politician has introduced a bill to make every citizen of a certain a militia member. The US Constitution says that states can have a militia, and the militia is allowed to have guns. Idaho also allows private citizens who qualify to own any weapon except fully automatic, and to own any kind of ammo, and any amount. I think I will stay in Idaho.

@Smorgasbord:

The lies from this administration just keep on coming. We are now being told that the 2,000 illegals who were released from ICE jails (which could have been your local county jail that ICE contracts out to) were non criminals by Jay Carney. But that was a lie. We know that the Obama administration is not deporting anyone who doesn’t have a criminal record, and we also know that those ICE jail prisoners were either awaiting being sent to another jail, or being processed for deportation.

So what does that mean to us? It means that we have even more criminals on the streets to commit crimes against Americans.

Of course, there are those who say that the Democrats are not going to try to disarm us. Yet, here is Dianne Feinstein’s latest autrocity:

“If I understand this, this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 year of the expired ban (the previous assault weapons ban was written by Dianne Feinstein at a time when she herself possessed a concealed carry permit) was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military.

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteranm and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”

Got that? PTSD is a “new” phenomenom. Nevermind that PTSD has been called many names, including “shell shock” as far back as WWI. And well, golly gee, if your in the military, or a veteran, you just might have PTSD and we should really be worried about you.

All this will do is stop veterans, and active military, from getting the mental health treatment they need. Most of them own personal firearms, many on Feinstein’s list. But since we have so many veterans shooting up the place, all across the nation, well, perhaps we should add them to the list of other law abiding citizens that should have any weapons that she thinks they shouldn’t have.

No doubt Feinstein is a) from California and b) thinks that only the special people should be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. People like her.

@retire05: #85
If guns are totally banned in the USA, it will just create market for the mob. Banning drugs is making the mob billions of dollars. Banning guns completely will only mean the ones smuggling drugs and other illegal stuff into the USA will add guns to the menu. Ask any country that has banned guns if it has stopped gun crimes. It hasn’t.

@retire05: #89
I have been reading about the kinds of prisoners that have been released. Let me look into the future: One or more of the released prisoners rapes or kills people. obama then says it is the republican’s fault for not giving him the money he needs to keep us safe. If we give him the money that the republicans don’t want him to have, he can fix the problem. After all, look at all of the Federal programs more money has helped, like the school system.

If the released prisoners commit any violent crimes, I hope it is against a close relative of one of obama’s heavy donors, or someone in the obama administration. Then, they will know how others are feeling who had something like that happen to them or their family member. I don’t wish harm on anybody, but if it is going to happen, let it be to a member of a family who helped allow it to happen.

The @retire05, #89:

The fact is that most guns used in crime is NOT due to criminals being sold guns…

With the great majority of guns in the hands of criminals, someone was an initial legal purchaser and owner. Later, the legally purchased gun winds up in criminal hands—with theft apparently accounting for even less of the illegal acquisitions than Jay Wechtel told NPR.

Something isn’t getting its due attention in all of this. In the majority of cases, there’s clearly some point in the chain where there’s a change of ownership that is or should be illegal—some grey area that’s being exploited.

I thought Scott in Oklahoma’s straw buyer explanation was a strong candidate for that point in the chain where something goes wrong. It certainly seems reasonable.

I’ve been in local stores more often than usual lately, looking for a suitable handgun. (That will take luck and timing. Inventories of anything even marginally practical are almost totally depleted. That’s been the case for weeks on end.) What I’ve observed on several occasions are the same non-locals, apparently making the rounds and snapping up anything available. I don’t doubt that the local dealers are selling only to legal buyers, but I have some doubts about what might be happening later.

@Greg:

With the great majority of guns in the hands of criminals,

Actually, the majority of guns are in the hands of those who own them legally, and will never commit a crime using them.

someone was an initial legal purchaser and owner.

Not necessarily. Guns are brought into the country just like Eric Holder, and the DoJ shipped them out of the country. Chinese weapons are actually quite cheap. Border Patrol agents have found guns not only from China, but Russia as well.

A federal licensed gun dealer can sell to anyone, that is a resident of that state where they conduct business. I was at McBrides in Austin right before deer season last year, and a guy from Louisiana wanted to purchase a deer rifle. The sales clerk told him “Sorry, you have to be a resident of Texas with a Texas driver’s license.”

If you don’t understand why there is a run on guns, and ammunition, you’re not paying attention. Just read Dianne Feinstein’s comments. Now she wants to go after active military and veterans because, you know, PTDS is some kind of new phenomenom. Guess she thinks our guys came back from WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam and they were just OK, no effect at all from being in battle and watching your buddies killed.

How about this for hypocracy? Gabby Gifford’s husband, who has been on a whirl-wind tour to create oppressive gun laws just go caught buying a 1911 and a AR-15. Guess for him, an astronaut married to a former Congresswoman, it’s the little people that shouldn’t own firearms.

@retire05, #93:

Actually, the majority of guns are in the hands of those who own them legally, and will never commit a crime using them.

With the majority of in the hands of criminals is an introductory phrase, not a statement concerning guns in general. That phrase is telling the reader that the remainder of the sentence will be saying something concerning the majority of guns that criminals possess. We are speaking English, are we not?

@retire05, #93:

How about this for hypocracy? Gabby Gifford’s husband, who has been on a whirl-wind tour to create oppressive gun laws just go caught buying a 1911 and a AR-15. Guess for him, an astronaut married to a former Congresswoman, it’s the little people that shouldn’t own firearms.

From Captain Mark Kelly’s Facebook page:

“Looks like the judiciary committee will vote on background checks next week. I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don’t have possession yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do. Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet. We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole.”

