More gun owners show up to obama visits carrying

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: spidey07 Also notice that ever present scare tactic - "an assault rifle".

Well, an AR-15 is pretty damn close to an assault rifle.

Please define "assault rifle" for me.

An AR-15 lacks the selective fire feature that is one determinant of an "assault rifle".
As do virtually all the rifles banned under the "assault weapons" legislation...

Select-fire (Auto/burst) rifles and machine-guns are actually not banned now. In fact, they never really were.
So, if that ain't it, what other features could possibly qualify a rifle as an "assault rifle"?

The real determinant of what the Every-Amendment-Is-Sacred-Save-the-Second crowd calls an "Assault Rifle" is they look real scary.
Like the scary ones they see in the movies.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I bet the Secret Service guys are sweating bullets over that one....

Good.

are you kidding me? As soon as that guy makes any threatening moves towards the President, he's gonna have 5 bullets in his heart.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: spidey07 Also notice that ever present scare tactic - "an assault rifle".

Well, an AR-15 is pretty damn close to an assault rifle.

Please define "assault rifle" for me.

An AR-15 lacks the selective fire feature that is one determinant of an "assault rifle".
As do virtually all the rifles banned under the "assault weapons" legislation...

Select-fire (Auto/burst) rifles and machine-guns are actually not banned now. In fact, they never really were.
So, if that ain't it, what other features could possibly qualify a rifle as an "assault rifle"?

The real determinant of what the Every-Amendment-Is-Sacred-Save-the-Second crowd calls an "Assault Rifle" is they look real scary.
Like the scary ones they see in the movies.

/agreed.

See my last edit above.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: spidey07 Also notice that ever present scare tactic - "an assault rifle".

Well, an AR-15 is pretty damn close to an assault rifle.

Please define "assault rifle" for me.

An AR-15 lacks the selective fire feature that is one determinant of an "assault rifle".
As do virtually all the rifles banned under the "assault weapons" legislation...

Select-fire (Auto/burst) rifles and machine-guns are actually not banned now. In fact, they never really were.
So, if that ain't it, what other features could possibly qualify a rifle as an "assault rifle"?

The real determinant of what the Every-Amendment-Is-Sacred-Save-the-Second crowd calls an "Assault Rifle" is they look real scary.
Like the scary ones they see in the movies.

This always make me lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: spidey07 Also notice that ever present scare tactic - "an assault rifle".

Well, an AR-15 is pretty damn close to an assault rifle.

Please define "assault rifle" for me.

An AR-15 lacks the selective fire feature that is one determinant of an "assault rifle".
As do virtually all the rifles banned under the "assault weapons" legislation...

Select-fire (Auto/burst) rifles and machine-guns are actually not banned now. In fact, they never really were.
So, if that ain't it, what other features could possibly qualify a rifle as an "assault rifle"?

He's correct, select fire IS the quantifying feature that seperates a civilian version, from a true assault rifle, you are also correct that they are NOT illegal

...and since you all missed it, my point was that the "Assault Weapons Ban" banned weapons that Are Not Assault Weapons.
And did not ban Real Assault Weapons.

Which should not, IMHO, be banned.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: spidey07 Also notice that ever present scare tactic - "an assault rifle".

Well, an AR-15 is pretty damn close to an assault rifle.

Please define "assault rifle" for me.

An AR-15 lacks the selective fire feature that is one determinant of an "assault rifle".
As do virtually all the rifles banned under the "assault weapons" legislation...

Select-fire (Auto/burst) rifles and machine-guns are actually not banned now. In fact, they never really were.
So, if that ain't it, what other features could possibly qualify a rifle as an "assault rifle"?

He's correct, select fire IS the quantifying feature that seperates a civilian version, from a true assault rifle, you are also correct that they are NOT illegal

...and since you all missed it, my point was that the "Assault Weapons Ban" banned weapons that Are Not Assault Weapons.
And did not ban Real Assault Weapons.

Which should not, IMHO, be banned.

Wo0t yip, missed the "lacks...as do"

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: spidey07 Also notice that ever present scare tactic - "an assault rifle".

Well, an AR-15 is pretty damn close to an assault rifle.

Please define "assault rifle" for me.

An AR-15 lacks the selective fire feature that is one determinant of an "assault rifle".
As do virtually all the rifles banned under the "assault weapons" legislation...

Select-fire (Auto/burst) rifles and machine-guns are actually not banned now. In fact, they never really were.
So, if that ain't it, what other features could possibly qualify a rifle as an "assault rifle"?

The real determinant of what the Every-Amendment-Is-Sacred-Save-the-Second crowd calls an "Assault Rifle" is they look real scary.
Like the scary ones they see in the movies.

I see what you did there

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I bet the Secret Service guys are sweating bullets over that one....

Good.

are you kidding me? As soon as that guy makes any threatening moves towards the President, he's gonna have 5 bullets in his heart.

Again, he didn't and no responsible gun owner would do such a thing. Just exercising their right. No responsible gun owner would even raise the weapon unless they absolutely had to in response to harm. And by a HUGE margin those that choose to open carry are responsible gun owners.

As I said in the OP - nothing illegal happening here. If he raised his weapon, then fine - kill him either by SS/LEO or by another carrying, that's a deadly threat.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I bet the Secret Service guys are sweating bullets over that one....

Good.

are you kidding me? As soon as that guy makes any threatening moves towards the President, he's gonna have 5 bullets in his heart.

Again, he didn't and no responsible gun owner would do such a thing. Just exercising their right. No responsible gun owner would even raise the weapon unless they absolutely had to in response to harm. And by a HUGE margin those that choose to open carry are responsible gun owners.

