Dad Arrested After Posting Picture Of Himself Holding Baby And BB Gun

[Vel]

No, shithead. You simply do not put a helpless child in harm's way. Duh.

You asswipes that will bend a point over backwards to suck the dick of Almighty Gun at the expense of innocent children make me want to puke my guts out.

Well you seem to feel it's all about the what ifs. If you don't put a baby in a car, you can't forget that you put the baby in the car.

Look. Do you see that the gun and the car are both equally dangerous to a child and yet you think nothing of someone using a car with a baby. Because a gun is present in a photo does not mean that the gun poses any danger to anyone in and of itself. Just because guns scare YOU, doesn't make them inherently dangerous. You need to realize that personal liberty is too precious to give up without a battle. I feel sorry for you.

And I feel pity for anyone who needs to stretch a point to the extent of painting himself as an idiot. You're not fooling anyone but yourself with this false equivalence. It's the height of delusion to think anyone swallows this load of steaming crap.

What the hell have we descended to when genuflecting before the holy sepulcher of NRA ideology is more important than the life of a child? Seriously dood, get a fucking grip.

What rights do you hold sacred? Any of them? Who decides which rights are ok for you to keep and which ones should be jettisoned because someone else doesn't like them? Do you stand for anything? And it was you setting up the what if scenarios. I merely showed how stupid it is. Should we base law on what if?

 

[Pogo]

Well you seem to feel it's all about the what ifs. If you don't put a baby in a car, you can't forget that you put the baby in the car.

Look. Do you see that the gun and the car are both equally dangerous to a child and yet you think nothing of someone using a car with a baby. Because a gun is present in a photo does not mean that the gun poses any danger to anyone in and of itself. Just because guns scare YOU, doesn't make them inherently dangerous. You need to realize that personal liberty is too precious to give up without a battle. I feel sorry for you.

And I feel pity for anyone who needs to stretch a point to the extent of painting himself as an idiot. You're not fooling anyone but yourself with this false equivalence. It's the height of delusion to think anyone swallows this load of steaming crap.

What the hell have we descended to when genuflecting before the holy sepulcher of NRA ideology is more important than the life of a child? Seriously dood, get a fucking grip.

What rights do you hold sacred? Any of them? Who decides which rights are ok for you to keep and which ones should be jettisoned because someone else doesn't like them? Do you stand for anything? And it was you setting up the what if scenarios. I merely showed how stupid it is. Should we base law on what if?

What if you were actually literate? We could have saved several posts and several minutes.

I can dream, can't I?

As far as basing a law on "what if" -- what if that drunk driver makes it all the way home without killing himself or an innocent bystander? That means we should jettison all drunk driving laws, right? Here's an idea: THINK before posting.

All you did was show how stupid you don't mind appearing, with false equivalencies as rationalizations for an ideology you would elevate over a human life. Doesn't impress me for one second. "Never put a kid in a car", my ass. Kill the stupid act. It's bombing. And stop wasting our time. If this is all you have, you've already lost.

 

[Vel]

And I feel pity for anyone who needs to stretch a point to the extent of painting himself as an idiot. You're not fooling anyone but yourself with this false equivalence. It's the height of delusion to think anyone swallows this load of steaming crap.

What the hell have we descended to when genuflecting before the holy sepulcher of NRA ideology is more important than the life of a child? Seriously dood, get a fucking grip.

What rights do you hold sacred? Any of them? Who decides which rights are ok for you to keep and which ones should be jettisoned because someone else doesn't like them? Do you stand for anything? And it was you setting up the what if scenarios. I merely showed how stupid it is. Should we base law on what if?

What if you were actually literate? We could have saved several posts and several minutes.

I can dream, can't I?

As far as basing a law on "what if" -- what if that drunk driver makes it all the way home without killing himself or an innocent bystander? That means we should jettison all drunk driving laws, right? Here's an idea: THINK before posting.

All you did was show how stupid you don't mind appearing, with false equivalencies as rationalizations for an ideology you would elevate over a human life. Doesn't impress me for one second. "Never put a kid in a car", my ass. Kill the stupid act. It's bombing. And stop wasting our time. If this is all you have, you've already lost.

