On today’s episode of, “Is this Leftist Satire or Right-Wing Propaganda?” On FB it’s a group where it’s hard to tell if it’s left wingers making fun of RightWingers of Sincere Right wingers it’s hilarious. I really can’t tell where the satire ends and the sincerely held beliefs start.
Case in point?
When I was a kid, I was taught firearms aren’t toys.
But, why not when you have such an excellent opportunity to troll liberals?
I was taught they were like a male member you don’t whip it out less you plan to use it. You keep it hidden, and don’t talk about it. If anyone threatens your family in the middle of night you grab it, and you keep shooting till you empty the clip cause dead men can’t testify about defense. You never shoot at someone retreating. If your feeling generous give a warning shot, but that opens you to return fire. You assume anyone who would break your windows, and doors would be armed.
I was told never shoot anyone you know even if its a drug addict ex friend breaking into your house. At that point the unspoken law is saying if it’s a man you’ve know or knew. Then you knew you shouldn’t of. The second amendment is the only law you need to protect yourself consider all other laws null, and void. When you do have to report it tell the dispatcher the gun is back in the safe, and body appears to be lifeless, and that you don’t wish to go near it. Make yourself visible to all officers, don’t argue, don’t say much and tell the truth.
Do not brandish, take pictures of yourself with a firearm, do not use a fire arm near alcohol, or if consuming alcohol (I don’t). When I decided to protect my family I gave up all things intoxicating also as part of my faith. It is also a good survival tool, if the system fails to get meat off game animals. I’ve take down enough game in my life to know that.
My father is a Catholic Democrat in Central Florida. He was a Michigan native until his 40s. Everything I know about a firearm I know from him. Everything I know about boats, atv’s, motors, fishing and tools, I know from him too. My mother was protestant/atheist depending on her mood as a result. I was naturally drawn to the Episcopal Church. I do not thing young men need to arm themselves for anything but sport & game. It is the maturity that comes with a family that makes it rational.
I might disagree with the specifics, but in a culture when one political persuasion is trying to disarm America’s private citizens, I understand the motivation for an in-your-face response.
I’ve been known to make a joke when in the presence of children who are acting particularly bad…
I’ll say something like, “I don’t condone child abuse, but I understand it!”
Now, I say it in a sarcastic tone so people know I’m kidding and the people that I say it to also know the kind of person I am and they know I’m kidding, and that’s what makes it funny.
But if a Congressman tweeted it, perhaps even pretending to abuse a child in a tweet with a photo, I doubt many people would laugh at it because truly child abuse, as you know, is no laughing matter and I would never make my joke in front of someone that had been abused.
So if a Congressman had made that joke in a Tweet, certainly people who had been abused, I mean really abused, would be less likely to see the humor in it.
So how do you think people whose children have been murdered by firearms might feel about this Tweet?
You might find that tweet funny and if that Congressman had sent that pic to you, you might get a chuckle, but I can understand why some people do not. And let’s remember that Thomas isn’t some rando posting funny pics on Twitter, he’s a representative of our government.
Child abuse and firearms aren’t things we should really joke about like this, can we agree on that?
This is the best we can do, troll each other? Thomas can’t be more constructive in his response to what he perceives as the government taking away his rights.
Truly we are heading for Idiocracy.
They either don’t get it or don’t care. I mean showing them a XXX picture right after being raped, and ask them how offensive that is and then say that’s how if feels when you drop the gun stuff right after a school shooting.
Why is it so hard to understand we don’t wanna see your guns, no one cares like literally no one with this court Gun rights will be expanded your in a new era of a gun utopia no one is coming for them. So please for the love of decency stop brandishing them right after a school shooting have some DECENCY!
Firearms and the capacity of this nation to accept them hinges entirely on the culture that surrounds them. Using firearms as a prop to suck up to right-wing voters was an SNL skit 10 years ago, now it’s what passes as normal.
I didn’t (and don’t) advocate it. But as I noted in another thread, the bottom line is that it’s just a picture. There is no threat in it- direct or implied- except to those who would take away America’s freedom.
As I mentioned above, I didn’t and don’t advocate it.
But I would note that similar arguments have been made in the wake of a shooting tragedy in regard to why one should be allowed to possess combat firearms. A person grieving isn’t in a frame of mind to accept the answer, but the answer is to prevent purges, the likes of which did in 50-100 million people in the 20th century.
Better that than the purges.
It’s a picture that does not help people who support he 2A. It’s a shame that people like you can’t be critical of pics like this and don’t demand that people like this create a culture of respect around firearms.
Remember this pic:
Just a pic?
For the record, I figured you wouldn’t.
What are the odds a 5-3 conservative majority would let stand any gun law that involved a removal?
The threat of 2nd amendment regulations are gone. Like gone as in the 2nd Amendment hasn’t been stronger since 1776. So if that’s your justification it’s unwarranted. The Michigan Democratic party says gun law changes are a lost cause with this court. They are actively not pursuing them. Like CS brown said you all freaked out about Kathy Griffin, and it was in poor taste.
Better than a purge; although I’ll note that the Kathy Griffin pic was targeting someone; the family-with-guns pic wasn’t.
1 See NY’s “Safe” Act.
2 Bull dookie! Gun control is alive and well, and being pushed anywhere and everywhere the Dems are in power. Furthermore, I don’t they’re going to limit themselves to in-country resources to disarm us.
3 Again, see NY’s “Safe” Act. Amy Coney Barrett wasn’t there yet, but they had a conservative majority, and refused to hear the challenge.
4 This week, maybe.
5 See my response to CSB. The family gun pic didn’t imply a threat to a specific person.
Inappropriate is inappropriate.
Not also props for pictures because…?
My family did a very similar photo, only we were in 19th century Western-style dress and all of our weapons were period pieces.
Are you going to tell me that we’re the “worst sort of people”?
You’re outrage is artificial, forced upon us all via politics.
The picture is of a family broadcasting a hobby. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
How do we know the outrage is artificial? Because the situation doesn’t transfer to anything else. Not even to other weapons.
Had there been a mass stabbing, and Massie had decided two days later to pose a photo of his family with swords and axes, no one would care.
If this was 2 days after the van attack, and Massie made loving photos of his families #vanlife, still, no one would care.
Massie could have posted a picture of himself with a beloved hand built PC, with military grade parts, two days after a ransomware attack on a hospital killed an infant.
And no one would care.
Politics surrounding guns is the only reason people care here. Prove me wrong.
I’m not “outraged”, I just think it’s pathetic.
Trivializing gun ownership is irresponsible. As a firearm owner, I don’t think treating guns like toys that we play with, in our living rooms as we wish Santa would bring ammo, is the culture we should be promoting as firearm owners.
HS Students don’t with alarming regularity, use knives to kill fellow students.
But, if the pic was a representative in a turban, the right would have a field day.
Ironically, it’s politics that made it ok to post pics like this. If a representative had done this in the 1980’s they would have been voted out, regardless of party.
Yes there is a difference between a period piece and AR-15s after oxford. Still it implies killing, and like dracula killing + time = halloween/theme party
Actually, I’m still not clear on how it is.
Define “trivializing” in this context. I don’t see anyone mishandling their guns in this pic.
There is, however, getting to be an alarming increasing regularity of people running down others with motor vehicles. And stabbings in general are pretty regular. Especially where they’ve banned guns.
I question this.
Not really; they’re just armed. Implications come from the “news” and Hollyweird.
I know, and that’s the sad part.
I see the pic for what it is. Pandering to 2A supporters while trolling the left. It’s cleaver really. That said, it’s still sad IMO.
Again, if you can’t see it, I don’t think I can explain it to you.
That said, do you think this picture would have been ok, 30 years ago?
People have always been violent. Overall people are less violent today than they were 50 years ago, what’s changed is our culture and attitude towards firearms and access to high capacity reloadable low-cost firearms. But, if attackers used knives in nightclubs and schools, there would be fewer dead people. I know if I had to choose an attacker with a gun or a knife, I’d take a knife every time.
We’ll when I was young, I lived in ME where hunting is practically a way of life, and I can tell you I was taught from a very early age to respect firearms. That pic would have NEVER flown where I was from. EVER.
On another note…
If Pete posted this on his Twitter, in his capacity as a cabinet member (he might have BTW, I don’t know), how do you feel about it?
? He used a SIG SAUR SP 2022. That’s not a 19th century weapon. Hell, that’s not a 20th century weapon.
Nor is it a rifle. Your AR-15 reference is random.
Nope, it implies formidability.
And those are not the same thing.
I can point this out quite easily, because once again, if I put in a different weapon in this example, your logic doesn’t repeat.
If I’m taking photos with a B-1B Lancer, which is a weapon with more destructive potential than any small arm you can point to, it doesn’t imply killing.
Even if I was the pilot of that plane.
It implies strength-at-arms. It does imply power, but whether that’s to kill or to protect, is up to the person wielding it.
You said it, props.
Further, they are taken for nostalgic reasons. The props are about realism, not promoting firearms as toys