Man Carries AR-15 Rifle Through ATL

ROCDLFAN · Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:13 pm

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ook.com&utm_campaign=NYDN+Facebook

"Jim Cooley carried his fully loaded rifle in the airport's terminal while dropping off his daughter, WSB-TV reports. He did not go through security and thus did not violate federal law, the FBI said."

Sorry if this was double posted, did not see a current discussion.

karadion · Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:18 pm

Georgia is an open carry state with a permit. Not a big deal except maybe for those from other countries that are waiting outside of the terminals.

BestWestern · Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:23 pm

If he was an Arab with a big beard... I wonder what would be the response

airtran737 · Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:43 pm

Is it legal.....yes. Is it stupid....yes. I am an open carrier every day, but I open carry a Springfield XDS 9mm pistol, not my AR-15. This guy is trying to prove a point, and choosing a poor venue to do so.

n92r03 · Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:46 pm

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 3):
Is it legal.....yes. Is it stupid....yes. I am an open carrier every day, but I open carry a Springfield XDS 9mm pistol, not my AR-15. This guy is trying to prove a point, and choosing a poor venue to do so.

Amen. Well said.

N766UA · Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:57 pm

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 3):
Is it legal.....yes. Is it stupid....yes. I am an open carrier every day, but I open carry a Springfield XDS 9mm pistol, not my AR-15. This guy is trying to prove a point, and choosing a poor venue to do so.

You're right, but, honestly, open carry of any kind, while typically legal, is almost always irresponsible. You can't claim to be serious about self-defense if you're openly, publicly, obviously announcing your gameplan to the potential bad guys. Furthermore, if you're doing it in an airport, *especially* with an assault rifle, your ability to make sound decisions is seriously in question, and you shouldn't have a weapon.

If you feel you need to carry a weapon, get a CCW. Let's please stop it with this "proving a point about the 2nd amendment" nonsense and be responsible gun owners.

S75752 · Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:58 pm

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 3):
Is it legal.....yes. Is it stupid....yes. I am an open carrier every day, but I open carry a Springfield XDS 9mm pistol, not my AR-15. This guy is trying to prove a point, and choosing a poor venue to do so.

I support open carry, but I also support limits on it where it would create commotion. Ultimately, I'd say it should be up to the individual establishment if they wish to allow it or not, and I think an airport should definitely disallow it due to the overall alarm it would cause based on paranoia.

wn676 · Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:59 pm

We had this happen a few times in PHX. The one that stood out for me was when a man and his 14 year old son, both armed, came to pick up relatives in T3. They stood right outside of the checkpoint...this was literally within days of the LAX shooting. I think the other one was a neurosurgeon (figure that one out??) who was walking around with an AR.

I wish people like this would find something better to do than to try and make their point in such an unproductive way. I have no problem with firearms but it's a waste of the airport's resources when people pull stunts like this.

KELPkid · Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:05 pm

Just don't go to Singapore. There are military police openly roaming SIN after security carrying the AR-15's fully automatic cousin the M-16

smokeybandit · Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:33 pm

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 3):
Is it legal.....yes. Is it stupid....yes. I am an open carrier every day, but I open carry a Springfield XDS 9mm pistol, not my AR-15. This guy is trying to prove a point, and choosing a poor venue to do so.

+1 to all of this.

Armodeen · Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:39 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 2):
If he was an Arab with a big beard... I wonder what would be the response

This. Also nobody needs to carry an assault rifle around with them in a mass transit area for any reason.

karadion · Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:14 pm

Quoting Armodeen (Reply 10):

It's not an assault rifle. Unless he happens to own an AR-15 manufactured before 1986 with the full auto mechanism which is very unlikely. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle but Armalite.

[Edited 2015-06-03 16:15:17]

b747400erf · Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:29 pm

Quoting karadion (Reply 11):

It's not an assault rifle. Unless he happens to own an AR-15 manufactured before 1986 with the full auto mechanism which is very unlikely. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle but Armalite.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault+rifle

2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

TheCommodore · Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:34 pm

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 3):
Is it legal.....yes. Is it stupid....yes.

Then change the law so its no longer "stupid"

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 3):
I am an open carrier every day, but I open carry a Springfield XDS 9mm pistol, not my AR-15

A gun is a gun is a gun !

You admit to open carry "every day".... If its good enough for you then .....why can't he ?

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 3):
This guy is trying to prove a point, and choosing a poor venue to do so.

