Wow, a 3 round shot is not a threat to the president.
What if one of the guys at OWS had the same rifle in Zucotti?
BTW:
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=convert+ar-15+to+full+auto
That's an AR-15, not a M16 (look at the stock). That means it's not an assault rifle, selective fire, automatic or 3 round burst. Just straight semi-auto like most all guns.
Wow, a 3 round shot is not a threat to the president.
What if one of the guys at OWS had the same rifle in Zucotti?
BTW:
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=convert+ar-15+to+full+auto
Wow, a 3 round shot is not a threat to the president.
What if one of the guys at OWS had the same rifle in Zucotti?
BTW:
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=convert+ar-15+to+full+auto
There is no evidence to suggest that the rifle carried at the rally was anything other than a standard semi-automatic AR-15 (NOT the 3-round burst or automatic varieties that require additional permits, tax stamps, etc).Wow, a 3 round shot is not a threat to the president.
Three words: Local Gun Laws.What if one of the guys at OWS had the same rifle in Zucotti?
Wow, a 3 round shot is not a threat to the president.
What if one of the guys at OWS had the same rifle in Zucotti?
A 3 round burst weapon is legally a fully automatic weapon. That's what spidey was saying.
If one of the guys at OWS had the same rifle in Zucotti park he would be guilty of a slew of New York State felonies and NYC crimes. NYS & NYC have assault weapon bans, firearm registries, permits, and laws against openly carrying weapons around. The rest of the country under uncivilized (r)ule hasn't put together the simple more guns = more violence equation, so the tea party people were legally allowed to tote weapons around.
BTW:
Converting or attempting to convert an AR-15 to fire more than one shot per squeeze of the trigger is a federal felony. In fact, possessing both an AR-15 and the instructions to do so constitutes "constructive intent" and is sufficient to convict you just as if you'd gone ahead and converted the weapon. Either way it's a 10 year federal felony.
There is no evidence to suggest that the rifle carried at the rally was anything other than a standard semi-automatic AR-15 (NOT the 3-round burst or automatic varieties that require additional permits, tax stamps, etc).
I'm still quite confused as to how/why the rifle "incident" in AZ is even relevant...? Peacefully and legally carrying firearms is not "violent." However, looting, rape, vandalism, assault, and disorderly conduct ARE violent acts, and we have seen MANY documented examples of each of those at the Occupy rallies.
Some paramedic would have caught a 3 round burst to the leg? :biggrin:
I could make a spitball gun LOOK like a .50 cal machine gun, but that doesn't make it any more dangerous.Again, you are focusing on the details and not the message. No evidence does not make it LOOK less like an automatic weapon being carried by an individual at a presidential visit.
You can't say that -- it hasn't happened.The POINT IS THIS, he was not immediately arrested, THEN investigated. Someone at an OWS gathering would be.
the incidents are happening all over the place, not just Oakland. "Fringe elements," or not, you really need to stop denying this fact...Actually, they have been documented by small groups, not directly affiliated, AFTER OWS rallies... and then there is Oakland....
Rape has no age limit.As for Rape... When your group is all over 50... I ain't going any further on that!
As you know, the gentleman with the rifle remained completely peaceful for the entire duration of his protest. Your entire line of thought in this paragraph is just plain ridiculous...If you are missing the point about "peacefully" carrying weapons, then nobody is going to be able to convince you. A weapon is only peaceful until the guy starts USING it. How much effort/time would be needed for him to unsling it from his shoulder and start using it?
As I said above: as long as the weapon is legal, carrying it at the protest location is legal, and the person carrying it remains peaceful, I would be the first to stand up and defend ANY person arrested for doing so -- regardless of that person's political beliefs.The point being, if someone at an OWS rally was seen doing the EXACT SAME THING, they would be arrested and questioned later, not simply tolerated because of the 2nd amendment.
Again, you are focusing on the details and not the message. No evidence does not make it LOOK less like an automatic weapon being carried by an individual at a presidential visit.
The POINT IS THIS, he was not immediately arrested, THEN investigated. Someone at an OWS gathering would be.
Actually, they have been documented by small groups, not directly affiliated, AFTER OWS rallies... and then there is Oakland....
As for Rape... When your group is all over 50... I ain't going any further on that!
If you are missing the point about "peacefully" carrying weapons, then nobody is going to be able to convince you. A weapon is only peaceful until the guy starts USING it. How much effort/time would be needed for him to unsling it from his shoulder and start using it?
The point being, if someone at an OWS rally was seen doing the EXACT SAME THING, they would be arrested and questioned later, not simply tolerated because f the 2nd amendment.
I could make a spitball gun LOOK like a .50 cal machine gun, but that doesn't make it any more dangerous.
You anti-gun types sure hate those "scary looking" guns, eh? lol
You can't say that -- it hasn't happened.
If there are any Occupy protests in AZ, I would support their right to legally carry openly if/when they decide to do so.
the incidents are happening all over the place, not just Oakland. "Fringe elements," or not, you really need to stop denying this fact...
Rape has no age limit.
As you know, the gentleman with the rifle remained completely peaceful for the entire duration of his protest. Your entire line of thought in this paragraph is just plain ridiculous...
As I said above: as long as the weapon is legal, carrying it at the protest location is legal, and the person carrying it remains peaceful, I would be the first to stand up and defend ANY person arrested for doing so -- regardless of that person's political beliefs.
