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

Originally posted by camaro68ss

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.

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

Ahhhhhh
Ok.
And here I thought you mentioned that because those "drones"

don’t care for life. They have the lowest birth rate in the state

But even if you scared children, only "drone"-children, right?

But even if you scared children, only "drone"-children, right?

yeap, you got me, i want to scare little childern, make them pee themself.... sarc/ off

Originally posted by Indigo5

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.

Only one little problem with your idea: There are no "irrational" gun owners.
Seriously, try, ask them!
They are all perfectly rational!
Camero68s? Are you a rational gun owner?
I bet he thinks, yes, he is!
The "rational" gun owners *are* already at the front.

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by Liquesence

 

I agree.. And walkin down the street with assault rifles isnt gonna accomplish much accept scare people..

Success

I think maybe that's the point. Why SHOULD people be scared of responsible, sane gun owners? People in many places are allowed to legally, openly carry firearms in public. If more people exercised this right, people wouldn't react with panic just because they saw someone with a firearm and no badge / uniform.

Someone with a rifle on their back wouldn't get a second glance in a place like israel, for example-- where the threat of violence is often more real and common than it is here.

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by Liquesence

 

I agree.. And walkin down the street with assault rifles isnt gonna accomplish much accept scare people..

Success

Yep. Once again responsible gun owners made to look like nut jobs thanks to people like this. Toss in the NRA and Alex Jones and I am starting to think we responsible gun owners are far out numbered by the nut jobs with guns. Also if I saw these guys walking down my streets like that I most likely would have put them down. Hey stand your ground law, two armed men walking my way, how was I suppose to know they were educating.

I love how the anti-gun nuts talk about violence more than the gun supporters. Maybe that's why anti gun people think we shouldn't have guns-- they assume the gun owners are as impulsively violent as they are.

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by Liquesence

 

I agree.. And walkin down the street with assault rifles isnt gonna accomplish much accept scare people..

Success

Yep. Once again responsible gun owners made to look like nut jobs thanks to people like this. Toss in the NRA and Alex Jones and I am starting to think we responsible gun owners are far out numbered by the nut jobs with guns. Also if I saw these guys walking down my streets like that I most likely would have put them down. Hey stand your ground law, two armed men walking my way, how was I suppose to know they were educating.

I love how the anti-gun nuts talk about violence more than the gun supporters. Maybe that's why anti gun people think we shouldn't have guns-- they assume the gun owners are as impulsively violent as they are.

Thats what im saying. Gun supporters are for the defence of life, nearly all of them are church go'ers. Gun grabers are not for the suport of life. they only want the criminals to have guns with us defenders of life having no means to protect ourselfs.

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by Liquesence

 

I agree.. And walkin down the street with assault rifles isnt gonna accomplish much accept scare people..

Success

I think maybe that's the point. Why SHOULD people be scared of responsible, sane gun owners? People in many places are allowed to legally, openly carry firearms in public. If more people exercised this right, people wouldn't react with panic just because they saw someone with a firearm and no badge / uniform.

Someone with a rifle on their back wouldn't get a second glance in a place like israel, for example-- where the threat of violence is often more real and common than it is here.

How do you tell if a person is "sane and responsible" at a glance? (And even if you are able to tell instantly by looking at people (I am not, even a curt "hello, how are you?" isnt enough for me to judge that), wouldn't "He is carrying a gun" factor into that analysis?

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by Liquesence

 

I agree.. And walkin down the street with assault rifles isnt gonna accomplish much accept scare people..

Success

I think maybe that's the point. Why SHOULD people be scared of responsible, sane gun owners? People in many places are allowed to legally, openly carry firearms in public. If more people exercised this right, people wouldn't react with panic just because they saw someone with a firearm and no badge / uniform.

Someone with a rifle on their back wouldn't get a second glance in a place like israel, for example-- where the threat of violence is often more real and common than it is here.

How do you tell if a person is "sane and responsible" at a glance? (And even if you are able to tell instantly by looking at people (I am not, even a curt "hello, how are you?" isnt enough for me to judge that), wouldn't "He is carrying a gun" factor into that analysis?

no, cops carrie guns, are they crazy?

the fact that everyone else is packing would make the crazy person think twice about opening fire.

theres an argument to be made that the pro gun states have a lower overall Violence rate

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by Liquesence

 

I agree.. And walkin down the street with assault rifles isnt gonna accomplish much accept scare people..

Success

I think maybe that's the point. Why SHOULD people be scared of responsible, sane gun owners? People in many places are allowed to legally, openly carry firearms in public. If more people exercised this right, people wouldn't react with panic just because they saw someone with a firearm and no badge / uniform.

Someone with a rifle on their back wouldn't get a second glance in a place like israel, for example-- where the threat of violence is often more real and common than it is here.

How do you tell if a person is "sane and responsible" at a glance? (And even if you are able to tell instantly by looking at people (I am not, even a curt "hello, how are you?" isnt enough for me to judge that), wouldn't "He is carrying a gun" factor into that analysis?

no, cops carrie guns, are they crazy?

the fact that everyone else is packing would make the crazy person think twice about opening fire.

So how long do you need to judge a person wether he/she is "sane and responsible"? I wouldn't be comfortable with saying "Some weeks". They still might suprise you.
You on the other hand can do it within seconds?

Police don't choose to carry weapons. So yes, the "has a weapon" doesn't factor into the analysis there, because it's part of the equipment. (Any other sporting that style on the other hand ...)

