If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KPTV Portland)   Two men go walking in Portland, OR with loaded assault rifles strapped to their backs to "educate" general public. Hilarity ensues   (kptv.com) divider line 179
    More: Dumbass, Hilarity Ensues, assault rifles, public, concealed handgun, KPTV, portland police  
•       •       •

20297 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 8:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-10 08:21:01 PM
16 votes:
Open carry if you aren't hunting makes you an attention whore.
2013-01-10 08:55:42 PM
12 votes:
Warren said he hoped people would approach them and talk to them, instead of calling police.

That makes total perfect sense.  I mean, if Isee a couple guys carrying a big-ass deadly weapon the FIRST thing I'm inclined to do is approach them and start a conversation.
No way my internal dialogue might go something like:
"Holy shiat...these guys are strolling around in public, heavily and openly armed.  Very high possibility they are lookin' for some ground to stand. DO NOT APPROACH.  Call for backup."
2013-01-10 08:48:40 PM
9 votes:
Look, I don't care how much you "educate" me about guns, if I see you walking down the street with an assault rifle strapped to your back, I'm going to call the mothefarking cops. Why? BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DAMN BUSINESS WALKING DOWN THE STREET WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE STRAPPED TO YOUR BACK! If you think you need protection, conceal and carry, it's not something I would ever do but if you feel that way, OK. But this isn't farking Beirut circa 1982, all right? It is not that farking bad out there people. It's just not.
2013-01-10 09:26:17 PM
8 votes:

jaytkay: HideAndGoFarkYourself: A person carrying concealed can choose the moment at which he wants to intervene...It's not as easy as many gun owners try to make it out to be....If you're carrying concealed and you realize at that pivotal moment that you don't have what it takes to end a human life, then you just go on with the program until you are left with absolutely no other choice.

Sounds like you've been called on many times to defend yourself and others with your concealed firearm.

Tell us all about that.


I'm a police officer in a fairly shiatty area.  I've also studied extensively the psychological side of killing as it relates to combat and combat stress.  I have fought for my life, I have used a firearm both offensively and defensively in a military setting.  I instruct at the state police academy and present workshops and training on the psychology of interpersonal human aggression.  In short order I will complete my Master's Degree in psychology, focusing on combat stress.  I have absolutely no problem admitting that the first time I was shot at in combat, I pissed myself and hid. I have no problem admitting that the first time I ever shot AT somebody in combat, I intentionally missed, hoping they'd just quit shooting at me.

I am, in no way, better than any other person out there who carries a gun.  I am different, in that I've had to use one before.

That's all there is to it.  I can speak with authority on what goes through a person's mind when they are faced with the realization that they may have to kill somebody.
2013-01-10 09:03:49 PM
8 votes:
I'm a very staunch supporter of the right to own firearms, whether they be for hunting, sport, self defense, or just because one wants to have them.  I don't even mind when people carry them, and carry them openly, so long as they're not doing it FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of attracting attention to themselves. These people weren't carrying for protection, if they were, they'd be carrying a defensive weapon like a handgun.  They were carrying to create a scene and to get exactly what they got, a police response and a news story.  People like these actually, in my opinion, do more to hurt the gun lobby than help.

In any political fight, you've got the 20% that are die hard pro-whatever, and the 20% that are die hard con-whatever.  Then there's the remaining 60% who are going to vote based on how well the other side sells their position.  People like this, who generate negative publicity, who act in a manner designed only to create fear or panic, don't help their cause in the least.

Not to mention that somewhere, somebody is dialing 911 with an actual emergency, and their help is being delayed because these two jackwagons want to walk around carrying AR-15's and wagging their dicks around.
2013-01-10 08:49:39 PM
8 votes:
A gun shop owner I've dealt with in the past (he's an ass, so I don't shop there any longer), said you're an idiot if you open carry. You're just making yourself a target for a criminal that might want your gun or otherwise knows to take you out first.
2013-01-10 09:00:15 PM
7 votes:
The fact that this is their big public contribution to the reaction to 20 schoolkids getting gunned down says all that needs to be known about their side of the argument.
2013-01-10 08:40:09 PM
6 votes:
The men told officers they were hoping to educate the public about gun rights.
...
Officers said carrying firearms openly is legal

Sounds like the public needed a little education in that department.
2013-01-10 08:39:35 PM
6 votes:
And if a concerned citizen took them out with a .243 from 250 yards everyone would be cool with that right?
2013-01-10 09:06:47 PM
5 votes:
"What they really should do is observe the person to determine if the person is aggressive," he said of seeing someone with a gun in public. "We're not doing anything threatening to anyone."

Whatever. You're both irresponsible farkwads. You don't really have the ball in your court to be telling other people how they might react to you.
2013-01-10 08:49:34 PM
5 votes:
but seriously these shiatheads need an ass kicking something fierce. I can't think of a more antisocial, dickheaded, and nasty thing to do these days.
2013-01-10 08:48:24 PM
5 votes:
It's highly unlikely they were carrying assault rifles.

That said, "look at me, I'm an attention whore!" seems about right.
2013-01-10 08:46:06 PM
5 votes:
Two more responsible gun owners heard from.
2013-01-10 11:12:08 PM
4 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Aigoo: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Two more farking idiots that make actual responsible gun owners look like lunatics heard from.

FTFY.

The guy who called these morons attention whores had it right.

Here's the problem:

You may know hundreds or even thousands of responsible gun owners but every time we see, "But you'd be punishing millions of responsible gun owners" the source for that figure includes these two.

And James Holmes and Nancy Lanza, before they got famous.


You know, you're right. Except for the fact that every single responsible gun owner I know is calling these two irresponsible.

You see, I'm well aware that open carry is perfectly legal in Oregon. It is also perfectly legal here in my own state of Oklahoma with a concealed carry license.

But the fact that something is legal does not mean that to do so is responsible or sensible. I would not, will not, and do not open carry my pistols - even though it is perfectly legal for me to do so - because there is no legitimate reason for me to be walking down the farking street with a .45 on my hip or under my arm. None whatsoever. Yes, it's legal. Yes, I am well within my rights to do so. But yes, it is absolutely irresponsible of me to terrorize the general public by walking around with a goddamned hand cannon when I can just as easily conceal the weapon and have the exact same protection for myself and others.

You cannot educate people about firearms by carrying them around nonchalantly on a noonday stroll when everything they have been taught all their lives tells them to be terrified of them and the people who own them.

Common sense. How does it work?
2013-01-10 09:29:17 PM
4 votes:
[1] People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims."

[2] In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims."

[3] Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.
2013-01-10 09:02:16 PM
4 votes:
How to be a dick in one easy lesson.


Look, I get it.
But it's asshats like this that make me HATE gun owners more, simply because I don't see someone marching around the city against abortion with a real fetus strapped to their body.
2013-01-10 08:59:08 PM
4 votes:
It is tools like this that give responsible gun owners a bad rep. The stupidity and lack of perspective is astonishing.
2013-01-10 08:57:09 PM
4 votes:
So how do I tell the difference between a educational demonstration or a couple of psychos on the way to kill a lot of people?
2013-01-10 08:53:25 PM
4 votes:
There's nothing the general public likes more than insensitive self-righteous pricks who think they know everything.
2013-01-10 08:49:40 PM
4 votes:
The rightards are certainly going to provide us with oodles of lulz for the next four years at least, aren't they?
2013-01-11 01:20:19 AM
3 votes:

Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: I am certain, then, that you will be able to demonstrate that an "assault weapons ban" is rationally justified based upon a specific definition of "assault weapon" and a demonstration of a benefit that will result from prohibiting civilian ownership of them. Please do so.

I gave you more than enough chances to stop posting this same stupid non-argument meant to derail discussion. At this point, you're just harassing me. I could care f*ck all for your bullying tactic, Dimensio.

You have evidently confused a request for a rational justification of an as-yet unjustified position with "bullying". I must confess that I do not understand your confusion, as the two concepts are not logically similar.


He can't define what he wants to ban, or why. Of course if he spent any time researching the subject and the statistics he'd possibly come around, at least to somewhere near the middle. He brings absolutely nothing to the debate except his ignorant cries for an unrealistic society, yet asks us for an argument, at least until we bring facts and a real argument to him. Then he's the bullied victim because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Poor guy can't catch a break.
2013-01-10 11:10:53 PM
3 votes:

GoldSpider: Keizer_Ghidorah: There are more intelligent ways to educate the masses than walking around town with a gun strapped to your back.

I'm listening (reading).


He's right. Perhaps hanging around on a street corner, with those guns and signs that read something like "Ask me about my rifle", or handing out NRA leaflets, or something similar - something, anything, that indicated a more educational intent than just "two morons walking around with slung assault-style weapons", would've made them both more approachable and less alarming.
2013-01-10 10:38:24 PM
3 votes:
I am so farking tired of hearing about everyone's goddamn "gun rights." Buy a gun if you want, or not, I don't care. But be responsible with it. People who open carry are just attention whores. They're the right's PETA.
2013-01-10 09:59:47 PM
3 votes:

Dimensio: AdmirableSnackbar: pedrop357: Silly Jesus: Libs are extremely scared of inanimate objects. Kinds sad, actually.

When everything is emotions and feelings, it's not surprising. A more logical person would do a quickie analysis and just move on.

I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of the mentally unstable, irresponsible idiots like the ones in TFA owning them.

The subjects of the article were irresponsible, but no data yet justifies a claim of mental instability.


The concept of walking around with your buddy armed in such a way in an area other than an active war zone does not occur - or does not appear reasonable - to anyone who is mentally stable. Mostly because it's completely irresponsible.
2013-01-10 09:27:36 PM
3 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: What sort of "education" are we supposed to get from this?


When you see the next Adam Lanza approaching a school, salute him and thank him for standing up FOR the 2nd Amendment and AGAINST tyranny.
2013-01-10 09:23:50 PM
3 votes:
One is wearing a camo head wrap that could be easily pulled up to hide his face and the other is wearing a t-shirt with the "don't tread on me" flag on it favored by ignorant but extremely angry Tea Party types. The only people who would wear these in public are unhinged idiots. And that's before you get to the weapons.

