Now that the group knows how they look from other angles, will they take a step back and reassess their strategy? Say to each other, “Holy shit guys, we look like menacing thugs from this angle! We need to stop behaving like this!”
Of course not, because propaganda liberal media rabble Obama rabble rabble.
Nope. I’m saying you have good reason to trust their boney fidos, and might want to rethink your reaction.
Oh, I agree. This is obviously a terrible political tactic on their part, even assuming the best of intentions (which is a generous assumption).
I just think that has no relevance to whether news outlets reporting the story should be using such a misleading photo. They shouldn’t, even if these guys are total assholes.
Ah. But I’m still not clear on what this means here. I should defer to them in that they may not know how misleading the photo is?
What is misleading about it? They are posing for a picture, right? They want a picture taken, yes? Is it not their good side? How does a different angle of an unaltered picture become liberal propaganda? I mean, there they are!
It effectively crops out the women (moms?) and children, makes the crouched men look like they are ready for a fight instead of posing for a camera, suggests they are facing themselves at their opponents instead of a camera, and just generally portrays them as far more menacing than the actual photo.
I can’t really believe you’re asserting that a non-altered photo cannot be misleading. Angles and cropping and timing of the shot are constantly used to mislead. You are not naive. You know this.
I see that it takes but one dissent from the Party Line to earn a trip to BrainGlutton’s gulags. If I’d only known…
I see. So, out of all the pictures they got of this, they cunningly chose this one. Boy, they sure got lucky that out of all those pictures, they managed to find one that fit their ideological agenda! Why, those sneaky bastards! How many do you think they had to pore over before they found that one?
Or maybe TPM has operatives in Dallas? Someone they can call on a moments notice to drive out to Arlington? Someone skilled in the art of misleading angular photography?
(Oh, shit! The ugly one might be my cousin John Wesley. Boy’s crazy as a duck on acid.)
“Dishonest idiot”? “Gulags”? WTF, you guys got a raging case of the Mondays?
I have good opinion about both of you, but as Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I’m having a hard time figuring out which of you is the bigger jerk in this instance.
But that’s it! No Happy Meals for anybody, and the House of Mud is right out!
C’mon guys, stab and make up.
Ok. I understand you to be saying that they may not have realized it was misleading because this is the only photo they received. I agree that’s possible. (Though before taking the story from ThinkProgress, they really should have done a little bit of reporting into the provenance of the photo.)
But in any event, they should post an update to the story with the other photo, right?
Aw, c’mon. I posted a pretty mild criticism (given the forum) of a source being used by **BrainGlutton **and got in return that I am a dishonest idiot. And then I post what has got to be one of mildest ripostes in pit history, and suddenly it’s a pox on both houses? Well, I’ll have you know, I already stocked up on duck tape and plastic sheets. So thbthbthtbtbhtb.
Wow, you’re a special kind of stupid, I’ll grant you that.
The ‘women and kids’ you say were there ain’t the story. The 40 guys packin’ heat in the parking lot - purely by accident! Random chance, we promise! - of the restaurant where the MDA moms were meeting - they’re the story.
When ESPN carries a story of a football game and it only has one picture to the article, my guess is they show a picture of…the football players, not the people in the crowd.
Gotta say, sometimes the gun nuts make our job so much easier. Their stupidity is my best argument - ‘*these *are the people you want us to trust to use firearms responsibly? God help us, this is how they act when they’re apparently sane and sober…’
Only thing wrong with that is that you still insist that it is misleading, you’re just willing to concede it might not be intentionally misleading. Honor bright, I didn’t see any of the stuff you think I should have seen. You can believe that or not, your call.
Perhaps they are of the opinion that I shouldn’t see a bunch of people standing around with guns as off-putting. Whether I should or shouldn’t, I damned sure do. And they know that people find that intimidating, that is the whole purpose of their effort!
Now, me, I’m the kind of guy who will go out of his way not to be seen as intimidating, I hate fear, I loathe people who depend on it. So it is really hard for me to see them as the innocent victims here, as if they don’t know the effect they are having, and its all just good clean fun.
Best I could say for them is that they thought yeah, sure, we’ll scare them, but they don’t have any right to be scared, so its their fault. Pretty weak, far as this hippy is concerned. Sure as hell, they ain’t playing hacky-sack or throwing frisbees.
You should stop digging.
Ah, grasshopper, if you take his shovel, you will have two.
I think you’re making two points here:
[ul]
[li]The TPM photo doesn’t suggest any more menace than the actual intended photo.[/li]
[li]They are trying to intimidate others by bringing guns to their protest, which is bad.[/li][/ul]
Obviously I disagree with the first, but I welcome your reasoning in support of it. Do you think my list of four ways it is less menacing is completely off base? Why, as to each?
I don’t necessarily disagree with the second, as I think I’ve already said.
I’m assuming that you have at least looked at the intended photo (which I keep referencing), which is obviously more than we can say for friend DragonAsh based on that entire post premised on the protestors not including moms and their children.
I am not really in the middle of this discussion, so pardon my intrusion.