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by Liquesence

 

I agree.. And walkin down the street with assault rifles isnt gonna accomplish much accept scare people..

Success

I think maybe that's the point. Why SHOULD people be scared of responsible, sane gun owners?

Because the "responsible, sane gun owners" look an aweful lot like the batsh&^ crazy gun owners and frankly the "responsible, sane, gun owners" are smart enough to understand this fact and don't walk down city streets with AR-15's.

Now..in rural areas, where hunting is prevelant...and I have family in a huge hunting region, it is common to see guns in public, but it is also understood that it is for hunting. Even then, at the peak of Bear or Deer season hunters don't bring guns into restuarants, gas stations, bars...they also wear orange to avoid getting shot themselves...etc. etc. they are thoughtful and responsible.

There are no Deer or Bear in downtown Portland, the AR-15 is NOT a hunting rifle, so civilians are warranted in asking WTF when they see folks walking down the street.

Christmas !
I agree the act was legal, and it was within their rights, but their respect and timing are atrocious.
Thiis could be more psyops, and its an easy one for the antigun side to pull.....
Can we check these guys background out somehow folks?!
Anybody ever hear of em?

reply to post by goou111


cocerning above

www.oregonlive.com...

Im out of facebook but steven boyce is on it...anybody?
I could some frightened CCW perhaps throwing down on these guys.......
All kinds of misconceptions could occur.
Their guns are only "menacing" because the public has fallen for the major misperceptions the media has fed them....
And the current media frenzy is selling papers and airtime.
In Isreal, nobody, even in downtown Haifa, would give them a second glance.......

reply to post by goou111


to your post on page one,

t-shirts

Originally posted by stirling

In Isreal, nobody, even in downtown Haifa, would give them a second glance.......

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

Israel has MUCH stricter gun policy than the USA.

For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

www.washingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


yeah like women tanning on the beach in israel with m-16's have reason other than political to tan with them sheesh.

Originally posted by Indigo5Again...not to invoke too much actual logic, but the "least threatening configuration" involves not carrying an AR-15 down a crowded street.

Now regarding logic one can say we were discussing the act of transporting an AR 15 on the street or so I thought. I stated that the almost universally accepted manner for transporting the weapon in a way that is most safe and least threatening is slung over one's shoulder muzzle down. Which is absolutely true as anyone with any training wil tell you.

To which you responded that the least threatening method is to not have it at all...

Not all that logical IMO since of course it's lack of presence would make the argument/discussion moot.

Almost like if I asked you the safest way to use a chainsaw and you said to leave it in the shed. Well, perhaps that is true in a sense as no injury will occur from an idol chainsaw but it also is not all that helpful or even relevant to the discussion at all.

It does make you sound cryptic and wise though so - 1 point at the internet for you.

Originally posted by Indigo5You seem to be confused. Seattle is not an active combat zone nor a training ground?

I am not confused at all I am a retired Special Forces Officer – in my 24 years of service I have been to more countries than you can fathom.

Some of them were indeed the “wild west” like Somalia, Sudan and Chad in which every single person over 10 has a military grade assault rifle and likely a few grenades to boot. We did not shoot everyone with a rifle slung across thier back. However, using logic I don’t think we are talking about a combat zone since no one I know ever wears their rifle slung across their back in a combat zone – that is only done in secure areas and then only by REFMs and FNGs.

So let me state that you are the one who seems confused. It is legal to open carry where they were and therefore its designated status as a combat/non-combat or secure/unsecure area is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I also will say that I doubt we could discuss the proper use of such terms as we do not share a common frame of reference regarding their proper designations.

What these two men did was stupid and provocative but not illegal or wrong. They can transport the weapons openly there IAW the law and being at least semi-intelligent they chose the manner which is generally accepted by professionals (LEOs and Military) as the least threatening manner possible and still have the weapon out which was their intent. Had they had them say at the ready then that would be another story.

Originally posted by Indigo5BTW - 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.

Clearly you have never been to Afghanistan I take it… If you think that simply having a weapon slung across your back would make a valid target you’d last about 10 seconds in any rural market before you’d unlawfully engage someone who was just going about his business with an AK or even an old Enfield.

When you actually go to a combat zone send me a postcard and we can talk about it from a common frame of reference. Until then I think you are just blowing hot air out of your 4th point of contact and know the sum of say, zero about what things are like in a combat zone.

reply to post by Indigo5

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.

LMAO

Had to laugh, well put

This whole gun control thing isstarting to get annoying soon (hopefully) this will blow over when something else captivates the sheeples imagination...and this whole issue would go on the whole sopa and pipa shinanigance...

They arent coming for anyones guns

Move on

well, the 2nd amendment does give them the right to keep and bear arms.

Definition of BEAR
transitive verb
1.
b : to be equipped or furnished with (something)

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by Liquesence

 

I agree.. And walkin down the street with assault rifles isnt gonna accomplish much accept scare people..

Success

Yep. Once again responsible gun owners made to look like nut jobs thanks to people like this. Toss in the NRA and Alex Jones and I am starting to think we responsible gun owners are far out numbered by the nut jobs with guns. Also if I saw these guys walking down my streets like that I most likely would have put them down. Hey stand your ground law, two armed men walking my way, how was I suppose to know they were educating.

So you really do shoot first and ask questions later...and THEY are the ones making responsible gun owners look like "nut jobs"???

interesting point of view...