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 shopping with Assault Rifle Strapped to his Back at Utah J.C. Penney

page: 26
41
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Auricom
 


How do you know he is responsible?

What if he has a mental breakdown, on pills, someone pissed off on the road while being under mental breakdown and on pills?

will you reply with "Innocent until proven guilty"?

So can i walk into a school with bomb strapped to my chest? well im a responsbile person, and im not guilty...yet


The thing is people saying he is law abiding citizen, and ALL mass murderers were too, until the moment the started shooting... all of a sudden, he is not part of you anymore but some separate category...

Its not like attacking an entire country cause some cave dwellers(like 1%) of the country bombed some towers.. right?




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
reply to post by seabag
 


That's the thing, no one is looking for common ground on these subjects. It's all or nothing to both sides and this mindset will lead to a civil war in America, sadly, and when that happens I'm on the first plane out of the country, because I don't wish to raise a family in a nation that self-destructs to a third-world status over issues that could have been resolved peacefully.

Frankly - I agree with Sharpio on what needs to happen for gun control, and these are the same measures Obama took with the 23 Executive Orders he signed. Better background checking systems, better screening for mental illness (and as someone who's researched personality diagnostic systems, the MMPI would be perfect and only 5% - 10% of the population wouldn't be allowed to buy firearms) and better facilities to deal with mental illness.

Regarding the person this article is about, his judgment is questionable because of his decision to go shopping with an AR-15. That is a weapon designed for defense of one's person/property, and with how it was slung over his shoulder, wouldn't be a useful tool in any situation to defend himself. He had a pistol which is plenty enough protection, and brandishing a AR-15 in a mall environment, while legal, isn't appropriate.


The founders clearly said that we, as Americans, have certain unalienable rights. Life (libs protest that and demand CHOICE), Liberty (more than half of this country supports the Patriot Act), the pursuit of happiness (
Wealth redistribution? Gun regulation? Taxes?). Then we get to the 2nd amendment; the right that defends all other rights. Now some want to dumb that down and minimize its effectiveness by artificially limiting our firepower???

NO!! There is no compromise with the 2nd!



edit on 19-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

NO!! There is no compromise with the 2nd!
Gonna use a quote from a Fav Band of mine, to reply to your above quote, because there will be Adjustments to the 2nd.

"With or Without You"



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 

and why would you think he was doing anything nefarious ?
he was just walking by in a non-threatening manner, correct ?

ever heard of innocent until proven guilty ?
if so, it still applies.

who is to say he and his son/daughter weren't headed out plinking after school ?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 



Gonna use a quote from a Fav Band of mine, to reply to your above quote, because there will be Adjustments to the 2nd.

"With or Without You"


To quote your boy band….

We will defend the 2nd “with or without YOU."


See, it works both ways when it comes to compromise. You nutters are uncompromising. You want to strip our right to bear arms. At least the constitution backs our RIGHT TO LIFE position while you push your unconstitutional CHOICE garbage.

Maybe if your kind held the constitution in a little higher regard you'd be able to take the high ground on these issues?






edit on 20-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


No. Presence of a 'republic' as a form of government does not guarantee legal individual rights of the minority.

Rome was, until Octavius, a republic. The highest administrator (consul) was elected by the Senate, and legal procedures, and not merely the desires of a king or other ruler formed by basis of wielding power.

Rome was of course not a _democratic_ republic, as it was run for the benefit of the oligarchy who selected the Senators. (One of the main points of contention was the economics problems of free citizens who were not part of the wealthy elite. Their interests (jobs and wages) were opposed to the interests of the oligarchy, which found slavery far more profitable than paying Roman citizens or ex-slaves. Your average TItus couldn't compete with slave labor. Julius Caesar was assassinated by the oligarchy in part because of his efforts to support roman citzens economically at the expense of the upper class)

The US is, like some other nations, a democratic constitutional republic. And it is that combination which is intended to preserve individual rights.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 



I'll make you a deal. If the right-wing never brings up gay marriage, abortion, evolution, climate change ever again, we will let you buy any firearm your heart desires.


