General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes This Photo Vindicate Armed Pro-Gun Protesters In Texas? (Fixed the link for jpg)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/does-this-photo-vindicate-armed-pro-gun-protesters-in-texasUmmm, no.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
MythosMaster
(445 posts)calimary
(81,261 posts)Glad you're here! If you need a big-ass gun to validate yourself like so many of these lovely folks seem to demonstrate, that tells me a lot about you. And none of it good.
MythosMaster
(445 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Is this supposed to make it seem less intimidating?
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)they win america
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)Anyone finding that intimidating has some hangups.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)they still look like major kooks
derby378
(30,252 posts)Okay, here goes...
You win.
lastlib
(23,226 posts)That's why they smell like shit--in essence, they ARE shit.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)Don't you know that by now?
is a sarcasm tag really needed here?
Berlum
(7,044 posts)But, it's still a shit sandwich.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Kind of like this photograph...
See how much better you feel!
Paladin
(28,257 posts)Better resolution quality on all the facial hair, unwashed jeans, hi-cap magazines and tattoos, though.....
Response to warrior1 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)Response to Decaffeinated (Reply #13)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)... and thank God for it.
Response to Decaffeinated (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)Statistically you should worry about lightning strikes or killer bees.... statistically...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)meanit
(455 posts)unlike some who's own selfish interests come before anything or anyone else.
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)... and living in fear of "half a dozen massacres every day".
meanit
(455 posts)Movie theaters, grade schools, malls. Places we or our families and neighbors may all frequent at one time or another.
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)... you can be concerned or even worried.
Logically, the odds of getting hit by a car or the aforementioned killer bees is more likely. Think about what you would do in that situation, make a plan and go about your business.
Easy peasy...
meanit
(455 posts)a 1st grade classroom or full movie theater and systematically shooting men, women and children is not even close in comparison, but it is standard NRA fare along with knives and forks arguments. Someone stalking and killing with combat style weaponry is not an "act of nature".
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)Logically you are just as dead. What's the difference?
meanit
(455 posts)n/t
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...then you really should work on your math skills.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)Or if they were Muslim Americans. Or Latino Americans.
You don't think the police would have been called?
You don't think they would have been arrested?
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)What could it be...?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)nt
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)nt
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)The Black Panthers were systematically harassed, arrested, and murdered by the police. Somehow I doubt you are calling for similar reprisals against God-fearing white paramilitary enthusiasts.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)were they coddled by the media, like these tea party assholes? NO...they were hunted down, killed, infiltrated, and imprisoned. nice try, though.
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)I mean, it isn't as if the police state intimidated, harassed and stalked the Black panther party, right? They certainly never murdered any of them in their beds, right?
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)rights as gun owners.
Some people love it when people other than them get their rights trampled.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The 4 women inside were not rallying or protesting. The group outside wasn't holding a counterprotest. They wete there strictly to intimidate.
If this had been a gang of black guys or Hispanics with rifles gathering outside that restaurant the police would have dispersed that mob pronto.
And no. They shouldn't go to jail for life
napkinz
(17,199 posts)And it might have been more than just "dispersing."
TeamPooka
(24,225 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)it looked like posing for a photo... but still.
WTF? Intimidation!
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)As I said in another thread, I am pro-2A/RKBA, and I think it was a less than smart idea to show up where people are meeting inside a restaurant.
But fair is fair, and this picture shows they were posing, not sitting there with their guns trained on the door of the restaurant as the other picture indicated. They seem to be there more to make a statement, not harass or intimidate, as was claimed by the other group, moms against whatever. I'm assuming the two women, or at least one of them, is also a mom.
My guess is this pic had to be clearly present when whoever began this story grabbed the side-view pic instead, which makes that a pretty dishonest effort at propaganda, imho.
kcr
(15,316 posts)no one was claiming they were training the guns on the door.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)intimidating, and from the actual, intended picture, that doesn't seem to be the case to me.