A federal airport, full of security forces, and he ,or anyone for that matter can walk on in with guns. Simply crazy.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 5):
Furthermore, if you're doing it in an airport, *especially* with an assault rifle, your ability to make sound decisions is seriously in question, and you shouldn't have a weapon.

Agree.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 6):
I support open carry, but I also support limits on it where it would create commotion

But once you legislate for open carry, the cat is out of the bag so to speak. How do you really police it ?

Quoting karadion (Reply 11):
It's not an assault rifle. Unless he happens to own an AR-15 manufactured before 1986 with the full auto mechanism which is very unlikely. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle but Armalite.

Maybe it is an older style pre 86..... are you or anyone else going to bother to find out.

DiamondFlyer · Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:40 pm

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 12):
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

Is not an assault rifle, but thanks for playing. An assault rifle is select fire, which the odds of anyone carrying a $30,000 gun, is slim to none.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 13):
A federal airport, full of security forces, and he ,or anyone for that matter can walk on in with guns. Simply crazy.

Full of security forces? You mean the Thousands Standing Around? The Tub Stackers of America? The people who have zero armed capability, who also can't seem to find more than 5% of the explosives sent through a checkpoint? Yeah, they aren't security forces, they are security theater.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 13):
But once you legislate for open carry, the cat is out of the bag so to speak. How do you really police it ?

How do you police free speech? Same thing, you can't, unless it's physically harmful to someone.

-DiamondFlyer

karadion · Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:43 pm

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 12):

100% wrong. You clearly know nothing about the semi vs automatic functions especially the rules from the BATFE governing the definition of the term "assault rifle".

karadion · Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:45 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 13):

A pre ban assault rifle goes for more than $25,000 and is a collectors item. Owners of these weapons are extremely conservative of displaying these types of weapons on public. Especially he was at the airport, he was risking the possibility of confiscation.

[Edited 2015-06-03 16:47:13]

b747400erf · Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:52 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 14):
Is not an assault rifle, but thanks for playing. An assault rifle is select fire, which the odds of anyone carrying a $30,000 gun, is slim to none.

Quoting karadion (Reply 15):

100% wrong. You clearly know nothing about the semi vs automatic functions especially the rules from the BATFE governing the definition of the term "assault rifle".

I quoted and linked the dictionary that says the opposite of both your claims.

You both are disputing an actual dictionary definition that the media uses because your feelings are getting in the way of logic. That is America alright. Feelings over science and facts.

[Edited 2015-06-03 16:52:21]

karadion · Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:55 pm

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 17):

And congratulations. People like you demonstrate why you are all extremely clueless about the mechanism of a SEMI-automatic vs an assault rifle. It's where bad laws come from. You skipped over the first CORRECT definition which contradicts the second one what some moron made up.

TheCommodore · Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:56 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 14):
Full of security forces?

Don't you guys have your boarders (e.g. airports, boarder crossings and ports) patrolled by police and federal forces who are armed.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 14):
The people who have zero armed capability, who also can't seem to find more than 5% of the explosives sent through a checkpoint? Yeah, they aren't security forces, they are security theater.

Im not talking about someone sitting behind a computer screen.

Quoting karadion (Reply 16):
Especially he was at the airport, he was risking the possibility of confiscation.

But I understood he's not breaking any law, he's entitled to "open carry", even in airport apparently.

So Im not sure why you say the owner will/could have it confiscated ?

Quoting karadion (Reply 18):
It's where bad laws come from.

Then fix them... simple

DiamondFlyer · Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:59 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 19):
Don't you guys have your boarders (e.g. airports, boarder crossings and ports) patrolled by police and federal forces who are armed.

There will be local police department/airport police patrolling the non-secure area of the airport in limited numbers. The only "federal forces" would be CBP and they would be inside the secure area at customs. All in all, the number of armed officers is very limited in most places in the airport.

-DiamondFlyer

karadion · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:01 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 19):

They have been eliminated. For example the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 which banned "evil" looking features which was sunsetted in 2004.

Based on Georgia law, he has to have a permit to carry in public. If the police stopped him and found he was lacking the proper permit, they can confiscate it. In other states like Arizona, they do not need a permit.

[Edited 2015-06-03 17:03:47]

seabosdca · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:04 am

In the USA we have the Second Amendment and a long tradition of gun ownership by responsible citizens. But this sort of behavior could not be more carefully planned to jeopardize gun rights. Carrying a gun (especially a very large gun) openly in a busy public space, no matter what open carry advocates delude themselves into thinking, is an act of intimidation. Open carry advocates understand this clearly when it's the police or the military carrying the guns, but they have a blind spot when it's citizens carrying the guns. Every open carry shenanigan makes people fearful and generates anti-gun sentiment.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 2):
If he was an Arab with a big beard... I wonder what would be the response

Let's make the hypo even clearer: If he was an American citizen of Arab ancestry with a big beard... I wonder what would be the response? Or, for that matter, if he were an African-American man with dreads and a lot of red, yellow, and green fashion accessories, what would be the response?

