Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[lakeview]

So the people who are posed EXACTLY the same don't count? The spacing of the people, the order they are standing in, the relative positions of the people determined by shirt color, dont matter?

You are basing it on shadowing and hat angles?

The hat angles can be explained by a PERSON MOVING THIER HEAD in the few seconds between photographs. As for the shadowing, you are sounding a bit like a 9/11 troofer.

Not based on hat angles, based on entirely different hats. Texas must have some extremely fashion conscious gun enthusiasts for them to bother changing hats within the few seconds it took to take the two pictures (allegedly).

If you have to resort to comparing me to a truther even though the evidence is here in the thread for all to see then by all means please continue, I'm getting a kick out of watching you melt down. Details, who needs 'em, am I right?

how can you tell they are different hats, and not just different looking?

You can't. Like a troofer you also ignore the most obvious indications that the pictures were taken around the same time, the gun angle of the guy in red, the relative position of the dude with the black shirt and the gun with the muzzle down, and the relative position of the guy in the yellow shirt.

But keep being a troofer with your hats and sun angles....

Negged for being an idiot.

Are you retarded? Seriously, I have to ask at this point if you're retarded.

 

[martybegan]

Not based on hat angles, based on entirely different hats. Texas must have some extremely fashion conscious gun enthusiasts for them to bother changing hats within the few seconds it took to take the two pictures (allegedly).

If you have to resort to comparing me to a truther even though the evidence is here in the thread for all to see then by all means please continue, I'm getting a kick out of watching you melt down. Details, who needs 'em, am I right?

how can you tell they are different hats, and not just different looking?

You can't. Like a troofer you also ignore the most obvious indications that the pictures were taken around the same time, the gun angle of the guy in red, the relative position of the dude with the black shirt and the gun with the muzzle down, and the relative position of the guy in the yellow shirt.

But keep being a troofer with your hats and sun angles....

Negged for being an idiot.

Are you retarded? Seriously, I have to ask at this point if you're retarded.

Point out the "different hats"

and be specifc.

 

[Pogo]

Well, I am FOR gun control...but only for felons who misused their weapons in some form or another. I am also FOR better backgrounch checks that someone on mental meds cannot own a firearm. I am FOR parents being responsible in keeping their weapons out of the reach of kids. Otherwise, Carrying a loaded weapon with no intent to harm anyone unless some schmuck pulls his own gun and threatens you or your family..or even a knife, then yes. It is our right have guns. So..I own guns. Two. One for me, one for hubby. The only time they would ever be used is someone breaking into our home and threatening us with bodily harm. And neither one of us are felons or fruitloops.

I'm sure you're not. But then you don't go to a meeting of Mothers Against Gun Violence and start brandishing firearms in the parking lot. Loaded firearms. With kids.

 

[Pogo]

The picture in question was taken from the side, to make it look like the gun owners were lying in wait.

Here is the real picture, which they were posing for.

"Think" "Progress" on guns: Lying, lazy, or both? | The Daily Caller

and yet no one was shot, with 40 gun owners there. according to kellerman the 43 times number should have applied here....

OH so the op started a thread with lies.

These images were not taken at the same time.

Obviously not.
Wonder who wrote the caption. Some impartial third party I'm sure.

(/sarc)

 

[lakeview]

how can you tell they are different hats, and not just different looking?

You can't. Like a troofer you also ignore the most obvious indications that the pictures were taken around the same time, the gun angle of the guy in red, the relative position of the dude with the black shirt and the gun with the muzzle down, and the relative position of the guy in the yellow shirt.

But keep being a troofer with your hats and sun angles....

Negged for being an idiot.

Are you retarded? Seriously, I have to ask at this point if you're retarded.

Point out the "different hats"

and be specifc.

Now you want the different hats? You acted like a douche for three responses and went so far as to neg me but now you want me to point out the two hats for you? I see no reason to. I will however point out to anyone who PM's me and thinks these gun "enthusiasts" are a bunch of morons where the differences are, then we can all have a good laugh at your expense.

You must really suck at finding Waldo.