So yeah, pretty dishonest to push the other pic if this one was known to exist also, and that almost had to be known.
kcr
(15,316 posts)But they were there for two hours. It took them two hours to pose for that picture? You think they were there to pose for pictures for two hours? No, I don't think so, and that's hardly dishonest.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)it was still dishonest to use the other picture to paint a false image of what was really going on there.
Yes, dishonest.
kcr
(15,316 posts)How did anyone paint a false image? They were there, brandishing their guns. The fact they also posed for a picture changes nothing. No one did what you claim.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The other photo might have been more menacing, but this angle still shows a bunch of inbred gun nuts, likely bigots, who showed up with the intent to intimidate.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I'm glad you agree.
I don't see any evidence that they were there to intimidate. In fact, the fact that they are posing for pictures leads me to think they were there to make a statement rather than try to intimidate. I see no evidence of bigotry.
If you have accurate info to the contrary, please share.
kcr
(15,316 posts)If they'd only been there for the 20 minutes or so it would take to set up that picture? You'd have a point. You could claim the reality was they were only there to take a picture. But that wasn't the reality. So, you're wrong. And they aren't vindicated.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Words like intimidation and threat were used.
Real pic conveys a group, legally armed, btw, making a statement, not waiting to mow down moms against whatever as they emerged from the building.
There is a clear distinction, as I've said now at least three times, though you may be unable, or more likely unwilling, to see it.
kcr
(15,316 posts)and those who wish to excuse and defend what they did. Showing up outside with their guns isn't merely making a statement. Standing outside waiting for two hours holding their guns is threatening.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)would you call that "intimidation"?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)the Mothers group would be there?
calimary
(81,261 posts)Seems to me that it sums things up quite well for some of the people involved.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Gun nuts are some of the biggest losers on the planet imo.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)They're such stupid, obsessed assholes. Only real trash would defend these shitheads in any way whatsoever.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Wherever they happen to have their demented conversations. As soon as they start talking, I confirm that I'm dealing with a total asshole and move on. It's like dealing with racists (usually *exactly* like dealing with racists, ahem) - you don't try to reason with a gunner. They're trash.
calimary
(81,261 posts)surrealAmerican
(11,360 posts)... with guns, you make a threat. Smiles don't make this a friendly gathering.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I hate guns and could have made a better, yet lame, excuse for the gun nuts.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)And why exactly was open display of semi-automatic rifles necessary in making said "statement"?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You're actually trying to float this pile of shit as an excuse for a bunch of teabagging fucks?
Why are you here? No, really. I'd like to know what cause you have to be at this site when you're talking and functioning just like a Teabagger.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)After all, you're embracing their tactics.
Dishonesty is dishonesty. You don't get to call bullshit on it when Fox does it, then say it's just peachy keen when your own side does it. Truth matters.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And there's not one tortured logical construction you can come up with that will have the tendency to budge reality by a millimeter. Begone.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... from any angle.
Great vindication.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Other gun nut shitheads acting as apologists for these gun nut shitheads continue to prattle stupidly, as usual.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)doesn't look like brandishing to me in context
gopiscrap
(23,760 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)What a bunch of morans.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Response to Skip Intro (Reply #34)
Post removed
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)You have them 24/7 it seems!
Seriously go hug your gun, it will make you feel better.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)on your post that claims the mentally ill can be identified by the way they look. Might want to realize what a bad move it was, and self-delete it...
just sayin'
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)If by "Vindicate" you mean prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are all, assholes of the worst sort, as well as mouth breathing morons? Then yes, they are indeed vindicated.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)So, to answer your question, no, it doesn't.
spanone
(135,831 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)HAHAHAHA!
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)What a bunch of scared cowards. They must shit their pants every time a car backfires.
Rex
(65,616 posts)they are mentally unstable and unable to use common sense in this situation. Glad the 4 ladies were left alone and not attacked by the gun nutz. Their attempt at intimidation makes them look weak and small. And very unstable.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Texas Statute
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:........
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)if their guns went off?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)It's always one of the first things I look for because I grew up someplace where guns are common and it's the surest way to ID those around you too stupid and dangerous to be allowed to KBA.
