Men test their right to bear arms

[mikepdx]

Rifle-toting men test their right to bear arms,
but make folks nervous

PORTLAND, Ore. - Two men carrying assault rifles on their backs
caused a bit of a stir in Southeast Portland on Wednesday...

The Portland Police Bureau would like to remind folks
that ...what the men were doing was legal.

Rifle-toting men test their right to bear arms | KATU TV - Portland, Oregon

I was blocks away and monitoring at the time.
The officers were very calm on the radio.
They weren't looking for any trouble.
Portland police are well informed as to what the laws
are in Oregon on this subject.

[mmckenna]

Interesting. While it may be legal, it doesn't seem very smart. With all the other people out there carrying, it wouldn't take much for an "armed citizen" to get the wrong idea. A fire fight starting in the middle of Portland isn't going to benefit anyone. I'm not against gun ownership, I just think some intelligence needs to be applied.

[svfd1152]

I think that's a great ideal

[W8RMH]

I am former military and police, a member of the NRA, and I support the second amendment.

I believe that responsible, stable, and licensed citizens should be able to carry a sidearm for self-defense and own handguns, shotguns, and rifles for home defense, hunting and target shooting purposes.

I DO NOT however see any reason whatsoever for someone, other than military or law enforcement, to posses an assault rifle, let alone walk down the street with one. That's one purpose of "concealed carry", no one sees it, no one panics.

If you have a concealed permit and walk through the mall with a pistol under your jacket that's fine, but walk through with it in your hand and see what happens. I see how these 'young' men thought they were making a statement, but I believe they used poor judgement and probably did more harm than good.

This may tic some people off but this is my opinion and I think it makes sense. Thank you.

[mmckenna]

Originally Posted by W8RMH

This may tic some people off but this is my opinion and I think it makes sense. Thank you.

I'm prior military also, and I agree with you. I'm not against responsible and law abiding adults owning firearms. I'm against the knee jerk reactions and stupidity.

[mancow]

An "assault rifle" is a full automatic "machine gun" capable of a sustained rate of fire based on one user input of the action. That's it. The term has been hijacked for purposes of sensationalism.

The AR-15 is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle, therefore NOT an "assault rifle" and not a machine gun.

The AR-15 variant has been around since the late 1950s and started with the Armalite AR-180. It's nothing but a gas operated semi-automatic rifle of which the basic operating principle has been in place since the turn of the century. What do you think the WWII M1 Garand design was? It is a gas operated rifle (which can be purchased in semi-auto mode). The AR-15 utilizes a 5.56x45 cartridge much less powerful than rifles of previous generations (M-1 Garand, M1-A, etc...) It's not even legal for deer hunting in many States due to not having enough power to stop game in place.

It's a basic rifle that has the "appearance" of a rifle currently used by the Military and that's it. There is nothing inherently special or "assaultive" about it.

Plus, it's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of needs. A free man need not justify his Constitutionally protected personal purchases and desires to anyone.

It has gone so far that ignorant people even believe the AR stands for "Assault Rifle".

Originally Posted by W8RMH

I am former military and police, a member of the NRA, and I support the second amendment.

I believe that responsible, stable, and licensed citizens should be able to carry a sidearm for self-defense and own handguns, shotguns, and rifles for home defense, hunting and target shooting purposes.

I DO NOT however see any reason whatsoever for someone, other than military or law enforcement, to posses an assault rifle, let alone walk down the street with one. That's one purpose of "concealed carry", no one sees it, no one panics.

If you have a concealed permit and walk through the mall with a pistol under your jacket that's fine, but walk through with it in your hand and see what happens. I see how these 'young' men thought they were making a statement, but I believe they used poor judgement and probably did more harm than good.

This may tic some people off but this is my opinion and I think it makes sense. Thank you.

[W8RMH]

I see where your coming from mancow.

But, It doesn't matter if it is a rifle, a machine gun, or a grenade launcher the keyword is "Concealed". Responsible people transport long guns of any kind in a rifle case. Otherwise the uneducated people freak. Even public and private shooting ranges require weapons be transported cased.

These guys wanted to revoke a response and gain publicity, which they did.

Also I think the AR was from the manufacturer Armalite but I may be wrong.

[kma371]

Originally Posted by mancow

An "assault rifle" is a full automatic "machine gun" capable of a sustained rate of fire based on one user input of the action. That's it. The term has been hijacked for purposes of sensationalism.

The AR-15 is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle, therefore NOT an "assault rifle" and not a machine gun.

that may be your definition but its not true everywhere. California defines an AR-15 as an assault rifle.

[redneckcellphone]

I feel that yes we should be able to own guns and safely practice how to accurately use them for defense but walking around carrying assault type weapons or even a long gun is ridiculous. Handgun sure


Sent from my iPhone yes iPhone using Tapatalk app thingy

[gtriever]

Originally Posted by kma371

that may be your definition but its not true everywhere. California defines an AR-15 as an assault rifle.

