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.

 

Next Level BS #7: Open Carry Nuts, Revenge Porn, Stupid Millennials, and more...

page: 4
80
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I wouldn't say it's lunacy, but I'd rather not tote a gun to Wal-Mart just to have parity with everyone else. a reply to: neo96




posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Oh the millennial thing was hilarious.

I enjoyed it funny.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
"For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action."

Open gunners in Starbucks are hardly an equal reaction to what anti gunners have said and done in an attempt to strip away there rights by force of law and public oppinion based on dubiuos facts and outright lies.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

I really like the lighting in this one, much better control for shadows.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: LDragonFire




The far right wing inability to admit mistakes is really getting old.


Why yes it is.

Since that is what gun control is a right ideology.

It sure is a mistake to grow government totalitarianism by making more laws that the law already address.

It's against the law to harm or hurt, and murder.

But that doesn't stop it.

So they keep making the same mistakes from the 1934 Gun control Act. to the 1968 NFA to the ASWB of the 90s.

Oh now what was the saying keep doing the same things over and over again expecting a 'different' result is the definition of insanity ?

Making superfluous laws, and eroding what little rights we have left under the false sense of security.

Is a mistake.

Of the one giant kind.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: circuitsports
"For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action."

Open gunners in Starbucks are hardly an equal reaction to what anti gunners have said and done in an attempt to strip away there rights by force of law and public oppinion based on dubiuos facts and outright lies.


I'm a little fuzzy on this one.

"Open gunners" is now the phrase being coined for whackos wandering around in front of a public school with an AR-15? If that's the case, it would serve gun proponents well to quickly select another term.

The key aspect to you rant is that anti-gun advocates have "attempted" to have an effect on application of the second amendment. But not much of substance has actually happened.

Right now, here in Arizona, I can pretty much purchase whatever weapon I want. I've been to gun stores here. All I need is a state driver's license to buy some insanely intense weaponry. Rhetoric is one thing, but it's reality that counts. And despite the fear-mongering of the gun culture, the reality is still in good shape.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

What is this "Revenge porn" you speak of?



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I agree that the term "Open Gunners" needs to go. Its like calling an AR-15 an assault rifle. 'Assault' is a verb. A rifle is not capable of assault. Anything can be used to commit assault.

And that brings me to my point. I don't think the gun culture are the fear-mongers. I think that's the anti-gun-culture. The sole purpose of titles like 'Open Gunners' and 'assault rifle' is to make them sound dangerous, and therefore bad. Its just a slant that doesn't need to be there. A perfect example is how newscasters report different stories. When I was in high school a friend of mine was killed by a street gang. He was beaten to death with baseball bats. No one said Baseball was to blame. No one tried to sue Louisville Slugger. No one said Ernie Banks was a poor role model. And no one said my friend was killed by a baseball bat. They said he was killed by a street gang. That same night another teenager was killed by a different gang. He was shot in a drive-by. The newscaster said he was killed by a gun. Not a person. Not a gang. A gun. IMO, that is fear-mongering at its worst - rhetoric meant only to disenfranchise and usurp second amendment rights.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Its like calling an AR-15 an assault rifle.
'Assault' is a verb. A rifle is not capable of assault. Anything can be used to commit assault.

I'm being pragmatic here, cutting through all BS.

Yes, "assault" can be used as a verb. But as a noun, it denotes violence and attack.

The ArmaLite Rifle is admitted by the manufacturer and all gun experts as the civilian equivalent of the military's M-16. Sure, it's automatic, it's semi-automatic. Fine. But it's a copy of a bona-fied assault weapon.

It's like saying Samsung smart phones aren't really smart phones, because the first versions were proven to be copies of the Apple iPhone, the first smart phone.

It's a BS argument that ignores reality and seeks to muddle the narrative. Lets all be honest, everything works better that way.




The sole purpose of titles like 'Open Gunners' and 'assault rifle' is to make them sound dangerous, and therefore bad.

But they (guns) ARE very dangerous. Cops: Man fired into neighbor's home to unload gun




No one said Baseball was to blame. No one tried to sue Louisville Slugger.

Ridiculous argument intended to obfuscate the real issues. The points the video raised are not about general violence in society, but about the irresponsibility of some gun owners in their misplaced effort to provoke outrage when openly carrying rifles.
edit on 29-9-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS


Whoa...

