Man shopping with Assault Rifle Strapped to his Back at Utah J.C. Penney

reply to post by kosmicjack


That is called public indecency....There is a big difference between that, and legally licensed, and carried firearms....

Originally posted by Chadwickus
So what happens when another law abiding citizen carrying a gun spots this guy in the car park pulling out his rifle and spare clips from the boot of his car and thinks he's just spotted a guy about to go on a shooting spree and shoots him?

Oh the irony, it burns.

I would think common sense and experience of the gun owner to kick in and observe first the situation at hand and to read the body language of the people that supposedly look suspicious. Like others have said, it is pretty common to openly carry. The fear of firearms is pretty ridiculous and is being strongly pushed into fear mongering by the media pyramid.


Be prepared but don't be stupid.

I can't believe this thread devolved into an argument on the semantics of what some people think assault weapons are.....Ignorance of the world is no excuse, just like ignorance of the law is no excuse...Deny ignorance right?

In more casual usage, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle". An assault rifle is a military rifle that utilizes an intermediate-power cartridge, and that generally is capable of full-automatic fire, where multiple rounds are fired continuously when the trigger is pulled one time — that is, a machine gun — or burst capable, where a burst of several rounds is fired when the trigger is pulled one time.[5] In the United States, full-automatic firearms are heavily restricted, and regulated by federal laws such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, as well as some state and local laws.

The term "assault weapon" was originally used solely in the context of military weapons systems, such as for the Rifleman's Assault Weapon that is an American weapons system that dates from the 1970s built around the M16 assault rifle.

online.wsj.com...

After the nightmare of Newtown, their concern is understandable. Yet despite being at the center of the gun-control debate for decades, neither President Obama nor Ms. Feinstein (the author of the 1994 legislation) seems to understand the leading research on the effects of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In addition, they continue to mislabel the weapons they seek to ban. Ms. Feinstein points to two studies by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth for the National Institute of Justice to back up her contention that the ban reduced crime. She claims that their first study in 1997 showed that the ban decreased "total gun murders." In fact, the authors wrote: "the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero)." Messrs. Koper and Roth suggested that after the ban had been in effect for more years it might be possible to find a benefit. Seven years later, in 2004, they published a follow-up study for the National Institute of Justice with fellow criminologist Dan Woods that concluded, "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."

Moreover, none of the weapons banned under the 1994 legislation or the updated version are "military" weapons. The killer in Newtown used a Bushmaster .223. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is "no reason" for such "military-style weapons" to be available to civilians. Yes, the Bushmaster and the AK-47 are "military-style weapons." But the key word is "style"—they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, not in the way they operate. The guns covered by the original were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but semiautomatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the Bushmaster uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet—.30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. No self-respecting military in the world would use the civilian version of these guns.

A common question is: "Why do people need a semiautomatic Bushmaster to go out and kill deer?" The answer is simple: It is a hunting rifle. It has just been made to look like a military weapon. But the point isn't to help hunters. Semiautomatic weapons also protect people and save lives. Single-shot rifles that require you to physically reload the gun may not do people a lot of good when they are facing multiple criminals or when their first shot misses or fails to stop an attacker.

Rebutted with vigor...

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Honor93

 

With rights come responsibilities. It's called civility and civic duty. We have an unwritten societal contract to not walk about welding weapons like wingnuts.

If he was walking about swinging his junk (and it is indeed very much the same symbolically

) he would be put in jail even though there was no danger of him killing anyone with it..

You are seriously going to sit there and say that?

That a person, who is legally allowed to walk around with firearms in the open where they live, is the same as walking around exposing their sexual organs? (which is pretty much illegal in most places, and NOT some "unwritten" social rule.

While I understand you have this opinion, I'm afraid that you have exposed yourself as someone who has a severe bias against anyone who own or has a fire arm.

wow. I still can't believe you went there.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by ANOK

 

Do you even know what an assault rifle is; or just from what the Media tells you?

I'll give you a hint, an 'assault' rifle, isn't a semi-automatic rifle...

For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (on which the M16 rifle is based) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective-fire capable

The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes.

Oh, and don't forget this earlier post too ^

And this link; www.theblaze.com...

Has a real definition from the US DOD....Not some dope-headed politician or MSM opinion of what an assault rifle is...It also specifically states that an AR-15 is NOT an 'assault' rifle or weapon....Get with the program people...They are bull#ting you...

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Honor93

 

With rights come responsibilities. It's called civility and civic duty. We have an unwritten societal contract to not walk about welding weapons like wingnuts.

If he was walking about swinging his junk (and it is indeed very much the same symbolically

) he would be put in jail even though there was no danger of him killing anyone with it..

why do you think a gun is a metaphor for a penis- this is one of the lamest and laziest cliches ever


The quy seems quite relaxed, not threatening- like others say, can't imagine too many robberies occurred in his vicinity

Originally posted by mademyself1984

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Ahh people openly carrying assault rifles in public..
The perfect conservatopia..just like Rwanda or Afghanistan...good to hold our standards so high.


guys a moron. If someone wants to go nuts, guess who will be the first victim, and then the psycho will have a assault rifle instead of whatever handgun he brought.

Want to feel protected...get a concealment license and carry...want to overcompensate for lacking while being a complete political tool, strap a big gun to your back and become a giant billboard for the nra while putting people in danger.

It's not an assault rifle. Figure this # out or stop commenting on it.

