TMF

I'm not being obtuse, he was wearing body armor for crying out loud. What logical conclusions is one to draw from seeing a man wearing body armor with a rifle slung walking down the street in a populated area?

How is telling someone you banged their wife aggressive? Is it threatening in anyway? Is it illegal? Point that I'm making is regarding the quest for a lawsuit. That is his goal. That is what drives him in every stunt he pulls. SteelHarp had an example of him creating a dangerous traffic condition in order to elicit a police response and roadside lawyer about some obscure law, in hopes he would be taken to jail so he could sue. That is the point I'm making. No matter what he does, those are his intentions, and intent is everything.

At least there is a legitimate reason to OC with a pistol; self defense. There is no legitimate reason to walk around downtown with a loaded rifle. I'll concede that I don't think there should be a law against it, but you want to know why it will never be legal? BECAUSE IDIOT NUTBAGS LIKE LEONARD RUIN IT FOR EVERYBODY!!!

There is no way to quantify the damage he did to our military in terms of intelligence and loss of life, but I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that there are many, many dead American Servicemembers due to his actions. I could write an essay outlining so many reasons. It would take days to write. Anyone in the intelligence field who is familiar the stuff he indiscriminately gave away knows the damage it caused. He did not "blow the whistle" on anything. The incident with the air weapons team was investigated before it was given away and cleared. I watched the video. It was a good shoot. The pilots were operating on information they had from guys on the ground. The cameraman who was embedded with those enemy fighters can rot in hell and his family can STFU. You're damn skippy that if I spot enemy fighters I will kill every person with them. Holding a camera doesn't somehow make you bullet proof or give you special exception for me not to shoot at the bad guys. These POSs that act like this was some "coverup" have never had their sorry asses in a combat zone. All footage from those platforms is classified Secret. I'm sorry folks can't understand what that means. It was investigated and the shoot was cleared. Every shoot I've been involved in was investigated. They were all cleared. Is that somehow a coverup because the military doesn't release every secret document to the press? That isn't how it works. This POS was not a leaker. He did not have any higher purpose. He indiscriminately gave away as much secret information as he had access to. That isn't a whistle blower, that is called espionage.

Negative. My example is NOT flawed one bit. The example I gave as somebody being a douchebag, yet doing something completely legal for the PURPOSE OF ELICITING A RESPONSE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A LAWSUIT. Protesting a place is not the same as doing something you know will elicit a response. The police didnt just show up to f*** with Voldemort. There were multiple calls to 911 by concerned citizens. So I'll ask again, if everything he did was within the law, what "rights" on God's green Earth is he standing up for? The right to be a douchehammer? Mission accomplished. Please reference SteelHarps post regarding this idiot's behavior regarding the traffic light. If that doesn't tell you what his motives are for staging these run ins with police I can't help you. It is so transparent my 4 year old can figure it out.

There is not a damn thing politically correct about not carrying a rifle around downtown. The only place that is normal is at the range or a combat zone. With all the mass shootings that have occurred the only thing someone accomplishes by doing this is causing hysteria and making more on-the-fencers believe that people shouldn't have military style weapons. Even if it was perfectly legal to carry a rifle around downtown locked and cocked, why on earth would you? It would only draw attention and scare the crap out of the sheep. How the f*** is that in anyway productive?

In my opinion a private business owner should have the right to discriminate against anyone he wants. If you don't like black people you shouldn't be forced to serve them just as if you don't like white people, Muslims, Christians, atheists or purple people. But carrying a firearm is a very different thing than spiritual faith or race. There are many things inherent to firearm carry whether we like it or not. One of those is sheeple scaring. Some businesses lose customers when someone comes OCing a hand cannon it isn't fair to the owner to say he can't regulate that. I fully respect a person's right to regulate who comes on to their property or whether or not they can carry certain weapons there.

Blah blah blah. People die for much less stupidity than what Voldemort does. When his stupidity eventually snuffs him out I will have myself a good ol laugh and take a dump in his honor.

What rights is he defending if everything he is doing is legal? Anyone got an answer for that? I could walk around town telling every dude I see that I banged his wife last night as a way to exercise my free speech. Then, when one of them knocks me out I can sue them. Nothing I did was illegal, but then again, who said that it was? It would all be in poor taste and a generally douchey thing to do all in the name of making money in a subsequent lawsuit. This is what Voldemort is doing. Those of you comparing him to founding fathers are clearly allowing your dislike of authority to cloud your ability to use reason and logic. HOW IS WHAT LEONARD DID ANY DIFFERENT THAN THAT SCENARIO I POSTED???

