Quote :

"Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hctDBUKMR4V-lGBrEQcYNO0ooBQAD9A4TG402

Thoughts?

8/18/2009 9:14:53 AM

i'm all for open carry events, but something like this is just going to hurt their cause

(however the liberal response to it makes me pretty angry too and demonstrates how out of touch many of them are with gun issues)

8/18/2009 9:16:11 AM

^exercising your 2nd amendment rights is going to hurt a cause? what kind of shit is that.

Also, this topic is being addressed in the Healthcare thread.

8/18/2009 9:21:53 AM

yes, carrying guns to a presidential rally is going to cause a backlash that will hurt the cause.

is your point that you don't think it will happen or that you think its stupid and illogical? of course its illogical, but it will happen (is happening)

8/18/2009 9:51:18 AM

And it's not an Assault Weapon, it's an AR15. And it's not a "Machine Gun" or a "Automatic Rifle" or any other bullcrap the media is making it out to be. His other gun was a Glock.

And the 12 men in his group alerted the PD that they would be coming in advance, they had a "chaperone" from the PD and it was a perfectly legal and legitimate form of protest. I don't see why everyone is getting so combative about it.

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 9:56 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2009 9:54:57 AM

how is an ar-15 not an assault weapon?

8/18/2009 9:58:06 AM

Of the first two amendments, liberals only care about the First Amendment. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, they either pretend that it doesn't mean what it does or they mouth meaningless things like "living document" and "the Constitution is so, like, old and stuff."

^ Define "assault weapon."

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .]

8/18/2009 10:01:05 AM

^^An AR-15 is a semi-automatic civilian version of the military M16... which is an assault rifle. The civilian version is not capable of firing more than one shot per trigger pull.

8/18/2009 10:02:43 AM

assualt weapon is a stupid term, but i don't see how an ar-15 doesn't fit the description. i know what an ar-15 is, i've fired an ar-15, i may buy an ar-15.... how is it not an assault weapon?

^assault weapons don't have to be automatic. here were the characteristics from the retarded AWB:
"Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)"
the ar-15 was even listed specifically by name.


i think the point you are trying to make is that the term is retarded, not that it isn't one



[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM. Reason : .]

8/18/2009 10:04:14 AM

By that standard, couldn't anything be an assault weapon? I agree it's a stupid term, but most of the "assault weapon" labels are by appearance rather than function. The fact it, it may look like the military version, but it functions differently.


^I don't think that definition (the one in the AWB Bill) is accurate. I do think the term is stupid, but I also think that the AR-15 is not one, and that definition is not correct.

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2009 10:06:56 AM

Quote :

"And the 12 men in his group alerted the PD that they would be coming in advance, they had a "chaperone" from the PD and it was a perfectly legal and legitimate form of protest. I don't see why everyone is getting so combative about it."

I didn't know this... they didn't mention anything like that at all when I saw it on the news today.

8/18/2009 10:07:32 AM

That bit of information was from an interview with another member of the group. It's been floating around on the internet, but hasn't hit mainstream media yet.

8/18/2009 10:11:48 AM

Quote :

"assualt weapon is a stupid term, but i don't see how an ar-15 doesn't fit the description. i know what an ar-15 is, i've fired an ar-15, i may buy an ar-15.... how is it not an assault weapon? ^assault weapons don't have to be automatic. here were the characteristics from the retarded AWB: "Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: * Folding or telescoping stock * Pistol grip * Bayonet mount * Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one * Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)" the ar-15 was even listed specifically by name. i think the point you are trying to make is that the term is retarded, not that it isn't one "

The problem here is that you are defining "assault weapon" by the old "Assault Weapons" Ban of 1994.

In an attempt to make guns sound scary and dangerous, they labeled semi-auto "evil black rifles" as "assault weapons" even though they lack full-auto or select-fire capability. THAT is the defining feature of an assault weapon, which have technically been controlled since 1934, with the passing of the National Firearms Act (along with short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors, grenades, etc).