That was worse than I expected.

Stoner TV is a great way to discredit conspiracy theories...

I am allowed to not like it, right?



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
It's more of think twice before you hang around crowded areas with guns just to try and prove a point.
You don't need your rifle to go get a cup of coffe or a burrito.


The whole point here is that no, you DON'T KNOW when you may need to protect yourself. You think for one minute that guy thought he was going to need to shoot someone at work for beheading a co-worker last week? I doubt it. Fortunately he was armed and stopped any further bloodshed. SMH...



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord


I'm being pragmatic here, cutting through all BS. Yes, "assault" can be used as a verb. But as a noun, it denotes violence and attack.


With all due respect, I think the BS is still there. Assault can be a verb or a noun. But the rifle, the subject of the conversation, is not capable of committing an act of assault. It is simply a tool that can be used for good or bad, depending on the user.


The ArmaLite Rifle is admitted by the manufacturer and all gun experts as the civilian equivalent of the military's M-16. Sure, it's automatic, it's semi-automatic. Fine. But it's a copy of a bona-fied assault weapon.


You are using the term to define itself. It doesn't work that way. Yes, the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. That does not make either one an 'assault' rifle. They are just rifles. There was a city recently in the news (haven't found a link yet) who outlawed what they referred to as assault rifles. Then they found out that almost the entire police force owned those same weapons. Their solution was to rename them as 'personal protection rifles'. The object itself did not change in any way shape or form but its image did, with nothing more than a change in title. That is the honest truth.


But they (guns) ARE very dangerous. Cops: Man fired into neighbor's home to unload gun


Guns are not dangerous. I have several in my home as we speak and there is no threat to me or anyone around me because of it. Stupid people are dangerous - with or without guns. If we continue to focus the blame on the tools idiots use rather than the idiots themselves we will never solve the problem. I prefer to face the facts and deal with the people who insist on assaulting other people rather than their choice of weapons. That is the only way to affect real change.


Ridiculous argument intended to obfuscate the real issues. The points the video raised are not about general violence in society, but about the irresponsibility of some gun owners in their misplaced effort to provoke outrage when openly carrying rifles.


Some of my posts require a bit of reading between the lines. My argument is not ridiculous nor was it intended to obfuscate the real issues. It was meant to focus and enlighten them. You refer to , "...the misplaced effort to provoke outrage by openly carrying rifles." My point is that the video is based on the pretext that openly carrying rifles IS outrageous. It isn't. Its a constitutionally guaranteed right. And when that, or any other, is considered outrageous I worry about any right or freedom we currently enjoy because of that wonderful document our nation is based upon.

Fear mongers have been going off for years about assault rifles and gun violence. They should be going off about people who would do grievous harm to others and how to stop them, not about their choice of weapons. If a guy wants to walk down the street with a legally owned and carried rifle, I don't care. I have seen people with gun racks in pick up trucks since the 60's. Guns in public. High power rifles within reach at any time. And life went on as usual. Fifty years later the same arguments are being made and the same problems still exist. It doesn't take much of a leap of the imagination to suggest that the two are related. If for the last fifty years we had been focusing on the people who commit the crimes rather than the tools they used there might not be a reason to have any of these conversations any more.

Peace.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Personally I would not open carry an AR anywhere. However, thinking that a world exists where no one will never do that is delusional. Luckily they were the good guys.

Have you watched the news? Have you seen what is happening in the middle east? Have you seen the videos of terrorists shooting and killing men, women and children in the middle of the street? Have you heard about them coming and taking school girls to live a nightmare lifestyle?

We are a nation of mixed beliefs, mixed races, and politics that brings out the worst in people.

I believe the ONLY reason the above mentioned horrors do not happen here, is because we have the right to walk around with a gun if we want.

They say ISIS is here. Despite your beliefs on that statement, IF ISIS is here in the states, do you think they will kill, kidnap, or behead someone anywhere near one of these "open gunners?"

The crazies are the people who want to kill innocent people. Take the recent Oklahoma incident for example, the crazy person was the one who beheaded the woman, not the "Gunner" who killed him saving the other woman.