You're goddamned right I'd call the cops. These people look like they're more likely to use those guns to kill innocent people than they are to prevent others from killing innocent people.
2013-01-10 09:08:37 PM
3 votes:
i.imgur.com

also...

i.imgur.com

What a couple of jackasses.
2013-01-10 09:06:58 PM
3 votes:
...and not a single law was broken.
2013-01-10 09:00:28 PM
3 votes:
So the pro gun enthusiasts have decided that during a rash of school and public shootings with semi automatics (And there was yet another school shooting today, a shotgun against a student in california.) The best thing that can be done is to walk around with visible Semi Automatics? They should be arrested for disturbing the peace.
2013-01-10 09:00:18 PM
3 votes:

MrEricSir: There's nothing the general public likes more than insensitive self-righteous pricks who think they know everything.


I'm not gun nut (thank god), but the sight of that one particular Brainiac with his rifle pointed downward made me wince. Maybe out in the woods if the gun discharges the bullet would sink into the ground, but imagine that thing going off and the round doing a ricochet straight off of the pavement and striking some kid riding by on his bike.

Even gunnies should be aghast at the utter lack of gun safety these oafs are displaying.
2013-01-10 08:55:51 PM
3 votes:
you'renothelping.jpeg
2013-01-10 08:54:39 PM
3 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: Facetious_Speciest: It's highly unlikely they were carrying assault rifles.

That said, "look at me, I'm an attention whore!" seems about right.

no those aren't assault rifles at all.

rtfa nozzle. pay attention to the picturez


Nothing within the article text mentioned confirmation of select-fire capability of either firearm.
2013-01-10 08:45:27 PM
3 votes:

whither_apophis: And if a concerned citizen took them out with a .243 from 250 yards everyone would be cool with that right?


Why would anyone be okay with that?
2013-01-10 08:16:55 PM
3 votes:
It's a big scary world outside their mom's basement
2013-01-12 11:08:53 PM
2 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: It's a pretty consistent trend across most metro areas. IIRC from these links (from an older thread) at least 60% of homicide victims or offenders had multiple felony priors.

That is still not felon-on-felon homicide. You need to read more carefully (and perhaps do a little math to figure out the upper bound of felon-on-felon homicide in this sample of an area with an unusually high murder rate.)

Sorry I mistyped that. It was something like 70-80% of the offenders had felony convictions and 60-80 percent of victims were felons. Either way simple math tells you that the vast majority of murders have to be felons killing felons.

I read all of those papers you linked upthread. All of them. Carefully.
I strongly suggest you do the same: As things stand now, you fail at both reading comprehension and math.


/Why am I not surprised?


Because you did not read them carefully. This is a very noted occurrence all across the country. Ask Philadelphia or Chicago:

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
http://www.phillypolice.com/assets/PPD.Homicide.Analysis.2011.pdf

"According to McCarthy (Chicago Police Superintendent), about 80% of Chicago's murders are gang-related."

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/chicago-murder-rate-down-in-s ep tember-mccarthy-somethings-working/

* Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest
record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt 

"  Nearly three of every four adult homicide victims in Washington last year had an arrest history, according to an analysis of court records that casts new light on why the city has one of the highest homicide rates in the country."

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/15/nation/na-briefs15.2

"Of the 400 murders in 2012, 223 were gunshot victims, 84 victims were stabbed to death, 43 died of blunt trauma and 11 died of asphyxiation. More of the 400 homicides occurred on a Saturday than any other day, followed by early Sunday morning. More occurred between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. than any other time. People were more likely to be killed outside than in. Nearly 70 percent of the victims had prior criminal arrests, the police said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/nyregion/414-homicides-is-a-record -l ow-for-new-york.html

"In non-fatal shootings in 2011, 97 percent of the 177 suspects and 86 percent of the 473 victims had at least one prior arrest. However, O'Brien said a closer analysis of non-fatal shootings during a six-week period in July and August 2011, when non-fatal shootings increased, found that suspects had an average of 7.5 prior arrests and victims had an average of about six. O'Brien said that based on her past studies, she would expect that the rest of the suspects and victims in the non-fatal shootings in 2011 had a similar number of prior arrests.

So, more than 85 percent of the people involved in non-fatal shootings had at least one prior arrest. And there's a strong indication, though not complete numbers, that most people involved in the non-fatal shootings had at least several prior arrests. For all homicides in 2011 -- those involving guns and those that didn't -- 57 percent of the 72 suspects and 62 percent of the 66 homicide victims had at least six prior arrests.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/19/edward-fl yn n/85-percent-shooting-suspects-and-victims-milwaukee/ 

David Kennedy, a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says the rise in criminals killing criminals has escaped policymakers' attention.

"The notion that these (murders) are random bolts of lightning, which is the commonly held image, is not the reality," says Kennedy, who has examined the backgrounds of murder suspects and victims in multiple U.S. cities. "It happens, but it doesn't happen often."

The slaying of truly innocent victims is so unusual in Baltimore that the chief prosecutor says the city has become dangerously numb to the carnage. "If we don't put human faces on the victims, we will become desensitized," State Attorney Patricia Jessamy says.


Philadelphia police Capt. Ben Naish says the Baltimore numbers are "shocking." Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up - to 75% this year from 71% in 2005.

In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.

In Newark, where three young friends with no apparent links to crime were executed Aug. 4, roughly 85% of victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, on par with the percentage in 2005 but up from 81% last year, police statistics show.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-targ et_ N.htm

Baltimore is on pace to exceed 300 murders for the first time since 1999, and 91% of the victims this year had criminal arrest records.

Crime analysts closely track similar patterns in Milwaukee and Cincinnati as law enforcement authorities and municipal leaders attempt to explain the crime resurgence after a decade of sustained decline.


Recent homicide records show about 97% of Baltimore's murder suspects have prior arrests.

 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-30-baltvictims_N .ht m


81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record.
66% have two or more arrests.
67% have at least one felony arrest.
56% have two or more felony arrests.
70% have at least one conviction.
54% have at least one felony conviction.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc98.pdf

From the 1960s to date, national and local studies document that seventy to eighty percent of murderers have formal adult criminal records. [109] Prior to an uptick in the mid 1980s, minors--who practically never have adult records--had committed ten percent of murders; more recently minors' "market share" has been over fifteen percent. [110] Of those killers who are old enough to have adult records, ninety percent or more do. Most of these criminals are not even thirty years old, but in their few adult years have averaged four major felony arrests over a six-year crime career. [111] (By contrast, something like eighty-five percent of the population has never been arrested even once). [112] [Page 996]


http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/polsbyandkates1.htm

Last year 234 people were murdered in Baltimore City. A rate of one in 2,700. But 194 of them had criminal records and 163 had been arrested for drug offences. That means that 82 per cent of murder victims are or were criminals themselves. And 70 per cent were involved in drugs.

Forty people had no police record. That means that the likelihood of being murdered in Baltimore if you have no criminal history is one in 16,000. Slightly less panic-inducing, but those without criminal records are still more likley to be murdered here than in, say, Britain where the rate is about one in 85,000.

Addendum:Something I should have added. Of these 234 murders the police identified 107 suspects. Of these 94 had criminal records and 76 had drug arrest history. That's 87 per cent and 71 per cent respectively.
 http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/baltimore-city/wired/2009/11/w ho_ gets_murdered_in_baltimore.html

This is such a widely spread and widely noticed phenomenon your attempted denial of it is laughable at best. There is literally no way it mathematically works unless people without criminal records were killing dozens of people at a time. Philadelphia at the top is a perfect example. 85% of homicide victims and 84% of homicide offenders (70% were violent crimes) in 2011 had criminal records. Since we didn't  hear about dozens of formerly innocent and law abiding citizens in Philly in 2011, who murdered all those people with a pretty serious criminal records?

Seriously please explain it with something other than a pithy one liner. Who is killing all these people with a significant criminal background if it's *not* other people with a significant criminal background?
2013-01-11 12:44:26 AM
2 votes:
I see nothing wrong with this. I open carry by pistol everywhere and most people thank me for it. They broke no law, why is this news? The Government is comencing anti-gun psyops with the news right now. Enjoy.
2013-01-11 12:35:04 AM
2 votes:

Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: fredklein: Keizer_Ghidorah: It's natural to fear things that can kill you

SO, you must fear:

Cars
Rocks
Tree branches
People
Water
Lightning
Meteorites
Carbon Monoxide
Steak knives
... and a LOT of other things.


Alcohol
people drinking alcohol
swimming pools
doctors

And this is why no meaningful discussion can ever be done with this subject.


Exactly- you can't have a reasonable discussion with people like you who are constantly living in fear of "things that can kill you"- a category that includes almost everything in existence.
2013-01-11 12:10:06 AM
2 votes:

The111: I actually have no opinion here. I'm not a gun nut and have never owned a gun (though I've fired them and been around them), but I stand for freedom where reasonable (and I think owning guns is reasonable, as is carrying them... what would be the point of owning a gun if you couldn't take it anywhere?). This is clearly a very divisive topic, and I can see every side of it. For example:

Would I be freaked out if I saw this on the street? Honestly, probably yes. That would be a complete gut reaction. But on the flipside...

Why should I be? What makes open carry so much more scary than concealed carry? On a crowded street, there could be 100 hidden guns in proximity to me (and when I lived in Texas there probably often were)... so why should I get scared because of 2 in plain sight? If anything, they are LESS of a threat since I know where they are.

These guys do seem on the surface to be douchebags, but at the same time the response they are eliciting from most people seems 100% illogical. So maybe they have a point that people need no question their gut reactions. Unfortunately, few people ever do question a gut reaction.

Discuss (rationally, if possible).


Well, okay. Rationally:

The problem is not these guys per se, although I question their cavalier response to the cops' concern that their legal open carry was tying up emergency lines. It is this: Not everyone in this country is a responsible gun owner, as we know from recent events. Not everyone can be counted on to carry their weapons in a safe, sane, rational manner. There is no way to know, merely because someone is casually walking down the street, whether he or she is a sane, rational gun owner or an unstable maniac who is going to snap at any second and start hosing down the crowd. Because of the speed with which a gun can be fired, most people don't want to wait till the individual unslings or unholsters their weapon and starts firing, they would prefer to call the cops BEFORE the person starts shooting, rather than after.