 

[Pogo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html

40 Armed Gun Advocates Intimidate Mothers Against Gun Violence In A Restaurant Parking Lot | ThinkProgress

Open Carry Advocates Stand Outside Moms Against Gun Violence Meeting: Tell Us if You Think They Went Too Far | TheBlaze.com

Armed protesters rattle Texas moms' gun-control meeting

A ticking time bomb.

I can see why they were terrified, they are hysterical women who think guns are scary.

They look like a bunch of retards.

It's Texas. They blend.

​

 

[martybegan]

Are you retarded? Seriously, I have to ask at this point if you're retarded.

Point out the "different hats"

and be specifc.

Now you want the different hats? You acted like a douche for three responses and went so far as to neg me but now you want me to point out the two hats for you? I see no reason to. I will however point out to anyone who PM's me and thinks these gun "enthusiasts" are a bunch of morons where the differences are, then we can all have a good laugh at your expense.

You must really suck at finding Waldo.

So you know you have nothing, and thus run away with your tails between your legs.

Also, how long does it take to put on, take off a hat?

You again ignore the multitudes of evidence that point to these photographs being taken around the same time, and quibble on a few minor details, that you dont even explain.

That makes you just as bad as the 9/11 troofers.

 

[lakeview]

I'll take your comment about the changing of the hats as proof that you have reviewed the pictures and now know that I was correct.

The angle of the sun is a minor detail? You are hilarious! KUTGW.

 

[Pogo]

Are you retarded? Seriously, I have to ask at this point if you're retarded.

Point out the "different hats"

and be specifc.

Now you want the different hats? You acted like a douche for three responses and went so far as to neg me but now you want me to point out the two hats for you? I see no reason to. I will however point out to anyone who PM's me and thinks these gun "enthusiasts" are a bunch of morons where the differences are, then we can all have a good laugh at your expense.

You must really suck at finding Waldo.

He's desperate to deflect the topic.

The photos don't even matter. At either angle the nutgroup is toting guns to brandish in front of four women meeting out of concern for gun violence. Loaded guns. With children. That's all established, photo or no photo.

I keep coming back to that not just because they put the kids in danger but when a Sandy Hook happens we keep hearing this bullshit about "using children as agenda tools". And here it is in print.

What kind of spin would they be trying to put on this if one of those kids had gotten shot because they carried loaded guns and children out to make a political point?

Selfish assholes.

 

[martybegan]

I'll take your comment about the changing of the hats as proof that you have reviewed the pictures and now know that I was correct.

The angle of the sun is a minor detail? You are hilarious! KUTGW.

So if there are photographers in the shade they dont use flashes? and the flash effect doesnt change depending on the angle you take the photograph from?

You still didnt answer all the other things that are exactly the same.

Troofer.

 

[martybegan]

Point out the "different hats"

and be specifc.

Now you want the different hats? You acted like a douche for three responses and went so far as to neg me but now you want me to point out the two hats for you? I see no reason to. I will however point out to anyone who PM's me and thinks these gun "enthusiasts" are a bunch of morons where the differences are, then we can all have a good laugh at your expense.

You must really suck at finding Waldo.

He's desperate to deflect the topic.

The photos don't even matter. At either angle the nutgroup is toting guns to brandish in front of four women meeting out of concern for gun violence. Loaded guns. With children. That's all established, photo or no photo.

I keep coming back to that not just because they put the kids in danger but when a Sandy Hook happens we keep hearing this bullshit about "using children as agenda tools". And here it is in print.

What kind of spin would they be trying to put on this if one of those kids had gotten shot because they carried loaded guns and children out to make a political point?

Selfish assholes.

And yet no children were shot, the gun grabbers had thier meeting, they were not molested in any way. No firearm was misued, and no laws were broken.

The photo from the side makes it look like they were lying in wait for those poor poor gun grabbers, when all these people were doing were posing for a photograph. The side photo is a lie, pure and simple. and all your troofer related quibbling doesnt change that.

I realize most libs are giant pussies, but you take it to another level. Do you cower in the basement every time a subeam shines on you?

You and lakeview should practice jumping at shadows together.