Oh, the hypocrisy!

I guess that’s one AR-15 that will be going to the Tuscon Police Department, rather than to some yahoo. It also looks like Kelly’s Facebook entry—posted last Friday afternoon at 2:15 PM and unedited since—beat Breitbart’s big expose story by more than a full day. Kelly’s Facebook entry even included a photograph of him at the gun dealer’s counter, filling out his paperwork.

The Breitbart’s article alludes to an earlier tip off and an “investigation.” Apparently it took their intrepid reporters a day-and-a-half of investigating after Kelly made his public Facebook post to uncover the same information that Kelly had already posted himself. They certainly had no trouble getting a photo for their article. They snagged it from Kelly’s Facebook entry.

Greg, you clearly don’t like Retire05, we all know that. But correcting sentence structure is pretty silly. I personally write like I talk, as others do to. If you’re going to make a constructive arguement, make it and don’t criticize people for the way they write. I understood what she was saying, did you have trouble comprehending her point?

As to the illegal purchases, I did leave a couple of things out. One is consideration of the street value of guns, there isn’t any profit in buying a gun legally, with the already required backround check, then selling it on the street.

And as or Mr. Kelly, he isn’t making a very good pint if he has to wait for a required backround check to be completed before taking delivery on an AR-15. By the way, my AR-15 has much less killing power than my shotgun or my deer rifle, and doesn’t fire much faster than either. But it is black…

@Greg:

Greggie, you are so gullible.

Kelly says:

Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes.

What? He thinks it should take longer? Nevermind the fact that he is a military officer who has no criminal history, why would he think it should take longer? Of course, he wants to make people think that once the gun dealer gets the approval from the background check on the purchase of a .45 cal 1911, they should have re-checked him before selling him the AR-15? Why? Did he commit a crime while at the gun store? Pure hyperbole.

I don’t have possession yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do.

OK,, so at the price AR-15s, even used ones, are going for currently, we are to think that Mark Giffords purchased it simply to turn it over to the Tucson PD? If you buy that, Greggie, you’ll believe anything.

Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet.

Well, to begin with he could not have bought either gun at a gun show without a federal background check. So that is just a flat out lie. Also, if he were to have purchased it online, he would have had to have it sent to a dealer with a FFL, not to him, where he could take possession of it, after he passed a background check. Just more hyperbole from someone who knows differently.

We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole.”

Again, more hyperbole. As I said, even at a gun show, he would have had to have a background check.

Now, put your thinking cap on, Greggie. Who takes someone with them to a gun shop to have their picture taken while filling out the required forms for a background check? This was nothing more than pure grandstanding on Mark Kelly’s part. But he’s not very good at it. He purchased the weapons on 3/5 but didn’t post anything on his Facebook page until his organization was contacted about the purchases on 3/8. And never mentioned the number of high capacity magazines he purchased at the same time, and took with him.

You will notice Kelly doesn’t say how long the background check took at 3:30 p.m. during a week day. Probably about a 1/2 hour. I guess he thinks that is too quick. Now the question is; should Kelly, with a wife who obviously has some trauma issues from taking a head shot, even be buying a gun? And again, who takes a photographer with them to capture the moment he is filling out the paperwork for the background check? NO ONE.

Call it what it is; grandstanding on the part of Kelly so he can push an agenda by making false statements or else he just got caught being a hypocrite.

Now, who buys a semi-automatic rifle only to turn it over to the PD? At the cost of even a used AR-15, it would seem that Mark Kelly has more money than sense. Perhaps we are paying astronauts waaaaay too much. And common sense tells one that if Kelly wanted to make the purchases just to make a statement, he wouldn’t have waited until caught to make a Facebook entry. He would have done it that day or that evening. He didn’t.

He got caught being a hypocrite and he’s trying to cover his a$$ with some lame claim that he is going to hand over the gun to the Tucson PD. What about the 1911? When it comes to knock-down power, the .45 cal 1911 is a much more powerful weapon than the AR-15, considering the 1911 is designed for up-close and personal shooting. It’s all theater, and any one with an ounce of sense understands that.

GREG
YOU ARE SPEAKING A WEIRD ENGLISH YOURSELF,
TRY THE AMERICAN ENGLISH FROM ALL THE STATES, WHEN YOU ADDRESS SOMEONE,
YOU HAVE TO TALK AND WRITE HIS ENGLISH
THAT’S BEING POLITE,
MY ENGLISH IS BIGGER THAN YOU’RES,
YOU COULD NOT COME IN NEWFOUNDLAND WITHOUT BEING LOST AND CONFUSE,

I’m looking at MITT ROMNEY VICE PRESIDENT PAUL RYAN
AND HE IS VERY GOOD LOOKING, HE PICKED UP A BIT OF WEIGHT,
HE HAD LOST ON THE HARD WORK OF ELECTION,
MUCH BETTER LOOKING THAN OBAMA
WHICH IS LOOSING HIS LOOK VERY FAST NOW,

@Scott in Oklahoma, #96:

Greg, you clearly don’t like Retire05, we all know that.

I know nothing about retire05, other than the fact that this person has compulsively badgered and insulted people for months on end, turning every every discussion into another an opportunity to do so. I seem to be getting an increasing share lately, probably because so many others who have received such attention have now abandoned the site. Retire05 seems to equate driving people away with winning an argument. It is possible to clear people off, simply by being rude and hostile. That’s not the same as winning an argument, and it’s certainly not the same as winning someone over. Witness the rapidly shrinking republican support base.

One of retire05’s favorite tactics for derailing a discussion is to rephrase and deliberately misstate what other people have said. With the great majority of guns in the hands of criminals obviously didn’t mean that criminals possess most guns.