As I said in the OP - nothing illegal happening here. If he raised his weapon, then fine - kill him either by SS/LEO or by another carrying, that's a deadly threat.

But, but, what if?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I bet the Secret Service guys are sweating bullets over that one....

Good.

are you kidding me? As soon as that guy makes any threatening moves towards the President, he's gonna have 5 bullets in his heart.

Again, he didn't and no responsible gun owner would do such a thing. Just exercising their right. No responsible gun owner would even raise the weapon unless they absolutely had to in response to harm. And by a HUGE margin those that choose to open carry are responsible gun owners.

As I said in the OP - nothing illegal happening here. If he raised his weapon, then fine - kill him either by SS/LEO or by another carrying, that's a deadly threat.

I own a couple guns, but carrying a gun around an elected official is just stupid, especially in the post 9-11 world. It does nothing for the gun rights movement and it does everything for the opposition. It's like wearing a shirt that says "Al Qaeda Suicide Bomber" at the airport. Sure, you technically can wear the shirt under the 1st Amendment, but it's definitely not the smart thing to do.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh yes, the administration that tinfoil beanie-wearing wingnuts are still oh so certain is going to ban guns but instead the only action it has taken on gun control has been to repeal a Reagan era law forbidding concealed carry in national parks.

I thought that was bush or did the law sunset under obama?

The law just sunset under Obama and he refused to reinstate it despite the screaming protests of the National Park Service.
What I'm telling you is that you're disconnected from reality. Obama doesn't care about your guns.

President Obama is intelligent enough to realize that the Second Amendment is the one issue that would either drive every Blue Dog Democrat across the aisle or ensure that none of them are ever reelected.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I'm all for gun rights, which is why this bothers me. Showing off your scary guns like this is a good way to get the grabbers riled up. Just because you can doesn't mean you should yadda yadda yadda.

Yeah, I don't think I'd bring my guns with me to that kind of setting. As much as I may have the right to carry, some place just aren't appropriate. Use a little common sense.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan
Scared wingnuts with guns seeing their country being taking over by libs is old news.

I don't think you need to be a "wingnut" to see liberties being trampled upon, and by both parties. When it comes to civil liberties, I shouldn't have to mention how bad the Bush admin was, and the Obama admin has been terrible, too.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
how things have changed eh? Protesters couldn't carry signs where bush could see them from his car and now we get loons waiving guns around convention centers. I say its a good sign.

They could have done the exact same thing, in AZ with Bush. Nice try though.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
how things have changed eh? Protesters couldn't carry signs where bush could see them from his car and now we get loons waiving guns around convention centers. I say its a good sign.

They could have done the exact same thing, in AZ with Bush. Nice try though.

They might have been able to openly carry firearms, but any signs critical of our last president were consistently quarantined in a "free speech zone" well out of any possible notice of the president or his entourage.

 

[ilkhan]

Originally posted by: spidey07
New trend?

Only if the country is lucky.

 

[VinylxScratches]

I guess if you want to look like a douche you can do this.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: VinylxScratches
I guess if you want to look like a douche you can do this.

How is it looking like a douche? It is exercising one's right. If one currently has a legal right, and a politician is using scare tactics to restrict and limit that right, then a smart response is to show that what the politician says is simple that: scare tactics. Having many people carry guns in a smart, safe, and careful manner does just that.

Now this doesn't mean I think Obama wants to take away our guns, but rhetoric talking about things like "Cop Killer Bullets" needs to be addressed. You can get rid of almost any irrational fear by having people face it.

edit:
grammar

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: VinylxScratches
I guess if you want to look like a douche you can do this.

How is it looking like a douche? It is exercising one's right. If one currently has a legal right, and a politician is using scare tactics to restrict and limit that right, then a smart response is to show that what the politician says is simple that: scare tactics. Having many people carry guns in a smart, safe, and careful manner does just that.

Now this doesn't mean I think Obama wants to take away our guns, but rhetoric talking about things like "Cop Killer Bullets" needs to be addressed. You can get rid of almost any irrational fear by having people face it.

edit:
grammar

Government using scare tactics = politics
Citizens using scare tactics = terrorism

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh yes, the administration that tinfoil beanie-wearing wingnuts are still oh so certain is going to ban guns but instead the only action it has taken on gun control has been to repeal a Reagan era law forbidding concealed carry in national parks.

I thought that was bush or did the law sunset under obama?

The law just sunset under Obama and he refused to reinstate it despite the screaming protests of the National Park Service.
What I'm telling you is that you're disconnected from reality. Obama doesn't care about your guns.

President Obama is intelligent enough to realize that the Second Amendment is the one issue that would either drive every Blue Dog Democrat across the aisle or ensure that none of them are ever reelected.

I won't argue this point. Quite the opposite, as a gun owner and strong proponent of gun rights, I've been counting on it since before he was elected.

 

[OCGuy]

Nothing is more funny that a moron being scared by the sight of a gun.

It isnt even a (R) (D) thing. I know as many democrats with guns than I do republicans.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I bet the Secret Service guys are sweating bullets over that one....

Doubt it.

 

[Patranus]

who cares?

They are not doing anything illegal....What difference does it make?

 

[sapiens74]

guns show up at every event he has.

Law enforcement is carrying them....

 

[Argo]

It's pretty stupid to carry a gun anywhere near POTUS. You know there'll be a sniper riffle targetted at you at all times. You make some "sudden" gesture, or the guys finger twitches and you get shot.