So should you be arrested for having a picture of a beer while sitting next to your car? Apparently you are too thick headed for ideas to penetrate. You seem to be able to nothing other than name call. And the best way for you to stop wasting your time since you can't articulate a point would be to stop responding. Try it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, shithead. You simply do not put a helpless child in harm's way. Duh.

Holding a BB gun puts a helpless child in harm's way?

And you wonder why everyone identifies you as a fucking retard....

 

[Uncensored2008]

What if you were actually literate? We could have saved several posts and several minutes.

I can dream, can't I?

As far as basing a law on "what if" -- what if that drunk driver makes it all the way home without killing himself or an innocent bystander? That means we should jettison all drunk driving laws, right? Here's an idea: THINK before posting.

All you did was show how stupid you don't mind appearing, with false equivalencies as rationalizations for an ideology you would elevate over a human life. Doesn't impress me for one second. "Never put a kid in a car", my ass. Kill the stupid act. It's bombing. And stop wasting our time. If this is all you have, you've already lost.

Say Pogo, since you're stupid as a doorknob, let me ask you.

Since limiting the volume of a magazine to 7 rounds will stop senseless shootings as you leftists assert; would limiting the size of gas tanks to two gallons stop drunk driving.

I mean, using leftist lojick and all?

 

[Zoom-boing]

OMFG!!!!! What horrid parents! Were they horse-whipped, tarred and feathered, burned at the stake for allowing this horrendous thing??? Cheeeldren holding guns! A full thousand times worse than a guy holding a babby and a gun. The cheeeeldren, think of the cheeeldren!!

 

[Pogo]

No, shithead. You simply do not put a helpless child in harm's way. Duh.

Holding a BB gun puts a helpless child in harm's way?

And you wonder why everyone identifies you as a fucking retard....

You should read threads more often. OK, you should read them at all. We already pointed out, nobody knows from a sitll picture that it's a BB gun, nor do they know what happened before or after it was taken. That's why he got popped for child endangerment. Would you want your child in that position?

What if you were actually literate? We could have saved several posts and several minutes.

I can dream, can't I?

As far as basing a law on "what if" -- what if that drunk driver makes it all the way home without killing himself or an innocent bystander? That means we should jettison all drunk driving laws, right? Here's an idea: THINK before posting.

All you did was show how stupid you don't mind appearing, with false equivalencies as rationalizations for an ideology you would elevate over a human life. Doesn't impress me for one second. "Never put a kid in a car", my ass. Kill the stupid act. It's bombing. And stop wasting our time. If this is all you have, you've already lost.

Say Pogo, since you're stupid as a doorknob, let me ask you.

Since limiting the volume of a magazine to 7 rounds will stop senseless shootings as you leftists assert; would limiting the size of gas tanks to two gallons stop drunk driving.

I mean, using leftist lojick and all?

Don't ask me. I've never advocated for any such law.

I do know about cars though and I'm pretty sure you do too and you're just acting like a moron like that last loser. And it's working about as well as it did for him.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You should read threads more often. OK, you should read them at all. We already pointed out, nobody knows from a sitll picture that it's a BB gun, nor do they know what happened before or after it was taken. That's why he got popped for child endangerment. Would you want your child in that position?

Are there any reports, any at all, that suggest it was NOT a BB gun?

Dad arrested after posting picture of himself holding baby and BB gun | Fox News

You know, since EVERY news report says it was?

Don't ask me. I've never advocated for any such law.

I do know about cars though and I'm pretty sure you do too and you're just acting like a moron like that last loser. And it's working about as well as it did for him.

I'm just extrapolating leftist lawjick.

 

[Pogo]

You should read threads more often. OK, you should read them at all. We already pointed out, nobody knows from a sitll picture that it's a BB gun, nor do they know what happened before or after it was taken. That's why he got popped for child endangerment. Would you want your child in that position?

Are there any reports, any at all, that suggest it was NOT a BB gun?

Dad arrested after posting picture of himself holding baby and BB gun | Fox News

You know, since EVERY news report says it was?

Once again, the way linear time works, the police don't have the luxury of reading the reports of their own arrest before they make it. All they have to go on is a Nosebook picture. And that tells us nothing about the gun, or what else was done with it. All it tells them is that some idiot was holding a gun and a baby at the same time, and that was enough to go investigate.

