Does This Photo Vindicate Armed Pro-Gun Protesters In Texas? (Fixed the link for jpg)

[warrior1]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/does-this-photo-vindicate-armed-pro-gun-protesters-in-texas

Ummm, no.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Scuba]

1. nO.

[MythosMaster]

2. Still look like losers no matter what angle.

[calimary]

131. Welcome to DU, MythosMaster!

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]

137. Thank you!

[abelenkpe]

3. Wow

Is this supposed to make it seem less intimidating?

[elehhhhna]

11. yes, because FLAGS

they win america

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. +1 n/t

[Daemonaquila]

109. Seriously???

Anyone finding that intimidating has some hangups.

[Skittles]

4. no

they still look like major kooks

[derby378]

5. Lemme think about that...

Okay, here goes...

[Brigid]

6. !!!!

You win.

[lastlib]

117. (uh, no, they don't wipe their butts....period.)

That's why they smell like shit--in essence, they ARE shit.

[RagAss]

7. Of course it does. The flag solves everything....

Don't you know that by now?

is a sarcasm tag really needed here?

[Berlum]

8. You can put caviar on top of a Shit Sandwich

But, it's still a shit sandwich.

[KansDem]

9. But they're all smiling now! That makes it better!

Kind of like this photograph...



See how much better you feel!

[Paladin]

10. Nope.

Better resolution quality on all the facial hair, unwashed jeans, hi-cap magazines and tattoos, though.....

[Decaffeinated]

13. Wow, jail for life for conducting a legal activity...

[Decaffeinated]

27. America is most certainly not Japan...

... and thank God for it.

[Decaffeinated]

76. Do you really live in fear of that?

Statistically you should worry about lightning strikes or killer bees.... statistically...

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. So how long before they do this at Abortion Clinics....and if so do you approve of that too?

[meanit]

80. I think the worry is more about concern for others safety

unlike some who's own selfish interests come before anything or anyone else.

[Decaffeinated]

86. There is a difference between concern...

... and living in fear of "half a dozen massacres every day".

[meanit]

87. It's not just "Post Offices" anymore.

Movie theaters, grade schools, malls. Places we or our families and neighbors may all frequent at one time or another.

[Decaffeinated]

91. I do understand that emotionally...

... 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]

92. Comparing a swarm of bees to someone premeditatedly walking into

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]

93. Emotionally perhaps...

Logically you are just as dead. What's the difference?

[meanit]

94. Something can be done about the nut with the arsenal.

n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

88. If you actually "live in fear" of that...

...then you really should work on your math skills.

[napkinz]

17. hey, if they were African-Americans holding guns outside that restaurant

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]

18. That reminds me of something...

What could it be...?

[Hoyt]

36. Right wing bigots like to post that photo for some reason.

[napkinz]

44. I think Decaffeinated's full name is "Decaffeinated TEA"

nt

[Hoyt]

48. No joke. I think he stumbled upon the wrong Web site.

[napkinz]

49. 326 posts ... I doubt he/she will reach 350

nt

[Decaffeinated]

115. Ta Dah!

[Ranchemp.]

119. LOL.

[notadmblnd]

52. circa 1965? Don't you have anything more recent?

[SolutionisSolidarity]

69. Yeah, that didn't work out well for the Black Panthers.

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]

104. and what happened to the Black Panthers?

were they coddled by the media, like these tea party assholes? NO...they were hunted down, killed, infiltrated, and imprisoned. nice try, though.

[TheSarcastinator]

107. And it Worked Out Great for Fred Hampton, right?

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]

111. And St. Ronnie pissed himself getting the Mulford Act passed to specifically take away their

rights as gun owners.


Some people love it when people other than them get their rights trampled.

[riderinthestorm]

21. What if the lunch meeting was 4 Packers fans, and a boatload of armed Bears fans showed up outside

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]

23. yep!

And it might have been more than just "dispersing."

[TeamPooka]

14. nope, they are assholes from any angle.

[MNBrewer]

16. Even the photo I saw that was taken from the side

it looked like posing for a photo... but still.

WTF? Intimidation!

[Skip Intro]

19. It shows how dishonest pushing the other pic was.

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]

22. It was not dishonest

no one was claiming they were training the guns on the door.