Oxygen thievery.

They don't arrest these rioters as they're burning cops cars, looting business and vandalizing government buildings. Why bother banning anything at all if they won't even arrest people who are openly committing violent crimes. Geez, makes you wonder how the government would ever handle a violent mob that was actually armed. A troop of Boy Scouts armed with .22s could overthrow a local government.

He's a traitor. I don't really care what his court martial said. Hopefully he'll get shived in prison.

I think this goes into the realm of "can" and "should". The problem I see in these threads is folks using the "can" I shoot in this situation. The point I make is if you're asking "can" I then you are asking the wrong question, as if asking permission. To me, that shows someone who is looking for an excuse to shoot someone, regardless of whether they are in actual fear of their life. The question one should ask should be directed at yourself, and the question should be "do I NEED to." If you are in genuine fear for your life then whether or not you "legally can" is moot, is it not? If you don't think you will survive the incident unless you use deadly force to intervene then jail time isn't really a concern. Of course, the flip side to that are folks who say "I won't take even one punch, even if I started the fight" tells me that person isn't concerned about preventing death or great bodily injury, they just want to shoot someone.

I'm a weirdo on this one. I don't like wearing any clothing with logos or expressions of my opinions, political or otherwise. My family members often get me 2A and anti-liberal type clothes and I can never bring myself to wear them.

I agree, but they're trying to make having an expired FOID card as PC to have your house searched or an automatic warrant on your residence. That is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

I'll say it. He deserves to be shot.

The most ridiculous thing is for someone to think anything this moron does is to "fight" for rights. If that was the case he would openly carry a loaded AR-15, rather than attempt to follow the letter of the law in an attempt to elicit a response from law enforcement. The notion is preposterous. There are many things that aren't against the law that folks shouldn't do. Would you people be cool with a guy showing up to the playground with a panel van, dressed in a speedo taking pictures of your kid? Don't think so. You'd call the police. Is it our founding father's intention that we can't even do some place free to dress as we please and have freedom of expression? How about a guy walking around a crowd of people with a can of gas in one hand and a lighter in the other, looking crazy and quoting Bible scriptures to himself. Not one thing in there is illegal, however, if you didn't notify law enforcement in such a situation you'd be stupid, and if law enforcement didn't investigate 99% of the population would call them derelict. You folks that support this nut job don't seem to see this guy for who he is and what his motives are. He has nothing to do with gun rights. He is using you and the gun owning community as scapegoats for his plans to get rich off the system, all the while contributing to the myth that gun owners are nutjobs and making those on the fence go to the liberal side.

If he keeps it up he's going to keep pushing the limits until someone mistakes him for an active shooter. Couldn't happen to a better guy.

I'm sure he's spent the past year preparing for this by spending all his free time researching every law on the books regarding weapons possession. Meanwhile, women everywhere are grateful that he is not a member of the dating pool. I am also thankful that he has no hope of spreading his vile genes to an heir and infecting another generation with his brand of lunacy.

If it wasn't newsworthy we wouldn't be talking about what an idiot he is.

And I could go to the park playground full of kids and start screaming "I have a gun". Since context doesn't seem to matter, that shouldn't be a problem. Maybe after that I can head on down to the old folks home and start screaming "you're all gonna die" all while I'm LEGALLY carrying my rifle. They are going to die eventually, so I don't understand why anyone would ever misconstrue that as a threat simply because I'm LEGALLY carrying my rifle. I guess anyone that thinks that is weird is just a freedom hating commie-nazi hoplophobe who doesn't believe in my rights to keep and bear arms.

Yep, if that is the logic then the first amendment gives me the right to walk to a play ground and scream "I have a bomb."

I don't disagree he should have the right to possess a rifle, and even carry it. Context is everything though. He was presenting the image of an active shooter. Body armor and rifle? You know as well as I do what he is trying to provoke. What he is doing is akin to walking around screaming "I have a bomb" then passing it off as free speech. His motives have nothing to do with gun rights. The only reason he has attached himself to it is because it is the best way to get attention and money. I don't know if he broke any laws, but I sure hope he did.

  Even better!

  What drives him has nothing to do with gun rights.  It has more to do with the frustration of being born into the body of the biggest douchetard on the planet.