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 Calls 'Open Carry' Rallies Scary and "Downright Weird"

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: spiritualzombie




I still believe in the right to bear arms..


The right to bear arms is the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

A person either believes in personal freedom or they don't.

See the 9th amendment for clarification.

To deny or disparage a right is a no no.

That GD piece of paper says so.


You argue even the points we agree on? See, this is why you personally I don't want to see roaming the streets with a gun. You're just an unreasonable person. You'll escalate a situation even when they agree with you. Red flag...




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Well open carry means open carry.

Back in the day of the writing of the constitution 'Americans' didn't have 'American' guns.

They carried French,British,German etc.

I personally wouldn't carry an AK.

Simple fact it represents the most brutal regimes in modern, and recent history.

Freedom of choice mean freedom of choice.

Most people have AK's because the ammo is cheaper to shoot.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

I make no apologies for not getting on my knees for someone else's beliefs.

I don't believe in gun control.

Never will.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

So you just think it's in bad taste? Okay. I do too frankly. Like purple hair and nose rings. I'm not going to suggest they stop though. I've been sitting in a sandwhich shop when a bunch of guys from a nearby range came in with their tacticool dress carrying their AR's slung. It wasnt a big deal. Nobody shrieked in terror. Children didnt cry and mothers heads didnt explode.

Oh, and we don't hear about "maniacs going in and killing people all the time." Not unless you count the media repeating the same story for weeks on end as "all the time." These events are quite rare despite popular conception.

So are we to live rooted in reality or rooted in popular conception? I suppose one could argue that popular conception shapes reality but then we'd all be living in a mad house with every unmarked van containing a child-snatching rapist and every plane just a hard sneeze from falling out of the sky and every gun just sitting on a shelf waiting for a child to walk by so it could magically go off.

I choose to live in reality where guns dont just go off, planes are one of the safest forms of travel and unmarked vans are just unmarked vans.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

You seem to be missing the point of the protest OCT is doing.

The rifle is because they cannot carry a handgun openly on their hip like folks in 44 other states can.

The statement is "we'll if I can't be reasonable I'll be ridiculous."

The effort is to get Texas law to be reasonable.

That's the point. I'm sure some yahoos are just doing it for #s and giggles or just because they can but the point is valid.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: spiritualzombie

I make no apologies for not getting on my knees for someone else's beliefs.

I don't believe in gun control.

Never will.


Where is the line? Is it okay then for a muslim in full muslim garb to walk into a Chipotle with their AK-47 and start chanting Allah Akbar? I mean, it's his right to bear arms and his freedom of speech, and freedom of religion... Nothing at all wrong with it, right?? Only a Nazi would have a problem with that, right??

You think we can all just dress up like maniacs and carry our guns around like little children with their fingers in your face saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" and that kind of douche-bag behavior is okay?

Just be reasonable.

Or in terms you might understand better.... Pick your battles. The Battle of Chipotle may not be the battle worth fighting.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LarryLove
a reply to: Wrabbit2000



And that picture, plus all the others and those we haven't seen yet in regard to this protest, makes a nonsense of it all. No one needs to go shopping or dining with an assault rifle.


The firearm is far safer slung over the owner's shoulder than it would be if he left it in his vehicle parked in the parking lot. I'd rather see the owner carrying it in a store than see it in the hands of some piece of filth that breaks into parked cars and steals the contents.

Also, what's an "assault rifle?" I'm unfamiliar with that type of firearm...



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: LarryLove
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

And that picture, plus all the others and those we haven't seen yet in regard to this protest, makes a nonsense of it all. No one needs to go shopping or dining with an assault rifle.


100% agreed and that is where I say the line is clear to be drawn between protesting the right to do a thing and keeping that right into the future vs...basically enraging the opposition SO badly that NEW law comes into reality which didn't have a basis or a public outcry to be specifically pushed before.

It takes a cause I believe deeply in and a right I exercise myself and makes it a symbol of derision, fear (from some) and hate from many. Probably the exact thing the 2nd amendment cause didn't need. We HAVE the guns, by definition. We HAVE the power of lethal force in real world situations, by definition. It's self evident to the debate.

No need to kick the other side in the family jewels to emphasize it, is my thought.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie




Where is the line?


Read my first post in this thread that line was CLEARLY established.

Yo take me to court and let a jury of my peers decide my 'guilt'.

So as it was written So shall it be.

But since some people don't want to do that they need to stop arguing, and denigrating those who have that GD piece of paper on their side.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: LarryLove
a reply to: Wrabbit2000



And that picture, plus all the others and those we haven't seen yet in regard to this protest, makes a nonsense of it all. No one needs to go shopping or dining with an assault rifle.


The firearm is far safer slung over the owner's shoulder than it would be if he left it in his vehicle parked in the parking lot. I'd rather see the owner carrying it in a store than see it in the hands of some piece of filth that breaks into parked cars and steals the contents.

Also, what's an "assault rifle?" I'm unfamiliar with that type of firearm...