When it comes down to it, given the choice, I will go into the establishment where people open carry over one where there is a "No guns allowed" sign ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.
edit on SepTue, 30 Sep 2014 13:22:45 -050045.thpm454514p by mrsdudara because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mrsdudara

I live near Chicago. Believe me, I know what you mean.

Right now the US ranks 3rd from the top of the list in murder. If you remove Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC, the US drops to 4th from the bottom of the list. What do those three cities have in common? All three are run by democrats, and all three have the toughest gun laws in the country. The murder rate in Chicago is a direct result of mayor daley's 'gun free zone' legislation. He fought for it and finally won using one of the worst fear-mongering campaigns in modern history. Then, when the crime rates didn't change he just shrugged and said "I got the law passed, now its up to everyone else to make it work." Well see, that's the problem: IT DOESNT WORK. Legislation does not work on criminals. Criminals break the law. That is why we call them criminals. You could pass a thousand laws today against every kind of weapon you can think of and tomorrow the only people who will obey those laws, by definition, are the law abiding citizens. They are not the ones beheading coworkers or shooting people for wearing the wrong color baseball cap. Those are the criminals. If it takes a bunch of law abiding citizens walking down the street with AR-15's to force people to see the real problem that needs to be solved then our problems are worse than we think.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
With all due respect, I think the BS is still there. Assault can be a verb or a noun. But the rifle, the subject of the conversation, is not capable of committing an act of assault. It is simply a tool that can be used for good or bad, depending on the user.


A muscle car is capable of driving normally, but due to the design, is called a muscle car.

A race car is capable of not racing, but due to the design, is called a race car.

A mountain bike is capable of riding on flat road, but due to the design, is called a mountain mike.

Olympic weights are not used only in the Olympics, but due to the design, are called Olympic weights.

There are thousands of Olympic pools not in Olympic venues, but due to the design, are called Olympic pools.

Target pistols are capable of shooting things other than competition targets, but due to the design, are called target pistols.

A roofing hammer is capable of pounding nails other than roofing nails, but due to the design, is called a roofing hammer.


Get the point? I think firearms advocates need to stop trying to split hairs and own that an AR-15 is an assault weapon. Gun advocates insisting on hair-splitting, just stop being so asinine about the terminology. Own it. It doesn't matter any more. Trying to refute the obvious only degrades the value of the necessary conversation.

edit on 30-9-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
The liberal definition, the one touted in all the antigun laws, say that an assault rifle is a regular rifle with too many end user modifications on it. Has nothing to do with the functionality of the weapon either. Assault rifle by proper terms means it has the option of fully automatic fire, which civilian versions do not have.

For example, in NY, take a perfectly normal shotgun, put a handgrip stock on it, boom! Assault weapon.

edit on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:21:27 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

The above conversation was specific to weapons, like the AR-15, that are civilian copies of a military/assault design.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
What makes them "military design" is select fire modes. That's the only difference. Everything else is purely cosmetic.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Haha...well, I get your point. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think I am being asinine. I refuse to call it anything other than what it is - a rifle. Merriam-Webster defines an assault rifle as, "...any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.” The keywords here are “designed for military use”, which the AR-15 is not. The “Journal of Contemporary Law” based on a definition from the Department of Defense: "...assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically." "Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire."

You say I am being asinine. I respect your opinion and your right to have it. I say Merriam-Webster and the DOD have it right: its just a rifle. Trying to refute the obvious only degrades the value of the necessary conversation.


Peace.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Get the point? I think firearms advocates need to stop trying to split hairs and own that an AR-15 is an assault weapon. Just stop being so asinine about the terminology. Own it. It doesn't matter any more. Trying to refute the obvious only degrades the value of the necessary conversation.


S.O., It does still matter. I know it seems like splitting hairs and its annoying, but the terminology "assault weapon" has been modified and used for political reasons. It's terminology IS important. It used to be just fully automatic weapons or weapons from the military that were called such. Then anything semiautomatic, or anything with a removable clip with a pistol handle, etc, etc, etc, qualified a weapon as an assault weapon. You know how "asinine" the government can be with rules and labels. AR's are handy because they can be changed around. One gun can have different parts allowing multiple caliber rounds to be used. I think people get over protective when it comes to labels, because things that are labeled have been taken away. Never know, maybe they will decide all we need is the old fashioned black powder guns... then ban black powder. People worry. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to explain a point of view.




top topics



 
80
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join