 

[Pogo]

Now you want the different hats? You acted like a douche for three responses and went so far as to neg me but now you want me to point out the two hats for you? I see no reason to. I will however point out to anyone who PM's me and thinks these gun "enthusiasts" are a bunch of morons where the differences are, then we can all have a good laugh at your expense.

You must really suck at finding Waldo.

He's desperate to deflect the topic.

The photos don't even matter. At either angle the nutgroup is toting guns to brandish in front of four women meeting out of concern for gun violence. Loaded guns. With children. That's all established, photo or no photo.

I keep coming back to that not just because they put the kids in danger but when a Sandy Hook happens we keep hearing this bullshit about "using children as agenda tools". And here it is in print.

What kind of spin would they be trying to put on this if one of those kids had gotten shot because they carried loaded guns and children out to make a political point?

Selfish assholes.

And yet no children were shot, the gun grabbers had thier meeting, they were not molested in any way. No firearm was misued, and no laws were broken.

The photo from the side makes it look like they were lying in wait for those poor poor gun grabbers, when all these people were doing were posing for a photograph. The side photo is a lie, pure and simple. and all your troofer related quibbling doesnt change that.

I realize most libs are giant pussies, but you take it to another level. Do you cower in the basement every time a subeam shines on you?

You and lakeview should practice jumping at shadows together.

-- from that bastion of courage who negs a poster for a difference of opinion.

SMH...

 

[jon_berzerk]

i dont see any big differences between the two

other then the natural movements between photos

 

[lakeview]

I'll take your comment about the changing of the hats as proof that you have reviewed the pictures and now know that I was correct.

The angle of the sun is a minor detail? You are hilarious! KUTGW.

So if there are photographers in the shade they dont use flashes? and the flash effect doesnt change depending on the angle you take the photograph from?

You still didnt answer all the other things that are exactly the same.

Troofer.

Nothing is exactly the same in those pictures as you yourself pointed out earlier when you tried to claim there were only a few seconds between them. But now you say that much is identical?

***PRO TIP*** in order for things to be identical we'd have to be talking about the same moment in time ***

You've already destroyed your first argument, and acted like a dick while doing so by the way, and now you're well on your way to destroying your second argument. I don't even need to do anything.

There's nothing I love more than watching the blind-partisan self-destruct sequence.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Now you want the different hats? You acted like a douche for three responses and went so far as to neg me but now you want me to point out the two hats for you? I see no reason to. I will however point out to anyone who PM's me and thinks these gun "enthusiasts" are a bunch of morons where the differences are, then we can all have a good laugh at your expense.

You must really suck at finding Waldo.

He's desperate to deflect the topic.

The photos don't even matter. At either angle the nutgroup is toting guns to brandish in front of four women meeting out of concern for gun violence. Loaded guns. With children. That's all established, photo or no photo.

I keep coming back to that not just because they put the kids in danger but when a Sandy Hook happens we keep hearing this bullshit about "using children as agenda tools". And here it is in print.

What kind of spin would they be trying to put on this if one of those kids had gotten shot because they carried loaded guns and children out to make a political point?

Selfish assholes.

And yet no children were shot, the gun grabbers had thier meeting, they were not molested in any way. No firearm was misued, and no laws were broken.

The photo from the side makes it look like they were lying in wait for those poor poor gun grabbers, when all these people were doing were posing for a photograph. The side photo is a lie, pure and simple. and all your troofer related quibbling doesnt change that.

I realize most libs are giant pussies, but you take it to another level. Do you cower in the basement every time a subeam shines on you?

You and lakeview should practice jumping at shadows together.

children

by looking at the little kid on the right

with the outstretched arms

you can see the pictures are almost instantaneously take

in the photo from the front you can see her clearly

in the side view you can see her pants

and one of her outstretched arms passing behind the knee of the guy to her right

that kid has not even moved yet

 

[Vandalshandle]

Funny, he tries to justify a gun control agenda by claiming there will be no instances of forced seizure of firearms. Yet you have Feinstein wanting to ban guns left right and sideways. And [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], what did I tell you about Vandal? Although I originally asserted that he might be lying, my assumptions about him were right on the money. I suspected he could have a gun, but his obfuscatory responses were not helping his case at that point in time.