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 14):
Full of security forces? You mean the Thousands Standing Around?

Airports are also full of armed LEOs from multiple agencies.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 17):
I quoted and linked the dictionary that says the opposite of both your claims.

The legal definitions they are citing are a lot more precise than an online dictionary, and they are right. Nonetheless a weapon does not need to be an "assault weapon" to be intimidating.

b747400erf · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:05 am

Quoting karadion (Reply 18):
And congratulations. People like you demonstrate why you are all extremely clueless about the mechanism of a SEMI-automatic vs an assault rifle. It's where bad laws come from. You skipped over the first CORRECT definition which contradicts the second one what some moron made up.

And to dispute my position that certain people let emotions get in the way of facts...

Is this your argument? That a dictionary only has one true definition, and anything listed after is not valid? I cannot believe someone is seriously arguing this. I think you need to learn what a dictionary is before you continue this further.

[Edited 2015-06-03 17:05:54]

trex8 · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:05 am

To be fair to 747400ERF he comes from a nation which for 3 decades after WW2 had a standard issue military rifle which only has semi automatic function, having deleted the full auto function from the model they chose, and which pretty much every army in the rest of the world retained if using that rifle.

b747400erf · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:07 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 24):

To be fair to 747400ERF he comes from a nation which for 3 decades after WW2 had a standard issue military rifle which only has semi automatic function, having deleted the full auto function from the model they chose, and which pretty much every army in the rest of the world retained if using that rifle.

What does that have to do with every dictionary definition of assault rifle explains the term has 2 definitions, one for military use that is mostly fully auto or selective fire, and the 2nd definition which is for civilians that can either be fully auto or semi? The dictionary describes the term assault rifle, I have posted this definition, now will you people admit you were wrong and move on to more important issues, such as why is a crazy person going armed to an airport?

karadion · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:10 am

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 23):

Nope, because you decided to attack me by using the extremely erroneous definition of the Assault Rifle. There is an entire Wikipedia article on Assault Weapons vs Assault Rifles. There's even a subcategory on that you should really read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Not_.22Assault_rifles.22

But do keep up the pretense that you are knowledgeable about automatic weapons.

karadion · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:12 am

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 25):

No because you are wrong. You demonstrate you clearly know nothing about "assault rifles".

N766UA · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:12 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 22):
Let's make the hypo even clearer: If he was an American citizen of Arab ancestry with a big beard... I wonder what would be the response? Or, for that matter, if he were an African-American man with dreads and a lot of red, yellow, and green fashion accessories, what would be the response?

It shouldn't matter... anyone with a long gun at an airport should be treated as a threat. I'm utterly sick of "it's my right" being used as an excuse to supersede/ignore common freaking sense.

I'm a gun owner, an NRA member, and an advocate of the 2nd amendment, but this is getting way out of hand. People pull this crap then wonder why people want to take our guns.

BE. RESPONSIBLE.

b747400erf · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:14 am

Quoting karadion (Reply 26):
Nope, because you decided to attack me by using the extremely erroneous definition of the Assault Rifle.

Quoting a dictionary to correct you is "attacking you"

Using the 2nd accepted definition of assault rifle is "extremely erroneous"

Not only do you not know how dictionary definitions work, but you live in a constant state of fear and persecution complex.

All this because your ego cannot accept you are wrong about something.

My favorite part about your argument is your citation you just provided. Even this proves you were wrong. Will you ever admit it? That is the question

The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1]

b747400erf · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:15 am

Quoting karadion (Reply 27):

No because you are wrong. You demonstrate you clearly know nothing about "assault rifles".

More personal attacks and childish remarks from the kid who couldn't even bother reading the Wikipedia page he quoted that states my argument is correct. In any other country with modern health care you would be under psychiatric evaluation.

karadion · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:16 am

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 29):

Again wrong. You are still defending the erroneous definition of the term "assault rifle" which anywhere else the term means a rifle with the capability to have selective fire.

Again good job! You quoted the wrong thing. That is for "Assault Weapon". Understand the difference. "Assault Weapon" IS NOT "Assault Rifle".