I'm also sure that most other "pro gun types" would do the same.
You're arguments are just emotional nonsense at this point...
Well Tea Party rallies were overwhelmingly peaceful and obeyed all local laws.
OWS, not so much...
Exactly what "point" did I "evade"?point evaded.... again.
You're the one focusing on how guns "LOOK," or how they "could" be modified, rather than how they actually function.type casting and straw man. I never said I was against the gun, but you start putting words in my mouth (post).
Fail.
no, it didnt.can and did.
As you yourself just said, none of them had weapons; so, once again, there have been NO incidents that are the same as the man legally and peacefully carrying a rifle to a TP event.A group of people was "run off" when trying to protect a vet after he got hit in the head with a can of tear gas.
NONE of them had weapons.
A group got arrested (entrapped first) simply for all being at a bank (many closing accounts). NONE had ANY weapon.
once again: nothing like that has happened at an OWS event, so none of us knows what "they" would do.What do you think they would do if someone was packing, even legally?
You don't know what "straw man" means. The sentence you quoted for that was NOT a straw man.Straw man. You are not the law.
There are dozens of examples in this very thread, and the incidents have been widely covered since Sept 17th.Show me the numbers.
When scumbags show up at a gathering, they need to be dealt with. The offender that was responsible for the assaults at Zucotti was reported and arrested.
Labeling all with the crimes of a few (unsupported actions, BTW) is unfair.
you're an idiot if you honestly believe that either of those goes away at any age, especially as young as 50.Potency and desire do.
The incidents -- and how each was handled -- are not comparable in any way, shape, or form.Again, point missed. Example, people in NYC were ARRESTED FOR STANDING IN A BANK. They had no weapons, they were not "loitering".
But this guy comes to a presidential visit w/a gun and he is only asked "yo, that gun cool?" and let to stay.
now you're just making things up...Bush and Co would have had him arrested and released later, AFTER the event "for national security" regardless of rights.
the reality is that no such incident has happened, so neither of us knows what would happen.Again, you are not the cops. You can support someone's rights, but the FACT is, if someone was seen at an OWS rally with a gun as brazen as the one displayed, he would be arrested and questioned. You can support his right if you want, but the reality is simple.
All of your arguments are based on guesses and emotions, not logic or reality.Off Topic. this is not about the right to carry, but the differential treatment the groups receive, warranted or NOT.
Fail.
Again classifying the argument when my points are logical. Saying what would be done in a situation is not an "emotional argument". I am not crying for the "victims". You seem to think that because you support the right to bear guns that everyone would be treated equally when doing the same thing in different situations.
You are living in La-La land if that is the case.
Actually Spidey, that is not the main reason....
Their "protests" were more like support rallys for the conservative republican party. Is that wrong? No. But when you are out to protest things that are happening by supporting a candidate, you are less likely to be thrown out at one of their events.
If the "Tea Party" actually started going into depots and destroying taxed foreign goods, or ransacking Welfare offices (akin to what their namesake did in days of old) we would see something else.
Is OWS doing that? Not as a group, no (frigging opportunist radicals are, and could ruin it for everyone).
Not only that, the TP was a bunch of old conservatives that held daytime rallys. They did not support the removal of Big Buisness and the Status Quo, so they were not a threat to anybody really.
The main point that many of these things brings up is that these two are very difficult to compare 1 on 1 because they are different and have been handled differently by the government.
What needs to be done, instead of typecasting and demonizing these people is to address their legitimate concerns (and just ignore those calling for absolute anarchy) and push our legislators to reign in the abuses that have been slowly implemented by big business into our systems.
Regardless of how many things you may disagree with in this movement, its amorphous and uncentralized nature makes it difficult to throw out everything.
So USE their numbers to try and get the points that you LIKE to be implemented rather than trying to alienate and discredit the majority.
Bush and Co would have had him arrested and released later, AFTER the event "for national security" regardless of rights.
No. Absolutely NO. I want nothing to do with these people, their goals or their agenda. May great fuck be upon them and all those who support them.
You're acting like other liberals, you are seeing the protest for what you believe them to be, and not what they actually are. Complete disconnect with reality.
Ironing post of the weak. misspelled on purpose.
"You're acting like other liberals, you are seeing the protest for what you believe them to be, and not what they actually are. Complete disconnect with reality."
No, spidey is being accurate, ninja is way out in lala and tinfoil land.
And you are all knowing as well as spidey?
Let me guess, you were'nt born yet during the protests of the 60's like spidey wasn't either.
Wrong again, you're 2 for 2. I attended a candlelight vigil for the soldiers in '64.
Then surely you remember that people died protesting the war back then.
They weren't organized by a political\corp backed organization (like the TP is). You always will get some idiots if there's no organization.
The "real" Tea Party destroyed property.
Are you honestly trying to tell me this isn't being pushed by the left and this administration? Really? Do you honestly believe that?
If so, then you are demonstrating the mind of a liberal.
I remember the time well, and if you think that the protests in the 60's and 70's didn't have impressive financial backing then you're wrong. To compare the OWS protests to the draft and anti-war protests back then in pretty laughable. I would like to see where you think the Tea Party is more violent then the OWS protests have been.
I don't think the TP is more violent. They were basically a political "rally" paid for and coached by corps and a "News" network.
To compare the two is like Herman says "apples & oranges.