Man carrying AR-15 thru ATL airport claims harassment (transplants, house)

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Wha...wtf is this response? The term "well regulated" is on the 2nd amendment. Seriously, wtf is this friggin' response here?

He means that an explicitly written part of an amendment should not be considered when interpreting that amendment.

It is worth repeating that the Second Amendment contains the only mention of the phrase "well-regulated" in the entire Constitution.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Wha...wtf is this response? The term "well regulated" is on the 2nd amendment. Seriously, wtf is this friggin' response here?

It's the English language. Perhaps you should borrow a language arts textbook and find out why that first part has no bearing on the meaning of the sentence.

So you don't think "well regulated" would have anything to with accounting for what sort of weapons required? Declaring how much ammunition is to be held? Nothing regarding the organizing and disciplining of people and their arms?

Not really.

So according to you "well regulated" simply means derp! everyone have military grade weapons, duh!

Not quite, but not far off either, though without the "derp," that's reserved explicitly for people with no idea what they're talking about...

Hmmmm....you must be an open-carry person, if this is the type of interesting answer that you can come up with.

So what if I am?

I highly doubt that the common attitude was to simply allow anyone and everyone own a weapon without heavy direction or guidance from a governmental body be it federal or state level.

Then perhaps you should borrow a history textbook while you're at it.

So I guess none of the founding fathers had any input on the terms "well-regulated", huh? Not even Alexander Hamilton and Federalist paper NO. 29?

In Federalist 29, the regulation primarily appears to be aimed at ensuring a well-trained and ready force: Bearing Arms"Well-Regulated" - Bearing Arms

Gotta love da south sometimes.

Bloop!

It'd be better without a lot of people coming down here trying to change things.

[Boris347]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

So you don't think "well regulated" would have anything to with accounting for what sort of weapons required? Declaring how much ammunition is to be held? Nothing regarding the organizing and disciplining of people and their arms?


I highly doubt that the common attitude was to simply allow anyone and everyone own a weapon without heavy direction or guidance from a governmental body be it federal or state level.

So I guess none of the founding fathers had any input on the terms "well-regulated", huh? Not even Alexander Hamilton and Federalist paper NO. 29?

There is no evidence or written works that "Well Regulated Militia" meant "Well Regulated Arms." If there is, be sure to point them out for us. Don't you think folks back then knew the difference between a person and a gun? There are also no "standards" for a weapon a Militia member may or may not use, since most brought what they had, and there was no law governing what they can or can not have. What would you regulate? A " Flintlock Musket" that comes in 30, 40, or 69 caliber?

A "Regulated Militia is one that falls under Military Regulations in time of War. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes, the Common Attitude was that anyone could own a weapon, since anything contrary to that would have been recorded as such.

Of course the Founding fathers had input on Militias. They served under Military rule when needed.

To even suggest that there where "Gun Laws" to limit what a private owner could have, and how much ammo he could have is ludicrous. What they did have was standards for organization and discipline.

[Boris347]

Originally Posted by JoeP

I don't feel safer with incompetent, irrational idiots carrying guns.

I see "IDIOTS" like this on U-Tube all the time, trying to get a rise or response from Police, just to get a video. What I would like to see is Videos of some other Civilian "carrying" a hand gun, and seeing this guy come around a corner pointing his rifle in his direction, take this clown out with a few well placed hollow points, in self defense. That would be worth watching. I would easily assume he was a threat to my life, and pull a gun. No jury in the world would convict you.

I am a gun supporter and against any gun Laws or registration, but this is just plain stupid and does more harm to Gun Owners than all the anti-gun people combined. Its a shame gun owners can't take these dorks behind a barn someplace, and adjust their attitude.

As responsible gun owners, we should always respond in the comments section of these kind of videos and tell these folks what we think of their ignorant arses.

[Chevalier de Saint-George]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeanuts

Here is footage of the incident. You can see that the APD handled this beautifully. This idiot was so desperate for attention and was trying to force a confrontation so bad and APD didn't bite one bit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxnFWOaJGD4

Oh brother. Yeah, the police officers really did well here. The moron was carrying an AR-15 in the world's busiest airport....Can't really get mad at the cops at all on this one.

I don't care about gun owners but keep your firearms in your home or car....I really disagree with people (who aren't law enforcement) bringing their guns into public places.

"Yeah, I'm going to go to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport with my loaded AR-15 hanging around my neck....yeah, that's a good idea."

He looks like one of those redneck militia guys who be training out in the middle of nowhere....The guy served in the Illinois National Guard in the early 90s evidently. I still question his judgement.

[John Williams]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeanuts

If he had ended up going on a shooting spree, y'all would of been in here first thing demanding to know what the hell the police are doing. So it is quite laughable that someone is saying it was wrong for the APD to question this sack of turds multiple times and follow him around to keep tabs on him.

I don't know you, I don't know your intentions and as such seeing random strangers waltzing around with guns in plain view sets off alarms and puts everyone on edge. I wonder if this could be combated by appealing to an intimidation angle; In some jurisdictions intimidation is a criminal offense typically defined as

In another thread, someone had mentioned the "No Russian" mission in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. So I watched this playthrough and immediately thought back to this guy and his rifle.

Let's put it this way - it wouldn't be too difficult for a Timothy McVeigh type to calmly stroll into an airport exercising his God-given Second Amendment rights...only to start up a massacre out of the clear blue. After all, who's expecting a middle-aged "good ol' boy"-type white guy to start gunning down people left and right?

Now, if he was of Middle Eastern stock, the police would have been obligated to shoot him the moment he entered the airport's periphery.

[vtecluder617]

This guy just lacks common sense, and was probably just trying to get a rise out of people.

[0nyxStation]

And the hard question gets asked by AJC!

ATL airport gun stunt: what if he were black? | www.ajc.com

[cqholt]

This guy carried a gun into the airport to drop off his daughter? He does realize the airport is probably the safest place.

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by MattCW

It's the English language. Perhaps you should borrow a language arts textbook and find out why that first part has no bearing on the meaning of the sentence.

Given that there hasn't been too much change in how the term/phrase "well regulated" has been defined since 1776...I'm afraid I shall have to not take you up on your suggestion.

I am pretty satisfied with my interpretation of well-regulated.

Originally Posted by MattCW

Then perhaps you should borrow a history textbook while you're at it.

In Federalist 29, the regulation primarily appears to be aimed at ensuring a well-trained and ready force: Bearing Arms"Well-Regulated" - Bearing Arms.

See, I was trying avoid bringing the interpretations of partisans with their own biases into the mix.

But since some of us want to get in the game of listing websites of anonymous people with their own political biases on the 2nd amendment/well-regulated issue.... I might as well match you one for one, right? Read and enjoy.


http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/20...ly-did-it-mean

Originally Posted by MattCW

It'd be better without a lot of people coming down here trying to change things.

You mean like the NRA and the gun lobbyists at the Gold Dome? You are sooooo right about that one.