[Skip Intro]

28. It was claimed they were waiting in ambush, threatening,

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]

29. They posed for a picture

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]

33. Oh, well in that case

it was still dishonest to use the other picture to paint a false image of what was really going on there.

Yes, dishonest.

[kcr]

42. Again, hardly.

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]

47. Are you denying the photo is of a bunch of right wing gun humpers there to intimidat Mothers group?

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]

53. Yes, the other photo was meant to convey a false reality.

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]

55. How was it a false reality?

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]

62. Other pic conveyed pending ambush to many.

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]

64. Making a statement. That's a clear distinction only in your head

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]

81. If they "posed for this picture"...outside an abortion clinic...

would you call that "intimidation"?

[Hoyt]

58. So they meet there often. Or did they arrive with their friggin compensators when they heard

the Mothers group would be there?

[calimary]

135. I like that term you used here, Hoyt. "Compensators."

Seems to me that it sums things up quite well for some of the people involved.

[Rex]

35. Looks like somebody got a gunz sadz over the other picture!

Gun nuts are some of the biggest losers on the planet imo.

[alcibiades_mystery]

82. It's the only argument left the gun nut shitheads: waaah! the other picture was PROPAGANDA

They're such stupid, obsessed assholes. Only real trash would defend these shitheads in any way whatsoever.

[Electric Monk]

83. There's a thread going on in DU's own gungeon just like that, believe it or not

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172133670

Yep yep, the same usual suspects.

[alcibiades_mystery]

84. I don't read, think about, or otherwise engage gun nut shitheads

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]

134. Good point.

[surrealAmerican]

24. You make a statement with words ...

... with guns, you make a threat. Smiles don't make this a friendly gathering.

[Rex]

39. It is called grasping at straws...pathetic attempt really.

I hate guns and could have made a better, yet lame, excuse for the gun nuts.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

79. Pray tell, exactly what "statement" were they there to make?

And why exactly was open display of semi-automatic rifles necessary in making said "statement"?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

85. Were those poor motherfuckers shown from a poor angle? Awww, what a shame

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]

110. So nice to know you approve of Fox News.

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]

113. Me despising inbred fuckfaces with guns has nothing to do with your Fox News fetish

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]

20. Yep. Stupid and cowardly is stupid and cowardly...

... from any angle.

Great vindication.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Gun nut shitheads acting like gun nut shitheads

Other gun nut shitheads acting as apologists for these gun nut shitheads continue to prattle stupidly, as usual.

[The Straight Story]

26. They are still jerks. But how many people did they shoot? We know everyone with a gun shoots people

[Niceguy1]

66. still jerks but it

doesn't look like brandishing to me in context

[gopiscrap]

30. Fuck no!!!

[Hoyt]

31. They look like ignorant, bigoted, gun humpers from that angle too.

[Rex]

32. They look like mentally unstable people imo.

What a bunch of morans.

[Skip Intro]

34. Oh, and how do mentally unstable people look?

[Skip Intro]

50. I'm not the one having a Frist moment...

[Rex]

51. DO you still love creekdog?

You have them 24/7 it seems!

Seriously go hug your gun, it will make you feel better.

[Skip Intro]

67. You know, some advocate for the mentally ill might alert

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]

38. Flag fixes everything.

[Glassunion]

40. Yes, without a doubt.

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]

41. If you put a murderer in front of an American flag, he/she will still be a murderer.

So, to answer your question, no, it doesn't.

[spanone]

43. looks like some serious paranoia....in both pictures.

[Rex]

45. K&R for pissing off all the RIGHT people!

HAHAHAHA!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

54. Bu...but the mean ladies were in the restaurant talking mean about them, meanies!!!!

What a bunch of scared cowards. They must shit their pants every time a car backfires.

[Rex]

57. That they had to show up in larger numbers and with their guns proves beyond any doubt

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]

56. Texas Statute

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]

59. Hell, even the Zimmerman jury could apply that straightforward language correctly.

[uponit7771]

123. +1

[bluestate10]

60. Did you notice that two of those "experts" would blow their comrades heads off

if their guns went off?

[Chan790]

75. Yes, in fact. I noticed it immediately.

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]

63. I Hate Them

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]

65. what? Whaddya think?

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]

68. Cowards need vindicating?

[Demo_Chris]

70. It certainly does tell a different story than the first image. nt

[otohara]

73. Just Now on Chris Hayes

the pic with crouching Cory Watkins was taken by a bystander.

[tenderfoot]

71. No. They still look like bullies.

eom

[arely staircase]

72. no

Fucking no. Btw I own guns. I also support strict gun regulations.

[etherealtruth]

74. a picture of psychos with weaponry is not flattering regardless of how it is framed

[Ranchemp.]

95. Psychos? Not likely.

Moronic assholes? Yes.
Brandishing? No, not it the legal sense. Intimidating? Maybe, but not according to TX. law, which is all that counts.

[Hoyt]

96. I think the reasons these folks went to that restaurant armed is enough to prove intimidation, and

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.]

99. Well Hoyt,

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]

100. They did not investigate. A few of the psychos are probably related to the chief and his sister.

[Ranchemp.]

103. They did investigate and monitored the group

and determined that no laws were broken, not my words, those are the words of the police dept.

Police monitored the incident at the Blue Mesa Grill in Arlington, Texas, but took no action because it is legal to carry long guns openly in Texas.

"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]

106. Tiari is a PR person, not an investigator or DA.

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]

105. What would they need to investigate?

Are there facts in dispute? What would the police need to do to bring charges to the DA?

[Sheepshank]

118. you are telling me that PD NOT acting or arresting is proof of legal activity?

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.]

120. I'm not telling you anything, the Arlington Police are.

Take it up with them.
In my state, that would be legal also, however moronic it is.

[Sheepshank]

122. they are telling me they are also admitted gun nut sympathizers at worst

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]

102. So if the guy wearing the ball hat on the right (kneeling) walked into the supermarket

in that mall holding his gun like that, he would not be brandishing? Or the guy in the blue shirt?

[etherealtruth]

108. Brandishing?

I didn't use that word as I understanding psychos POSING with weaponry is not equivalent to psychos 'brandishing'

[uponit7771]

124. Yes it's against the law... especially if shown in a way to alarm

[Ranchemp.]

125. You'll have to take it up with the Arlington Police Dept.

they seem to disagree with you.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

77. I was expecting that they were actually holding brooms as part of some charitable litter clean up

In which case, yes, they would be vindicated.

But yeah....nope. Not vindicated. Nothing but a bunch of thuggish assholes.

[Lizzie Poppet]

89. Yes and no.

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]

90. No! nt

[Aristus]

97. No, of course not. Fuck 'em.

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]

98. Nope! n/t

[Jenoch]

101. I don't quite understand the question.

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]

112. Yeah, it was mere coincidence that they had a photo shoot near that meeting.

Coincidence, nothing more.

Assholes, especially the ones who dragged their kids into it.

[jmowreader]

114. Who photoshopped out all the tea party flags and t-shirts?

[Sheepshank]

116. NO

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]

121. that looks like a group of people who would crap their pants...

if every they were in a real life crisis that would require them to use a gun - like serving in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[peace13]

129. Yup.

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]

126. The other photo was a bit misleading

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]

132. Lots of kids died at Jonestown.

I wouldn't use someone bringing their child to an event as a mark of safe and sensible..

[calimary]

133. If I were one of those moms inside, and I saw what was "making a statement" outside,

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]

136. It seems pretty obvious to me

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]

138. I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder.

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]

127. Juanita Jean thinks that this is the wee winkie group

http://www.juanitajean.com/2013/11/10/oh-look-yall-its-a-wee-winkie-parade/

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. I’m 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 Dewhurst’s idea that tampons are dangerous weapons liable to come at you suddenly?

Good Lord, it’s a bunch of women having a meeting. If that scares you, let me tell you about what happens at a Tupperware Party.

[peace13]

128. That picture makes me physically ill.

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]

130. NO! Seriously? It just underscores the attempted intimidation tactic.

Well there they are. Full frontal. Only difference with this photo is - it makes those pictured a little easier to identify.

[Packerowner740]

139. Context is everything but

I still don't like open carry.