I don't see this as a "pants-pissing" overreaction; I see it as a reasonable response, especially given the events of the past month. And in fact, I see it as a reasonable response in general. One reason the Middle East is as violence-prone as it is today is because the residents have become habituated to seeing people--soldiers, militia, cops, gangsters--wandering around with automatic weapons slung at their backs. It is so common that one more person is not a remarkable sight--until he opens fire on the marketplace. I personally would prefer that people carrying rifles remain an unusual, and police-worthy, vision in the malls of America, for exactly that reason. I would rather have lots of people calling the police because two men are strolling down the sidewalk with rifles on their backs, than that so many men were doing it that ANY of them could be the one who was a terrorist on a suicide mission.

I hope that is reasoned and rational enough for you.
2013-01-10 10:49:03 PM
2 votes:
pedrop357:  So, a cosmetic ban?

Real gun owners who love their weapons for themselves won't care if it looks like a military firearm or not. If a person is buying a type of gun based on the "image," maybe they should be discouraged. A gun is a tool. A gun is not a toy or a show dog.
2013-01-10 10:41:50 PM
2 votes:

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Or is an assault rifle a semi-automatic rifle, but one that, stylistically, looks scary?


i.imgur.com

I think you mean "designed to *create the image/fear/respect* of a military grade, high capacity weapon capable of killing. These rifles are all about creating image, as you admitted. That is precisely what many people are concerned about. No one cared when I carried my wood-grain stock 30-06 over my shoulder as a kid either. It wasn't designed to communicate the *cultural information* these rifles are explicitly designed to give. Maybe part of a solution is to mandate that rifles sold to civilians must not stylistically resemble military-grade arms. That would probably go a long in addressing common fears and impressions.
2013-01-10 10:36:15 PM
2 votes:

Vector R: And the men of the law as well. FTA:
The Portland Police Bureau, however, asks anyone who sees someone armed with guns to immediately call 911.



No. These two didn't need to be educated on the law - what they did was legal. They need to be educated on being dumbass attention whores who are not helping. That's totally different.
2013-01-10 10:21:39 PM
2 votes:
Wayne 985

I don't know if it's the same dude, but I've seen a video like that before. Guy was wearing a handgun openly and a cop stopped and politely asked him about it. The officer couldn't have been more calm and courteous, but the idiot provocateur was borderline hysterical about his rights being violated and refused even to provide his name.

We've probably seen the same video. I get the impression that some of these people do this shiat a lot, and the cops have been briefed on how to handle it. I'm usually the typical Fark cop-hater, but respect where respect is due...the cops handle a lot of these taped situations like farking PR pros. Completely courteous, polite and reasonable.
2013-01-10 09:39:13 PM
2 votes:

The_Sponge: fusillade762: How much you want to bet they think taxes are too high and government spending is out of control?

In all fairness, spending is out of control.


OBAMA!!! Oh, wait...

blogs-images.forbes.com
2013-01-10 09:31:12 PM
2 votes:
I would love to follow them around town calling them cowards. Just to see what they would do. I would be perfectly willing to explain to them why I thought they were cowards.
2013-01-10 09:31:07 PM
2 votes:
See, gun people? The average person just doesn't give a shiat about what you think, they just want you to get that goddamned thing away from them.

You're not normal. Can't you understand that? When the mere sight of your fixation can cause panic attacks, it's time to give it up.

And don't try to argue with Dimensio. He's better at autism than actual autistic people.
2013-01-10 09:27:47 PM
2 votes:
It's the people arguing about what theycan do versus the people arguing about what they should do.

Again.
2013-01-10 09:26:21 PM
2 votes:
They were perfectly legal.
People need to stop crapping all over themselves every time they see a gun.

I have no problem with what they did. Some guy did the same thing here in Utah not too long ago.

Grow up and stop being afraid of the inanimate boogey man.
2013-01-10 09:17:53 PM
2 votes:
kptv.images.worldnow.compixelatedgeek.com
2013-01-10 09:16:55 PM
2 votes:

iheartscotch: How else do you suppose guns get from gun safes to shooting ranges.


Oh I don't know ... how 'bout properly stored in one's trunk?

/and even when carried it should be in storage container of some type
//gun safety 101 biatch
2013-01-10 09:13:04 PM
2 votes:

iheartscotch: Maybe walking around town with an ar-15 is not the best idea; but, there it is perfectly legal and they weren't hurting anything. How else do you suppose guns get from gun safes to shooting ranges.


When transporting my AR-15, I keep it secured in a case until I am prepared either to use or to store it.
2013-01-10 09:10:43 PM
2 votes:
Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Farking asshats.
2013-01-10 09:09:45 PM
2 votes:
What cacksuckers. I would never open carry my handgun. It would never enter my mind to sling my husbands Ar15 over my shoulder and go for a walk. And they had them behind their backs? Why would you have your gun where someone behind you can grab it or it would take longer to get it in a position to fire?
I hope the morons didnt take them out loaded.

I would have called the cops too.
2013-01-10 09:06:22 PM
2 votes:
Thanks guys. You're part of the problem.

Honestly, open carry makes about as much sense as a rich guy walking around in a suit made of $100 bills.
2013-01-10 09:06:07 PM
2 votes:

HideAndGoFarkYourself: Not to mention that somewhere, somebody is dialing 911 with an actual emergency, and their help is being delayed because these two jackwagons want to walk around carrying AR-15's and wagging their dicks around.


A local police officer informed me that he prefers citizens to carry concealed for the specific reason that legally openly carried firearms may cause observers unfamiliar with the law to contact and thus waste the resources of emergency services. That explanation prompted me to obtain a holster that more effectively conceals my firearm when cycling, as until then I had worn a holster that was frequently exposed, inadvertently, when I cycled.
2013-01-10 09:03:33 PM
2 votes:
kptv.images.worldnow.com

kptv.images.worldnow.com

The guns in question.

/would call the police
//even if some 2nd amendment hero gives me a detailed explanation on why these aren't "assault" rifles
///still looks like it could kill a lot of people really quick
2013-01-10 09:00:41 PM
2 votes:
ATTENTION! GIVE US ATTENTION!!! PLEASE GIVE US ATTENTION!!!
2013-01-10 09:00:26 PM
2 votes:

Braggi: So how do I tell the difference between a educational demonstration or a couple of psychos on the way to kill a lot of people?


That's what I was wondering? No way would I have approached them.
2013-01-10 09:00:05 PM
2 votes:
kptv.images.worldnow.com

i don't think the terrorist bandana is helping any either.
2013-01-10 08:59:27 PM
2 votes:
I hope normal people pointed and laughed at the clowns.
2013-01-10 08:59:16 PM
2 votes:
Came for a fattie with a Don't Tread On Me shirt, leaving satisfied.
2013-01-10 08:56:49 PM
2 votes:
Afterwards, the men returned home and gave each other a handy.
2013-01-10 08:56:42 PM
2 votes:

Lsherm: Open carry if you aren't hunting makes you an attention whore.


Absolutely. One of the guys also has a youtube channel that is nothing but him walking around with guns and provoking cops to stop him.

Why is it that the least of us always seek the most attention?
2013-01-10 08:56:39 PM
2 votes:
I was visiting my granddad in OKC a couple of months ago. Was in a store and saw a big black guy with a handgun strapped on his belt. This person was not a police officer and looked more gangster than anything. Its funny. Nobody said a thing. Nobody was bothered. And I am sure a lot of people didn't even realize that Oklahoma had legalized open carry a few weeks before.

Frankly, it was nice to know that if some crazy came into the store shooting, there would be somebody that could defend us. Silly Libs, freaking out everytime you see a firearm.
2013-01-10 08:55:55 PM
2 votes:

edmo: Try doing that in front of a school and see how impressed people are with you're version of education.


That would be a violation of most states laws. That is the best justification for a school zone. You cannot carry in public like that without first taking a lot of time to find out that you are in a legal location. I hope any people who want to emulate them do the research. Otherwise this will get ugly fast.
2013-01-10 08:55:40 PM
2 votes:
Hell, I own a "few" guns, and I would call the cops.
2013-01-10 08:55:05 PM
2 votes:

Lochsteppe: Sure, it's just like breastfeeding in public--if you're made uncomfortable by it, it's just because you don't understand how natural and beneficial it really is.


The only solution is to arm the breastfeeding babies.
2013-01-10 08:54:53 PM
2 votes:

MrEricSir: There's nothing the general public likes more than insensitive self-righteous pricks who think they know everything.


like...on fark?
2013-01-10 08:53:59 PM
2 votes:

Facetious_Speciest: It's highly unlikely they were carrying assault rifles.

That said, "look at me, I'm an attention whore!" seems about right.


no those aren't assault rifles at all.

rtfa nozzle. pay attention to the picturez
2013-01-10 08:48:50 PM
2 votes:
i985.photobucket.com
2013-01-10 08:44:53 PM
2 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com
2013-01-14 01:01:37 AM
1 votes:

Abacus9: No, is that what I said?


What's your suggestion then?

Abacus9: I know, I meant they can't give lap dances out in the street.


You might be surprised.
2013-01-14 12:41:13 AM
1 votes:

Abacus9: Baloo Uriza: Abacus9: I get the free expression thing, but strippers can't give lap dances out on the street, can they?

In theory, they have the right to do so.

In reality, they'd be arrested for breaking the law.


The naked bike ride is protected by the Oregon State Constitution. Taking off your clothes in Portland International is as a protest against the TSA is as well. If you frame it in the form of a protest, there's not much the courts in this state have found appropriate to ban.
2013-01-11 12:44:12 PM
1 votes:

900RR: "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."

-George Washington


But he said that a long time ago so it doesn't count, but the other stuff that he said a long time ago that I like and is political expedient to me, yeah, that stuff doesn't fall under the same 'it was a long time ago so it doesn't count' spell. Capiche?
2013-01-11 10:24:50 AM
1 votes:
Gun thread. That's it, I'm Flashing Henry:

2.bp.blogspot.com
2013-01-11 08:49:54 AM
1 votes:
Weird, when gay people go all attention whore, liberals cheer and proclaim them heroes. When rich kids whore in the streets occupying stuff, libs call them heroes.

