Portland residents panic as men armed with assault weapons ‘educate’ the city

Originally posted by olaru12

Originally posted by camaro68ss









I was categorizing the libs that live in SF. if you live there then i guess you got me.

so are you for taking our guns away officer or do you belive in the 2nd amendment?

I support the 2nd amendment for people responsible enough to own and carry a weapon.

I'm not sure you qualify.

to bad your not a psychologist. What makes me unfit? lawfully carrying an unloaded rifle on my back?

Im only trying to educate the masses. I guess i would think it was funny because there not educated to the law and think im a criminal for carrying a gun. Not because they fear me. I don’t want to make people fear me.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You said in another thread that weapon owners were the scared ones.........changing the tune now? Now were scaring everyone else?

Never said any such thing? Maybe you misunderstood? Please point me to the post.

You just did not two minutes ago.

You said the people without the guns are afraid something will happen then you flipped it and said the people who have the guns have them because they are afraid of something.

Are you refering to this?...

Not much logic here...maybe go back to screaming about how the "brown shirts" are going to take away the guns!!

You are entitled to your paranoid fantasies, but the rest of the country is not required to suffer from those paranoid delusions.

If so..By "paranoid" I am referring to the Alex Jones rant crowd and fear of tyranny, "brown shirts" "Nazi's" yada yada.

In otherwords "paranoid" BS...as opposed to the reality in gun-related homicides each year.

One is a fear based in reality...the other is paranoid delusion that the Nazi's are going to kick in your door in the middle of the night.

And the entirety of America should not cease to regulate guns in support of a paranoid delusion that the 3rd Riech will destroy America if we do so.

they should've held a sign that said 'we're just trying to educate you, please ask us a question, will not shoot...'

But they didn't and drew negative attention to themselves.

Originally posted by olaru12

I support the 2nd amendment for people responsible enough to own and carry a weapon.

I'm not sure you qualify.

Agree on all counts.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You said in another thread that weapon owners were the scared ones.........changing the tune now? Now were scaring everyone else?

Never said any such thing? Maybe you misunderstood? Please point me to the post.

You just did not two minutes ago.

You said the people without the guns are afraid something will happen then you flipped it and said the people who have the guns have them because they are afraid of something.

Are you refering to this?...

Not much logic here...maybe go back to screaming about how the "brown shirts" are going to take away the guns!!

You are entitled to your paranoid fantasies, but the rest of the country is not required to suffer from those paranoid delusions.

If so..By "paranoid" I am referring to the Alex Jones rant crowd and fear of tyranny, "brown shirts" "Nazi's" yada yada.

In otherwords "paranoid" BS...as opposed to the reality in gun-related homicides each year.

One is a fear based in reality...the other is paranoid delusion that the Nazi's are going to kick in you door in the middle of the night.

so do you support disarming the people? or just the crazy people, I dont know who would not support the latter.

Originally posted by MrSpad
Odds are anytime you see someone walking down the street carrying an assualt rifle that nothing good is coming of it.

1. A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault rifle - if so then the military would purchase them instead of the M4. If you don't know the difference by now you never will.

2. Actually, they are not "carrying" anything... They have the rifles slung muzzle down across their backs in what is traditionally in all circles that I have traveled the safest and least threatening configuration possible. Used in mess lines, while waiting at a range, or standing around in a secure area. It is a non-threatening manner of transport.

Originally posted by MrSpadWell I have a right to my gun and right to defend myself from what I saw as a threat.

I know and I think you know that you would not be justified in shooting someone for having a rifle slung across their back because you perceived it as a threat.

It does not meet the "reasonable person" burden required by law for the use of deadly force.

You could try it as a defense strategy I suppose and depending on where you live there might be 12 idiots willing to agree that the mere sight of the weapons was enough.

I know here you would lose.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You said in another thread that weapon owners were the scared ones.........changing the tune now? Now were scaring everyone else?

Never said any such thing? Maybe you misunderstood? Please point me to the post.

Ahh it wasnt you bud, my apologies there......I mistook your post for another!

However that is still the argument used against us , that gun owners are scared paranoid people.......

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by olaru12

I support the 2nd amendment for people responsible enough to own and carry a weapon.

I'm not sure you qualify.

Agree on all counts.

