1. Are you a current member with account or password issues?

    Please visit following page for more information

    Dismiss Notice

Man Carries an AR into a JC Penny (and doesn't shoot anyone)

Discussion in 'Handguns' started by TARFU, Jan 20, 2013.

  1. Mudinyeri

    Mudinyeri Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,142
    Likes Received:
    3,129
    I'm not suggesting that you are the only one, Mike. Nor am I assuming that my hypothetical "intolerant bigot" would be alone in his or her views. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are not tolerant of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, as our laws permit, but insist that others be tolerant of views or actions not granted as rights by our Constitution and its amendments.

    And, to correct your statement that the second "amendment makes no guarantees of what weapons you [c]an own", the highest court in our land says differently.
     
  2. EmberMike

    EmberMike Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    2,107
    The court says you can own an RPG? Missiles? Nukes? Those are arms. Are they protected by your 2nd Amendment rights?
     
  3. ac7ss
    • In Omnia Paratus

    ac7ss Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    2,788
    IMO there is a difference between "Open Carry" and "Scaring the Soccer Moms"

    Washington State is technically "Open Carry", as there is no law forbidding it. HOWEVER there is a "No Brandishing" law which means that if someone feels threatened by seeing your firearm, the Law has something to say about it. Last weekend there was an event at the state capitol with a lot of people carrying their "Assault Weapons", it was peaceful and lawful. If I were to walk into a shop carrying my 5.56, some folks would be adverse to it and I would likely be asked to leave. Demonstrations of open carry are not likely to put the public at ease at this point in time and I would not do it.
     
  4. littlequick
    • GITD Manix 2XL Owner
    • In Omnia Paratus

    littlequick EDC junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    3,360
    Ha awesome article.
     
  5. mlehto

    mlehto Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    3,768
    Why assault rifles(which an AR is technically not)???

    Why "Embermike" are assault rifles worthy of being banned?

    Your opinion, and emotionsare not an acceptable answer!

    If it's about saving lives, which is what this should be about, then statistically AR 15's and rifles in general have very low usage rates in homicides in the US.

    To say the only reason to ban something is because it is not necessary is absolutely ridiculous! Motorcycles? Fast cars? Alcohol? Cigarettes? All these things kill more people, and arguably have less usefulness than an AR15!

    Lastly, if. We look at the second amendment and believe it was put into place to combat the forces of the government should they become tyrannical, then an AR15 is about the only hope of defending democracy from the governments military who will still have far more powerful actual real live assault rifles that have full auto capabilities.

    The purpose of the second amendment is not to protect hunting and sport shooting or self defense! This is the failure of your argument, and everyone else who says "they have no useful purpose."
     
    Scrub, HybridMomentsPass and kertap75 like this.
  6. willydigger

    willydigger Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,663
    Likes Received:
    5,651
    1. No to artillery. Artillery in terms of cannons, mortars, rockets. I agree. It makes sense. No real defensible argument other than conspiracy theorists.
    2. No to RPG's. Again I agree. It makes sense.
    3. No to fully auto. Again, IMO it makes sense. Designed for military applications, you're not hunting an animal with this. You're beginning to get into the sticky area. These weapons begin to take on characteristics of less threatening weapons (smaller size, similar shapes, ammunition, etc).
    ...
    4. No to civilian AR's. Here is the line in the sand. It looks like a military weapon, but otherwise functions no differently than a 10/22 (a small caliber semi-auto rifle). You can't indiscriminately pick a weapon to ban simply because it looks scary to the laymen/general public. I haven't really heard any argument to the contrary other than it's an assault weapon (which seems to be a made up term). For the ones trying to ban them, please provide a clear interpretation of an assault weapon. This is the point were 2A people (and similar) start getting defensive. There isn't a specific classification and this opens the way for other bans down the road.
    5. High capacity magazines. What are you really accomplishing here? You have to reload more? This IMO is "doing something", but has no real backbone. "Well at least we did something."
    ...
    6. Background checks for violence and felonies I'm okay with. Why not do it? Seems easy enough.
    7. Mental health. Good luck with that. That should be a different conversation all together. Alcohol changes mental health for "normal" people. As do tragedies like CO, VA, and CT.
     
    HybridMomentsPass likes this.
  7. tiktok 22

    tiktok 22 Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    27

    Right on...I like to think of it as "Open Carry" and "Scary Carry". :)
     
    kikaida and ac7ss like this.
  8. Mudinyeri

    Mudinyeri Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,142
    Likes Received:
    3,129
    If we're going to have a serious and civil discussion, you need to stop waving around red herrings. Review the SCOTUS decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v Chicago.
     
    kertap75 likes this.
  9. Echo2

    Echo2 Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    3,697
    What change in laws would help?

    And yes....it is my right......those who would trample on it is the exact reason that I would need it.

    Besides....I like to feed trolls....:)
     
  10. AB.AlexB

    AB.AlexB Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    569
    Likes Received:
    1,837
    Hey fellas, last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about what types or styles or calibers of firearms you are allowed to own.

    I see no limitations on handguns, rifles, RPGs, etc. Last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment was written in order to prevent a tyrannical government from running loose. When it was written, citizens were using muskets. On the flip side, so was the government. So now that firearms technology has advanced, and we have semi automatic rifles, fully automatic rifles, autoloading shotguns, semi automatic pistols, "high capacity" magazines, suppressors, etc., why do we limit them to civilians, yet allow our government to have the same things? Unfair advantage to the government if they so choose to oppress their citizens.

