Photo of JC Penney shopper with rifle strapped to back, strikes a nerve

[TheResearcher]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/photo-ma...230414356.html

Lyberal pearl-clutching and skirt-hiking to follow.

[SalisburySage]

Good for him. God Bless AMerica and law abiding men like him.

[ms maggie]

Imagine he fancies himself quite the hero. Frightening people at a Penneys. Gosh bet he's a Navy Seal at least, the bravery. And this wasn't the first time he braved the dangers of the foodcourt, the escalator, the perfume spritzer--he is man among men.

Not to mention a PR genius. Nothing says gun owners are totally responsible and reasonable like sashaying thru a dept store with a gun strapped to your back and another on yr hip.

It's not possible I'm this smart. So I can only conclude this guy and his fans are ice cream cone mashed into the forehead stupid.

[bmorepunk]

I must have missed the part in the Second Amendment where people get to walk around flagging people with their rifle.

[Bmoreteacher]

I'm having a hard time with this after reading an article in the Danbury News Times today. Noah's mother talked about how her son's jaw and left hand were blown off by bullets from an assault rifle. I simply cannot see why any civilian should have such easy access to such a gun. You certainly wouldn't use it for hunting, as it would blow your meat to pieces. A handgun works just fine for protection. What, then, is the purpose?

[Calamari]

It's to punch your man card or something, at least according to the ads.

[bmorepunk]

I'm just going to stand here with my rifle slung improperly at a nearly horizontal position while standing next to this dude. Totally cool.

It's okay, he was in the "military":

Kelley said he’s a former member of the military and alerted police in advance that he would be carrying the weapon, which he identified as an unloaded AR-15. He was also carrying a Glock 19c on his hip.

He said he received positive reactions from people who spotted him.

Local law enforcement authorities said they didn’t receive any calls related to the incident or any notice from Kelley, Riverdale City Police Lieutenant James Ebert said.

My money's on Air Force, and not the PJs or SFs. Hard core tactical warrior.

Great flagging, bro! I know I trust some random dude when he says his rifle is "unloaded" and pointing at people.

And seriously, a compensated 9mm? Who brings a competition pistol to a gunfight?

[Woodbuchr]

You certainly wouldn't use it for hunting, as it would blow your meat to pieces. A handgun works just fine for protection. What, then, is the purpose?

I will address these only two points of your post as I haven't watched the video or read the link from the OP.

First, you display your ignorance of "assault rifle" with the first sentence. Many people use AR's for hunting everything from varmints to deer. They are becoming more popular for hunting every year. If it doesn't go against your sensibilities check out a few hunting or shooting magazines and you will find articles verifying this.

An AR in .223 caliber would not "blow your meat to pieces". It fires a .22 caliber bullet (usually around 50 grains) which, even with high velocity, can only do so much damage to game meat. Meat will only be "blown to pieces" if you seriously overgun for the game, such as using a.375 H&H Magnum soft point (which is around 270 grains) for whitetail deer.

As for a handgun working fine for protection, yes thay can. I agree. However, if someone wants to have a AR 15 for home defense why shouldn't they. It's their home so it should be their choice of firearm. I have friend with a farm in rural WV who raises cattle. There are coyotes and feral dogs where he lives. So are you saying he should only be allowed to use a handgun to defend his livestock? If he hears his cattle in distress he can protect them much better with an AR than a handgun. Yes, he could use some other hunting rifle but if he prefers an AR shouldn't that be his choice?

It has a purpose.

[Bmoreteacher]

I will address these only two points of your post as I haven't watched the video or read the link from the OP.

First, you display your ignorance of "assault rifle" with the first sentence. Many people use AR's for hunting everything from varmints to deer. They are becoming more popular for hunting every year. If it doesn't go against your sensibilities check out a few hunting or shooting magazines and you will find articles verifying this.

An AR in .223 caliber would not "blow your meat to pieces". It fires a .22 caliber bullet (usually around 50 grains) which, even with high velocity, can only do so much damage to game meat. Meat will only be "blown to pieces" if you seriously overgun for the game, such as using a.375 H&H Magnum soft point for whitetail deer.

As for a handgun working fine for protection, yes thay can. I agree. However, if someone wants to have a AR 15 for home defense why shouldn't they. It's their home so it should be their choice of firearm. I have friend with a farm in rural WV who raises cattle. There are coyotes and feral dogs where he lives. So are you saying he should only be allowed to use a handgun to defend his livestock? If he hears his cattle in distress he can protect them much better with an AR than a handgun. Yes, he culd use some other hunting rifle but if he prefers an AR shouldn't that be his choice?

It has a purpose.

I agree that it might have a purpose, but I still see no reason why a gun with such a capacity is necessary for any civilian to carry. A rifle with several rounds would be good enough for the hunter. The gun Adam Lanza walked into the school with blew off body parts, and it was legally owned by his mother. That is absurd that a civilian owned such a weapon. Again, I am not anti-gun, I just don't see the point in having such a high-powered weapon on the market.

[infinite looper]

If he hears his cattle in distress he can protect them much better with an AR than a handgun. Yes, he could use some other hunting rifle but if he prefers an AR shouldn't that be his choice?

Nope.

[TheResearcher]

It's to punch your man card or something, at least according to the ads.

Well now, that's something that males who are lyberal will never have to worry about. In order to have a Man Card, you actually have to be a Man and be ready to defend yourself, your family and friends. Males who are lyberal? They automatically assume the Piers Morgan Self-Defense Position when the fecal matter hits the fan.

[bmorepunk]

Being able to operate a piece of machinery that a child can use doesn't make you a man.

