“A PAC supporting Jesse Kelly, a former Marine running to replace Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in a special election on Tuesday, is using an image Kelly’s campaign has avoided thus far — the candidate holding a gun.” I assume NPR “which broke the story,” our pals at blogforarizona.com and usnews.com wouldn’t be reacting to the image by throwing around words like unconscionable, provacative [sic] and insensitive if Kelly didn’t have a gun—AN ACTUAL GUN—in his hands. ‘Cause you can’t diss a vet, really, unless he’s holding a gun. And who cares if Giffords supported (supports?) gun rights, as exemplified by her amicus brief in the Heller case? Let’s just remind everyone that “Giffords resigned in January, just over a year after a shooting spree left six dead and the congresswoman critically wounded. Kelly’s opponent this time is former Giffords aide Ron Barber, who was shot twice during the 2011 rampage.” Talk about waving the bloody shirt . . .
only in America
He has my vote, but I am from CA, hey maybe the DOJ can support me voting in two places at once lmao…
Just tell them you support Obama.
Only if you’re an illegal immigrant, then you can vote as often as you want.
Having fought in a war, maybe he’ll be less eager to send your children to one.
INSTEAD OF THE OLE POLITICIAN PROMISE A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT IT’S NOW “AN AR IN EVERY HOME” (sorry about the caps)
The poster says “US Marine Combat Veteran” and “Send a Warrior to Congress”, doesn’t it? What should he be holding, a flower?
The left can be so stupid sometimes.
More of that, please.
In what world do these people live where it is “unconscionable” for a man to take pride in having served his nation with honor and distinction?
Unfortunately that world is “modern” America. Too many whiny wussies and not enough Patriots.
Let’s be clear here–the original NPR piece did not use or throw around words like “unconscionable”, “insensitive” and “provacative(sic)”–that was a rather slanted blog post. In fact, NPR is quite specific that this ad was recycled by a PAC from Kelly’s 2010 campaign–and that the current campaing itself is using no such images.
Let’s be clear: NPR covered it because they thought the image scandalous and insensitive. It isn’t.
Sorry, RF, there is very little of the NPR report that has to do with the ad. NPR covers politics, and it covers politics better than any other news outlet in the US. This is a story of national interest, and they sure seemed to do a pretty evenhanded job of covering the special election in this case.
It’s scandalous and insensitive. Plus he’s probably another T.J. Ready.
Why is it scandalous? He’s a Marine. Marines carry guns (that’s kind of why we have them). From the look of it, that photo was taken while he was on Duty. There’s no scandal.
Gabby Giffords was against Gun Control and (since she hasn’t said otherwise) is likely still against it (especially since no amount of gun control can stop acts of madmen). So how is it insensitive?
Anyway, after an annoying campaign (on both sides; neither could put together a decently written attack ad to save their life), he lost. Which is good, because his policy ideas are terrible.
The only reason I wished I still lived in Tucson would be to vote for him. Oh, and the A-10’s. I grew up right by Davis-Monthan and really do miss watching those magnificent birds flying over every day.
Those really are the coolest planes in our arsenal, by far. There’s just something totally bad-ass about a giant, flying Gatling gun.
The only thing better than a 30mm Gatling gun is a flying 105mm cannon, two 30mm chain guns, and a few mini guns for good measure 🙂 AC-130 = Death from Above!
No disagreement here. The AC-130 and all the way back to the AC-47 have no equal for the sheer ability to almost literally rain down hell. Isn’t the current configuration the 105, a couple of 40mm Bofors and a couple 25mm gatlings?
Even then, out of any aircraft ever made the Warthog can take a beating better than any other aircraft and in my opinion is the most brutally effective aircraft ever made. The IL-2 and even the SU-25 come close but not equal.
Wasn’t there a former hog driver gal running for that seat in Tucson? Sticks in my mind I thought she was a great candidate.
Here she is,
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/20/after-eventful-air-force-career-col-mcsally-eyes-ariz-congressional-seat/
She sure likes to stir sh!t up. Exactly what we need in Congress.
Ditched the 40mm, they were nothing but problems. Still have the 105 and 7.62 mini guns.
My mind being what it is I double checked. USAF 9/2011 factsheet lists the AC 130H as having the 105 and 40mm and the AC 130U having the 105, 40mm and 25mm. We’ve used the L60 Bofors since WWII and its a good cannon. 7.62’s haven’t been used since Viet Nam. Also triple checked facts with my brother, retired USAF Major.
The 40’s were prone to jamming, they were replaced on most of the aircraft last year with the 30’s. 7.62’s are back. 105 is about to be gone also, Missile launcher in testing now.
Sure thing.
Wish I lived there just so I could vote for him.
We can always vote with our wallet$ . . .
I see a candidate ready to take on the gangs crossing the border. Let’s Roll!
IMHO, we would (will) be a stronger country, if Afghanistan/Iraq veterans start taking office.
You are so, so right.
Our family will be casting our votes for Jesse tomorrow. He is a good man who I believe will represent us well in CD8 now and the new CD2 in November. (Our district changes for the November election.)
MARINES!
For those who haven’t, do yourself the favor and take a minute to read about Jesse Kelly and see what he has to say about The Issues.
http://www.votejessekelly.com/
On the Second Amendment:
“The Second Amendment simply spells out a fundamental freedom that is already granted to each one of us by our Creator. I fully support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.”
****************
On Military and Veterans:
“With the Congress currently containing the fewest number of veterans serving in US history, it is of utmost importance that we send new leaders to Washington who have worn the uniform and fought to defend our freedoms from tyranny.”
Amen and Amen.
To each and every Veteran:
“Thank You For Your Service!”
Most of his “issues” stuff seems decent enough. But the section on Social Security … well, it’s Arizona, after all. Lots of seniors. So what can he say? But no cutting benefits, no raising taxes, no raising the retirement age, no privatization? Unless he’s got some other new idea, he’s pretty much committed to letting the thing collapse. So much for “sacred” commitment to seniors. Granted, it’s not an easy problem to solve, but rejecting every single option out there without suggesting something new seems to be a bit head-in-the-sand to me.