It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NRA blasts Open Carry Texas after San Antonio incidents

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Sorry, are you seriously saying that the idiots in the picture posted are in any way shape or form sensible? They walked into a restaurant with assault rifles just because they had the legal right.

So, we have move from the talking point of "common sense" to "sensible". You moved from MDA to Giffords speak.
I never said it was or it wasn't.
Sensible is not outlined, addressed or even mentioned in the 2nd.
I bet you can't tell me why "sensible" isn't? I will give you a hint. Sensible is subjective.






originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Forget the fact that people freaked out, forget the fact that I'd been there I'd have automatically assumed that they were there to rob the place and would have majorly freaked out myself. Come off it, those people are taking things to the extreme.

And people have no right not to be freaked out.
So, let me get this straight. These people have a right to bear arms, and exercise this right.
They should stop exercising said right, because you are freaked out.

Basically, people must act according to how you want them to act, so you are not made to feel freaked out.

WOW. The term narcissist comes to mind.


Right. So you want people to walk into churches and libraries and schools equipped with assault rifles??? Why can't people use common sense? Here in the UK it's still legal for an Englishman to kill me if I set foot in the city of Chester after dark, because I'm Welsh. Am I in any actual danger? Of course not. Should people walk into a restaurant with an assault rifle? Why would they need one there????


Please allow me to explain... IT IS NOT THE BILL OF "NEEDS"! IT IS THE BILL OF "RIGHTS"!




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: macman

Can I ask if you really think that those two people in that restaurant holding those guns were acting responsibly? Did they need to have those guns there?

EDIT: my brother in law had a disagreement with the incoming chief of police (who he knew to be a moron) and was forced out. I love America, but why do you elect policemen? Not that we have a better system, after looking at some of the idiots who have screwed things up here.


If you would like to know if there are more stupid people in the world than smart people, just take a trip to D.C.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: macman

If someone was in the restaurant concealing a handgun and someone walked in with a riffle, and the person with the handgun turned around and shot them in the head, they would be justified in doing so if they claimed it was self defense right, if they felt their life was in jeopardy? Lets say the person with the riffle was wearing a hood.


That is an easy one to answer...

The law states that to claim pure self defense the shooter MUST be of sound mind and be able to articulate the need to shoot.
Most left headed folks would most likely trip over their collective dicks in a U.S. court of law.
Good judgment is sorely lacking within the ranks of the anti-gun folks.

If a person places their finger on the trigger and/or points a rifle towards a innocent person or is wearing a mask?
If the dog did not stop to take a leak he may have caught the rabbit!

It all goes back to being of sound mind and that is why you should not have a weapon!
edit on 5-6-2014 by waltwillis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: waltwillis


If you would like to know if there are more stupid people.


Or read your posts..


The constitution gave the courts the ability to challenge it. They have already ruled the 2nd amendment is limited.

There can be rules, regulations or laws.

The constitution/bill of rights can be amended and is not set in stone.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LarryLove
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You see this isn't about 'rights' this is all ego in my book. And no one individual needs to behave like this in public. Heavily armed twits (frankly looking a bit weird toting weapons like this) show the cause to retain the right to bear arms in the wrong light altogether. I will always respect that right and don't have many issues with gun ownership per se, but when the world looks on at these stories, what will it think?


Ego? Carrying a weapon isn't about ego; it's about the right to protect oneself, and ones freedoms. Some time back, guys could drive around with a gun rack, guns included, int he back of the truck they drove to school, and no one batted an eyelash. And why should they? it's only more recently that the anti-gun politicians, who do it for control, have convinced a lot of people that guns are "bad". No one has a finger on a trigger. The one is clearly on the guard, as it should be. As for the rest of the world, if they want to be unable to defend freedom, and when a lot don't even have real freedom, I don't care what they think.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: waltwillis

The entire reason there is the need or right to carry again is because the lack of trust in people. If someone is carrying a gun, I should have the right to shoot that person, because I will feel threatened and endangered, by the fact that they can potentially harm me at any time, this is simple self defense. I dont trust people that carry guns in public, so I should be able to shoot them as m self defense.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: LarryLove
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You see this isn't about 'rights' this is all ego in my book. And no one individual needs to behave like this in public. Heavily armed twits (frankly looking a bit weird toting weapons like this) show the cause to retain the right to bear arms in the wrong light altogether. I will always respect that right and don't have many issues with gun ownership per se, but when the world looks on at these stories, what will it think?


Ego? Carrying a weapon isn't about ego; it's about the right to protect oneself, and ones freedoms. Some time back, guys could drive around with a gun rack, guns included, int he back of the truck they drove to school, and no one batted an eyelash. And why should they? it's only more recently that the anti-gun politicians, who do it for control, have convinced a lot of people that guns are "bad". No one has a finger on a trigger. The one is clearly on the guard, as it should be. As for the rest of the world, if they want to be unable to defend freedom, and when a lot don't even have real freedom, I don't care what they think.