With that agreement your fingers are writing checks your arse can’t cash!


You got my point though. You claim we need to stay out of your bedroom but you’re more than happy to determine my means of self-preservation.

The fight will continue….


Does your means of self-preservation include lethal chemical weaponry, for instance?

Does the Constitution protect the right of prisoners to have firearms while incarcerated? I don't see any exceptions in the 2nd amendment text.


edit on 19-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

and why would you think he was doing anything nefarious ?
he was just walking by in a non-threatening manner, correct ?

ever heard of innocent until proven guilty ?
Every "spree killer" was innocent , Till they started shooting.
And I'm not sure how anyone can walk in a "threatening manner"?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

See, it works both ways when it comes to compromise. You nutters are uncompromising. You want to strip our right to bear arms.
You have used the Word "compromise" twice in your quote, But I truely believe you have no clue of its meaning..

No one wants to remove all Firearms from anybody, Just the Firearms of Mass Destruction... See , thats called Compromise,



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by seabag

See, it works both ways when it comes to compromise. You nutters are uncompromising. You want to strip our right to bear arms.
You have used the Word "compromise" twice in your quote, But I truely believe you have no clue of its meaning..

No one wants to remove all Firearms from anybody, Just the Firearms of Mass Destruction... See , thats called Compromise,



No...NO! Compromise is when two competing sides accept LESS than what they want, giving up part of that to make a deal...The gun-grabbers DO NOT have anything to give! What they want is called "infringement" not compromise...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by JonPrice
Assault Rifle & extra ammunition clips and a sidearm in a holster on his right hip... Necessary for shopping?




Maybe........

Maybe Not.

His right to do so though.

I say the mans prepared for anything.
edit on 18-1-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)


Wow...

Sound reasoning. Funny how the sensible guy gets no stars, and this utter BS gets all the recognition.

Hilarious. Probably about an accurate gauge of the % of people who read ATS and are completely off their rocker.

Take the reaction of the people shopping around him. THAT is common sense... no question about it. A stranger with a high-powered rifle at JC penny....

Come on, people, use your brains.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 



Does your means of self-preservation include lethal chemical weaponry, for instance?


Until 1934 Americans could own just about any weapon available. Our rights have been eroding ever since the constitution was drafted. The military was never supposed to be stronger than the people.



Does the Constitution protect the right of prisoners to have firearms while incarcerated? I don't see any exceptions in the 2nd amendment text.


We do have laws, friend. The judicial system has a remedy for those who violate laws. Once you violate laws you are denied certain rights. These laws are clearly defined and understood by all.

I take it you aren’t American. If you are then you are making a fallacious argument.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


not only that, their agrument is more circular than a face drawing class taught by howard hughes. most of these anti gun prison punks can't even tell the difference between a 7. 62x 54 and a 7.62 x 36. they watch so much msm and consume so much gmo that their foresight doesn't extend past knowing when the next dancing with the stars episode is on next



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I'm so sick of people calling weapons like the one in the photo "assault rifles." Just because the weapon looks like an assault rifle does not mean it is. If it were full-auto or 3 round burst, THEN and only then would it be an "assault" rifle. Just because it looks like an M4 does not mean it is any more dangerous than a rifle designed for say hunting. And ANY rifle can be a hunting rifle, as the only real factor is the caliber and the game one is going after.

I understand why people would be freaked out in this situation, as it is something you don't see everyday, or ever really. I am wondering why, IF there were multiple people who felt threatened, nobody called the police..? Surely it is illegal to open carry any rifle into a private business like that. I suppose it all depends on the laws of the state of Utah though. For all I know, in Utah you may be allowed to carry a rifle in view in any location that one is also allowed to carry a concealed weapon into.