Which is it, attention whore is bad, or good?
2013-01-11 05:15:32 AM
1 votes:
It seems to me, a culture where everyone is openly armed all the time, makes it that much harder to spot someone who is armed because they are preparing to open fire.

Someone who is going to kill as many people as they can, then kill themselves, isn't going to care if others have guns or not.
2013-01-11 04:39:23 AM
1 votes:

Abacus9: I notice you didn't object to the "psychopaths with assault rifles" part. Them being in public is harassment enough. I get that it's legal, but they don't have to flaunt it. That's intimidation.


No, it's also covered under the Oregon State Constitution as a form of free expression. Just like dancing naked is. (Seriously, that's part of why Portland has so many strip clubs.) This is both a (state level) free speech and an open carry protest pretty much.
2013-01-11 03:15:38 AM
1 votes:

Dimensio: The most recent copulation reports for those cities are 387,753 and 288,448 residents, respectively.

Perhaps these figures represent only a metropolitan area, discounting the population of neighbouring suburbs.


Portland's only ~460,000 if you don't count all the suburbs. Then it's somewhere around 2.2 million.
2013-01-11 03:08:47 AM
1 votes:
This whole topic just reminds me of Jaws.

Jaws came out and all of a sudden sharks were big news, any shark attack set off a huge cavalcade of news reporting. Meanwhile Deer and Honey Bees and Domestic Canines are killing orders of magnitude more people every year. Thing is, people are bad at risk assessment. Sharks are scarier than Bambi. Assault rifles are the current Great Whites.

And people try to frame the issue as all about saving lives, but they don't care about lives. If they did then they wouldn't object so strenuously to comparisons to other things that kill so many more Americans and are thus so much more likely to be responsive to efforts to fix them. If you could get doctors and nurses to wash their hands more it would save more lives in a year than are murdered in a decade by assault rifles. But it's not about the lives, it's about the fear. People have no problem denying rights that they aren't interested in exercising themselves, see smoking bans in bars or the assault rifle hating gentleman hunters in this thread. It's a bit like abortion. People say they feel strongly but their actions or lack thereof betray them.

I don't personally believe in abortion, but I'm pro choice because I don't think I can make that choice for other people. I hear people all the time saying that abortion is murder. The problem is those people demonstrably don't believe the words that are coming out of their own mouths, and I clearly don't either. You know why that's provably true? If I *really* thought abortion was murder I'd be out there killing abortion doctors. The moral person can't stand aside and watch "murder" on that scale without acting, can they? Most anti abortion people vocally disagree with and attempt to distance themselves from the crazy assholes who have killed abortion doctors let alone attempt it themselves and it's that disconnect that really proves that what they say isn't actually what they believe. It's some shade of truth below that.

If you believe that assault rifles lead to "ridiculous carnage" but don't advocate for anything except neutered useless gun laws then you are very likely lying to yourself. If you think that he 150 odd deaths from assault rifles are more pressing an issue than the tens of thousands of people who die speeding every year but won't listen to a hypothetical argument banning cars that go above the speed limit you really don't care about the numbers of lives that can be saved. You only care about a supposedly quick fix for an overblown problem that coincidentally only impacts all those assholes you disagree with on the subject. I hear the same people who say that an entire class of inanimate objects is so dangerous that only the police and military should have them turn around and call police and military mouth breathers and bullies and decry the violent excesses that seem to be so prevalent amongst them. I hear the same people who rightfully think abstinence only sex ed is dumb and dangerous who have decided that abstinence only firearms education is the way to go. How's that for unconscious hypocrisy? I could go on but I won't, because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
We have pretty good gun laws, it's the culture and the drug war and the media and the gutting of mental health care under Reagan and to a small degree any number of other factors that lead to our increased homicide rate. Ignoring all of that to slap a bandaid on the problem is wrong. Banning a basic right of determination which our entire society was based upon is wrong. I'll keep my scary firearm thank you, whether you think I *need* it or not.
2013-01-11 02:20:06 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Cameron, when you go after first graders you don't need to worry about about some 3' tall kid interrupting your reload. You could have the same death count with revolvers, shotguns, knives, etc.

Okay. name the last time someone killed 26 people in five minutes with a revolver, a shotgun, or a knife.

I'll wait.


August 15, 2009 a guy killed 55 people by starting a fire at a wedding in Kuwait. It's not a gun or a knife, so that should make it even more impressive.
2013-01-11 02:19:18 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Cameron, when you go after first graders you don't need to worry about about some 3' tall kid interrupting your reload. You could have the same death count with revolvers, shotguns, knives, etc.

Okay. name the last time someone killed 26 people in five minutes with a revolver, a shotgun, or a knife.

I'll wait.


I'll wait too, it will be shortly after an AWB takes away the scary guns while ignoring every other aspect of mass shootings.
2013-01-11 02:09:06 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Could it be that we ban rifles with those characteristics because a lot of rifles that have those characteristics are involved in mass shootings and it's the easiest way to classify them, rather than naming off calibers and barrel length?


That's the problem... this isn't an issue that the easy way can be taken. We need to go weapon by weapon, caliber by caliber if you want to do things the right way. Quit looking for the easy way out. You can't go strictly by the way a weapon looks. If we did that to people, it would be called racial profiling.
2013-01-11 02:08:59 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: As the targeted characteristics themselves are not inherently conducive toward mass murder, prohibiting civilian ownership of such firearms on such a basis would most likely result only in future mass shootings being committed with use of firearms lacking the banned characteristics

Question: how many semi-automatic rifles lack every single one of those characteristics, and why would they not be less dangerous than rifles that have at least one?

Properly addressing such a question requires a comprehensive list of the specific characteristics under consideration. However, based upon most common legal definitions of "assault weapon" that have been enacted in law, I can state that numerous semi-automatic rifles sold in the state of California lack all of the characteristics of an "assault weapon". To my knowledge, these rifles -- such as this particular California-legal rifle -- are neither more nor less "dangerous" than are rifles that posses one or more of the defined "characteristics".

As the set of all rifle models -- of which "assault weapons" by any characteristics test are a smaller subset -- are used to commit murder less frequently than are unarmed attacks, I would suggest that any proposed prohibition upon a subset of rifle models is not a meaningful method for attempting to reduce rates of violent crime. I would, as I stated previously, instead suggest a course of action intended to better track and investigate firearm sales, to prevent individuals predisposed to violent behaviour from obtaining any firearm at all, regardless of its characteristics.

It's not the frequency that is the problem, it is the volume that is at issue. You cannot tell me that the hello kitty rifle with the non-pistol grip and the 10 round magazine is going to be as adept at killing 26 people in minutes as an AR15 with a pistol grip and a 30 round magazine.

Though I do agree that in addition to an AWB there should be better tracking of fire ...


Cameron, when you go after first graders you don't need to worry about about some 3' tall kid interrupting your reload. You could have the same death count with revolvers, shotguns, knives, etc.. It is what he used because it is what his mother had. I don't want to sound like Water LaPerrier, but they those kids were sitting ducks. And guns aren't going away, so maybe we should look to mental health, or something.
2013-01-11 01:47:44 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: In other words, you're going to keep avoiding the actual topic while pretending you're missing some integral component of the argument to respond.

I'm shocked.



In other words, you're going to keep avoiding the actual topic while pretending you're missing some integral component of the argument to respond.

I'm shocked.
2013-01-11 01:32:35 AM
1 votes:

Maul555: [i89.photobucket.com image 417x625]


Improper trigger discipline is never attractive.
2013-01-11 01:27:56 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Could it be that we ban rifles with those characteristics because a lot of rifles that have those characteristics are involved in mass shootings and it's the easiest way to classify them, rather than naming off calibers and barrel length?


As the targeted characteristics themselves are not inherently conducive toward mass murder, prohibiting civilian ownership of such firearms on such a basis would most likely result only in future mass shootings being committed with use of firearms lacking the banned characteristics. A more reasonable approach would be to better regulate and monitor firearm transfers to prevent individuals inclined toward such violent behaviour from possessing any firearm at all, without entirely prohibiting any specific class of firearm based solely upon function-neutral characteristics.
2013-01-11 01:21:51 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: I've stated repeatedly why we should be considering eliminating some of the more dangerous weaponry from our society, namely assault weapons.


Your statements do not themselves constitute a rational justification. You have not defined the term "assault weapon" meaningfully, and as such your assessment of them as "dangerous", or at least more "dangerous" than firearms not classified as "assault weapons" remains unsupported. In a previous discussion, you claimed that one of two functionally identical rifles should be "banned" based upon the presence of characteristics that did not in any way affect the actual function of the rifle, but you offered no explanation as to why the rifle that you would see prohibited was in any way more "dangerous" than the functionally identical rifle that you would not see prohibited.


The honorable thing to do at this point is say "I disagree." You've done nothing to convince me otherwise, and your patronizing tactics are deplorable.

I can neither express agreement nor disagreement with your reasoning, as thus far you have stated no actual reasoning. In theory, I may actually ultimately be persuaded by your argument should you provide a demonstration that firearms possessing certain function-neutral characteristics -- such as a pistol grip -- definitive of "assault weapons" are in some way more dangerous than are firearms lacking those function-neutral characteristics.
2013-01-11 01:15:06 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.Sorry dude, disagreeing with this bit of reason is hardly worth giving the mouthbreathers at the NRA your money.


whidbey has stated an astute point. Many "Tea Party" members dispute the Constitutional viability of the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled the Act to be Constitutional. Obviously, many advocates of increased restriction upon civilian firearm ownership must agree with the Tea Party that a Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant when establishing precedent regarding Constitutional interpretation.
2013-01-11 01:14:39 AM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: pedrop357: demaL-demaL-yeH: Well, you have two votes here against your interpretation from people who stuck their right paws up in the air and swore an oath and put their own lives on the line for the Constitution.

Have you been drilling with the village Militia?

Who gives a flying fark if you've been in the military? Does that mean your opinion is more valid or something?

I do. My family does. My children do. Fellow veterans do. This country does.