    This has nothing to do with sporting, hunting, or recreation. This is solely for the protection of our rights and freedoms. Period.
     
    redawg likes this.
  11. wyesguy

    wyesguy Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    461
    Welcome to Canada!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Kilted1 likes this.
  12. wyesguy

    wyesguy Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    461
  13. Echo2

    Echo2 Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    3,697
    You do know that if you want to get all the permits and certs.....you can buy a RPG.
     
  14. wyesguy

    wyesguy Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    461
    Those not familiar with Canadian firearms laws.
    Prohibited = no one can own except a few grandfathered back in the '90s. Anything not semi auto, handguns under a certain barrel length.
    Restricted = Home locked in a safe, must have an Authorization to Transport to a range and back home no exceptions. ALL handguns fall under this. I can't even take a handgun into the bush to protect me from wildlife.
    Non-Restricted = Able to carry anywhere unloaded, BUT, if you are seen with a firearm expect to attract alot of immediate police attention.
    Criminal = Do whatever you want with any firearm, fully auto anything.
    5 round maximum in magazines. 30 round magazines pinned to 5 rounds are common. Law abiding citizens keep them pinned. Criminals? Whatever they want.
     
    Idaho Gunslinger likes this.
  15. Mudinyeri

    Mudinyeri Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,142
    Likes Received:
    3,129
    You are correct. However, there have been a number of Supreme Court cases over the years that have "clarified" what the SCOTUS (and its members at the time) believe the drafters meant.

    And, EmberMike is correct in stating that we have allowed laws to be passed (right or not) over the years that have limited the powers of the Second Amendment. We also have limitations on other of the enumerated rights. So, limitation of the Second Amendment is not without parallel or precedent.

    My understanding of what Mike is proposing (Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike.):
    1. There are people who find the appearance of some firearms offensive.
    2. Therefore, we must (further) limit all individuals' rights under the Second Amendment, by banning offensive-looking firearms, so as to avoid offending anyone.

    A similar* proposal might be:
    1. There are people who find the color red offensive.
    2. Therefore, we must ban wearing of the color red.

    *Yes, I understand there are flaws in my comparison. It is not intended to be perfect, but rather to illustrate a point.
     
    kertap75 likes this.
  16. ac7ss
    • In Omnia Paratus

    ac7ss Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    2,788
    Two rifles I own: Which is more dangerous?
    STG-556, .223 - [​IMG]
    Ruger #1, .300 Win Mag - [​IMG]

    Some would ban this one:
    Marlin Model 60, .22 cal tube feed (more than 10 rounds Semi auto) - [​IMG]
    I got it when I was 16.
     
  17. Kilted1

    Kilted1 Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,503
    Likes Received:
    1,899
    That's the thing about rights, they don't need justification. If you want to alter my rights, you're the one who needs to justify it. That line has already been drawn as you yourself point out. Now you want to move that line, alter my rights, because you're squeamish?
    So are you okay with me having a hunting rifle that isn't an AR-15 but is functionally and ballistically the same? What about one that looks similar but functions differently and uses a different caliber?

    AR15s are popular because they're accurate, reliable and safe.
     
  18. Echo2

    Echo2 Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    3,697
    And if someone doesn't like what you are saying you should be silenced....

    If someone doesn't like the color of you skin....you should be removed.

    If you don't believe what we believe....
     
  19. bigguy02

    bigguy02 Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    937
    Likes Received:
    641
    .
    Democide. What other "compelling argument" do you need?
     
  20. bleh

    bleh Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    I agree with most of that you have here. Well said.

    I see another area where this line gets fuzzy. I've seen several arguments from pro-gun people:
    1)I need it to defend myself from the government. An armed populace keeps the government in line.
    2)I need it for personal defense. If criminals have guns, I should have one too to defend myself and my home.
    3)I need my guns for hunting and sport.

    for 1), I can see the validity of this argument, given that it's the application that seems to be called out in the constitution, but I don't see the crossover between this and open carry/concealed carry. Do you for see a situation where you'll have to ruse up against the best equipped military in the world on the fly with your sub-compact pistol? Don't allow the government to take the guns, but don't go carrying them around to shopping malls either. Personally, I think you're a bit delusional to think that in this day and age armed civilians would stand a chance against the government if it started to flex it's muscles domestically, which is a long shot.

    for 2), while that's fair enough, you shouldn't object to getting rid of guns in general if self defense is your only use for weapons. I think this is where I stand. I feel I need a gun to protect myself from others with guns. I'd feel as safe, more likely safer, if no one had guns except those who needed them as professionals, be it LEO or soldiers. This argument becomes a matter of how to get rid of guns in the hands of joe-q-public in general rather than what guns we should allow him/her to have.

    and 3), if this is the sole purpose of you wanting guns, then perhaps we could set up sporting clubs or other private armorys that would be regulated and controlled so that there is some accountability in the storage and availability of the weapons rather than keeping them in your home.

    Now I understand most gun enthusiasts are a combination of 1)/2)/3), so the distinction becomes sort of trivial, but It bothers me when a debate is taking place and 1) and 2) are talked in the same sentence as if they're inseparable.