More concerning is that one of them clearly has kids; we know because she brought them along. Something tells me she doesn't properly secure her rifle either at home, under lock.
otohara
(24,135 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 12, 2013, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)
assholes - with deadly weapons.
or as Cory Watkins calls them self-defense tools - what a dick...he thinks we're stupid
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)a whole bunch of people holding guns?
whaddiya think they were doing there? Trying to make friends?
Nasty folks, these. Glad I don't live around them...ugh...
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)the pic with crouching Cory Watkins was taken by a bystander.
tenderfoot
(8,431 posts)eom
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Fucking no. Btw I own guns. I also support strict gun regulations.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Moronic assholes? Yes.
Brandishing? No, not it the legal sense. Intimidating? Maybe, but not according to TX. law, which is all that counts.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)post 56 above cites the law, something you don't do.
If they went to that restaurant with weapons because they knew the Mothers Against Psychos with Guns were meeting, it was clearly displaying a "a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm . . . . . ".
And, yes, they are psychos. If you saw the report on Chris Hayes' show last night, where they interviewed the inbred leader of the Texas Open Carry group, you'd have no doubt. Well, unless one is so steeped in guns that most of the people you know are like that worthless gun humper.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)you'll have to take it up with the Arlington Police Dept. because, unlike you and many others here, they disagree that any laws were broken so no action was taken.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)and determined that no laws were broken, not my words, those are the words of the police dept.
"We are aware that a group did gather in a shopping area in Arlington Saturday," Tiara Ellis Richard of the Arlington Police office of communication said in an e-mail to USA TODAY. "Officers were notified and arrived at the location. There were no issues that we are aware of, and no arrests occurred
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/
And you have no idea or evidence that any of those idiots were related in any way to the chief or his sister.
If nothing else, you are entertaining.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)She does what she's told to avoid issues. Fact is, the gun humpersgot in their autos when they learned of the meeting. They piled out of their vehicles, and grabbed their weapons of intimidation. They then stood there with their weapons for several hours before going to Hooters to demean some women.
But, that kind of behavior is common among the gun crowd.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Are there facts in dispute? What would the police need to do to bring charges to the DA?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)really? Ever got out of a speeding ticket? Ever heard about rape of a minor that never lead to arrests...until public outcry?
None of us are quite *that* stupid.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Take it up with them.
In my state, that would be legal also, however moronic it is.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)or willing to tell the gun humpers to refrain in the future...a warning, at best.
Their inaction doesn't prove guilt or innocence, Ranchemp.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)in that mall holding his gun like that, he would not be brandishing? Or the guy in the blue shirt?
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I didn't use that word as I understanding psychos POSING with weaponry is not equivalent to psychos 'brandishing'
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)they seem to disagree with you.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)In which case, yes, they would be vindicated.
But yeah....nope. Not vindicated. Nothing but a bunch of thuggish assholes.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 13, 2013, 07:04 PM - Edit history (3)
"Yes," in that I think it somewhat counters the other picture's impression that they were lying in wait for those women...and to at least some degree that their primary intent was intimidation.
But no in that regardless of intent, their actions were intimidating. That's not just a dickish thing to do, it also shows disrespect to the very Constitution I suspect they claim to revere. Inhibiting free discussion is a profoundly undemocratic thing to do, and runs counter to the spirit of the First Amendment.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)Aristus
(66,348 posts)If you show up with a gun, your purpose is to intimidate.
Those fuckwits can say anything they want. They're full of shit...
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Has anyone indicated that the photo DOES vindicate the subjects of the photo? What was it that needed vindication again?
I'm not a fan of open carry by the way. I have never done it and in most cases I do not believe it helps the RKBA cause.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Coincidence, nothing more.
Assholes, especially the ones who dragged their kids into it.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)they carefully chose a venue that coincides with a group that would like to see gun regulations in place. and showed up manhandling death weapons. We have no idea of their mental capacity or stability. We have no idea what little it may take for them lose composure. We have no idea how they acted prior to and after the posing for a picture.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)if every they were in a real life crisis that would require them to use a gun - like serving in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Pop a paper bag behind them and watch the magic! Gotta love the people who brought the little kids. I especially like the guy on the right softly cradling his muzzle with his hand!