I’m sorry I scare you. It’s not my intent.

Originally posted by Pedro4077
Check out the comments on the story.

People are ropeable about what just happend.

These two Clowns just put another nail in the coffin for gun ownership.

Maybe they work for the anti gun lobby.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You said in another thread that weapon owners were the scared ones.........changing the tune now? Now were scaring everyone else?

Never said any such thing? Maybe you misunderstood? Please point me to the post.

Ahh it wasnt you bud, my apologies there......I mistook your post for another!

However that is still the argument used against us , that gun owners are scared paranoid people.......

edit on 11-1-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

I would say gun grabbers are scared paranoid people.

So these guys were considered mentally fit, passed the necessary psych tests and allowed to buy these weapons

OOKAAAAAY, yep nothing wrong with Americas gun laws

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by olaru12

I support the 2nd amendment for people responsible enough to own and carry a weapon.

I'm not sure you qualify.

Agree on all counts.

I’m sorry I scare you. It’s not my intent.

You are the same guy who in this very thread fantazised about "scaring SF libs who aren't having enough babies"?

Originally posted by Golf66

2. Actually, they are not "carrying" anything...

Now I think we are entering into comedy? Or is this an attempt at using the "force" like Obi-Wan-Kanobi in Star Wars.....Just wave your finger and speak slowly..."we are not carrying anything"....

Not to punish rational thought too much...but if you are carrying a gun...you are carrying a gun.

Originally posted by Golf66

They have the rifles slung muzzle down across their backs in what is traditionally in all circles that I have traveled the safest and least threatening configuration possible.

Again...not to invoke too much actual logic, but the "least threatening configuration" involves not carrying an AR-15 down a crowded street.

Originally posted by Golf66
Used in mess lines, while waiting at a range, or standing around in a secure area. It is a non-threatening manner of transport.

You seem to be confused. Seattle is not an active combat zone nor a training ground?

BTW - If it was a combat zone, like Afghanistan or Syria...walking down the street with an AR-15 over your shoulder would designate you as an obvious threat to any troops that spot you whichever way your muzzle is directed.

Looking at the picture, at least they didn't have the weapons in a "Patrol" configuration. That probably would have gotten them shot quickly, either by a citizen or LEO.

But these two idiots still had magazines in the wells which is not to smart of a move either. Methinks that they're lucky to still be breathing.

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by olaru12

I support the 2nd amendment for people responsible enough to own and carry a weapon.

I'm not sure you qualify.

Agree on all counts.

I’m sorry I scare you. It’s not my intent.

You are the same guy who in this very thread fantazised about "scaring SF libs who aren't having enough babies"?

I guess I did not explain myself. I would be laughing at how uneducated the people would be. Thats why i called them "sheep". Them thinking I’m a criminal of some sort even though I’m doing something perfectly legal. I would not be laughing at their fear of me. Even if i did do it i would have the gun locked with a chain going through the port and down the mag well.

But im not even doing it. It was a passing thought

I respect a persons right to open carry. Where I grew up in Kansas, guns weren't something scary. We were all mostly raised around them, respected them, and most importantly, we didn't figure our neighbors would shoot us. (600 people in the town kinda place)

If someone guns in their gun rack when they came to school, it wasn't a big deal (it was banned after Columbine... and we understood why), if someone walked up to your door holding their rifle you didn't lock the door and call the cops. These people were just hunting before school or work, or hunting in a field or pasture near your house.

That all being said, we didn't take our guns into any of the big towns with us because there wouldn't be a reason for it and it makes people uncomfortable.

There is no logical reason to be walking a city sidewalk with a rifle. You can't shoot it legally for recreation and rifles are not a good "self defense" weapon in that scenario. If I saw someone with a rifle slung across their back in a city, I would be wary. I wouldn't consider them a responsible gun owner by any means. Responsible gun owners don't want to cause panic or fear and wouldn't want to bring any bad publicity on gun owners.

A man wielding a machete would be considered a threat on a city bus or street. A butcher knife? same thing. Take a baseball bat with you and stand in front of a business. Someone will call the cops. All these items are legal, but they are out of place where they are at. Taking them in public with you just to have them in public is because you are trying to illicit a response from people, generally to scare them. No one has the legal right to TERRORIZE people. Right place, right time, and right way to exercise your rights.