Owning guns and pushing a gun control agenda is hypocritical. And while he loves to take the vernacular that Republicans use literally, the term 'gun-grabber' is a phrase used for politicians and government officials who want to pass stricter gun laws. It pays to educate oneself about others before you make unfounded assumptions about people.

Oh really????

I just had Kiefer Sutherland up there (whatever his name is) declare me a "gun grabber" too. I challenged him to come up with any evidence and he ran away. That's what happens when you ass-ume, and he found out the hard way.

And number B, before you pat yourself on the back, you're spinning your own original positoin. Point still remains you were running on ass-umptions just like Kefer was, and that's always illegitimate. And by the way I don't think Vandalshandle is the same thing as "Feinstein". Dump the labeling already.

Thanks for your defence, Pogo. It would have been hipocracy for me to reply to Templar, since he knows he is on my ignore list....

 

[martybegan]

I'll take your comment about the changing of the hats as proof that you have reviewed the pictures and now know that I was correct.

The angle of the sun is a minor detail? You are hilarious! KUTGW.

So if there are photographers in the shade they dont use flashes? and the flash effect doesnt change depending on the angle you take the photograph from?

You still didnt answer all the other things that are exactly the same.

Troofer.

Nothing is exactly the same in those pictures as you yourself pointed out earlier when you tried to claim there were only a few seconds between them. But now you say that much is identical?

***PRO TIP*** in order for things to be identical we'd have to be talking about the same moment in time ***

You've already destroyed your first argument, and acted like a dick while doing so by the way, and now you're well on your way to destroying your second argument. I don't even need to do anything.

There's nothing I love more than watching the blind-partisan self-destruct sequence.

The differences are consistent with people moving a little bit between shots, nothing more.

The biggest indicators are the ones you ignore, while the ones you bring up do not have any relevance to the big indicators.

 

[Ernie S.]

The picture in question was taken from the side, to make it look like the gun owners were lying in wait.

Here is the real picture, which they were posing for.

"Think" "Progress" on guns: Lying, lazy, or both? | The Daily Caller

and yet no one was shot, with 40 gun owners there. according to kellerman the 43 times number should have applied here....

OH so the op started a thread with lies.

These images were not taken at the same time.

Within seconds. Every single person that can be identified is in the same relative position and posed the same way. No way you get a group that large to stay still for more that 2 or 3 seconds.

 

[martybegan]

He's desperate to deflect the topic.

The photos don't even matter. At either angle the nutgroup is toting guns to brandish in front of four women meeting out of concern for gun violence. Loaded guns. With children. That's all established, photo or no photo.

I keep coming back to that not just because they put the kids in danger but when a Sandy Hook happens we keep hearing this bullshit about "using children as agenda tools". And here it is in print.

What kind of spin would they be trying to put on this if one of those kids had gotten shot because they carried loaded guns and children out to make a political point?

Selfish assholes.

And yet no children were shot, the gun grabbers had thier meeting, they were not molested in any way. No firearm was misued, and no laws were broken.

The photo from the side makes it look like they were lying in wait for those poor poor gun grabbers, when all these people were doing were posing for a photograph. The side photo is a lie, pure and simple. and all your troofer related quibbling doesnt change that.

I realize most libs are giant pussies, but you take it to another level. Do you cower in the basement every time a subeam shines on you?

You and lakeview should practice jumping at shadows together.

-- from that bastion of courage who negs a poster for a difference of opinion.

SMH...

You guys are making shit up, that is not a difference of opinion. and kudos for being a white knight on a message board, real tough guy you are.

You still jump at shadows you coward.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Good. Their intimidation was met with a higher level of intimidation. That's excellent. I'll intimidate anyone who tries to restrict my Constitutional rights.

Why do you fools insist on saying stupid crap like this?

This gang of heavily armed thugs in a parking lot outside a restaurant restricts other people's right to safety. Look at that photo.

The people who want to eat there as well as the owners of the restaurant and any passersby have the right to be safe from gangs of armed thugs.

OTOH, at least they have the gumption to open carry so people can choose to get to a safer place.

What's funny to me is that if they were all black, you hypocritical nutters would be screeching a different tune.

No laws were broken.

What's the problem?