N766UA · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:16 am

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 29):
The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1]

Are you guys seriously arguing this? AR's are "assault style" weapons and, in common usage, termed "assault rifles." It doesn't matter how accurate it is. Furthermore, who cares if it has a sling, select fire, an ACOG scope, a freakin' pink grip... it is capable of slinging .556 down range and into people very, very quickly, semi-auto or not. Is this acceptable at an airport to you?

karadion · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:17 am

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 30):

The wikipedia page I linked you is for the "Assault Weapon", not Assault Rifle. You can't even bother to look at the heading of the wikipedia page itself. Are you really digging yourself into this hole where you do not understand the difference of "Assault Weapon" vs "Assault Rifle"?

Maverick623 · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:17 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 19):

But I understood he's not breaking any law, he's entitled to "open carry", even in airport apparently.

So Im not sure why you say the owner will/could have it confiscated ?

A similar incident happened at PHX a while back. The guy actually showed up twice with his rifle; the second time the cops watched him like a hawk, and the second someone complained that the barrel was pointed at them, they arrested the guy for disorderly conduct and confiscated his gun (in my opinion, it was a setup and trumped up charge).

The guy wound up making a deal with the prosecutor that in exchange for dropping the charges (which he would have beat anyways), he would take some gun safety courses and not openly carry at any airport in the City of Phoenix for two years.

b747400erf · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:25 am

Quoting karadion (Reply 31):
Again wrong. You are still defending the erroneous definition of the term "assault rifle" which anywhere else the term means a rifle with the capability to have selective fire.

Again good job! You quoted the wrong thing. That is for "Assault Weapon". Understand the difference. "Assault Weapon" IS NOT "Assault Rifle".

Quoting karadion (Reply 33):
The wikipedia page I linked you is for the "Assault Weapon", not Assault Rifle. You can't even bother to look at the heading of the wikipedia page itself. Are you really digging yourself into this hole where you do not understand the difference of "Assault Weapon" vs "Assault Rifle"?

It is quite clearly stated in the dictionary definition I provided.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault+rifle

World definition:

2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

British Definition:
1. (mainly US) a semiautomatic firearm with additional features such as a large magazine, a bayonet fitting, etc

As you have no reply except to show you do not even know how to read a dictionary definition, this argument is over. I should have known your only debate tactic from the last debate, ignore the facts and endlessly insult.

DiamondFlyer · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:26 am

Quoting N766UA (Reply 32):
Is this acceptable at an airport to you?

Yes, it's acceptable anywhere in this country, even in states which have decided that they are above the constitution of the United States. Is it wise? No. But since it's legal, its acceptable to me.

-DiamondFlyer

b747400erf · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:28 am

Quoting N766UA (Reply 32):
Are you guys seriously arguing this? AR's are "assault style" weapons and, in common usage, termed "assault rifles." It doesn't matter how accurate it is. Furthermore, who cares if it has a sling, select fire, an ACOG scope, a freakin' pink grip... it is capable of slinging .556 down range and into people very, very quickly, semi-auto or not. Is this acceptable at an airport to you?

I did not call somebody out with what they thought assault rifle meant. I posted the definition to correct someone, and Wikipedia agrees. Then they had to play semantics about assault rifle and assault weapon when everyone knows what the other is talking about. I also did not say this action to carry was appropriate for airports. But many Americans grew up watching too many movies and still have that wild west fantasy or some mental illness that requires a gun to make them feel better.

N766UA · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:29 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):
Yes, it's acceptable anywhere in this country, even in states which have decided that they are above the constitution of the United States. Is it wise? No. But since it's legal, its acceptable to me.

I have an issue with that, and I'm a gun owner. Now imagine how non-gun owners or people who *don't* support the 2nd amendment feel? Do you understand how this hurts responsible gun owners?

karadion · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:29 am

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 35):
It is quite clearly stated in the dictionary definition I provided.