Don't ask me. I've never advocated for any such law.

I do know about cars though and I'm pretty sure you do too and you're just acting like a moron like that last loser. And it's working about as well as it did for him.

I'm just extrapolating leftist lawjick.

Right, well if I see any of these "lawjicks" you'll be the first to know.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Once again, the way linear time works, the police don't have the luxury of reading the reports of their own arrest before they make it.

So, they had no grasp of what was going on, but made an arrest based on, well nothing.

Naturally, you applaud that. Nothing you leftists hate more than civil liberties - NOTHING.

All they have to go on is a Nosebook picture. And that tells us nothing about the gun, or what else was done with it. All it tells them is that some idiot was holding a gun and a baby at the same time, and that was enough to go investigate.

Was he pointing the gun at the child? Was he brandishing the gun? Was he letting the child play with the gun?

What law was broken by the picture?

Oh, none?

But you advocate the arrest of people based on, well, you know, leftists hating guns..

See, you wonder why I point out that your basic views are no different than the Khmer Rouge, but the fact is, they aren't.

Right, well if I see any of these "lawjicks" you'll be the first to know.

You're a brain dead leftist, you'll never even be in the same state as logic or reason.

 

[Pogo]

Once again, the way linear time works, the police don't have the luxury of reading the reports of their own arrest before they make it.

So, they had no grasp of what was going on, but made an arrest based on, well nothing.

Naturally, you applaud that. Nothing you leftists hate more than civil liberties - NOTHING.

Nice try, Winston Smith. Civil liberties were born and raised on the left. Bzzzzt.
AFAIK they made the arrest based on the obvious child endangerment exhibited in the picture and/or a complaint thereof. Prolly the latter, since that's how these things, you know, work.

And consider two things here: the story comes to us from the lamestream media, and one of the least reliable sources therein, so some false equivalence about causality is likely based on past experience. Even so, even the headline doesn't claim the guy was arrested for the picture. It says he was arrested after posting the picture. Quite a difference. Nobody gets arrested for a picture. That pic gives a clue to what's going on in the house where it's taken, which is child endangerment, which is illegal.

Isn't this journalism decoding great?

All they have to go on is a Nosebook picture. And that tells us nothing about the gun, or what else was done with it. All it tells them is that some idiot was holding a gun and a baby at the same time, and that was enough to go investigate.

Was he pointing the gun at the child? Was he brandishing the gun? Was he letting the child play with the gun?

What, we have to post what was in the last few pages of this thread because you're too lazy to read them?? Sigh...

When the still picture is taken, again the still picture being one frame in time, no, none of that appears to be happening. Were these people living in the land of still time, there would have been no danger. If you find such a world, let me know. Perhaps it's out there with the "lawjicks".

What law was broken by the picture?

Again, nobody got arrested for a picture.

Oh, none?

Nope. See, pictures aren't illegal on this planet.

But you advocate the arrest of people based on, well, you know, leftists hating guns..

Nope. Never did. Guess again.

See, you wonder why I point out that your basic views are no different than the Khmer Rouge, but the fact is, they aren't.

Never met one. Wooden know. Is Godwin tapped out?
So you're bringing in the Khmer Rouge based on your own silly fallacies you just made up. Good to know that's how you operate.

Right, well if I see any of these "lawjicks" you'll be the first to know.

You're a brain dead leftist, you'll never even be in the same state as logic or reason.

Brash words after this train wreck of a post, but whatever dood.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Still more desperation rationalizations to protect the name of Almighty Gun the Most High. The more they stretch, the sillier they get.

Again... placing the health of guns over the health of babies is just a bizarre set of priorities. Period.

I don't have to rationalize your cowardice. It's a free country (sort of, for now). If you ever do have kids one day you're free to raise them to be just as afraid of their shadows as you are of yours.

And say Bro... don't you ever edit one of my posts again.

You don't scare me, you big doody-head

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't know, I wasn't there. But clearly the conditions for it to happen are all present.