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I got the impression that the anti-gun group was under siege in a Denny's or something.
This doesn't look all that intimidating, since they're all smiling and two kids are there.
peace13
(11,076 posts)I wouldn't use someone bringing their child to an event as a mark of safe and sensible..
calimary
(81,261 posts)I would indeed feel under siege. I would indeed feel threatened. I would indeed regard it as an intimidation tactic. Especially after one learns that some in the gun group joined the moms' Facebook group to monitor what they were up to, saw the post about the meeting, and decided they needed to show up - "to make a statement." They could make that "statement" ANYWHERE. Why they chose a meeting of moms concerned about gun violence - tells me this was no simple mild-mannered gathering of harmless "statement-makers." Frickin' BULLSHIT. They were trying to intimidate - by their presence. They could also have amassed outside without showing off their precious little massacre machines, and make their "statement" with signs or something.
When you add guns in, out in plain sight, you up the ante. Sorry to those who disagree. But that IS how it is.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)seeing their smiles, flags, wives and children that they are standing there for political protest reasons, not to begin a massacre.
The other picture made it look like guys with guns crouched in an assault position, I had thought they were taking cover instead of posing for a photo.
You obviously have your opinions, but that other photograph is clearly misleading. Possibly intentionally. I'll be more wary from now on when that other group makes statements about intimidation.
calimary
(81,261 posts)So what would be wrong for the group in question bringing their smiles, flags, wives, and children - and protest signs instead of assault rifles? You certainly can stage a clear, obvious, and effective protest with protest signs. You certainly can send a message and/or make a statement using protest signs. And no one need feel physically threatened or menaced because there clearly and obviously would be no menace meant when one's opposition was armed with protest signs. The catch here, LittleBlue, is that there weren't ANY protest signs here - that might define or clarify the intention of their gathering.
But, LittleBlue, these folks were holding guns. Out in the open. And not just simple pistols, either. There was a reason, in my opinion anyway, why they chose for these visuals a slew of particularly fearsome and - uh - shall we say uber-efficient assault-type weapons. Weapons like these were the stars of the show for multiple massacres we've seen just in the last few years, including Newtown. We're coming up on the second anniversary of that one. As a matter of fact, as of this writing (11/15/13) we're almost precisely a month away. It'll be December 14th. I am only speaking for myself here, but I must confess I look at any of those shots of the assembly outside the restaurant, whether posing face-on or taken from a side angle and my gut reaction, from the first synapse whose chemicals or electrical impulses get shaken up into a reaction in the back of my head, the immediate reflex for me is one of abhorrence. I find myself immediately feeling a sense of dread.
Seeing those folks so armed to the extreme - with the kind of fire power that killed so many so quickly, in so many disparate incidents across the country - every one of those individuals posing with them, okay - moms and dads and friends and neighbors - was deeply troubling. Those pictured weren't just carrying different kinds of assault rifles. They were carrying big flashing neon hot buttons. Seems to me this was a physical demonstration, an outward sign as we Catholics would say, that was meant to convey certain meanings. As I said, they could have made the same statement with protest signs, instead of adding the emotional baggage of these egregiously serious and disturbingly famous guns. This was meant to tweak. To take that statement and underline by shooting a line across the paper the statement was written on. This was, in effect, a mind-fuck: "I'm gonna take what you're worried and fearful of, and shove it RIGHT IN YER FACE!!!!" It was, in effect, acknowledging the legitimate and understandable fears provoked by this subject with an avowed "Oh yeah? Well Fuck You."