The issue here is that the AWB of 1994 labeled these weapons as "assault weapons" by their APPEARANCE alone, rather than how they FUNCTION. Just because a weapon has a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount doesn't mean that they are any better at killing schoolyards of children or shooting "cop-killer bullets" than Granddad's old semi-auto "hunting rifle".


If you took any "normal" semi-auto rifle that fires the .223 cartridge and put it next to an AR-15, most people would say that the AR-15 is "more dangerous". However, they both fire the same round, in the same manner -- one shot per trigger pull. In fact, most people's "hunting rifles" fire much larger and more powerful rounds than a standard AR15.


I can't watch it now at work, but if this is the video I'm thinking of, it has a good explanation of the difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 10:22 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2009 10:21:07 AM

Given the tendency of commentators to play the race card with regard to the protesters, I wonder how this will be received:

Quote :

"An AR-15 is a semi-automatic civilian version of the military M16... which is an assault rifle."

Lets be honest, they're designed to do the exact same thing, the AR just doesn't have the suppressive capabilities of a selective-fire weapon. I can't figure out if we look petty or not trying to draw this distinction every time the term is brought up.

8/18/2009 10:21:38 AM

NVM

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 10:25 AM. Reason : .]

8/18/2009 10:24:50 AM

^^ I think i could be friends with this guy. I loved the matter of fact look on his face while being interviewed, all the while smacking his gum like it was going out of style.

8/18/2009 10:26:26 AM

Quote :

"Lets be honest, they're designed to do the exact same thing, the AR just doesn't have the suppressive capabilities of a selective-fire weapon. I can't figure out if we look petty or not trying to draw this distinction every time the term is brought up."

All guns are designed to do essentially the same thing.

Why weren't "hunting rifles" that are semi-auto banned with the AWB? Because they don't look "evil" or "scary". It is all about appearance rather than function.

The AWB was completely useless at reducing crime, which anyone with half a brain could have told you before it was enacted. Why? Because the weapons (or accessories) banned in the AWB aren't used in most violent gun crimes. Honestly, when was the last time you heard of someone being bayonetted to death here in America?

It was just a feel-good piece of legislation designed to make it look like legislators were doing something about the "gun problem", but it never really reduced violent gun crime.

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 10:34 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2009 10:33:04 AM

Form follows function. The build of an AR or an AK is designed for combat, at close to moderate ranges, with human targets, under life or death situations.

This is markedly different from the design of a typical hunting, sniper, or even a Mauser or M1 Garand, which are all designed around a longer-range engagement concept. I'm most emphatically not saying the the AWB was a good idea, it was a worthless piece of legislation. I'm just saying that I'm not sure how it looks when people lose their shit every time someone calls a moderate caliber, military designed weapon, which only happens to have two settings on the safety selector lever an "assault weapon".

8/18/2009 10:38:24 AM

Quote :

"The problem here is that you are defining "assault weapon" by the old "Assault Weapons" Ban of 1994. In an attempt to make guns sound scary and dangerous, they labeled semi-auto "evil black rifles" as "assault weapons" even though they lack full-auto or select-fire capability. THAT is the defining feature of an assault weapon, which have technically been controlled since 1934, with the passing of the National Firearms Act (along with short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors, grenades, etc). The issue here is that the AWB of 1994 labeled these weapons as "assault weapons" by their APPEARANCE alone, rather than how they FUNCTION. Just because a weapon has a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount doesn't mean that they are any better at killing schoolyards of children or shooting "cop-killer bullets" than Granddad's old semi-auto "hunting rifle". If you took any "normal" semi-auto rifle that fires the .223 cartridge and put it next to an AR-15, most people would say that the AR-15 is "more dangerous". However, they both fire the same round, in the same manner -- one shot per trigger pull. In fact, most people's "hunting rifles" fire much larger and more powerful rounds than a standard AR15. I can't watch it now at work, but if this is the video I'm thinking of, it has a good explanation of the difference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0"

oh jesus christ, i know about guns ok. do i need to post pictures or scan purchase permits or something? i even had that video on my fb for a long time.

my point is that by every definition i have read, no matter how retarded, an ar-15 is an assault weapon.

and

^

8/18/2009 10:42:08 AM

I don't think anyone is questioning that you know about guns... we're just arguing with the term you already stated was ridiculous.