Some of y'all need to figure out that life is not a still picture. If he doesn't have his finger on the trigger here (it's hard to tell), there's nothing in the still picture to tell us he didn't make the tiny movement a moment later or earlier, the way the gun is designed to be held. One still picture is not the whole story. Nobody gets shot or hearing-damaged in a still picture. What it tells is circumstances. It doesn't tell what happened next.

The fact that somebody would be stupid or reckless enough to be holding a gun and a baby at the same time at all, is why he got nailed.

What if he left the baby in the car in the cold, but made it back in time before the child froze to death? That's OK too?

Come on folks, I've never had a baby and even I can figure this shit out. Don't be obtuse.

So by your theory it should be illegal to have a child in a car. Good to know.

No, shithead. You simply do not put a helpless child in harm's way. Duh.

An automobile accident can be quite harmful.

You asswipes that will bend a point over backwards to suck the dick of Almighty Gun at the expense of innocent children make me want to puke my guts out.

And you exploit them. Who is worse?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It boggles my mind that some drones are so enslaved to their NRA masters that they'd rather look like imbeciles who can't figure out what words mean, than admit they're trying to rationalize a point that can't be won. Boggles the mind.

I have never been a member of the NRA. I simply believe in protecting the individual freedom and liberty of all Americans from authoritarian busy bodies like you who think you have a right to tell someone else how they and their family should be living. It really boggles the mind.

 

[Pogo]

Still more desperation rationalizations to protect the name of Almighty Gun the Most High. The more they stretch, the sillier they get.

Again... placing the health of guns over the health of babies is just a bizarre set of priorities. Period.

I don't have to rationalize your cowardice. It's a free country (sort of, for now). If you ever do have kids one day you're free to raise them to be just as afraid of their shadows as you are of yours.

And say Bro... don't you ever edit one of my posts again.

You don't scare me, you big doody-head

Umm... it's not me you should be "scared" of. It's your own dishonesty.

 

[Pogo]

Still more desperation rationalizations to protect the name of Almighty Gun the Most High. The more they stretch, the sillier they get.

Again... placing the health of guns over the health of babies is just a bizarre set of priorities. Period.

I don't have to rationalize your cowardice. It's a free country (sort of, for now). If you ever do have kids one day you're free to raise them to be just as afraid of their shadows as you are of yours.

Again, it's not "my cowardice" -- this was pinned directly on your post, which was, and I quote:
What if he crossed a street with the kid? Should we call the police? A car might come down the road and hit them. What kind of idiot walks across a street with a baby???

Yeah, that's what I call a desperation stretch. You already did the rationalization.
Read much?

 

[Pogo]

It boggles my mind that some drones are so enslaved to their NRA masters that they'd rather look like imbeciles who can't figure out what words mean, than admit they're trying to rationalize a point that can't be won. Boggles the mind.

I have never been a member of the NRA. I simply believe in protecting the individual freedom and liberty of all Americans from authoritarian busy bodies like you who think you have a right to tell someone else how they and their family should be living. It really boggles the mind.

Once again ---- read much? I'm not telling anybody anything; this is a debate on an arrest for child endangerment that was already made. Child endangerment is illegal, and unless you're contesting that law, we already have common ground there. In the second place that post wasn't to you in the first place.

Who gives a fuck if you are an NRA member? Who told you it's all about you? Where'd they taze you Bro? In your eyes? Aren't you on a high horse.

Let's reveal the answer to our studio audience and all the folks watching at home. That quote was directed to the general gun culture hysteria and specifically to this post:

So by your theory it should be illegal to have a child in a car. Good to know.

See your name up there?

Thanks for playin', and be sure to play the Taze-Me game at home. Batteries not included. Not recommended for children.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nice try, Winston Smith. Civil liberties were born and raised on the left.

BWAHAHAHAHA

No fucktard, civil rights are not the brainchild of Karl Marx and Vlad Lenin.

They came from the very right wing minds of Laissez Faire capitalists like Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Thomas Paine.

The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.


"Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:382

Bzzzzt.
AFAIK they made the arrest based on the obvious child endangerment exhibited in the picture and/or a complaint thereof. Prolly the latter, since that's how these things, you know, work.

Obvious?

In what way?