May I delicately add that displays like this don't necessarily add luster or allure to the cause their proponents espouse. This is the kind of demonstration that pushes some of us farther away. This is really damaging to any case one could make in favor of walking around showing off extreme weapons like these out in public. Particularly when, as I understand it, this group hung around for two hours. Why? Waiting for the women to emerge? Waiting to pick a fight with them? Why stand there with showing off those guns so obviously for so long unless one wanted to make as high-impact a point as possible, especially when one knew the target of one's demonstration had gathered for a meeting just inside? How can that not be read as menacing? The women inside were afraid to leave. Wound up waiting them out because two hours later, as I understand it, the armed crowd outside decided to switch locations to a nearby Hooters.
I will certainly agree with you, LittleBlue, that these photos taken from different positions convey worlds of different subliminal meanings and signals and dog-whistle messaging. These photos pull people's chains. But so does having a group of people, armed to the teeth with some of the most fearsome and emotionally loaded weaponry currently easily accessible to the public, assembling out front of a small meeting of unarmed women wishing to talk about gun safety! Whether they were all smiling or not. Certainly pulled my chain! Both of them did. It was the guns. So many. Out in the open like that. In the context of the situation and the realization that they chose this spot at this time because they KNEW those moms would be meeting in there, and in fact one might even make the case that those moms were stalked on Facebook by gun enthusiasts who tipped off the folks in the photos about the meeting in the first place. So they could go there at that time and --- ? And do what? Besides subtly suggest making trouble? Context was everything here!!! The posing of the seemingly benign "family photo" outside that restaurant changed nothing about the wheres and whys and motivations of those in the photographs being there in the first place.
Of course no one was there "to begin a massacre." But to subtly suggest one, or remind of one, by showing those weapons in public? That's WAY different. And that's what was attempted and achieved here. This was a demonstration brutally obvious and hellbent on Sending A Message - Or Else. A warning. Pretty unmistakeable, at least to me. Made me think back to sharron angle who was most recently running to unseat Harry Reid in Nevada and her infamous reference to "Second Amendment Solutions" as a way to get one's way even if one loses the election.
Sorry I ran on so long. You're spot-on about something else, too, LittleBlue: it's ALWAYS smart to be very observant. ALWAYS!!! Notice the details. Notice what's pictured or said, what's implied or inferred, who's talking, how they talk and what word choices they say and how they add emphasis with pauses and gestures and eyebrow-gymnastics, who's unzipping themselves and hanging themselves out for the public to see, and why that might be. ALWAYS good to have that awareness! Because image manipulation in this day and age has been raised beyond a high art! LOTS of things telegraph other messages than just the obvious one. LOTS of signals and dog-whistles are sent! Whether it's a kind of facial cleanser, bathroom tissue, medicine for "Low T", cause, or politician. I would not discount the statements about intimidation, though, just because some people played fast and loose with photography. And please don't summarily condemn those who were intimidated. You condemn us all, then.
Gothmog
(145,225 posts)No, Honey, not like Deliverance. The guys in Deliverance could play the banjo. The only thing these guys can play is stoopid.
Now let me see if I have this right. They are the ones with guns. They are also the ones hiding behind cars. Im having trouble with computation here. If they have the guns and this is simply a protest, why are the hiding like they are fixing to ambush somedamnthing? Are they buying into David Dewhursts idea that tampons are dangerous weapons liable to come at you suddenly?
Good Lord, its a bunch of women having a meeting. If that scares you, let me tell you about what happens at a Tupperware Party.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Are the guns loaded or not. No one knows. The flags make it worse in my judgment. Do I have the right to go to the store, walk through a parking lot and not be greeted by someone holding a lethal weapon. I say yes.
Let's say I have my pro choice sign in the back window of my car. Does one of these fools have the right to walk up to me with their gun and discuss my poster? I am walking with my same sex partner to the car after a movie. Do two of these good ol' boys have the right to follow us to the car brandishing their symbols of freedom? Any one who would agree with that is a bigger fool than I have ever seen!
No words from my mouth can convince these selfish people that their rights are no more important than mine.
calimary
(81,261 posts)Well there they are. Full frontal. Only difference with this photo is - it makes those pictured a little easier to identify.
Packerowner740
(676 posts)I still don't like open carry.