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 10:44 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2009 10:44:00 AM

Quote :

"I'm just saying that I'm not sure how it looks when people lose their shit every time someone calls a moderate caliber, military designed weapon, which only happens to have two settings on the safety selector lever an "assault weapon"."

I wouldn't say that people "lose their shit" but having things defined incorrectly doesn't help.

When the media runs around screaming "THIS GUY IS CARRYING AN ASSAULT WEAPON!!! TO THE RALLY" (or even "machine gun", which I also saw in a new report last night about this particular event) it makes anyone who owns one of these guns sound like a demonic person bent on killing sprees. Or at least, that is the intent of the media...to scare people.

Quote :

"my point is that by every definition i have read, no matter how retarded, an ar-15 is an assault weapon. "

I am sorry, but every definition you have read is apparently incorrect. An AR15 is NOT an assault rifle.



Anyway...whether an AR15 is or isn't an assault rifle isn't the point of this thread, so let's drop this subject and get back on topic...

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2009 10:44:54 AM

I'm all for calling out people who refer to ARs as automatic weapons or machine guns. That being said, we're running from the truth that 'Assault Weapons' or 'Tactical Rifles' or whatever you want to call them are designed for the purpose of killing other human beings.

Since the Second Amendment is not about hunting, since it is about the use of weapons to protect ones life, liberty, and property from tyranny, and since that can mean the justifiable taking of a human life, I think it is counter productive to run away from the term 'assault weapon' on a technicality like selective fire capability.


So really, while the definition of an AR-15 as an assault rifle specifically may not be relevant to the thread, the overall concept and purpose behind the act of bearing arms is.

8/18/2009 10:48:29 AM

well said

8/18/2009 10:50:25 AM

^^ I can agree with all of that. My whole point originally was calling the gun a "scary name" tends to make people more afraid of guns in public than they should be.

8/18/2009 10:54:20 AM

Yes, and the leftists want to ban "assault weapons," but they really have no meaningful definition of the term. Just like the economy is going to be saved by "green jobs," which is another term that remains undefined to date.

I happen to think that clearly defining things--particularly concerning important issues--matters.

8/18/2009 11:13:09 AM

Quote :

"Yes, and the leftists want to ban "assault weapons," but they really have no meaningful definition of the term. Just like the economy is going to be saved by "green jobs," which is another term that remains undefined to date. I happen to think that clearly defining things--particularly concerning important issues--matters."

Clearly defining things is of paramount importance when writing legislation, and that is one of the biggest problems with our current government: they write laws concerning subjects they don't know much about.

A great example is the video of a gun on CNN interviewing Rep. Carolyn McCarthy about her gun control bill introduced in 2007 -- and he asks McCarthy what a barrel shroud is, and why they should be banned.

She completely dances around the question, and when pressured, she says "It's the shoulder thing that goes up".

8/18/2009 11:23:23 AM

^ And they admit that they don't read the bills anyway. I wish I could find that video of a lawmaker/official telling everyone how easy it is to remove a trigger lock, but when he'd tried he couldn't get it off.

8/18/2009 11:37:14 AM

I understand bringing a weapon to a gun rights rally, but in this instance it makes no sense.

8/18/2009 12:12:49 PM

^ It doesn't have to make sense to you or anybody else. It's the guy's right to do so.

8/18/2009 12:15:12 PM

He sure showed Obama!

I bet this guy was sitting at home drinking Busch Light during all the years Bush took a big shit on the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments. The ongoing disregard of the 10th amendment by federal gov't over the decades. Yet with a liberal president in office with only a rumor of increased gun regulation and all of a sudden he's an enrage activist over his RIGHTS AS AN AMURICAN USA#1

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 12:18 PM. Reason : l]

8/18/2009 12:16:20 PM

I think it was a brilliant move as a gun activist. Shows that there are more than just white rednecks out there wanting to protect their guns. This was a well dressed black dude which goes over a whole lot better than: http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/don_ar15.jpg Although the youtube video kind of leads me to think he may be a little bit on the crazy side about some other things.