But why do they need to 'defend freedom' in a restaurant??? Where's the threat? Is there a sniper behind the salad bar? Is there a grizzly in the kitchen? People freaked out when they arrived. I know that I would have.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
But why do they need to 'defend freedom' in a restaurant??? Where's the threat? Is there a sniper behind the salad bar? Is there a grizzly in the kitchen? People freaked out when they arrived. I know that I would have.


What, you never heard of any restaurant shootings? There, it's defending themselves and their neighbors.Unless the government declares war on citizens, in which case the restaurant would be no refuge.

You actually had to ask that one?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
But why do they need to 'defend freedom' in a restaurant??? Where's the threat? Is there a sniper behind the salad bar? Is there a grizzly in the kitchen? People freaked out when they arrived. I know that I would have.


What, you never heard of any restaurant shootings? There, it's defending themselves and their neighbors.Unless the government declares war on citizens, in which case the restaurant would be no refuge.

You actually had to ask that one?


Yes, I have heard of restaurant shootings. I just happen to think that a) they're not very common at all, b) that the police are better equipped to take out the perps and finally c) accidently blowing the head off some bewildered little old lady at the salad bar because she got caught in the crossfire is a bit much. Life is not the movies. Life is not '24'. If you leave the house with an assault rifle just to get a pack of smokes and a pint of milk then you're either paranoid or living in a war zone.
Here's another thought. So you want to go out and defend freedom by having your assault rifle, just in case Jack Bauer crashed through the window being pursued by half of Al-Qaeda, or whatever you think might happen. Great. Go ahead. You know that you're only going to be a danger to any perp who crosses your path. Fine. But as the rest of the world isn't telepathic, how are we to know that you're not a former mental patient who thinks that the CIA has bugged all the lamp posts along the street? How are other people to know that you're not dangerous? Are you going to stick a sign around your neck saying: "Not Crazy!" (which would sow a few doubts in people's minds)?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I'm sorry, but asking if those two men needed to bring assault rifles to a restaurant is thinking like a progressive?

Yes. "Need" is not required to be explained or clarified for a right to be exercised.


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Surely responsible gun ownership means fitting the right to bear arms to the circumstances of the immediate situation?

No, responsible gun ownership is not that. Responsible gun ownership would be learning your firearm, training with it, educating family members and so on.

Your responsible gun ownership is talking points handed out by Bloomberg and MDA.
The hijacking of the term "Responsible gun ownership" is a disgusting attempt to redefine the discussion, because those pushing for infringement upon the 2nd are loosing the battle and the war.




originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
By your argument gun owners should take their weapons everywhere - the swimming pool, the ocean, the local bars, hotels?

It is the right to do so. So long as the private property owner allows this.
There is no need to justify bringing a firearm to any situation or place. It is up to the individual, not anyone else.



originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
The logical extension of your argument is that you should even take your assault rifle to bed. Are some of these areas a good idea to have a gun with you? No.

Again, I don't have the right, nor do I want the right, to tell people how to act. Seems like you really think you reserve this right.




originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Should they think that going to the local square to hear a band fits the need? Why would they need a gun there?

Again, up to the person.


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
It's not a toy, it's a deadly weapon.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. I was confused as to this. I thought it was a hammer.


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Every day people in America - and elsewhere around the world - get killed because of sloppy handing of firearms.

And every day people die to sloppy handling of a vehicle, drugs, knives, construction equipment and surgery. What is your point?
And I could care less about other countries and their issues.



originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Why am I, a Brit, having to point out the need for responsible handling of guns to you?

Because you think you get to tell me and other Americans what to do???
Is it your elitist nature that leads you to believe that you must do this??
I don't know. You are going to have to answer this.


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
You might be the safest person ever when it comes to your firearm - but how is everyone around you supposed to know that? Telepathy?

Not my problem.
If you want to be safe, stay home.
Life and freedoms come with a certain amount of risk.
Sounds like you would trade freedoms for false safety. What a sad way to go through life.


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
As for my brother in law, why do you think that he disagreed with the incoming chief over the Second Amendment? He didn't. He'd met him before and knew that he was very photogenic but also a complete moron. If I recall correctly the chief was later dismissed for abuse of his powers, proving my brother in law to have been 100% right.

Well, that sounds like fun.


edit on 6-6-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: macman

If someone was in the restaurant concealing a handgun and someone walked in with a riffle, and the person with the handgun turned around and shot them in the head, they would be justified in doing so if they claimed it was self defense right, if they felt their life was in jeopardy? Lets say the person with the riffle was wearing a hood.


So, you think it is justified to just shoot someone carrying a rifle???
Or just because they are wearing a hood with a rifle???

