The first picture shows at least one person brandishing a firearm in a public place. the 2nd picture does was not necessarily taken at a public place. It is therefore likely that people in the 1st picture are breaking the law.
I wonder why they need assault weapons inside a city business district? Second photo more than likely in a state where freedom is first and foremost.
The top picture is of masked people with various possibly Military issue firearms. Perhaps a Russian Republic ? Russian Hammer & sickle visible. The second photo is of ordinary people with common firearms, I don't see anyone brandy - ing anything. There is an obvious difference between Terrorists and law abiding people, unless you simply want to ban Guns.
One on top is a protest while the one on the bottom seems to be people posing with their guns? Hard to tell without context.
They're both pics of ppl in public (in the US) at political rallies. First is AntiFa, Second is an Open Carry march. Holding a firearm =\= brandishing; people are posing for the photo in both images.
Fine line. If you hold a rifle at low ready, someone will make a 'brandishing' charge stick, should they want to.
Most people also see someone with a mask to hide their face as someone trying to be nefarious. Notice no one in the second photo is hiding their face?
That is true. A mask does engender an increased amount of 'perceived threat.' ...as does their 'hostile' posturing, color scheme, 'uniforms' and language (pressuming the partially visible banner says 'F Trump'). Not that I would say any of those things (or even all of them together) constitute an actionable perception. They ate still not breaking any laws.
While I wholeheartedly disagree, I respect your consistancy. My purpose here is to call out the complete and utter lack of any (publicized) leftist opposition to AntiFa's use of Open Carry, contrasted against the tidal wave of disgust trumpetted from every nook and cranny when a rightist group does it. Im glad to see some consistancy.
No. Neighter alarms me. Obviously, since there was no major violence or mass arrest reported anywhere associated with the photo, no one broke the law....so, both groups made their political statements and went home... a right in this country.
The Keltec Sub2000 in the antifa photo is a good truck gun. It's cheap, foldable, and accepts either Glock or Beretta magazines. It's not much of an "assault rifle" as it fires pistol caliber rounds. One of the 2 terrorists killed in Garland TX carried one of those. I don't have a problem with either picture, but the face covering makes me like them less. Do they have illegal motives?
I'm ok with both pictures. Although I have mixed feelings about the face covering and keeping young kids near guns.
Whats ur issue with 'keeping young kids near guns?' I grew up 'near' (learning the do's and don'ts of) guns, and teach my kids likewise. The ONLY thing my dad ever threatened to 'whoop my ass' over was touching the guns without his permission, and if I wanted to see em, all I had do was ask. We went to the range regularly. I have a locked cabinet, but the kids know they can handle the guns with permission and supervision, and I welcome every opportunity to reinforce- muzzle control, finger off trigger, check the chamber -in that order. They do not fear guns, but they do respect them, and they know how to be safe with them, imo because of their exposure at young age.
It depends on the age of the kid, and the kid itself. The kid on that picture looks a bit too young to me. I think it's necessary to teach any kids sharing a house with a gun owner the proper safety procedures, and respect for the firearm itself. Most ten year olds can understand this, but most five year olds can not. To be fair, the kid is not handling any weapons on that picture, so it's probably all good. Mixed feelings about that picture, also for the reason they're having a kid participating in a political protest.
My Da had similar training methods when I was young, including the consequences of touching a gun without his permission. While I was shooting, from the age 4-5 under his or my uncle's supervision, I was allowed to buy, with my own money earned from delivering papers, not given, my first BB gun at 7 only after proving over time to him I had respect for a gun... it seemed a forever thing, a quarter of my life, always minding gun safety rules, from 5-7, to achieve his nod based on my behavior and my general acceptance of responsibility, honesty and accountability for my actions. BTW, this included having proven gun safety on a continual basis with my toy guns where a violation of gun safety rules (pointing or mindlessly sweeping a barrel across another person) would have meant losing a year toward the age where I would be allowed to acquire a BB gun. Achieving that goal, I realized many years later, wasn't just about guns, but the lessons learned were also about responsibility, accountability, consequences, dedication towards a goal, and far more. By the age 9-10 I had inherited a .22 and had acquired (unknown to my Da) a PPK, and was allowed to 'check' out the .22 and 10 rounds of .22 short ammo, for rabbit hunting. I had to account for every round... a rabbit, or a very pricy fine for any miss or lost round... gee... the lessons continued.
Depends on where they are, in many places masks are prohibited at protests/riots. That would be the primary concern. If you want to hide behind open carry, then one should do so with an open face. That would be the double standard that sticks out to me...
In most states in the Southeast, it's illegal for adults to wear masks in public (except for Mardi Gras). It's an anti-Klan law.
Hrm. Im guessing that law is another 'at LEO discretion' given halloween, advertising mascots, makeup, etc etc
Yes, th Yes, the top one bothers me more because the Kel-Tec Sub2000 rifle is a POS. Someone said there are only two types of Kel-Tecs: Those that have exploded, and those that have yet to explode.
No one that has a problem with the masked figures in the OP's top photo should have a problem with the guy here:
