Is that what my post looked like through your eyes? Huh.
I went to their website, they said, in its entirety:
That’s what it looked like through my eyes. So, they were posing for a picture because they were proud of what they were doing? Well, good, I am much relieved to hear it. Before, I was thinking they were doing something they shouldn’t, like assholes. But now that I know they were proud of what they were doing, I know that they are total assholes! Either that, or from Dallas.
Oh, I see now. You were responding solely to the last sentence of my post, and you understand the ThinkProgress update to be merely pointing out that they were posing for a picture. Got it.
I posted the whole quote! WTF? That was it, no editing. A link to another picture, which I had already seen, I noted the flag which wasn’t visible in the other picture. So far as I can tell, the sum total of new information here is that they were posing for a picture! (Which, IIRCAANJHASM [If I recall correctly and am not just having a senior moment], has already been mentioned upthread…)
Is there a hidden subtext? I already knew there were kids and women there, so what? Am I to be pleased that they are raising up a fresh crop of Ted Nugents? You think because there are kids there it makes it wholesome? Why? Its not like they were out to Chuck E. Cheese. Well, that’s not exactly wholesome either, but still…
They knew what they were doing, they were proud of it, but wait! They’re teaching their kids to do the same thing. So, all good.
I don’t get it. Who are you, and what have you done with Richard Parker? (If there is a ransom involved, we can probably do a bake sale, or source a cloud. Something. Valuable guy, don’t want to lose him…)
They did go to Hooters afterward. Sorta makes up for it.
They did not take their kids to Hooters! And don’t you try to tell me they did, because they didn’t!
I went there once. A girl with lipstick on her teeth recommended the clam basket. I forget what else. Lame tangent, sorry.
A feminist once told me I shouldn’t patronize Hooters, so I don’t; I just sometimes look in at the window and lick the glass for an hour or two.
Never been. Why go to the Museum of Unobtainium?
To lick the glass.
It depends on how you line them up.
But generally I don’t know that gun accidents are much more common than power tool accidents, the fact that guns can also be used more offensively doesn’t make gun accidents all that different than other types of accidents does it?. But this is the stupid gun new thread so every gun accident in the country has to be documented here.
By now you realize that the kids were posing in the picture with the gun toters, does that change how you view the original photo?
And yet your side seems to be unable to pass even purely symbolic background check laws at gun shows. The gun debate is one of the few areas where the liberals are the ignorant fact free side of the debate. There is probably more room for gun control but none of the current crop of gun grabbers is well informed enough or objective enough to achieve anything.
IOW, these guys are jerks, you don’t have to defend every single jerk with a gun. Sure the gun grabbers were trying to paint these jerks as assassins or something but that what they get for being jerks.
The picture is prejudicial but I doubt it changed any minds.
Its not like someone yelling “let them die” during a Republican primary debate on health care.
Are you really sure you want to suggest that sheer power or the lack of it somehow is indicative of knowledge and wisdom?
Still, you managed to get through a moderately lengthy post about guns without once mentioning the AWB. We are all very proud of you.
“Clam basket”. Right. :dubious:
Really? Being painted as “assassins or something”? Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us?
Frankly I’m stunned that people seem to be willing to die on the hill of “this photo doesn’t show everyone who was present”. I don’t care if there were 20 orphans, three clowns and the Pope there; it doesn’t detract from the fact that a large group of people with guns standing outside a restaurant where four women are having a gun control meeting over lunch is going to come across as intimidating, and it certainly isn’t unreasonable to assume it was their intention to appear so.
I’ve seen both pictures, you moron. And you lose all credibility when you rant and screech at how the top picture makes it look like ‘they’re trying to intimidate people by crouching beside a car with guns at the ready’.
No it doesn’t you dim-witted bulb, it looks like they’re posing for a picture.
There could be any other reasonable reasons they didn’t want to run the picture with little kids in it, but quite frankly, I’d think the group would be -happy- that they didn’t run the picture with little kids in it. You realize that having little kids running around while the manly men bring out their guns and strut around a parking lot to ‘protest’ four women eating at said restaurant does not, in actual fact, paint the group in a better light?
The clam basket.
The aesthetics of the photo shoot are enhanced by the fact that the subjects are uniformly beige in complexion. Your darker complected types in Texas seldom gather for armed photo ops, as the effect is aesthetically displeasing and likely to attract unwanted attention.
From the discussion, and particularly Richard Parker’s characterization, I thought the photo in question would show some people lying in wait or sighting the restaurant.
I have to say that I just don’t get your take on this, Richard Parker. Looks like a clump of people with guns from either side to me. The fact that they were assembled bearing arms is reflected in both pictures, and is a tactic these folks like to employ.
I remember a video from Ohio that I’m not going to bother digging up that showed a bunch of these douchebags doing something similar to women there - bearing arms, milling about looking vaguely menacing.
Whether the women in these situations realize that guys like this are really pussies (e.g. the kind prone to fire sight unseen at someone knocking at their door), I don’t know. I also don’t know if that would make them feel more or less comfortable. Panicky people arming themselves to help them cope doesn’t make me feel better about things.
In any event, Richard has really gotten fixated on one of the least relevant aspects of the story. I don’t know why.
Such tactics can be very effective. For instance, the famous example of Oakland Black Panthers strolling around in Sacramento, lo, these many years past, with unlimbered firearms openly carried. Many California Republicans discovered a previously unrealized devotion and dedication to gun control. Put a whole different complexion on the issue. So to speak.
I think I’ve explained my reasons pretty clearly, it’s just that you disagree. That’s fine.
For me, and apparently a lot of other Americans based on the discussion of these photos elsewhere in the media, there is an important difference between a group composed exclusively of men, crouched near a car holding guns facing toward the supposed target of their intimidation, and a group of men, moms, and their kids posing for a group photo and also carrying guns. I could expand on each of those differences and why they are less menacing, but since I think its pretty self-evident, I assume we’re basically at the irreducible level of perception that’s no use arguing.
And characterizing me as fixated is a bit odd. Almost every news source without an open partisan affiliation has reported the photo controversy as part of the story (example), as have all the usual right-wing sites. And, as pointed out above, even ThinkProgress saw fit to update their story with this information.