Long experience with firearms should carry some weight in this discussion. You were bloviating about Amendment II conferring an unlimited personal right, weren't you? Because the first four words of Amendment II tend to give my (and crabsno termite's) take on it a bit more credence, given the way the Founders implemented Article I Section 8 Clauses 14-16 of the Constitution in 1792.


You sound a little overly impressed with yourself. I've almost certainly seen more combat than you, does that give my opinion more weight than yours?

I grant people some provisional respect based on experience, note the word "provisional". Your opinion doesn't reflect that of most vets I know, but that doesn't make my anecdotal evidence any better than your anecdotal evidence. To Joe Fark you probably come off as someone speaking from a position of authority, but me you just sound like a typical Fudd. Perhaps you should endeavor to make your point based off of fact and solid reasoning instead of playing the vet card as if that's an uncommon thing nowadays. That goes for the other bobble head too.
2013-01-11 01:07:00 AM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: crabsno termites: demaL-demaL-yeH: BraveNewCheneyWorld: cheap isn't good enough, nobody should pay to exercise a right

Where's my printing press, then?

Buy a farking pencil, or scratch it on a clay tablet.

No. I want the press now.
I want my free ammo, too: BNCW says I should not have to pay to exercise a right.


He has to acquire a firearm to exercise his right, you have to buy a farking pencil unless you want to stand on a soapbox.
2013-01-11 01:02:51 AM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: No. I want the press now.
I want my free ammo, too: BNCW says I should not have to pay to exercise a right.


Yep, having to pay to buy something at the store is the same thing as being required to pay for training and licensing before being able to possess something.

One does not need a speech permit or a license to posses a rapid fire assault printer (laser printer with detachable paper tray and one more ports on the back). Applying a fee based permit or license regime to the purchase/possession or printers, camera, pens, paper, etc, would be unconstitutional.
2013-01-11 12:58:28 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: Our efforts are being spent trying to civilize this country, thank you very much. And that does include realizing that maybe we do have to let go of a few dangerous toys. Yes, because they don't really belong in society.


Wierd because I would wholeheartedly agree that we have a civility problem....but not so much a gun problem.
Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
2013-01-11 12:58:11 AM
1 votes:

Giltric: Can you give us any specifics on what is being proposed, all we have are maybes and what ifs, speculation etc... and a whole bunch of stuff being thrown against the wall to see what sticks in regards to popular opinion and emotion.


Other than to reinstate the AWB, there aren't any that I know of.

Fear tactic is feary? Have you not heard the rhetoric coming from the antis?
I had to hold my nose and cut a check to the NRA....it felt biblical...exchanging money with contempt and whatnot.


Dude, f*ck the NRA. Thanks for buying into the bullshiat.
2013-01-11 12:51:54 AM
1 votes:
It's late, time for me to...
3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-01-11 12:46:10 AM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Where's my printing press, then?


At the store. You don't have to pay for training or license fees before you can own one.
2013-01-11 12:45:12 AM
1 votes:

firefly212: Given his proximity to the wall in the picture, even a person on a second story would be in danger...


It's a one story building. I get my hair cut in there, and threw a Fark Party in November at the bar next door (which is on a second floor, but they didn't walk by it.). I caught the bus around the corner (about 30 feet away) today. They chose their route from what the people I know, who witnessed this themselves, quite carefully. (I heard the sirens but was a few blocks away so I didn't personally witness it.)

Other people in the thread were complaining about the gun pointing at the ground and the risk of ricochet. There's no winning with how they carry it, but if they weren't arrested that means they weren't ready to fire even if a magazine was in them which would make an accident pretty much impossible anyway.
2013-01-11 12:35:00 AM
1 votes:

willfullyobscure: but seriously these shiatheads need an ass kicking something fierce. I can't think of a more antisocial, dickheaded, and nasty thing to do these days.


Ah, but for obvious reasons you aren't going to beat them up, and so you've only proven their point.
Advantage: Gun-nuts.
KIA
2013-01-11 12:34:12 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: KIA: GoldSpider: It's natural to be suspicious when others decide for you what you "need". Doubly when the government does it.

Plus there's the kicker. If other suddenly get to decide what I need, then I get to decide what they need.

Congratulations, you just passed Representative Democracy 101. Welcome to maturity.


Son, if your tag has anything in it about 1984, you don't get to lecture me about maturity. We are a free society of majority rule with respect for the rights of the minority. Respect is what it is about. I decide what is necessary or good for me, you decide what is necessary or good for you. As long as my choices don't directly affect you, I'll thank you to keep your nose out of my business and I will extend the reciprocal courtesy.

As the man said back in the day: my right to wave my fist around ends before it touches your nose. Yours do too.
2013-01-11 12:31:41 AM
1 votes:
This has been a fun thread, can't wait to see what happens when two Arabs guys walk down the streets of Portland while carrying rifles.
2013-01-11 12:27:10 AM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: The111: I actually have no opinion here. I'm not a gun nut and have never owned a gun (though I've fired them and been around them), but I stand for freedom where reasonable (and I think owning guns is reasonable, as is carrying them... what would be the point of owning a gun if you couldn't take it anywhere?). This is clearly a very divisive topic, and I can see every side of it. For example:

Would I be freaked out if I saw this on the street? Honestly, probably yes. That would be a complete gut reaction. But on the flipside...

Why should I be? What makes open carry so much more scary than concealed carry? On a crowded street, there could be 100 hidden guns in proximity to me (and when I lived in Texas there probably often were)... so why should I get scared because of 2 in plain sight? If anything, they are LESS of a threat since I know where they are.

These guys do seem on the surface to be douchebags, but at the same time the response they are eliciting from most people seems 100% illogical. So maybe they have a point that people need no question their gut reactions. Unfortunately, few people ever do question a gut reaction.

Discuss (rationally, if possible).

Well, okay. Rationally:

The problem is not these guys per se, although I question their cavalier response to the cops' concern that their legal open carry was tying up emergency lines. It is this: Not everyone in this country is a responsible gun owner, as we know from recent events. Not everyone can be counted on to carry their weapons in a safe, sane, rational manner. There is no way to know, merely because someone is casually walking down the street, whether he or she is a sane, rational gun owner or an unstable maniac who is going to snap at any second and start hosing down the crowd. Because of the speed with which a gun can be fired, most people don't want to wait till the individual unslings or unholsters their weapon and starts firing, they would prefer to call the cops BEFORE the person start ...


These guys are the problem (per se?)... they're QED for anti-gun people who think that pro-gun people are irresponsible morons. They carry their weapons in a manner that would get you kicked off of most ranges, slung under the arm, with the barrel up. magazines in (assume loaded)... rule number ONE of handling a firearm is to treat every weapon like it's loaded... that's the first farking rule on every list, on every base, from every instructor, in every summer camp... and these guys didn't get that far. I don't give two farks what their excuses are, how many of those 911 callers just stared down the barrel of that gun before calling? Revoke their CCWs and give them a swift kick in the nuts. People that reckless are making a case FOR gun restrictions, not against them.
2013-01-11 12:25:46 AM
1 votes:

Keizer_Ghidorah: The suggestions I've made, which should all be used together:

-better mental health care
-focus on the roots of problems that can cause crime in order to lower it all-around
-better effort to get guns away from known criminals, gangs, and unscrupulous people
-police-level training for all gun owners
-more and better education regarding firearms and firearm safety
-better tracking and logging of guns
-require all guns that can be to have ways to not work except for the owner (like the fingerprint scanner)



Fine
Fine
Be more specific (and it better not infringe on law abiding citizens)
Fine - if it's a free course
See above
No- what we have now is good enough
James bond isn't real
2013-01-11 12:21:49 AM
1 votes:
Jackass on the right can't even carry his gun in a safe manner... who is your barrel pointed at when you're walking down the sidewalk next to three and four story buildings? Who the fark knows, but your barrel is up, pointing at people, you dumb fark. People like these jackasses are why anti-gun people perceive pro-gun people as a bunch of morons more concerned with rights than responsibility.

/imo, if you can't even carry your weapon in a safe manner, the cops should get to take it from you.
2013-01-11 12:18:02 AM
1 votes:

Aigoo: until we can get the general public to stop being pussies (like THAT'LL ever happen), it's probably not the best idea in the world to make ourselves look half crazy in their eyes, either.


So our Rights end in a whimper, not with a bang? We should give them up because others are unreasonably afraid of them, and after all, we wouldn't wanna wupset the widdle darwings....

fark that.

Problem: people are, without cause, and unreasonably, afraid of a perfectly legal action. Probably because they lack education.

Solution: educate people. NOT ban the action.
2013-01-11 12:12:06 AM
1 votes:
During the Occupy Wallstreet heyday, Peter Schiff took a camera man and walked through the crowd with a huge effing sign that said, "I AM THE 1%. LET'S TALK."

He got a lot of derp in response, but he also got a lot of really good conversation.

Had he just walked sauntered through the crowd wearing his top hat and monocle while lighting $200 cigars with fifty dollar bills, he would have been just as douchey as these two asshats.

Had these two asshats had a sign or some other visible invitation to come and have a discussion, I probably would have volunteered. What in the ever-loving fark made them think that simple walking around with their dick extensions is a sign that they're in the mood to communicate?
2013-01-11 12:10:32 AM
1 votes:

AdmirableSnackbar: pedrop357: Silly Jesus: Libs are extremely scared of inanimate objects. Kinds sad, actually.

When everything is emotions and feelings, it's not surprising. A more logical person would do a quickie analysis and just move on.

I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of the mentally unstable, irresponsible idiots like the ones in TFA owning them.


... like the ones posting extremist pro-gun rants on Fark.com ?

/ the people most fervent about gun rights are the ones who farking shouldn't be anywhere near guns
// or anything sharp
2013-01-11 12:08:16 AM
1 votes:

Smeggy Smurf: TwoBeersOneCan: [kptv.images.worldnow.com image 645x362]

[kptv.images.worldnow.com image 645x362]

The guns in question.

/would call the police
//even if some 2nd amendment hero gives me a detailed explanation on why these aren't "assault" rifles
///still looks like it could kill a lot of people really quick

You know the pigs show up with the same "scary looking weapon" right? Odds are the two attention whores are better shots than the pigs are as well. They're without a doubt less likely to murder you I mean make an erronious no knock raid. Deity of your choice help you if there is a dog living with your or next door.