Which is still wrong no matter how much you want to defend it. The actual definition of the "Assault Rifle" is governed by several different federal laws in the United States. The term "Assault Weapon" which you cited from to try to use against me is distinctly different. But you showed your lack of knowledge here that you know nothing about laws governing weapons especially from the BATFE, the National Weapons Act of 1934, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The fact is the "Assault Rifle" is a selective fire weapon and that's the end of story. If you defended the word "Assault Weapon" I might disagree based on what cosmetic features was the guy sporting because that's what the definition is really about, cosmetics.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 37):
Wikipedia agrees

No, it didn't. You clearly dont' understand the difference between these two different articles which are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
VS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Notice the heading? They're not the same! The quote that you tried to use against me from Wikipedia came from the article on "Assault Weapon", not "Assault rifle".
Look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...Assault_rifles_vs._assault_weapons
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Not_.22Assault_rifles.22

[Edited 2015-06-03 17:31:23]

N766UA · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:31 am

Quoting karadion (Reply 39):
Which is still wrong no matter how much you want to defend it. The actual definition of the "Assault Rifle" is governed by several different federal laws in the United States. The term "Assault Weapon" which you cited from to try to use against me is distinctly different. But you showed your lack of knowledge here that you know nothing about laws governing weapons especially from the BATFE, the National Weapons Act of 1934, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The fact is the "Assault Rifle" is a selective fire weapon and that's the end of story. If you defended the word "Assault Weapon" I might disagree based on what cosmetic features was the guy sporting because that's what the definition is really about, cosmetics.

Arguing just for the sake of arguing also hurts the case for responsible gun owners...

b747400erf · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:31 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):
even in states which have decided that they are above the constitution of the United States.

The Constitution is quite clear with the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Modern revisionism has changed this meaning, but people of militia age (males 18-49) who were either the regular militia (now the modern military and national guard) or the irregular militia (now the modern police forces) are what the amendment was designed for. This is quite clear in the amendment text as well as the previous drafts. To allow them to keep arms in defense. Do not bring the Constitution into this if you have changed the meaning to be so broad as to allow anyone with a pulse to carry weapons in public in the modern age.

[Edited 2015-06-03 17:32:22]

karadion · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:33 am

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 41):

The Supreme Court disagrees with you over and over again. None of your arguments have held water and every anti-2nd Amendment law especially in DC and Illinois have been thrown out. You're free to look up Alan Gura who have won consistently against so many laws in the defense of the second amendment.

N766UA · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:33 am

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 41):
The Constitution is quite clear with the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Modern revisionism has changed this meaning, but people of militia age (males 18-49) who were either the regular militia (now the modern military and national guard) or the irregular militia (now the modern police forces) are what the amendment was designed for. To allow them to keep arms in defense. Do not bring the Constitution into this if you have changed the meaning to be so broad as to allow anyone with a pulse to carry weapons in public in the modern age.

Meh, not being an American I'll give you a pass, but I promise that much in the way your AR debate is going, to say "militia-aged" and blah blah is semantics too. It's commonly accepted in the United States that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. All of us. Even the insane ones.

Here's what I find interesting: he holds the constitution above state's rights in this instance, but I bet state's rights trump federal issues in other arguments...

b747400erf · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:34 am

Quoting N766UA (Reply 40):

Arguing just for the sake of arguing also hurts the case for responsible gun owners...

She is not responsible, she is an emotional roller coaster that comes into every topic for a fight, and throws out insults at anyone that dares correct them. Denying the definition of a dictionary and then not understanding how multiple definitions work should be enough for a mental health check and to take away their weapons.

b747400erf · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:35 am

Quoting N766UA (Reply 43):

Meh, not being an American I'll give you a pass, but I promise that much in the way your AR debate is going, to say "militia-aged" and blah blah is semantics too. It's commonly accepted in the United States that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. All of us. Even the insane ones.

military aged blah blah? If it were just blah blah there would be no reason to use the word militia. And well regulated militia infact. This is not a mistake, nor is it merely "blah blah" and not important. Words have meanings.

N766UA · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:36 am

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 44):
she is an emotional roller coaster that comes into every topic for a fight, and throws out insults at anyone that dares correct them

LOL dude that's everyone on this website.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 45):
military aged blah blah? If it were just blah blah there would be no reason to use the word militia. And well regulated militia infact. This is not a mistake, nor is it merely "blah blah" and not important. Words have meanings.

Don't turn your only ally against you, especially when you're arguing against non-specificity in the same thread!

[Edited 2015-06-03 17:36:52]

[Edited 2015-06-03 17:38:16]

karadion · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:36 am

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 44):

She? Try again. You are still incorrect which you are quoting the wrong definition. for example you quoted "The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud." That is the definition for "Assault Weapon", not "Assault Rifle" which comes from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon category, not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle which you can't find that quote there. You won't admit you are wrong on this.

[Edited 2015-06-03 17:38:38]

N766UA · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:37 am

Quoting karadion (Reply 47):
You won't admit you are wrong on this.

It's seriously getting old.

karadion · Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:38 am

Quoting N766UA (Reply 48):

I should stop pointing out the obvious then, huh?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net