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by olaru12

I support the 2nd amendment for people responsible enough to own and carry a weapon.

I'm not sure you qualify.

Agree on all counts.

I’m sorry I scare you. It’s not my intent.

You are the same guy who in this very thread fantazised about "scaring SF libs who aren't having enough babies"?

I guess I did not explain myself. I would be laughing at how uneducated the people would be. Them thinking I’m a criminal of some sort even though I’m doing something perfectly legal. I would not be laughing at their fear of me. Even if i did do it i would have the gun locked with a chain going through the port and down the mag well.

But im not even doing it. It was a passing thought

edit on 11-1-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Yes.
You don't do it.
That is what "fantazising" means.
Thinking about it, but not doing it.

Of course, you would not laugh at their fear, but at their "ignorance" of not being able to tell you, an entirely sane citizen form a whacko, just by looking at you! I mean, they do have a low birthrate, don't they?
You don't mean to scare anybody, no.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Golf66

2. Actually, they are not "carrying" anything...

Now I think we are entering into comedy? Or is this an attempt at using the "force" like Obi-Wan-Kanobi in Star Wars.....Just wave your finger and speak slowly..."we are not carrying anything"....

Not to punish rational thought too much...but if you are carrying a gun...you are carrying a gun.

Originally posted by Golf66

They have the rifles slung muzzle down across their backs in what is traditionally in all circles that I have traveled the safest and least threatening configuration possible.

Again...not to invoke too much actual logic, but the "least threatening configuration" involves not carrying an AR-15 down a crowded street.

Originally posted by Golf66
Used in mess lines, while waiting at a range, or standing around in a secure area. It is a non-threatening manner of transport.

You seem to be confused. Seattle is not an active combat zone nor a training ground?

BTW - If it was a combat zone, like Afghanistan or Syria...walking down the street with an AR-15 over your shoulder would designate you as an obvious threat to any troops that spot you whichever way your muzzle is directed.

Educate yourself. AR-15 is a Civilian rifle. The armed forces use a M-16 or M-4.

your here to advicate the taking of our guns yet you dont know what it is.

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by olaru12

I support the 2nd amendment for people responsible enough to own and carry a weapon.

I'm not sure you qualify.

Agree on all counts.

I’m sorry I scare you. It’s not my intent.

You are the same guy who in this very thread fantazised about "scaring SF libs who aren't having enough babies"?

I guess I did not explain myself. I would be laughing at how uneducated the people would be. Them thinking I’m a criminal of some sort even though I’m doing something perfectly legal. I would not be laughing at their fear of me. Even if i did do it i would have the gun locked with a chain going through the port and down the mag well.

But im not even doing it. It was a passing thought

edit on 11-1-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Yes.
You don't do it.
That is what "fantazising" means.
Thinking about it, but not doing it.

Of course, you would not laugh at their fear, but at their "ignorance" of not being able to tell you, an entirely sane citizen form a whacko, just by looking at you! I mean, they do have a low birthrate, don't they?
You don't mean to scare anybody, no.

the low birthrate was to explain how there is not alot of "childern" to run scared. again, not explaining myself.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask


Ahh it wasnt you bud, my apologies there......I mistook your post for another!

However that is still the argument used against us , that gun owners are scared paranoid people.......

edit on 11-1-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

No worries. I would distinguish between "scared" and "paranoid" though.

Rational fear is a good thing. Paranoia...irrational fear...can lead to irrational actions.

Most gun owners are rational, some own out of "fear" or simple pre-caution...and some engage in paranoia.

IMO - Rational gun owners should be at the front of the debate, contributing to solutions that might restrict the crazy and unqualified from owning weapons. Thus far the response has been "hell no" and a lot of crazy talk about tyrannical rule and the false suggestion that folks are looking to ban all guns.

The folks looking to ban all guns are a very small minority of the country. They have little sway in the final outcome.

The folks opposed to any and all restrictions on guns are also in the minority and have little sway in the outcome....and yet that constitutes the NRA's general position and it's followers.

If the NRA engaged in rational discussions...Stopped opposing the closing of the gun-show loophole where background checks aren't required or enforced, perhaps considered background checks on private transfers of weapons "private sales" etc...A rational middle ground could be found.