And consider two things here: the story comes to us from the lamestream media, and one of the least reliable sources therein, so some false equivalence about causality is likely based on past experience. Even so, even the headline doesn't claim the guy was arrested for the picture. It says he was arrested after posting the picture. Quite a difference. Nobody gets arrested for a picture. That pic gives a clue to what's going on in the house where it's taken, which is child endangerment, which is illegal.

There is no evidence of child endangerment - none.

Isn't this journalism decoding great?

Is that what you term the babbling and drooling you're engaged in?

What, we have to post what was in the last few pages of this thread because you're too lazy to read them?? Sigh...

When the still picture is taken, again the still picture being one frame in time, no, none of that appears to be happening. Were these people living in the land of still time, there would have been no danger. If you find such a world, let me know. Perhaps it's out there with the "lawjicks".

There is nothing in the picture that proves, suggests, or even vaguely hints of any danger to the child.

What we have is an out of control police state, where the law enforcement of the area banked on the public animosity toward guns to piss all over the civil rights of a man.

Again, nobody got arrested for a picture.

False, as you know.

Nope. See, pictures aren't illegal on this planet.

Neither is holding a BB gun. But laws are of little consequence in a police state, as this arrest for being in a picture demonstrates.

Never met one. Wooden know. Is Godwin tapped out?
So you're bringing in the Khmer Rouge based on your own silly fallacies you just made up. Good to know that's how you operate.

Just acknowledging the reality of the American left - totalitarian thugs dedicated to crushing civil rights and constitutional governance.

(Other than that, you're great people, though....)

Brash words after this train wreck of a post, but whatever dood.

ROFL

You want to put your ass back, now that I've handed it to you again?

 

[Pogo]

Nice try, Winston Smith. Civil liberties were born and raised on the left.

BWAHAHAHAHA

No fucktard, civil rights are not the brainchild of Karl Marx and Vlad Lenin.

They came from the very right wing minds of Laissez Faire capitalists like Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Thomas Paine.

I was going to toss out Rousseau and Voltaire and Franklin and Madison, but you've got some of the idea, even if you have their political geography far from home. This country is founded on liberalism, which includes all these guys. There's no more liberal sentiment than "all men are created equal". But nobody mentioned Groucho Marx or John Lennon. .... "fucktard"

The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

I can just come back when you're finished reading your liberal history homework .....?

"Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:382

Very good, son. Now memorize that for tomorrow. There'll be a quiz.

Bzzzzt.
AFAIK they made the arrest based on the obvious child endangerment exhibited in the picture and/or a complaint thereof. Prolly the latter, since that's how these things, you know, work.

Obvious?

In what way?

If you have to ask "in what way", then it's more oblivious than obvious to you. Not that that comes as a big shock.

There is no evidence of child endangerment - none.

Fortunately for the child, you're not the judge.

There is nothing in the picture that proves, suggests, or even vaguely hints of any danger to the child.

What we have is an out of control police state, where the law enforcement of the area banked on the public animosity toward guns to piss all over the civil rights of a man.

What you have there is a comic book. Scary monsters. Woooooooo.

Neither is holding a BB gun. But laws are of little consequence in a police state, as this arrest for being in a picture demonstrates.

Wooooooooo. Turn the page. I wanna see Green Lantern.
While you're doing that, I already dismantled your idea of being "arrested for being in a picture". Try reading the thread.

Just acknowledging the reality of the American left - totalitarian thugs dedicated to crushing civil rights and constitutional governance.

(Other than that, you're great people, though....)

Thanks. Great people like Jefferson... Madison... Washington... I'll tell the guys back at the Leftist Lounge they have a new fan. Keep up your reading. It's good for ya.

ROFL

You want to put your ass back, now that I've handed it to you again?

aaaannd right back to the comic books, Ok...

 

[Pogo]

I just wanted to set this off by itself because it's so cute:

Again, nobody got arrested for a picture.

False, as you know.

Nope. See, pictures aren't illegal on this planet.

Neither is holding a BB gun. But laws are of little consequence in a police state, as this arrest for being in a picture demonstrates.

So let me get this straight...
First: "False..." means someone was arrested for a picture...
Second: "Neither..." means such an arrest is impossible.

Interesting juxtapositions on your planet where you have it both ways at once. Kind of the hermaphrodites of rhetoric.

Must be weird.