Something tells me you either have no clue, or are just trolling this thread.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: waltwillis


If you would like to know if there are more stupid people.


Or read your posts..


The constitution gave the courts the ability to challenge it. They have already ruled the 2nd amendment is limited.

There can be rules, regulations or laws.

The constitution/bill of rights can be amended and is not set in stone.


Our U.S. Constitution did NOT give the courts the right to change it!
YOU are not correct! I am not calling you STUPID, but you may want to stay quiet on things you don't know.
People may challenge the interpretation and enforcement of any law and if in has standing in the supreme court of the United States it will be heard. Now if the Constitution is to be amended it will require a different protocol.
A constitution convention may be convened by 2/3rds of the states calling for a review of the supreme law of the land.
I can tell you that if the "Bill of Rights" were in question I and many others would not be very happy and would hold our own convention with devastating results for the folks in your neighborhood!
BE CARFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Yes, I have heard of restaurant shootings. I just happen to think that a) they're not very common at all, b) that the police are better equipped to take out the perps and finally c) accidently blowing the head off some bewildered little old lady at the salad bar because she got caught in the crossfire is a bit much. Life is not the movies. Life is not '24'. If you leave the house with an assault rifle just to get a pack of smokes and a pint of milk then you're either paranoid or living in a war zone.


So, if a gunman comes in to a place you are eating, and starts shooting, you'd rather wait for the police, than have some armed citizen there and able to take them out? How long before the cops arrive? These things tend to take short minutes, and are over before the police can get there, even with the best response times. Some cities, people are virtually living in war zones. Where I am now, crime is low, but lots of places it's out of control.


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Here's another thought. So you want to go out and defend freedom by having your assault rifle, just in case Jack Bauer crashed through the window being pursued by half of Al-Qaeda, or whatever you think might happen. Great. Go ahead. You know that you're only going to be a danger to any perp who crosses your path. Fine. But as the rest of the world isn't telepathic, how are we to know that you're not a former mental patient who thinks that the CIA has bugged all the lamp posts along the street? How are other people to know that you're not dangerous? Are you going to stick a sign around your neck saying: "Not Crazy!" (which would sow a few doubts in people's minds)?


If someone is simply carrying a weapon, and isn't brandishing it, then they aren't being threatening. That's how you know. Do you assume cops are nuts, simply because they carry guns? How about hunters? The simple fact of someone carrying a gun does not, in and of itself, make them any more likely to be a danger than anyone else.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The problem with you is that you keep calling the guns (the rifles in the photos) assault weapons and earlier, - machine guns! That just shows how little you know about guns and shouldn't be even commenting here. They are semi-auto rifles which are are approved for civilian use.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skyline74
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The problem with you is that you keep calling the guns (the rifles in the photos) assault weapons and earlier, - machine guns! That just shows how little you know about guns and shouldn't be even commenting here. They are semi-auto rifles which are are approved for civilian use.



I shouldn't be commenting on this? Pardon me for thinking that the sight of a firearm in a restaurant is excessive!



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Yes, I have heard of restaurant shootings. I just happen to think that a) they're not very common at all, b) that the police are better equipped to take out the perps and finally c) accidently blowing the head off some bewildered little old lady at the salad bar because she got caught in the crossfire is a bit much. Life is not the movies. Life is not '24'. If you leave the house with an assault rifle just to get a pack of smokes and a pint of milk then you're either paranoid or living in a war zone.


So, if a gunman comes in to a place you are eating, and starts shooting, you'd rather wait for the police, than have some armed citizen there and able to take them out? How long before the cops arrive? These things tend to take short minutes, and are over before the police can get there, even with the best response times. Some cities, people are virtually living in war zones. Where I am now, crime is low, but lots of places it's out of control.


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Here's another thought. So you want to go out and defend freedom by having your assault rifle, just in case Jack Bauer crashed through the window being pursued by half of Al-Qaeda, or whatever you think might happen. Great. Go ahead. You know that you're only going to be a danger to any perp who crosses your path. Fine. But as the rest of the world isn't telepathic, how are we to know that you're not a former mental patient who thinks that the CIA has bugged all the lamp posts along the street? How are other people to know that you're not dangerous? Are you going to stick a sign around your neck saying: "Not Crazy!" (which would sow a few doubts in people's minds)?


If someone is simply carrying a weapon, and isn't brandishing it, then they aren't being threatening. That's how you know. Do you assume cops are nuts, simply because they carry guns? How about hunters? The simple fact of someone carrying a gun does not, in and of itself, make them any more likely to be a danger than anyone else.


