By misdirection and obfuscation?
I would be more worried about crazy, stupid fucks like the protester and his pastor. They’re the ones who let your unjust laws get passed, you know; the electorate’s fear of gun-toting maniacs tends to increase when it turns out people are… gun-toting maniacs.
You’re partially right and partially wrong. Guys like the asshole and his pastor do a big disservice to the overall cause of gun ownership and the responsible practice thereof. This is true. However, it is not these crazy assholes who “let the unjust laws get passed.” The unjust laws get passed by politicians. The politicians get elected by people. The people who elect the politicians are highly susceptible to misdirection, scare tactics and ignorance. The politicians take advantage of that by crafting bills that are designed to prey on people’s ignorance. This is true of the right wing politicians just as much as the anti-gun left wing people. It’s never a good thing when people making laws distort the truth to help themselves, and I am always going to oppose it. I’m just as angry with all the assholes lying about “death panels” and Obama’s birth certificate. That’s the same kind of bullshit scaremongering that the Assault Weapons Ban is founded on. Whether from the left or from the right, I hate it all.
Yes, but the difference is that there aren’t any death panels, while there really are crazy sons of bitches strapping on their AR-15s and advocating the overthrow of the government.
Yeah but here we are talking about the AR-15 toting dude and his pastor.
Maybe I missed it but I do not think people are talking about banning the AR-15 here but rather the point of toting one around where the President is showing up while having listened to (and agreeing with) wishing the President would die.
Perhaps we could talk about banning carrying a weapon in such a situation. Not just scary looking rifles but any weapon at a political rally. Certainly we already ban weapons in other particular instances.
And as I noted above the guy achieved an intimidation effect because the AR-15 looks scary. Regardless if it is a “not as good” a rifle as other choices I suspect it is still sufficient to cause mayhem if the guy was of a mind to and I seriously doubt anyone in the vicinity, even Secret Service who presumably would know it is not a very good rifle as rifles go, would think, “Well, at least it isn’t a .458 Win Mag!”
AR-15’s don’t look scary, they look like guns. People toting pretend Army guns to political rallies don’t look scary either. They just look like cowards who need their widdle gunnie-wunnies to feel better because Obama scares them. But what doesn’t?
I dunno…this looks more imposing than this although, according to the info here, the second one is the more devastating rifle.
The first one looks all military and thus, in many people’s minds, meant for shooting people and not hunting and just somehow generally “worse” (even if it isn’t in reality).
How many rounds per minute can each fire? If I can fire the AR 45 times per minute in semi-auto mode, but only 15 times per minute with the bolt action, I think that makes a big difference.
They don’t look imposing to me when they’re in the hands of Fox-watching clowns crying about Nazis. As for effectiveness as a weapon, I’m not keen on being shot with either of them. But these chickenhawks probably don’t have the balls to pull the trigger anyway. Certainly not on a counter-protestor standing 2 feet in front of them, staring at them. Which is where I’d be.
A Fox-watcher with an AR-15 is like a teenager who writes weekly suicide notes; if they were serious, no one would know about it until it’s too late.
True. Which is partly something I asked (but did not have answered) above on whether the AR-15 has some positives compared to other, more lethal, rifles.
I presume one shot from the second picture will be more devastating than one shot from an AR-15. But being able to shoot more quickly has its upsides.
Which is why in the realm of a political rally I will not give a shit what type of gun someone is shooting at me. I’m running regardless hence the quibble on which is actually more dangerous is lost on me in this instance.
Reminder:
No warning issued.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
"The following expressions should not be directed at other posters.
dukeybutt."
Sigh. Another potentially great sig I can’t use. 
It’s a modified assault rifle. That’s pretty long range in an urban area. I’m quite willing to confiscate the .50 calibers & the elk rifles & elephant guns, which are worse. We will store them at the game reserve, you can check them out, clean them, & take them into the parkland when hunting season opens.
You want home defense, get a handgun or something.
Selective fire. The AR-15 fires one shot at a time, the M-16 up to three. Yeah, it’s freakin’ huge difference. (And can be fixed by a skilled machinist.)
But OK, how about the next time I make a crack about it, I say, “the long-range rifles, in cities,” which is my real point.
Wow. Where does he find the time? I can barely keep up with the housekeeping most days, and Obama’s making space in his busy schedule to go personally strangle a few fetuses.
The man just continues to impress.