It's pretty well known that any widely reported spree killings or suicides cause copycats waiting for their chance to shine. Mostly by lone rangers, and mostly they're caught before they can do serious harm, but it's not inconceivable to most people that a pair of jackwagons could believe that was the beginning of the revolution and it's their turn to start the west coast Armageddon and/or save the kids from the evils of Portlandia liberalism. People are always on edge after big events like that because aftershocks tend to rumble for a few months.
2013-01-11 12:05:43 AM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Keizer_Ghidorah: You're not doing yourself any favors by blanketing sensible people as "pussies".

I wouldn't use that word exactly, but there's nothing "sensible" about fearing guns.


It's natural to fear things that can kill you. It can go to extremes, but being an asshole towards people who are afraid of proven deadly things doesn't help your case either.
2013-01-10 11:54:57 PM
1 votes:

stiletto_the_wise: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, when you decide to walk around with large rifles as a political statement after several mass shootings, don't be upset when someone doesn't immediately understand what you're doing.

I never get upset at how stupid people are (I'd be upset all day). But I would get upset if these stupid people called the cops on me while I was going about my day doing nothing illegal or wrong.


One halloween I was at a club dancing. There was a sudden commotion and real panic as suddenly everyone was pushed to the edges of the walls to get away from a masked man holding a chain saw over his head and revving it. Fortunately he was just drunk and stupid - not genocidal and so he turned it off and put it down after he looked around the room.

After that there was a "no chainsaws allowed" sign by the door.

Its not just carrying guns that makes someone appear to be possibly mentally unstable. Its anything that seems incongruous for the situation.
2013-01-10 11:48:37 PM
1 votes:
I actually have no opinion here. I'm not a gun nut and have never owned a gun (though I've fired them and been around them), but I stand for freedom where reasonable (and I think owning guns is reasonable, as is carrying them... what would be the point of owning a gun if you couldn't take it anywhere?). This is clearly a very divisive topic, and I can see every side of it. For example:

Would I be freaked out if I saw this on the street? Honestly, probably yes. That would be a complete gut reaction. But on the flipside...

Why should I be? What makes open carry so much more scary than concealed carry? On a crowded street, there could be 100 hidden guns in proximity to me (and when I lived in Texas there probably often were)... so why should I get scared because of 2 in plain sight? If anything, they are LESS of a threat since I know where they are.

These guys do seem on the surface to be douchebags, but at the same time the response they are eliciting from most people seems 100% illogical. So maybe they have a point that people need no question their gut reactions. Unfortunately, few people ever do question a gut reaction.

Discuss (rationally, if possible).
2013-01-10 11:33:29 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: whidbey:

Oh look, it's the guy who called a "glock" an assault weapon.


Oh look, it's a personal attack out of nowhere that has nothing to do with this thread, or anything we're talking about.
2013-01-10 11:16:47 PM
1 votes:
Dammit, how many people did these nutjobs kill before the police took them down?
2013-01-10 11:11:18 PM
1 votes:

stiletto_the_wise: Keizer_Ghidorah: And just because you CAN walk around with deadly weapons strapped to your back doesn't mean you SHOULD. Especially if it's for a stupid reason like "educating the masses".

Just because you shouldn't do something doesn't mean that you should get accosted by the police over it, and doesn't mean that people should get all butthurt over it.


Hey, when you decide to walk around with large rifles as a political statement after several mass shootings, don't be upset when someone doesn't immediately understand what you're doing.

GoldSpider: Keizer_Ghidorah: There are more intelligent ways to educate the masses than walking around town with a gun strapped to your back.

I'm listening (reading).


Oh, I don't know. Pamphlets, seminars, meetings, TV appearances, press conferences, standing on the street corner. Classrooms, maybe? You know, where education occurs?
2013-01-10 11:05:11 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The only reason you get to judge these people is because you've been given all the facts, if you hadn't can you so surely claim that the exact same act is "abuse" as you call it?


Of course I'm judging them based on the facts. If the story was "2 guys head off hunting and scare people" we'd be having another conversation. We have the facts in spades here, and the facts are that these two idiots were doing something provocatively stupid.
2013-01-10 11:00:32 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: There's no legitimate use for a car that goes over the speed limit, or one that can do 0-60 in 3 seconds.


Automobiles are:
1) Subject to stringent safety regulations that lower the risk of death, dismembership and injury.
2) Subject to stringent registration, taxation, and insurance standards.
3) Must have a qualified, trained, tested operator in order to be on the streets.
and 4) Are not designed specifically to take human lives.

/Just a few thoughts.
2013-01-10 10:59:11 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: They could have predicted that 911 would be tied up with bet-wetters, other than that I don't see "irresponsible."


wildlifer: Why is it that wimps will wet their panties over the sight of a firearm?



stiletto_the_wise: Go wet your pants somewhere else.



CATCHPHRASE!
2013-01-10 10:57:21 PM
1 votes:
Somacandra

Yeah, you'd let Rat Poison makers make their canisters look like Red Bull if it would sell better. Yadda yadda yadda. How dare public safety and public resources be of primary concern!

What an absurd response.

I'm simply pointing out that forcing firearms-manufacturers to cater to ignorance is stupid. How can you possibly disagree with that? Objections based on ignorance are unfounded and misguided. Indulging them is silly.
2013-01-10 10:55:26 PM
1 votes:
Well, great job, guys. You've just helped 'educate' a bunch of people that they don't like a law that currently is on the books, a law they might have otherwise felt more inclined to ignore till you went around making them uncomfortable.
2013-01-10 10:52:32 PM
1 votes:

Pichu0102: What is it with jerk offs and their attempt to hide behind dickwad behavior with "well it's legal and if you don't like it too bad I'm doing it anyway"?
Reminds me of the sovereign citizens loons, except only a tad more saner.


Whenever anybody says, "Well, it's not illegal" you can kind of figure that they're assholes. Because nobody should ever exercise any control over their behavior unless there's a law against it.

And then guess who biatches the loudest about how we have too many laws?
2013-01-10 10:43:39 PM
1 votes:

Somacandra: Maybe part of a solution is to mandate that rifles sold to civilians must not stylistically resemble military-grade arms. That would probably go a long in addressing common fears and impressions.


So, a cosmetic ban?
2013-01-10 10:42:27 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Between the "concerned citizens" from this article and about 75% of people posting in this thread, there sure are a lot of people with irrational phobias.


You should see how some people react to one kid with iced tea and skittles!
2013-01-10 10:40:50 PM
1 votes:
I voted for Obama.

I don't own a gun; and I don't personally know anyone who does.

These guys were well within their rights, and the law, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.

The only story here is that there is a story here.

And what's with the anti-gun people's penis obsession?
2013-01-10 10:40:05 PM
1 votes:

Giltric: Wow someone has a case of the violent fantasies...and it unsuprisingly comes from a rabid anti RKBAer.


They do that a lot, talking about killing children, advocating suicide, dragging congresspeople behind vehicles, etc.

At least we have an idea why they don't believe in gun ownership-they don't trust themselves to exercise self control.
2013-01-10 10:37:49 PM
1 votes:
It takes a certain kind to be a 22 year-old conservative douche, much less in Portland of all places.
They must feel like big shots, around those libs and their non-violent nature.
2013-01-10 10:36:18 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: Pistols are used to murder more people in Chicago every month than there were in the mass shootings. Those are just blah people though, so nobody cares etc


I love it when conservatives remind us of their long history of concern for minorities.
2013-01-10 10:34:02 PM
1 votes:

KarmicDisaster: calbert: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 480x372]
gun nuts with sprinkles on top

I will never get tired of seeing that guy on the internet.
[acecomputers-tn.com image 800x600]

Jeeze, that's the same guy!


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

ak0.okccdn.com

this guy is awesome
2013-01-10 10:28:14 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: This is LEGAL in their state. It's amazing how many of you claim they're unbalanced for exercising a legal right. How brainwashed are you people?


What they did was the 2nd Amendment equivalent of writing "Free Candy" on a van and driving it through a school district to teach kids about abductions.
2013-01-10 10:21:18 PM
1 votes:
i86.photobucket.com
2013-01-10 10:17:07 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: Funbags: Plop these guys down in a "stand your ground" state, and watch them ditch those rifles in some random alley post-haste.

came here to say this.


Umm, guys? Oregon has a stand your ground law. Know your rights.
2013-01-10 10:16:39 PM
1 votes:

crabsno termites: I usually snark on this site, but not this time.

My background: Country boy (Okie), working class family, grew up hunting, fishing, camping. High school, lumberjacked a while, 3 years army (vietnam 1965 - 1967, almost 2 years, all with a line company), college, graduate school, family, career (management the whole time, walked away from corporate life, started small business, got tired of it, sold out, bought farm/ranch, got West Nile virus, sold ranch, retired. Old.

When home from RVN, realized didn't want to kill anything big, quit hunting. For 12 years, only picked up gun to move it out of way.

1980, started hunting again, only birds. If I kill it, I eat it. Joined NRA, went through course and got instructor certification (rifle, pistol, shotgun, home security). Hunter safety instructor in Iowa.

C. Heston, W. LaPierre take over NRA, I watch for a while. Meet LaP at a soiree in DC, decide that, other than Robert Bork, most arrogant, self-serving, irrational person ever met. Quit NRA @ 1985. Still hunt because there a few things more delicious than a well prepared bird, and I enjoy it. Killing a bird is challenging and not the most important part of hunting them - I can buy a chicken/duck/turkey cheaper than I can hunt them.


Observations/opinions: 1. The current attitude of the management or the NRA is unreasonable and self-defeating, will ultimately lead to the destruction of the organization. Does not reflect the views of the majority of the members, rather that of the big money (firearm manufacturers).

2. No civilian needs a firearm with more than 5 rounds capacity. If you can't accomplish your goal with 5 round, you need more practice.

3. No one other than the military (to include civilian law enforcement) should be allowed to possess automatic weapons.

Editorial: So much anger/ignorance/intolerance on both sides. How stupid we all are.

Could go on ad nauseum ...