The world of Wayne LaPierre is a caricature of the real world. Unless you live in a really bad place you don't need to grab your gun to get a pint of milk in the morning. As for your other point, cops have been trained in the use of their weapons. They're cops you see. They have a uniform. As for hunters, I know more than a few - but they tend to be sensible people who leave their weapons in the pickup outside if they go to a diner near where they hunt. They don't drive to the middle of a fricking city and get out their rifles to have a pizza. Let's be serious here. Why would you need a weapon in a restaurant? Are you going to shoot the waitress when she brings the check? Are you waiting for the zombie apocalypse? I'm sorry for using this phrase again, but what about common sense?



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: waltwillis

The entire reason there is the need or right to carry again is because the lack of trust in people. If someone is carrying a gun, I should have the right to shoot that person, because I will feel threatened and endangered, by the fact that they can potentially harm me at any time, this is simple self defense. I dont trust people that carry guns in public, so I should be able to shoot them as m self defense.


It is your choice to be stupid and if you have an unreasonable fear of another person with a gun, and then decide to kill them, you won't last long.

At some point you may want to seek help with your irrational fear from a professional.
There is hope as I have heard that they found a cure for stupid, but it is anthrax, and they still have not found a cure for that.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Yes, I have heard of restaurant shootings. I just happen to think that a) they're not very common at all, b) that the police are better equipped to take out the perps and finally c) accidently blowing the head off some bewildered little old lady at the salad bar because she got caught in the crossfire is a bit much. Life is not the movies. Life is not '24'. If you leave the house with an assault rifle just to get a pack of smokes and a pint of milk then you're either paranoid or living in a war zone.


So, if a gunman comes in to a place you are eating, and starts shooting, you'd rather wait for the police, than have some armed citizen there and able to take them out? How long before the cops arrive? These things tend to take short minutes, and are over before the police can get there, even with the best response times. Some cities, people are virtually living in war zones. Where I am now, crime is low, but lots of places it's out of control.


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Here's another thought. So you want to go out and defend freedom by having your assault rifle, just in case Jack Bauer crashed through the window being pursued by half of Al-Qaeda, or whatever you think might happen. Great. Go ahead. You know that you're only going to be a danger to any perp who crosses your path. Fine. But as the rest of the world isn't telepathic, how are we to know that you're not a former mental patient who thinks that the CIA has bugged all the lamp posts along the street? How are other people to know that you're not dangerous? Are you going to stick a sign around your neck saying: "Not Crazy!" (which would sow a few doubts in people's minds)?


If someone is simply carrying a weapon, and isn't brandishing it, then they aren't being threatening. That's how you know. Do you assume cops are nuts, simply because they carry guns? How about hunters? The simple fact of someone carrying a gun does not, in and of itself, make them any more likely to be a danger than anyone else.


The world of Wayne LaPierre is a caricature of the real world. Unless you live in a really bad place you don't need to grab your gun to get a pint of milk in the morning. As for your other point, cops have been trained in the use of their weapons. They're cops you see. They have a uniform. As for hunters, I know more than a few - but they tend to be sensible people who leave their weapons in the pickup outside if they go to a diner near where they hunt. They don't drive to the middle of a fricking city and get out their rifles to have a pizza. Let's be serious here. Why would you need a weapon in a restaurant? Are you going to shoot the waitress when she brings the check? Are you waiting for the zombie apocalypse? I'm sorry for using this phrase again, but what about common sense?


In the state of Washington four cops were shot to death while having a lunch break. They were all on duty when a black man with a pistol walked up to them and shot them in cold blood.
They were professionals with guns in a restaurant just taking a lunch break.
They must have thought that the law would protect them more then their guns...
After all it is against the law to carry a gun into a place like that...



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

As for your other point, cops have been trained in the use of their weapons. They're cops you see. They have a uniform.


I love this. Okay, I train cops. Trust me? I don't have a uniform though.
As someone who has trained plenty of cops would you be surprised if I told you they're largely terrible shots and awful under stress? Far worse than the average gun owner who fires recreationaly.

I know, right. Just blows every stupid falsehood you held true out of the water.

But that's okay because you'll just ignore this reality and go on pretending cop=special superhuman.

Oh, to compound their severe lack of practice and poor ability they also carry equipment that is designed to make them even worse shots. See: The NY Trigger

This moronic faith people have in cops is absurd.
edit on 7-6-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: waltwillis

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: waltwillis

The entire reason there is the need or right to carry again is because the lack of trust in people. If someone is carrying a gun, I should have the right to shoot that person, because I will feel threatened and endangered, by the fact that they can potentially harm me at any time, this is simple self defense. I dont trust people that carry guns in public, so I should be able to shoot them as m self defense.


It is your choice to be stupid and if you have an unreasonable fear of another person with a gun, and then decide to kill them, you won't last long.

At some point you may want to seek help with your irrational fear from a professional.
There is hope as I have heard that they found a cure for stupid, but it is anthrax, and they still have not found a cure for that.


So carrying a gun everywhere isnt an irrational fear, but shooting someone I see with a gun who I think will shoot me is?




top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join