With that said, I am a very strong supporter of gun ownership. I agree that the 2nd amendment has some flaws in it which may not be applicable to modern day society, but nonetheless, I think (like the Supreme Court recently) gun ownership has become enshrined as a right in our culture and should not be abridged without a legitimate public interest.
Ok, now that I have explained my general perspective, I must say this about your defense here Richard. I appreciate you are trying to defend gun owners and their rights. But, when I think about these complex issues, I like to think about the advice I would give my son.
Son: Dad, going down to protest a meeting of some people who want to ban guns.
Me: Ok, so they are making a public protest and you are going to counter it, good for you son. you need to speak up when you think there is liberty at stake.
Son: well no Dad, they are just having a meeting.
Me: Hmm, well opposing a meeting can be good, so they are in an open venue and you are going to speak up when they are speaking to a crowd.
Son: well, no Dad, they are just going to a restaurant. 4 of them are having a meeting and we are going to let people know we don’t stand for what they think.
Me: Hmm, well ok, but this seems a little bit like intrusion on their rights son, you know,the right to assemble, redress grievances. I taught you to respect the entire social contract, not just one part. But, I guess you want to oppose them in the open and let people know how you feel. Just remember, their right to speak is as important as yours.
Son: Well, they are trying to take away our second amendment rights, so we are going to take guns down there and show them how our rights are important too.
Me: Wait son, this is a restaurant, right?
Son: Yes.
Me: These people are not having a public meeting in a public forum right? where they are speaking to a crowd?
Son: No.
Me: What is the purpose of the gun?
Son: we are going to show them it is ok to bear arms?
Me: So you are going to openly brandish your weapons?
Son: Yes.
Me: Do you intend to imply you are willing to use your weapon in this situation?
Son: Well no, I would never shoot anyone there.
Me: You understand son that holding a gun openly in front of a group of people means a little more than a statement, it means more than the second amendment. what is the first lesson I ever taught you?
Son: Never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot.
Me: I taught you that because a gun is a powerful tool, it is designed to destroy that which it is pointed at. right?
Son: Yes.
Me: Do you think others might think that if you brought weapons to this meeting, you are trying to say you are willing to destroy?
Son: no dad, we are not pointing them at anything, people should not be afraid of guns.
Me: Well that is true, as an item itself. But, you know darn well bringing a gun out is making a very strong statement. It typically means, in our society, you are willing to back yourself up with it. However, people don’t always know exactly WHAT you are willing to back up. It can be very intimidating.
Son: Yes, but these are our rights.
Me: Why are you bringing guns rather than a sign? Why are you not opposing these individuals with words and signs, like they are with you. Quite frankly son, why are you showing up at a non-public forum where there is no one else who is going to hear these people and what they have to say. Are you trying to get them to not even meet on the subject?
Son: well, yes, we want them to stop. They are going to hurt our rights.
Me: Well yes son, they may end up doing that, but you will have thousands of times to use your voice to oppose that. We are not at the point where you need to arm yourself and go into the public arena to discuss this matter. This is the time for discussion, not brandishing weapons. Freedom and liberty are responsibilities, not rights. Please tell me, what all powerful force provides these “rights”? Are they really automatic, or do we have to achieve them as a collective group? How can you expect people to respect our personal rights if you do not act responsibly with them? How can you expect them to think we respect their rights, when you brandish a weapon in their vicinity when they are expressing their opinion. I have always told you not to be afraid of carrying a weapon, but I also told you NEVER to brandish it unless you mean to use it. It is not a toy, or a symbol, it is a weapon.
So, with that said. You may think you are defending something good and noble here Richard, but these are not the sort of people you wish to defend. I don’t need them on my side.
Doesn’t suggest it to me, so what can I tell you? And if menace isn’t the point, what is? “Look, its legal for us to carry weapons, neener neener”? I know that, they know that, you know that, the women they are scaring know that. It isn’t news, so what does it accomplish that is worthy?
Now, if they had left the guns in the pickup truck, and walked in, sat down, introduced themselves in a friendly and open manner, and started a dialogue, I would have no beef. But they didn’t. So I think the degree of menace offered is a moot point. It only gets worse, not better.
And if they don’t know they are intimidating? How is that even possible? Apparently, they are smart enough to tie their shoes. They don’t have Moms, they could ask? “No, dear, you mustn’t go around scaring folks to make a point, its not nice.”
Be as wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove, said my favorite Jew. Good advice.
Thanks for the post Lucky Mike. But I’m really not defending these dudes. Perhaps I haven’t said this often enough yet: I think these guys are, at the very best, being completely counter-productive to their cause.
What I am defending is honest media. It does the gun control side no good to have people in the middle regard them as dishonest.
It’s not moot. You may draw the line at bringing guns at all, but other people will draw it in different places. For many people, hanging out with women, and kids, and snapping cheery group photos takes quite a bit of the intimidation out of it. You rope those people into your outrage by using this photo when they might not otherwise have agreed with you. It’s misleading.
I note that ThinkProgress has updated and corrected their story. Hopefully TPM will do the same.
OK, they were posing for a picture. While they were doing what they should not have been doing. Well, that changes everything! Well, something. Actually, not much.