For a while there, I thought I was alone.

/Veteran.
//Not Vietnam.
2013-01-10 10:15:22 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Maybe they were just on their way to see a movie.


Or have lunch with their kids at the local elementary school.
2013-01-10 10:08:08 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: YouPeopleAreCrazy: jaytkay: So we aren't versed in gun wanker minutia.

And you are.

Congratulations!!

The point is, both of those rifles are functionally no different than the AR-15's carried by the two idiots in the article. No matter how evil they look.

'Scary looking' does not equal 'assault'.

The rifle was designed for combat. Nothing else. What should we call it?


Better tell the Olympic committee to stop using those guns incorrectly then. They should know that they can't shoot targets with them, only people. Silly athletes.
2013-01-10 10:06:38 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: The rifle was designed for combat. Nothing else. What should we call it?


Call it what it is: a semi-automatic rifle.

Even DailyKOS knows this:
"To qualify as an "assault rifle" a rifle has to fit certain criteria: first, it is a small, light caliber because a small, light caliber allows you to carry a lot of bullets, both in size/volume and weight. Secondly, it is capable of firing full-auto fire, and doing so with some reasonable degree of accuracy & controllability. The smaller caliber bullet makes recoil less of a problem, and it is easier to retain control on full-auto. The problem is, civilian "assault rifles" are not capable of firing full-auto without extensive and very dangerous modifications. More later. First, let's define why full-auto is there."
2013-01-10 10:03:25 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus: Libs are extremely scared of inanimate objects. Kinds sad, actually.

When everything is emotions and feelings, it's not surprising. A more logical person would do a quickie analysis and just move on.

They also hate people who aren't victims like they are. Self reliance is threatening.


LOLWUT

Time to bail on another Fark Gun Thread™.
2013-01-10 10:01:38 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
gun nuts with sprinkles on top
2013-01-10 09:54:55 PM
1 votes:
If I had a CCW and a weapon, and I saw this, i would draw, order them them to freeze and call the cops, and I would hold them at gunpoint and shoot to kill if they didn't comply. And, I'd get away scot free, and the cops would send me a Christmas card.
2013-01-10 09:52:56 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: Libs are extremely scared of inanimate objects. Kinds sad, actually.

When everything is emotions and feelings, it's not surprising. A more logical person would do a quickie analysis and just move on.


I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of the mentally unstable, irresponsible idiots like the ones in TFA owning them.
2013-01-10 09:50:24 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: whither_apophis: Dimensio: whither_apophis: Dimensio: KarmicDisaster: I wonder what the law would say if a CCW who felt threatened opened fire on them. Most of the laws are written very vaguely now, it you feel threatened, open fire! You know, there are a lot of things that you can do, like having sex, that aren't really appropriate in public.

I am aware of no law allowing the use of deadly force in public without a "reasonable" established fear of imminent grievous bodily injury -- including death -- kidnapping, sexual assault or arson. If the individuals were not actively threatening others -- and the legal, even if anti-social, act of carrying rifles as they did would not establish such "reasonable" belief -- then the use of deadly force would not be justified under any existing statute.

Do you skip all the "Florida" tagged links?

I do not believe that your question is related to my statement.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand - your-ground-enacted/

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statut e &Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Paragraph 3 basically gives the last guy standing all he needs, especially if there's no other witnesses.

The statute that you have referenced explicitly relates to a "reasonable fear of great death or bodily harm", which would be consistent with my original statement. Are you stating that an individual who is attacked in public should not be presumed to have reasonable belief of imminent death or bodily injury?


No. My point is that if there's only one person alive, without any other witnesses, we need to take his (or her) word for it. That's a bold thing to ask when there's a body lying on the ground.
2013-01-10 09:44:53 PM
1 votes:
Warren said he hoped people would approach them and talk to them, instead of calling police

i.imgur.com
2013-01-10 09:44:06 PM
1 votes:
Just so needless and dangerous.  Stupid white dudes in the whitest major city in America.  If these clowns were to parade around my neighborhood like that, more that a few residents would likely relieve them of their weapons and probably their lives.  Given the current social climate here, the police might do the same...and they might even get to the scene before anybody else.
2013-01-10 09:37:02 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: whither_apophis: Dimensio: KarmicDisaster: I wonder what the law would say if a CCW who felt threatened opened fire on them. Most of the laws are written very vaguely now, it you feel threatened, open fire! You know, there are a lot of things that you can do, like having sex, that aren't really appropriate in public.

I am aware of no law allowing the use of deadly force in public without a "reasonable" established fear of imminent grievous bodily injury -- including death -- kidnapping, sexual assault or arson. If the individuals were not actively threatening others -- and the legal, even if anti-social, act of carrying rifles as they did would not establish such "reasonable" belief -- then the use of deadly force would not be justified under any existing statute.

Do you skip all the "Florida" tagged links?

I do not believe that your question is related to my statement.


http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand- your-ground-enacted/

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statut e &Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Paragraph 3 basically gives the last guy standing all he needs, especially if there's no other witnesses.
2013-01-10 09:35:18 PM
1 votes:
There are gun owners groups that do "public carry" events to prove the point but this was retarded. Kudos to the cops for being the grown ups and handling it well. As a refugee from Oregon I cant imagine this as anything but derp.

Leave the city slickers in Portland alone and they will leave you alone..... thats how Oregon works.
2013-01-10 09:32:44 PM
1 votes:

YouPeopleAreCrazy: What is the difference between this...
thespecialistsltd.com

...and this?
images-kitup.military.com

Trick question...they are the same rifle, the AR-7.


So we aren't versed in gun wanker minutia.

And you are.

Congratulations!!
2013-01-10 09:30:39 PM
1 votes:
Those guys both look young enough to join the military, in case they're really concerned about defending FREEDOM!!
2013-01-10 09:29:40 PM
1 votes:

TwoBeersOneCan: //even if some 2nd amendment hero gives me a detailed explanation on why these aren't "assault" rifles
///still looks like it could kill a lot of people really quick


What is the difference between this...
thespecialistsltd.com

...and this?
images-kitup.military.com

Trick question...they are the same rifle, the AR-7. Just different external bits. Just one looks scarier than the other.

/designed by the same guy that designed the AR-15
//off the same assembly line (or used to be, anyway)
///yes, the top one has a longer magazine
////that also fits in the other one
2013-01-10 09:25:13 PM
1 votes:

Fuggin Bizzy: I own guns and also ride my bike, but I've never felt the need to pack heat while cycling.


Sounds like you've never read a cycling thread on FARK. Just about every ITG on here has run over a cyclist.
2013-01-10 09:25:07 PM
1 votes:

kendelrio: FTFA:"Two men carrying assault rifles on their backs said they were simply exercising their Second Amendment right, but police said they scared plenty of people."

Why can't they do both? Why must it be one or the other?


If I feel threatened can I stand my ground and shoot them?

What a pair of total farking douchebags.
2013-01-10 09:25:03 PM
1 votes:

Fuggin Bizzy: Dimensio: HideAndGoFarkYourself: Not to mention that somewhere, somebody is dialing 911 with an actual emergency, and their help is being delayed because these two jackwagons want to walk around carrying AR-15's and wagging their dicks around.

A local police officer informed me that he prefers citizens to carry concealed for the specific reason that legally openly carried firearms may cause observers unfamiliar with the law to contact and thus waste the resources of emergency services. That explanation prompted me to obtain a holster that more effectively conceals my firearm when cycling, as until then I had worn a holster that was frequently exposed, inadvertently, when I cycled.

I own guns and also ride my bike, but I've never felt the need to pack heat while cycling.


Your lack of "need" is not of particular relevance


But then again, I've got a real penis. YMMV.

Your genitals are of absolutely no relevance to the current discussion. While you may feel an obsessive compulsion to make reference to them, your introduction of that topic is entirely inappropriate.
BHK
2013-01-10 09:23:59 PM
1 votes:
Scaring the sheep should be against the law.
2013-01-10 09:23:56 PM
1 votes:
So what happens when a police officer stop and tells them to put down their weapons? Do the get to say "No, I don't have to?"
2013-01-10 09:23:39 PM
1 votes:
Plop these guys down in a "stand your ground" state, and watch them ditch those rifles in some random alley post-haste.

No self-respecting CCW'er with the legal precedent to kill anyone openly armed would hesitate to empty a clip on them, their camera crew, and their publicist.
2013-01-10 09:23:11 PM
1 votes:

Mr. Fuzzypaws: No exactly a concealed handgun now is it.


ftfa - Officers said carrying firearms openly is legal in Oregon

If it's legal, then it's not a problem. The rifles were slung on their backs, which isn't exactly menacing, unless you're an idiot. Rifles carried in their hands would be a different story. .

Honestly, I think all states should allow open carry, people watch too much tv and are programmed to think that anyone not in uniform with a gun on them, and not even in their hands is a danger. It's part of the reason why the left will never be able to propose a tolerable solution to gun violence. For the most part, they're living in a state of fear that's disproportionate to reality. The gun control crowd needs to peel themselves away from the tv, and go hang out at a decent gun club, they'll likely find a very different crowd than the retarded toothless yokels they're portrayed as in the media.
2013-01-10 09:18:58 PM
1 votes:

jayhawk88: Look, I don't care how much you "educate" me about guns, if I see you walking down the street with an assault rifle strapped to your back, I'm going to call the mothefarking cops. Why? BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DAMN BUSINESS WALKING DOWN THE STREET WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE STRAPPED TO YOUR BACK! If you think you need protection, conceal and carry, it's not something I would ever do but if you feel that way, OK. But this isn't farking Beirut circa 1982, all right? It is not that farking bad out there people. It's just not.


Sorry, your belief that they have "no damn business...." Doesn't trump the law...call the cops, others did too...you read what happened, right? nothing.
2013-01-10 09:16:32 PM
1 votes:

HideAndGoFarkYourself: I'm a very staunch supporter of the right to own firearms, whether they be for hunting, sport, self defense, or just because one wants to have them.  I don't even mind when people carry them, and carry them openly, so long as they're not doing it FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of attracting attention to themselves. These people weren't carrying for protection, if they were, they'd be carrying a defensive weapon like a handgun.  They were carrying to create a scene and to get exactly what they got, a police response and a news story.  People like these actually, in my opinion, do more to hurt the gun lobby than help.