I can define an Orange as a Cadillac, but that doesn't mean it's so...

[fxdscon]

Originally Posted by gtriever

I can define an Orange as a Cadillac, but that doesn't mean it's so...

You can also define your logic as valid, but that doesn't mean it's so.

[gewecke]

Originally Posted by mmckenna

I'm prior military also, and I agree with you. I'm not against responsible and law abiding adults owning firearms. I'm against the knee jerk reactions and stupidity.

Ditto. Out of sight,out of mind is my thinking. A .40 in a s.o.b. holster under my jacket won't alarm anyone.

73,
n9zas

[W2NJS]

Truth of the matter is that the general public is pretty ignorant, as well as ill-informed, when the subject is firearms of any kind. The fact that military service is no longer mandatory exacerbates the problem. I agree with the statement that an assault rifle should be defined as a full-auto weapon, but with all the knee-jerk liberal press coverage which misstates the issue you're going to have a tough sell. I'm waiting to see what today's meeting between Joe Biden and the NRA brings. THAT should be interesting, but may just prove once again that the Feds have closed minds that no amount of logic can change.

[kma371]

Originally Posted by gtriever

I can define an Orange as a Cadillac, but that doesn't mean it's so...

really? that's your comeback?

defining a law is a lot different than your example.

[K6ARL]

The real problem with the incident is that, regardless of the legality of carrying a weapon in this case, the actions by these two individuals do nothing to, as the news article says, "educate the public" in a positive way about gun ownership, but, rather, creates in the public's mind a negative attitude towards guns in general, primarily because of the irresponsible actions of certain individuals, including these two that this thread is centered around. Unfortunately, some people seem to have lost (or never had) the correct, responsible, and original, reasons to own and carry a firearm: to protect oneself and one's associates, and to intervene with deadly force when absolutely necessary.

I offer my deepest thanks to those law enforcement officers and military members, past and present, who have taken upon themselves the selfless tasks of their jobs.

Also, thank you to those of you who responsibly carry a concealed weapon.

Respectfully,
Karl

[mikepdx]

Originally Posted by W2NJS

...Truth of the matter is that the general public is pretty ignorant, as well as ill-informed,
when the subject is firearms of any kind.
The fact that military service is no longer mandatory exacerbates the problem.

Thanks for the 'military service mandatory' view.
One I failed to think of.

Once upon a time, many many folk's relatives and friends
were active or inactive military, or they were themselves,
and had or could get a more truthful view of what firearms are all about.

Today, most people get their firearms "knowledge" from shoot-em-up
TV or movies, news pundits and politicians with an agenda,
or hysterical mothers who might have never seen a gun in person.

Regrettably, too many young adults are content with being a barista at
Starbucks or a professional student, rather than serving
their country and at the same time gaining practical life experience.

[gewecke]

If obama (stand-in for lack of a legal candidate) and our senile congress gets their way, we all may be getting more practical life experiences than we wished for in the coming months...

73,
n9zas

[W2NJS]

Here is another thread that just appeared on this Board and I didn't want any of you to miss it:

Ore Sheriff: I wont enforce any new gun laws

[ff-medic]

Originally Posted by mikepdx

Rifle-toting men test their right to bear arms,
but make folks nervous

PORTLAND, Ore. - Two men carrying assault rifles on their backs
caused a bit of a stir in Southeast Portland on Wednesday...

The Portland Police Bureau would like to remind folks
that ...what the men were doing was legal.

Rifle-toting men test their right to bear arms | KATU TV - Portland, Oregon

I was blocks away and monitoring at the time.
The officers were very calm on the radio.
They weren't looking for any trouble.
Portland police are well informed as to what the laws
are in Oregon on this subject.

Gee-whiz. It was not Miami, Boston, or Pittsburgh. It was Portland. The pacific northwest. It is January. Men carrying rifles. I will bet the cops were thinking...."Big Deal".

Oregon, Washington State, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Utah. Big Deal.

Now California.............The Highway Patrol, Sheriffs Patrol and Sheriffs SWAT unit would have been called out. They would have been arrested, and bonded out on $50,000 property bond. Instead of trial, their court-appointed attorneys plea bargain their 15 year sentences to 13 years.

After being discharged from a penal instutition....their probation officer would have told them that any contact with firearms, bows and arrows, being within 100 yards of a gunshop, watching violence on tv, standing near children with play guns, or even so much as having a pocket knife; would make their probation null and void..in which they would go back to prison.


FF-Medic !!!!

[elk2370bruce]

"Today, most people get their firearms "knowledge" from shoot-em-up
TV or movies, news pundits and politicians with an agenda,
or hysterical mothers who might have never seen a gun in person."

A select portion of our population gets their opinions given to them by a national lobby group with a fat wallet.
None of the above are impartial or thinking for the greater good in this nation. Some things will never change.