I will defend your right to weapons but take issue when morons are doing this out of ego. Semantics about weapons I won't go into however I believe AK47s are commonly known as assault rifle or thereabouts. You don't need to go shopping or dining with that kind of weaponry strapped to your back.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
a reply to: spiritualzombie
So you just think it's in bad taste? Okay. I do too frankly.


Worse than bad taste... You don't mess with people's security like that. That's not right. Gun owners should not be minimizing it. Have some honor. Demand honorable and respectful behavior. It's a GD killing machine. Have some GD sense about it.

You're right... guns don't just go off... but when someone walks in with an AK-47, you'd be a fool not to keep an eye on them. You gotta assess that situation. And also ask yourself if you want to eat lunch at a place where you're vastly out-gunned. We just don't need that. Not for lunch. Not at the movies. And if people insist on abusing that right, then I'll be on board with making that illegal. And you can blame the douche bags for changing my mind and convincing me that people just aren't ready to be adults. And even the gun owners care more about the Right than what is right.

Nobody should be on the Chipotle gun-toters side.



edit on 4-6-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Mornin',

I'm seeing words like: extremist, war lust, radical, criminal and violent.
We're talking about the Obama Administration here right?
Seriously now...the words "shall not be infringed" don't really mean anything to people do they?
Y'all should really figure out what those words mean before weighing in on this topic.

-Peace-
edit on 5-6-2014 by Eryiedes because: Typo



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

You're right... guns don't just go off... but when someone walks in with an AK-47, you'd be a fool not to keep an eye on them.



Okay. So when you're at the range are you watching everyone around you with your head on a swivel? 20, 30 or more people surrounding you with guns not just slung but in their hands with their fingers on the triggers letting rounds fly?

Because you'd have to be to remain consistent here.

Five guys with rifles at a Chipotle, Target or the local range are all still five guys with rifles.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




what's an "assault rifle?" I'm unfamiliar with that type of firearm...


As am I.
This is not an issue of semantics, as another poster alluded to. There is a fundamental difference in an "assault" weapon and a defensive weapon. As I do not intent to "assault" anything or anyone, my weapons cannot be considered as such (unless you have an agenda and keep using that buzzword to push that subtle point around)
Keep claiming they are "assault" weapons, it just plays right into the hand of those with said agenda. It provides a fear-inducing buzzword for the "not so sure" masses that are either undecided or scared to death of guns in the first place.

Anyways, on topic. I don't have much to say. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. Period. Anything else is opinion and matters not. I don't personally walk around with automatic weapons (or even a rifle, unless I am hunting or target shooting) but it is not up to me, or anyone else for that matter, to say whether another can or cannot do so. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED......seems MANY just don't get it. (Or they do and just don't like that FACT)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThichHeaded
My point of view Shall not be infringed means people can own whatever gun the government has.. So we can keep a well regulated militia to INSURE a FREE STATE.
.

Not working to well for ya now is it!

You dont just need the guns mate but the will to actually USE them.

So far the US people seems content with its groping and rape squads (TSA), it patriot acts, it militated police, no warrant searches and indefinite detention so say but a few.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Not sure how not allowing open carry is a infringement. Concealed carry seems perfectly fine for defense. You can still carry a gun and protect yourself with it.

If the USA is such a war zone you have to openly carry M-16 round with you, you got some problems.

No problem here with concealed carry, but see no reason for open carry. But too me its a states decision.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Not that I don't agree that concealed carry isn't a good option (for reasons you have mentioned) but I would imagine - answering your question here- that "shall not be infringed" means shall not period. Not "shall not be infringed as long as you conceal carry" or "shall not be infringed but...."

It is an infringement....a small, subtle hassle really (for some) but for some just not something they desire to do. Some like to open carry, even if it is just a pistol. I would imagine that some like the deterrent factor of the gun being visible. That way, rather than have to pull it from a hidden place after an attacker (might) think said person is disarmed....the attacker is fully aware that the gun is there and doesn't even attack in the first place. This would (and does, I imagine) work with the opportunist type attacker......those hell bent on attack - a visible firearm just might even make them think twice.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

I don't see it as infringement as you can still carry what ever guns you like.

The amendment just says your allowed to carry guns, not how.

So as long as you can buy and carry them I dont see the problem.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Aside from simple comfort or preference there are legal issues that come with concealed only carry.

Printing, or being able to see the shape of the gun under your clothing even for only a moment when bending or stepping up, can be crime depending on the state you live in. A crime that loses you your carry permit.

If you reach up and the gun becomes exposed, even just part of the gun, that becomes brandishing.

It's not that concealed only is on its face unreasonable. It's that all the proxy legislation that comes with such a restriction is unreasonable.

You'll find that in state with open carry most still prefer to carry concealed but they have that added protection that if they print or "brandish" the law cant come down and destroy their lives over a technicality.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96



Back in the day of the writing of the constitution 'Americans' didn't have 'American' guns.

Yes they did Americans were already making homemade rifles well before the war.



Most people have AK's because the ammo is cheaper to shoot.

People choose AK's because of the heavier caliber and the legendary reliability. Not to mention the 7.62×39mm that the AK uses is virtually the perfect man stopper.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join