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.

 

Man Driving Around With Loaded Assault Rifle And Body Armor Deemed 'Not Immediate Threat'

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

It don't have a clip either...lol




posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I think you should find all the incidents of over zealous pro gun citizens around because I am sure is going to fill your thread in no time at all.

People tend to do the dandest thing when they think they are in danger, but in this case impersonating a officers is punishable by the law.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JacKatMtn
Hell yeah this is the main reason this story caught my attention. I spent almost a solid week with the NYSP trying to get my dad's guns moved to GA when he died. They really don't like guns. I mean they really don't. And those mandatory one-year jail terms are not fun stuff.

You know that AZ guy who threatened to drive cross-country to NY to meet up with that Muslim newspaper (I had a thread on it) was actually met by the FBI and the NYSP flat out told him (guess they were at that meeting) that it was illegal to bring that gun he was toting around. NY is not keen on recognition or reciprocity.

When I go there I just leave my stuff at my brother-in-law's house in VA on the way up.

a reply to: infolurker
Oops thanks for reminding me. I grabbed a screenshot and forgot to paste it.


a reply to: Domo1
That's what they said, I believe. All legal. Is that what that is? A suppressed AR?
edit on 12/5/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Bluntone22

There is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'. It is a construct of people that are trying to take away guns.


Yeah once they got machine guns banned.

They made up 'assault rifle', and define it as simply how it looks.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Wow.... I wonder if he was " deemed" NOT mentally unstable as well



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus
Um he was charged. But your point may be to my comment about us not being able to predetermine who's a risk until it's too late? Isn't that just pretty much a fact? Goes to the mental health issue. Not saying this was, but what are the real indicators there? Where's that line between sanity and insanity regarding this kind of thing?

There's no way to monitor mental health without infringing on other rights. Someone perfectly fine today and dive off the deep end tomorrow or in a year or five years. Yearly checkup? I dunno.


a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Was typing the above just as you posted that! It doesn't seem so? That comment about them not finding literature at his house was odd...wonder if they seized his phone and computers and such.

edit on 12/5/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Mandroid7

Oh is that thing now too? Anti-gun actor?

Yea, like Sandy Hook man.

I wonder, after all these black ops when is the government actually going to come for the guns?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Mandroid7

Oh is that thing now too? Anti-gun actor?


Didn't you know? Everything that happens that gives credence to opposing arguments is faked.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
Oh good, he had a bunch of steroids too. The guns themselves don't bother me at all, the rest of the story does though. You don't have to have a link to terrorists to be up to no good.


Yep. And some of the worst psychopaths and sociopaths are super charming guys too.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity




There's no way to monitor mental health without infringing on other rights. Someone perfectly fine today and dive off the deep end tomorrow or in a year or five years.


Price we have to pay in a free (ish) society.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: somnum
Hey I'm opened to those possibilities. I just don't buy into it in every case, every time. I think we'd all go insane if we did.


a reply to: Domo1
Guess that's where some of the compromise or coming together on this issue might come in? There are valid concerns and points on both "sides" of this issue.

edit on 12/5/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Luckily for us this isn't the minority report, and he doesn't commit a crime until he does. If he commits a crime he gets punished just like the real world, and all the moral superiors can do is do what they are best at doing— asserting their superiority.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I will say there is no way I would carry that much 'gear' in my vehicle.

Too much can go wrong.

Be in an accident, or it get stolen for starters.

As my pappy use to say never keep all your eggs in one basket.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Long guns now? Weren't around and then banned after Reagan got shot? Brady Bill and all that? Grandfathered?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
He committed several crimes.

a reply to: marg6043
Like the two women...the one who shot at the dude at Home Depot and the other at the purse snatcher? Well carrying everywhere if you can legally is being encouraged now by at least two (that I know of) sheriffs and one minister (that I know of). But not everyone who can carry legally is equipped to deal with an active shooter situation...I can only see a lot more accidental shooting of innocents and bystanders coming out of this.

Man if they think they have paperwork to do now in officer involved shooting, just wait until the citizens get more and more into the act. Could be fun times.
edit on 12/6/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

He committed several crimes.


And he will be punished accordingly. End of moral argument.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity



Assault weapon is a controversial term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1][2] Some firearms are specified by name.[3] At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Justice Department said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."


en.wikipedia.org...

Lets take the two most notable examples.

The AR-15 and the AK-47.

Since the Reagan era ban new machine guns where banned from being sold to the public. However any machine gun pre 1986 was grandfathered.

They are transferrable only after an getting what basically amounts to an enema from the BATFE.

Neither the semi auto versions of the AR or AK were designed for 'war'.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity




Yes, of course hes's well within his rights to drive around with all that stuff. But where's the line? I guess it's where someone commits an atrocity and is too late.

All the weapons are lawfully owned.


While the rifle may have been legally purchased prior to the NY SAFE ACT, it is in no way legal in it current configuration. Collapsible stock is illegal here, any magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds is illegal, loaded rifle in the car is illegal, possession of body armor in the commission of a felony is illegal in NY (possession of forged instrument is a felony) the forward grip is illegal, the muzzle is illegal. This guy went full retard. Don't get me wrong... The vast majority of owners of what NYS considers an assault rifle( estimates at 85%), have refused to comply with the unsafe act so I'm not judging him in anyway at all for not complying. But driving around with full kit like that is just stupid and makes everyone else look bad.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I am not really sure it is very strange.... At face value it looks to me like more evidence for an attempted gun grab.... Which is obviously not the answer the genie is out if the bottle and there is no getting it back in....

From where I sit any person who carries a firearm in public should be under going some sort of regular mental health check.... By that I mean everyone including the authorities....



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
He was probably another anti-gun actor. It is a great way to discredit gun owners legally. Stupid people will lap it up.


Unfortunately, I think that these kinds of possibilities have to be considered. People forget that there's all kinds of crazy. There are definitely left wing radicals who might be crazy enough to do stupid things like this for political purposes.

It's hard to say, really. If someone was trying to use reverse psychology in that way, how would anyone know the difference?

I really wish the media would just stop making such a big deal over this stuff. It's pretty clear that whatever is going on they're just fanning the flames.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join