In any political fight, you've got the 20% that are die hard pro-whatever, and the 20% that are die hard con-whatever.  Then there's the remaining 60% who are going to vote based on how well the other side sells their position.  People like this, who generate negative publicity, who act in a manner designed only to create fear or panic, don't help their cause in the least.

Not to mention that somewhere, somebody is dialing 911 with an actual emergency, and their help is being delayed because these two jackwagons want to walk around carrying AR-15's and wagging their dicks around.


This is the kind of opinion I want to read! Very good point. I don't understand the motivations behind attention whores, so it is harder for me to see that is what they are doing. I think both sides need to chill out. Democrats are wasting huge percentages of political capital over this. It is a total waste, this is an issue equivalent to abortion as far as political capital and waste of energy are concerned. One of the few.

Please Democrats, we have people starving from unemployment, you are focusing on the wrong thing!!!
2013-01-10 09:15:39 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: Haliburton Cummings: Dimensio: Haliburton Cummings: again, two MIT graduates...Fatty McShutin and Willie Wanker, the dynamic douchebags of Portland Oregon showing the world that most gun nuts are power mad weirdos with serious sex deficit disorder.

From what university did you learn that a sample size of two constitutes a data set sufficient to derive such a conclusion?

drive over 40 mph in Gunmerica with your head out the window. if you don't get hit in the head by an obese idiot, you are in Kansas.

your troll is failing. now go get out your Rambo collection and have a toss.

I believe that you have confused random insults with a validation of your position. While frequently confused by many Farkers, the two methods are not actually logically equivalent.


well played troll.

look at american television, look at american news, walk through an american city.
pick any one.

the "sample size" is extra large with fries on the side, hold the books,hold the education, hold the ethics, extra helping of mashed priorities and a side of entitlement, all in the Honey Boo Boo Family pack and you have america. throw a toy gun in the bag and you got "the envy of the modern world".

Home of the slaves.
2013-01-10 09:14:54 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: HideAndGoFarkYourself: Not to mention that somewhere, somebody is dialing 911 with an actual emergency, and their help is being delayed because these two jackwagons want to walk around carrying AR-15's and wagging their dicks around.

A local police officer informed me that he prefers citizens to carry concealed for the specific reason that legally openly carried firearms may cause observers unfamiliar with the law to contact and thus waste the resources of emergency services. That explanation prompted me to obtain a holster that more effectively conceals my firearm when cycling, as until then I had worn a holster that was frequently exposed, inadvertently, when I cycled.


I agree with you 100%.  The other thing that open carriers don't get is that by carrying concealed, but accessible, YOU can dictate when you take action, if you do at all.  I know people want to live in this fantasy land where a guy walks in to rob the bank, shows a gun, and the gun open carrying draws and kills him in an instant.  That's now how it generally works.  A person carrying concealed can choose the moment at which he wants to intervene, as opposed to the bank robber seeing the gun and pre-emptively capping him just because.

Guns DO NOT make a person brave, nor do they make a person impervious to the natural human aversion to killing another human being.  It's not as easy as many gun owners try to make it out to be.  I'd be willing to bet that the majority of gun owners wouldn't have the fortitude to go through with it until they felt their life was in imminent danger, at which point it's usually too late.

If you're carrying concealed and you realize at that pivotal moment that you don't have what it takes to end a human life, then you just go on with the program until you are left with absolutely no other choice.
2013-01-10 09:14:43 PM
1 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: Dimensio: Haliburton Cummings: Facetious_Speciest: It's highly unlikely they were carrying assault rifles.

That said, "look at me, I'm an attention whore!" seems about right.

no those aren't assault rifles at all.

rtfa nozzle. pay attention to the picturez

Nothing within the article text mentioned confirmation of select-fire capability of either firearm.

fta:


GUNS IN PUBLIC
Two men carrying assault rifles on their backs said they were simply exercising their Second Amendment right, but police said they scared plenty of people.

now shush


Unless its capable of select-fire, it is not an assault rifle.
2013-01-10 09:12:14 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: HideAndGoFarkYourself: Not to mention that somewhere, somebody is dialing 911 with an actual emergency, and their help is being delayed because these two jackwagons want to walk around carrying AR-15's and wagging their dicks around.

A local police officer informed me that he prefers citizens to carry concealed for the specific reason that legally openly carried firearms may cause observers unfamiliar with the law to contact and thus waste the resources of emergency services. That explanation prompted me to obtain a holster that more effectively conceals my firearm when cycling, as until then I had worn a holster that was frequently exposed, inadvertently, when I cycled.


I wonder if, as a cyclist, open carry would decrease the potential that a car will road rage at you if they notice the gun.
2013-01-10 09:11:58 PM
1 votes:
Omgz, big skery gunz!!!! Call da police.

Maybe walking around town with an ar-15 is not the best idea; but, there it is perfectly legal and they weren't hurting anything. How else do you suppose guns get from gun safes to shooting ranges.

/ here, it is perfectly legal for me to ride a horse down Main Street with a rifle in the rifle scabbard and a pistol on the saddle horn; not that I'd ever do that.

// I know, I know; small pee pee; why are you guys so obsessed with dick if you're not gay? nttawwt
2013-01-10 09:10:39 PM
1 votes:

Jaws_Victim: So the pro gun enthusiasts have decided that during a rash of school and public shootings with semi automatics (And there was yet another school shooting today, a shotgun against a student in california.) The best thing that can be done is to walk around with visible Semi Automatics? They should be arrested for disturbing the peace.


...or for extreme, dangerous stupidity.
2013-01-10 09:10:06 PM
1 votes:

Facetious_Speciest: That said, "look at me, I'm an attention whore!" seems about right.


Seems to be the perfect way to describe most of the people in Portland, Oregon.
2013-01-10 09:09:45 PM
1 votes:
2013-01-10 09:09:34 PM
1 votes:
Open carry is kinda pointless unless you are out hunting. It says, "hey I'm carrying an expensive easy to sell to my homies item- please rob me."
2013-01-10 09:07:40 PM
1 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: again, two MIT graduates...Fatty McShutin and Willie Wanker, the dynamic douchebags of Portland Oregon showing the world that most gun nuts are power mad weirdos with serious sex deficit disorder.


From what university did you learn that a sample size of two constitutes a data set sufficient to derive such a conclusion?
2013-01-10 09:06:48 PM
1 votes:
The ignorance of some people amaze the shiat out of me sometimes.
2013-01-10 09:06:14 PM
1 votes:
http://kptv.images.worldnow.com/images/1968884_G.jpg


again, two MIT graduates...Fatty McShutin and Willie Wanker, the dynamic douchebags of Portland Oregon showing the world that most gun nuts are power mad weirdos with serious sex deficit disorder.

these two patriots are at home right now spanking each other with semen welded copies of Guns and Ammo.

i say the skinny guy with the soiled diaper on his head is the top here and fatty being the guy with the tits is the bottom.

this is Gunmerica.
these are your patriots.

lmao
2013-01-10 09:05:28 PM
1 votes:
What you libs don't understand is if there was an on-going school massacre as these guys were walking by, they would be able to stop the killer most likely before the police.

/You're not helping.
Poe
2013-01-10 09:04:38 PM
1 votes:
Used to have a lot of people doing this with pistols out in Cali, where it was legal to open carry, so long as it was unloaded. State eventually passed a law against unloaded open carry just to stop it.
2013-01-10 09:03:03 PM
1 votes:
Haliburton Cummings

i guess your internet is in braille?

Don't be so butthurt over a simple observation. If the article had called their weapons phased plasma rifles, I'd point out the unlikeliness of that as well.
2013-01-10 08:58:53 PM
1 votes:
Too bad the assault weapons carriers were shot dead by other concerned gun carriers.

/They're coming straight for us/ kids/grandma/aw fark it, killing things is fun. Gorsh.
2013-01-10 08:58:40 PM
1 votes:
I don't think that Professor Derp and Dean Potato thought their lesson plan all the way through.
2013-01-10 08:58:19 PM
1 votes:
kptv.images.worldnow.com

if that was walking down the street, i'd be a little freaked out too.
2013-01-10 08:57:25 PM
1 votes:
Gary?
2013-01-10 08:56:37 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: Haliburton Cummings: Facetious_Speciest: It's highly unlikely they were carrying assault rifles.

That said, "look at me, I'm an attention whore!" seems about right.

no those aren't assault rifles at all.

rtfa nozzle. pay attention to the picturez

Nothing within the article text mentioned confirmation of select-fire capability of either firearm.


fta:


GUNS IN PUBLIC
Two men carrying assault rifles on their backs said they were simply exercising their Second Amendment right, but police said they scared plenty of people.


now shush
2013-01-10 08:55:50 PM
1 votes:

queezyweezel: whither_apophis: And if a concerned citizen took them out with a .243 from 250 yards everyone would be cool with that right?

Why would anyone be okay with that?


Two guys carrying semi-autos? Gotta think worse case scenario.
2013-01-10 08:55:35 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: Haliburton Cummings: Facetious_Speciest: It's highly unlikely they were carrying assault rifles.

That said, "look at me, I'm an attention whore!" seems about right.

no those aren't assault rifles at all.

rtfa nozzle. pay attention to the picturez

Nothing within the article text mentioned confirmation of select-fire capability of either firearm.


sorry gun porn enthusiast.
2013-01-10 08:48:55 PM
1 votes:

Facetious_Speciest: It's highly unlikely they were carrying assault rifles.

That said, "look at me, I'm an attention whore!" seems about right.


Both of your statements are accurate.
2013-01-10 08:38:00 PM
1 votes:
Fark guns.  Fark war.  Fark cancer.  Three farks I give today,.  Ah...ah...ah
2013-01-10 08:24:08 PM
1 votes:
"If you're scaring people, you aren't advancing your cause."

I'd call the police. They look like the bank robbers from Heat.

Ohhh...damn you Hollywood!
2013-01-10 08:16:29 PM
1 votes:
Try doing that in front of a school and see how impressed people are with you're version of education.
 
Displayed 179 of 179 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report