Democrat Mark Kelly announced a bid for the 2020 Senate seat currently held by Martha McSally. (Reagan, president)

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Not an Arizonan here. However, I think its just pitiful that so many people are willing to let some phony second amendment issue dictate their choice in the election. Kelly hasn't even said what his views are on firearms and a large percentage of people are willing to lynch him based on assumptions they make.

The only respectable argument I've heard against a Kelly candidacy so far is that the state ought to have a senator from each political party. If only that were true of all the states.

You might want to do a little searching on that.

[yukon]

Originally Posted by Hschlick84

Personally, I prefer having split senators from both parties, keeps them both in check. Having 2 Democrat senators in office for AZ doesn't represent all the voices. We don't need another person who is anti-2nd Amendment or rides the coattails of a family member just for the sake of the empathy vote.

That is only a concern when the senators are party hacks with no thoughts of their own and an unwillingness to listen to all the voters they represent. Sinema does not vote lockstep with party. McSally, however, does. If it appears Kelly will vote by constituent and not solely by party, then having two Dem (or GOP) senators should not be an issue.

The push for "party at all costs" is why we are in the mess we're in now and had multiple years of gridlock in the House and Senate.

But then, I'm old enough to remember when GOP and Democrats reached out to each other to compromise on critical legislation and things actually got done in DC.

[AzScorpion12]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Kelly seems like a hell of a contender. Where does he say that he’s against the 2nd Amendment? Responsible gun control doesn’t mean anti-2A. Constitutional Amendments are not absolutes. I don’t see why you can’t support peoples’ right to bear arms but also favor restrictions that would keep firearms away from the mentally ill, for example. Seems like basic, common sense.

Has he said that he wants to “grab” people’s guns or is this just baseless fear?

It's fear because I've seen this movie before back in MA. First they pass some "feel good" gun laws to appease a few people like banning 30 round mags for AR-15's or limiting handgun mags to 10 rounds. Now fast forward a few years later and there's an complete ban on AR-15's there and we have a weapons list which the beloved AG gets to pick and chose which guns are MA worthy. Just what I want,A gun hating liberal AG telling me what I can and can not own..... NO THANKS!

This does NOTHING but strip the rights from LEGAL gun owners while the thugs and gang bangers continue to do as they please. Don't believe me,just look at Chiraq (Chicago). Some of the toughest laws in the county yet they continue to have the highest crime and murder rates.

Sure I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally ill but forcing gun control on LEGAL citizens is not the way to do it! Before you say "How do you know this will happen"? Re-read my first paragraph. Same thing they said to us back there!

What's your solution for keeping guns away from mentally ill people and NOT restricting legal citizens?

[PhoenixSomeday]

As much as I want people to realize they don't need to be packing heat just walking down the street waiting to be John Wayne or Clint Eastwood to save the day from bad guys, that's not going to happen. As much as I want guns to be kept out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them (99%....), I really don't think there's an easy solution to the gun issue. Harder and harder legislation is, unfortunately, not going to solve the mass shooting issue and the crime issue.

Thugs, gangbangers, drug lords, and mentally screwed up people will still find a way to get them, no matter what the law says. It's not like they're being good little citizens and going to gun shops and saying "Hi there, evil doer here. I need a gun to go do evil." They often get them through illicit channels, or from people they know, or they steal them. Determined people will not be stopped by laws.

Humanity has solved far, far, far more complex problems and issues throughout history, especially recent history (last 50-100 years), than merely keeping guns out of the wrong hands. If humanity puts their collective heads together, they can solve the issue. There's just no motivation to (apparently hundreds of dead little kids every year is not motivation enough to actually get off ones ass to figure it out; I wonder what is).

[fluffythewondercat]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Not an Arizonan here. However, I think its just pitiful that so many people are willing to let some phony second amendment issue dictate their choice in the election. Kelly hasn't even said what his views are on firearms and a large percentage of people are willing to lynch him based on assumptions they make.

LOL! You might want to educate yourself. Kelly runs a big anti-2A PAC well-funded by out-of-state donors.

[man4857]

Originally Posted by Gixxer1K

It's fear because I've seen this movie before back in MA. First they pass some "feel good" gun laws to appease a few people like banning 30 round mags for AR-15's or limiting handgun mags to 10 rounds. Now fast forward a few years later and there's an complete ban on AR-15's there and we have a weapons list which the beloved AG gets to pick and chose which guns are MA worthy. Just what I want,A gun hating liberal AG telling me what I can and can not own..... NO THANKS!

This does NOTHING but strip the rights from LEGAL gun owners while the thugs and gang bangers continue to do as they please. Don't believe me,just look at Chiraq (Chicago). Some of the toughest laws in the county yet they continue to have the highest crime and murder rates.

Sure I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally ill but forcing gun control on LEGAL citizens is not the way to do it! Before you say "How do you know this will happen"? Re-read my first paragraph. Same thing they said to us back there!

What's your solution for keeping guns away from mentally ill people and NOT restricting legal citizens?

Then what's your solution? Unfortunately, as with most problems in society, the weakest members of society is often the cause of major policy decisions in an attempt to solve such problem. Everyone will need to pitch in some sort of concession whether it be money or jumping through more hoops to obtain a weapon. Let me remind you that our neighbor in CA has probably the nation's strictest gun laws, but you're still allowed to own a weapon, you just have to jump through hoops to do so. Maybe they won't allow your favorite weapon of choice, but you're still allowed to own one. Same as other's who might be complaining about not being able to own a .50 BMG-type weapon... whatever the case may be.

Just look at AZ and how there's so many wrong way drivers. Granted there's only a few, but I'm almost close to certain, our $32 "public safety" registration fee that got added was I bet partially in response to it even though politicians won't admit it. Same flavor of argument as you're talking about I can scream about about this being not fair.

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat

LOL! You might want to educate yourself. Kelly runs a big anti-2A PAC well-funded by out-of-state donors.

Since he started this he hasn't said a word about gun control.

If some people are so fixated on their right to carry an assault weapon I guess Mark Kelly won't get their vote. Pretty hopeless people anyway if you ask me.

Kelly can win by energizing other people who typically don't vote rather than trying to convert hopeless people.

The far right thinks everyone agrees with them. A wake up call is coming.

[Mouser]

Mr. Kelly and his agenda will soon come to life


It all boils down to two facts that gun control proponents
have not been able to address:

(1) There is a direct relationship between restrictive gun control laws and increased crime. Almost all gun control laws have been statistically proven to be linked to increases in crime.

(2) Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Using a firearm to harm another is already illegal.
Proponents might want to spend more time thinking about the facts, and less time writing about feelings that won't fix the problem.





The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

[bigdogmom13]

Originally Posted by Mouser

(1) There is a direct relationship between restrictive gun control laws and increased crime. Almost all gun control laws have been statistically proven to be linked to increases in crime.

References, please. Because I call B.S. I can, however, find studies that show that the rate of gun deaths decreases in states with stricter gun control laws.

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Since he started this he hasn't said a word about gun control.

If some people are so fixated on their right to carry an assault weapon I guess Mark Kelly won't get their vote. Pretty hopeless people anyway if you ask me.

Kelly can win by energizing other people who typically don't vote rather than trying to convert hopeless people.

The far right thinks everyone agrees with them. A wake up call is coming.

You mean since he announced yesterday? Again, you really should utilize the search engine on your computer.