-looks at the thread title, then at your comment..then back to the thread title-

Originally posted by kosmicjack

With rights come responsibilities. It's called civility and civic duty. We have an unwritten societal contract to not walk about welding weapons like wingnuts.

Well since hammers kill more people per year than ARs in the US then a guy walking around with a hammer in his belt must be really pushing it....

reply to post by SaturnFX


yeah seriously it's not an assault rifle

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
The quy seems quite relaxed, not threatening- like others say, can't imagine too many robberies occurred in his vicinity

Those out to steal something, will just find another target, prevent one incident does not stop a determined criminal.

Unless everyone carries a gun, everywhere, all the time, a criminal that wants or needs money will find a way/another victim.

Are you suggesting that everyone should carry a gun at all times?

If you are, at what age do you think one should start?

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Honor93

 

With rights come responsibilities. It's called civility and civic duty. We have an unwritten societal contract to not walk about welding weapons like wingnuts.

If he was walking about swinging his junk (and it is indeed very much the same symbolically

) he would be put in jail even though there was no danger of him killing anyone with it..

i believe you are confusing duty with responsibility.

with rights, come both.
however, our duty is to be responsible.
your perception of both is completely against that concept.

we have no such unwritten contract except in your own mind.
ppl walk around 'swinging their junk' in quite a few places in this country and not one of them have been arrested for 'wielding' or 'improper display' of a weapon

besides, in the rest of society, that behavior comes with a penalty known as indecent exposure ?? (i think) and likewise, the 'improper display' of a weapon is also punishable by law, so what's your point, really ??

Originally posted by Biigs

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
The quy seems quite relaxed, not threatening- like others say, can't imagine too many robberies occurred in his vicinity

Those out to steal something, will just find another target, prevent one incident does not stop a determined criminal.

Unless everyone carries a gun, everywhere, all the time, a criminal that wants or needs money will find a way/another victim.

Are you suggesting that everyone should carry a gun at all times?

If you are, at what age do you think one should start?

They MAY find another target, or they may think twice, you can't make that judgement

I can't force people to carry, but for sure, the more the better

Originally posted by Biigs
Are you suggesting that everyone should carry a gun at all times?

If you are, at what age do you think one should start?

I have a really cool idea...how about just the Right to carry a gun...if they choose....

reply to post by Xtrozero


But the more people that carry a gun (open carry specifically) the more of a target those that don't are. Correct?

Originally posted by Druid42


See, people can carry weapons in public, who are not mass murders. Imagine that.

BTW, he actually CALLED local law enforcement to tell them he was doing it !

Imagine that.

reply to post by Biigs

that would be a reasonable presumption ... why else would the killing field of choice = gun free zones ??

if you choose to not carry, wouldn't you be reassured that someone in your company is, should the worst happen ? and if not, then why would you feel "safe" with an armed officer on scene ??

Originally posted by Biigs
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

But the more people that carry a gun (open carry specifically) the more of a target those that don't are. Correct?

I wouldn't say that since no one knows who is also concealed. I run more along the logic that the reason why people have chosen Malls, Theaters and schools is because they felt that they would find the least resistance there, maximizing their capabilities to kill. When was the last time we saw a mass killing at a large gun range?

I carry concealed, since I believe most businesses would not let me in with a open carry. I'm not trying to make a point either as this guy seems to be doing, but I remember back in the 60s when I lived in Phoenix I would go hunting with my dad and he would strap a pistol to his hip and we would go eat, or even go to the bank for cash with it strapped to his hip. It was also common occurrence to see rifles in the back window of trucks...I don't think I have seen that in 30 years....

People do not want to believe that even with these crazy killings as a society we HAVE become less violent, even with so many ARs less people do die... And we do a lot of things less, like open carry, that a couple of decades ago was a common thing to see.

Originally posted by winofiend
reply to post by JonPrice

 

I guess if someone wants to be treated like a social leper, that's up to them.

But I wonder.. how many lives he would have saved if things had gone bad. I mean, he's obviously taking on that responsibility. He is out there acting like a police officer by deterrent. So had someone come in to rob the bank, he is obliged to take action.

And if he fails to take action, or does not secure a situation, then I would hope he is charged.

If you want to be a pseudo police officer, and that is what the right to bear arms is, isn't it? Protection of you and yours, and to take down the criminal with a gun? then that responsibility should not be one that can be just cast off if the mood suits.

I wonder if he wonders why so many people appears wary of him.

Or if he thinks he's just making them aware that you can walk down the street rambo style and it's perfectly legal.

... my point being, are you rambo patriots, willing to really be 'that guy' ?

See thats the problem. Why would you want to treat him like a social leper? We dont act that way when other express thier other rights. No they are not pseudo-police, and what exactly would he be charged with? I think that more people should openly carry. I think the criminals would second guess doing something if they saw a gun on someones hip.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I wouldn't say that since no one knows who is also concealed. I run more along the logic that the reason why people have chosen Malls, Theaters and schools is because they felt that they would find the least resistance there, maximizing their capabilities to kill. When was the last time we saw a mass killing at a large gun range?

Surly that is logically flawed, since more people represents a higher chance of one of the crowed being armed.

Statistically that would be a bad choice, at an elementary school your point is valid, true and fair.

I know the deal with these open-carry activists. They love it when cops approach them so they can go on a constitutional rant. The cop is simply doing his job but these guys just don't get it. Like many other fundamentalists their main goal is martyrdom.