Phoenix Video:
http://www.azcentral.com/video/?type=mavenfull&id=news&videoID=1217966720
Police say: He was exercising his constitutional right
Mayor says: We showed the world we have those rights & use them correctly

If you check out this picture, the media who was interviewing him is also carrying: http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u185/xjedix302/100_1472.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA
Quote from the youtube video description:

Quote :

"Please help spread the video. We went down to the Obama staged Healthcare rally and our buddy Chris rolled down there with his AR-15 and his 9mm. 4409 works strictly off Donations to inform the people. Look through the videos and you will see this is a full time job. If you like what we do then please help us out at http://www.Donate2CameraFRAUD.com "

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2009 12:30:46 PM

^^ why Busch Light?

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason : ^]

8/18/2009 12:30:47 PM

Don't try to find logic in his posts. He's the dnl of TSB.

8/18/2009 12:43:31 PM

They did nothing wrong; no one was arrested and no one was hurt.

However:

Quote :

"Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg"

is disturbing. It's crazy whacko shit like this that ends up blowing up daycares with federal buildings around them.

8/18/2009 2:18:42 PM

^ even if it's not entirely true, that is the perception.

you gun people are, metaphorically, shooting yourselves in the foot.

and it makes me sad, because I think more liberals and progressives should embraced the Second.

so... thanks for not helping.




[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2009 2:56:21 PM

lol @ using the AWB definition on an assault weapon. could you be more stupid? and the latest AWB (that failed to pass) would have called nearly any semi-automatic pistol with a detachable magazine an AW.... stupid. and would have made shotguns with pistol grips and adjustable stocks an AW... stupid.

I'm saying that using the AWB's definition of an AW is stupid.

AW = select fire/fully auto rifles, such as what the military uses and NOT pistols, shotguns, ARs, etc.

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2009 2:56:22 PM

^ im not sure what you're trying to say ... do you think that it's stupid?

8/18/2009 2:58:20 PM

lol at the definition earlier in the thread meaning my Ruger 10/22 is technically an assault rifle since I put on the folding stock which also happens to have a pistol grip

I guess my 86 Fiero really is a Lamborghini!

8/18/2009 3:12:25 PM

8/18/2009 3:17:30 PM

Dangerous:


Not Dangerous:

8/18/2009 3:24:10 PM

^don't you know that an adjustable stock makes bullets fly that much faster????????

8/18/2009 3:27:21 PM

all y'all motherfuckers talking about innocuous a damn AR-15 is

when you know perfectly well the first thing you do after getting one is buy a lightning link

8/18/2009 3:51:34 PM

I've never known of a single person converting an AR-15 to FA. I think most people with any sense are rightfully afraid of the lengthy federal prison sentences that go along with that. Then again, Maybe you weren't trolling as hard as i thought you were?

8/18/2009 4:08:38 PM

Right, and the kind of person who buys an AR-15 is probably a sensible, law-fearing person.

8/18/2009 4:16:20 PM

^Why would they not be?

8/18/2009 4:19:35 PM

^^I'd venture to say, yes that those who legally purchase an AR are sensible, law-abiding people

in fact, of the 10 or so people that I know that have ARs, they are all sensible, law-abiding people

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2009 4:26:44 PM

^^^ you are obviously not familiar with the long arm of the BATFE. Most people who own more than one or two guns are acutely aware of the consequences of firearms law violations. So yes, I'd say they are law fearing.

8/18/2009 4:28:47 PM

Quote :

"Right, and the kind of person who buys an AR-15 is probably a sensible, law-fearing person. "

this dude is totally delusional..... I don't even know what to say to that.

8/18/2009 4:35:55 PM

Quote :

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0"

great video, btw.

8/18/2009 4:48:58 PM

no one needs an assault weapon, unless youre in the armed services on duty

8/18/2009 5:41:41 PM