So, nothing about why they were there and what they were so proud of doing that a group photo was called for? Nothing?
Are you addressing those questions to me?
Do you see anyone else here evading them?
Yes. The difference is that the latter is far more disturbing.
Good on TPM for putting this on the front page: Does This Photo Vindicate Armed Pro-Gun Protesters In Texas? - TPM – Talking Points Memo
Note the artful wording, Richard. “Seemed to show”. “May not have been exactly”.
Few if anyone thought that the armed bunch was actually setting up a firing line to mow down innocent women. I didn’t, you didn’t. “Intimidating” is not quite the word? How about “disconcerting” and “unnerving”? What is there about this that is positive, what is there that moves our discussion forward along reasonable and civil lines?
Are we invited to believe that the people who pulled this happy horseshit are innocently ignorant of the effect? Please. For my two bits, all this was about was an “in your face, neener neener” demonstration, adding nothing worthwhile to what is already a bitter and acrimonious dispute.
TPM never believed for a moment that there was any actual threat of violence intended. Thier clarification does not represent approval so much as a strict clarity. Good enough, I hold them blameless. But the jerks who pulled this stunt are cheerfully adding heat at the expense of light, and the horse upon in which they rode.
Here I thought TPM agreeing with me that the two photos “tell different stories” would create a nice coda for this little row, since it alleviates my criticism of them for being misleading and we can all agree that this is what makes liberal media better than Fox News.
But, alas, it was not to be. Instead I get from you another round of “if they were up to no good, then any effort to make them look even more devious if fair game.” I respectfully dissent. I think fair reporting means portraying them without exaggerating their menace. Apparently TPM agrees, and so me and TPM can skip down the road together in agreement that these protesters, accurately portrayed, are nitwits.
Didn’t say any such thing. I advise that I am entirely capable of putting words in my mouth, and do not require any assistance. Respectfully, of course.
In fact I recall the fine people of FoxNews keeping a close eye on a black guy in a beret at one polling place and suggesting that he was there to intimidate non-Obama voters. And that guy was unarmed and his “intimidating behavior” was opening doors for people.
If that’s intimidating, I think a large group of people holding guns in that particular context can be said to be intimidating too. That they brought the wives and kids doesn’t make it less so.
Oh, I definitely think the presence of kids damps down the fear level. Still stupid, pointless, and mean spirited. And did you look at the guns, in the front row where you can see them? Only one to my eye appears to be an “ordinary” hunting rifle, the rest looks like they were under Rambo’s Christmas tree. I know they aren’t military weapons, so why do they go do so much trouble to make them look like it?
Because it works, that’s why. Because they foster the very fear they claim to cure. They are selling the sizzle more than the steak. Buying a scary looking gun makes the mark feel safer, tougher. And oh! how the money rolls in, rolls in.
Now, my stance remains as it was, Keep the Goddam Things If They Mean That Much To You, and muzzle-tov! I sympathize with the gun control crowd, but getting rid of them just isn’t possible. Best we can hope for is medical science being able to cure testosterone poisoning…
Wow, The Onion is really getting sophisticated!
This is the part that gets me:
Why shouldn’t we be afraid of guns in a public place? I’m not afraid of them in a hunting situation. I’m not afraid of them at the shooting range. But 40 armed men in the parking lot outside of the restaurant where I am talking with three other women about gun control. Why would I not be afraid of them? Why would I not be afraid of them at the supermarket? How about the movie theater? Should I not be afraid of them there? How am I to tell the good guys from the bad guys? Do they wear white hats? How do I distinguish the good guys from the bad guys?
One of the newsy shows I just watched had a piece about all this flap ended with a photo I had not seen before. Taken afterwards, showing the same happy crew posing with Hooter girls on the steps of said bar. Now while its true that having kids there lessens the threat perception, its nothing like making themselves look damn silly. Just lets all the air out of the tires.
Is it in Aurora, Colorado?
They’re all good, law-abiding, responsible gun owners until one of them shoots somebody. That’s how we know the difference.
No, I’m saying that their sheer lack of knowledge and wisdom has led to their lack of power.
I’m trying but you aren’t making it easy. See below where you talk about scary LOOKING guns.
Yeah, are you? One photo protrays this group as far more menacing than the other. now we think that the people who procided the meancing looking photo had access to both and chose to provide the menacing looking one. I don’t blame TPM, they ran with what they had and frankly they also ran the other photo when it was provided to them and acknowledged taht the two photos gave different impressions.
The presence of kids changes things.
Well that should be the end of that. Or maybe not… The gun grabbers just can’t admit theyw ere ever wropng about anything can they? its like they think that admittingt error about anything means they are wrong about everything.:rolleyes:
I think you may be a little obsessed by color. I see one rifle ith wood furniture that looks like it would get your seal of approval and Isee another rifle with black plastic furniture with a fixed stock and no pistol grip but with a magazine. See lower right hand corner. Gee why would anyone ever get a black palstic rifle instead of one with wood furniture? Becuz plastic is usually than wood. The guy on the lower left is holding a 22lr rifle (look at the thin magazine).
You know those “traditional hunting rifles” youa re talking about? They look almost exactly like the Enfields and Garands that were used in the military during WWI and WWII. In fact they OPERATED almost exactly like the military versions.
So now you have civilian versions of military rifles and you want them to create civilian versions of the stock and front grips? Why would they do that?
Can you tell me the features taht you think look scary? Because, with very limited exceptions the gunowners I know are reluctant to add unecessary weight to a gun for purely cosmetic reasons. Is it the picatinny rail that looks menacing? or the magpul furniture?
Or perhaps we can educate people to stop being afraid of inaminate objects no matter how deadly they can be in the hands of a madman.
So the fact taht these guys have their kids with them doesn’t change their threat level? Maybe its just me but even the msot menacing looking guys look significantly less meancing with a baby bjorn strapped to their chest.
What percentage of gun violence is committed by previously law abiding gun owners?
Now tell me how many times guns are used in self defense?
Boy, if only those gun grabbers would stop blocking funding for such studies, huh? Clearly, they are afraid of being proven wrong.
After a couple of dozen times asking that question here, even answering it himself once or twice (based on some gun-polisher study he found somewhere), you’d think he’d get off his arse and go find out himself. Instead, he thinks he’s actually making a point of some kind. Sad little wanker.