The only clear advantage men have over women is the ability to acquire strength through training.

Unless you can squat at least 400 pounds for reps I question your "manliness".

[gonzoliberal]

Well now, that's something that males who are lyberal will never have to worry about. In order to have a Man Card, you actually have to be a Man and be ready to defend yourself, your family and friends. Males who are lyberal? They automatically assume the Piers Morgan Self-Defense Position when the fecal matter hits the fan.

GAWD, but you real manly men make my legs tingle.

[songfourone]

I will address these only two points of your post as I haven't watched the video or read the link from the OP.

First, you display your ignorance of "assault rifle" with the first sentence. Many people use AR's for hunting everything from varmints to deer. They are becoming more popular for hunting every year. If it doesn't go against your sensibilities check out a few hunting or shooting magazines and you will find articles verifying this.

An AR in .223 caliber would not "blow your meat to pieces". It fires a .22 caliber bullet (usually around 50 grains) which, even with high velocity, can only do so much damage to game meat. Meat will only be "blown to pieces" if you seriously overgun for the game, such as using a.375 H&H Magnum soft point (which is around 270 grains) for whitetail deer.

As for a handgun working fine for protection, yes thay can. I agree. However, if someone wants to have a AR 15 for home defense why shouldn't they. It's their home so it should be their choice of firearm. I have friend with a farm in rural WV who raises cattle. There are coyotes and feral dogs where he lives. So are you saying he should only be allowed to use a handgun to defend his livestock? If he hears his cattle in distress he can protect them much better with an AR than a handgun. Yes, he could use some other hunting rifle but if he prefers an AR shouldn't that be his choice?

It has a purpose.

And every so often a deer crashes through windows........

[ms maggie]

Well now, that's something that males who are lyberal will never have to worry about. In order to have a Man Card, you actually have to be a Man and be ready to defend yourself, your family and friends. Males who are lyberal? They automatically assume the Piers Morgan Self-Defense Position when the fecal matter hits the fan.

I would think the ability to defend yourself with what God gave you is more a Man Card than having a lot of guns. I'm 125 pounds and I could drop any man I know with the right weapon. Does that make me "manly"?

What a country.

[songfourone]

This idiot who walked through a mall with a rifle strapped to his back is not smart enough to own a weapon. It is guys such as him that make the pro gun control people stand up and say WTH?

[Smokey 1]

Being able to operate a piece of machinery that a child can use doesn't make you a man.

The only clear advantage men have over women is the ability to acquire strength through training.

Unless you can squat at least 400 pounds for reps I question your "manliness".

You sound like one of those anti gunners who like to bully people and oppose guns as a vocational hazard.

[Grindelwald]

You sound like one of those anti gunners who like to bully people and oppose guns as a vocational hazard.

Hasn't bmorepunk defended gun rights in the past?

I mean his avatar is a gun. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

[OldBay]

I agree that it might have a purpose, but I still see no reason why a gun with such a capacity is necessary for any civilian to carry. A rifle with several rounds would be good enough for the hunter. The gun Adam Lanza walked into the school with blew off body parts, and it was legally owned by his mother. That is absurd that a civilian owned such a weapon. Again, I am not anti-gun, I just don't see the point in having such a high-powered weapon on the market.

The debate over magazine capacity is worth having. Many hunters prefer not to be in the woods with those who offset capacity for precision. My personal preference happens to be a single shot black powder rifle. Because I have only one shot, its placement must be absolutely perfect. So I pass up shots that some others might take. But this is a personal preference only and I would not favor taking away the option for a higher capacity from someone, for example, who finds himself surrounded by dangerous wild hogs. In that situation, I would not want my old bp musket. And of course, that would be a ridiculous choice for defense ("mr. criminal, could you please wait until I measure my powder, seat the bullet and put on a tiny percussion cap with trembling hands?").

The "high powered" on the other hand, is misused here and by others. What would be an example of a "low powered" weapon? The power typically comes from the cartridges used, not the gun itself. A good example would be a .44 magnum revolver - something that Dirty Harry movies made out to be, from the movie quotes - (btw, not the best way to get your firearms knowledge) "the most powerful handgun in the world" (not even close) and also "blow your head clean off" (also no). This "most powerful handgun in the world" has very little power when used with cowboy action rounds. Yet, the same gun could be adequately powerful with rounds designed for protection from grizzly bears.

Portraying what is marketed as "assault weapons" as powerful is ridiculous. What defines them as assault weapons is politics. In reality, these are poor choices for most hunting because they are not sufficiently powerful. They could be reasonable choices for home defense, especially because the stocks are equipped with pistol grips and the calibers are known for light recoil - which might be useful to small women and those sensitive to higher recoil. I wonder if Adam Lanza's mother chose that gun for those characteristics.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming facts not in evidence just because politicians have at various times defined assault weapons by their color, composition, or presence of bayonet lugs or flash suppressors (how many mass bayonetings have occurred?).

The key is to keep any weapons from the wrong hands. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, talk about banning consumer products always encourages mass stockpiling (and inflation). It would be a shame if the well-meaning, but careless discussion about taking away rights from the law-abiding among us has the unintentional consequence of making it easier for more criminals and insane to take them from their owners.

[AttackPlanR]

Well now, that's something that males who are lyberal will never have to worry about. In order to have a Man Card, you actually have to be a Man and be ready to defend yourself, your family and friends. Males who are lyberal? They automatically assume the Piers Morgan Self-Defense Position when the fecal matter hits the fan.

Kind of like you ain't it? I mean posting all the time and never coming back to defend what's left of your "honor". It's the sissy way out.

Got to admit it though, you do a good job at trolling.