I think this was a little strange, even though I support the 2nd amendment wholeheartedly. People automatically get freaked out when they see a firearm for some reason. The truth is, that IF the person with the firearm is dangerous, that person would not need that firearm to attempt to kill people. It is that simple. Why should we all have our 2nd amendment rights taken away just because the minority, and a small minority, is irresponsible, crazy, or both. A gun doesn't make anything possible, as anything that a gun can do can also be done in a hundred other ways. There are many reasons to keep firearms. First and foremost, it is our Constitutional right.

Those of you who put no trust and faith in the Constitution, unless it benefits you, should probably not be allowed the privilege of being an American citizen. Then there is the reason for the amendment in the first place, which was to ensure we have a way to preserve our democracy from anyone who wishes to attempt to take it away. Then there is the reason of personal and family protection, the statistics of which show how useful and life-saving firearms can be to protect oneself with.

And those who are pushing for these new firearm laws, yet who are not pushing for things like the release of the Fast and Furious scandal documents, are nothing more than hypocrites, and are showing that they should not even have their opinion considered. This is because you cannot be against something when one person or group does it, and then for it when another person or group does it. This is obvious. People need to wake up and realize that the politicians, or the majority of them, are NOT looking out for your interests. And by taking away our guns, they are simply trying to give themselves the opportunity for more power in the long run. Maybe not anyone in office now, but there WILL be someone in the future who will attempt a political coup of the US government, and will only try it because it has a much better chance of succeeding if the people are unarmed.

And being unarmed is the same thing as being allowed only to have small-caliber, short range firearms, as those cannot be used against any actual fighting force that supports the overthrowing of our democracy. Well, I suppose if there were enough people willing to sacrifice their lives, it could be done, but why even go through that? We have already done this once, back in the 18th century, and this is why the 2nd amendment was included in the first place. It is not hard to grasp people. It seems that some of you simply cannot learn from history, and will doomed to repeat it. But the sad thing is you are going to drag the rest of us down with you. And the ones who WILL be fighting to preserve YOUR freedom and right to democracy are going to be the ones who disagreed with you on this issue. While you sit there and will not lift a finger for the preservation of liberty.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

~Thread Update ~



Joseph Kelley, the 22 year old Utah man whose photographs of him packing a semi-auto rifle and sidearm in a Utah JC Penney went viral on the internet yesterday, has a myspace account with even more pictures.

Joseph, AKA G.I. Joe, writes about his love for guns and shooting and even raps about it. There are dozens of pictures showing him alone holding and caressing guns, knives, hatchets, machetes and even brandishing what he refers to as a zombie killing weapon. In one picture, Joseph is dressed in full military attire and holds an assault rifle and two pistols with over 250 rounds of ammo.


More detail view here - detail




edit on 20-1-2013 by JonPrice because: Double Tap



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JonPrice
 


nice!!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 



Every "spree killer" was innocent , Till they started shooting.


Innocent until proven guilty….you really don’t know American principles, do you?





And I'm not sure how anyone can walk in a "threatening manner"?


Ridiculous statement!!

So you can’t tell non-aggressive




From aggressive?


Sounds like a personal problem to me.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


I'm offering a compromise that anyone who's deemed mentally capable of owning firearms are allowed to own any firearm of their choice - including fully automatic. Just take a MMPI test and 95% of y'all will be fine.

reply to post by rockoperawriter
 


The difference is in the length of the casing thus changing the amount of gunpowder used to fire the bullet.
edit on 20-1-2013 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


something to do with the brain if you ask me. perhaps the pre frontal lobe



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


I'm offering a compromise that anyone who's deemed mentally capable of owning firearms are allowed to own any firearm of their choice - including fully automatic. Just take a MMPI test and 95% of y'all will be fine.

reply to post by rockoperawriter
 


The difference is in the length of the casing.



So...Shall not be infringed, IF you can pass our mental competency test?

And I believe the right answer is, "There is no such thing as a 7.62 x 36"....




top topics



 
41
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join