For fuck's sake people, this is exactly what I was talking about. Yes, I've been to Israel. Yes, at one point I was photographed with a gun. Not a riffle. There were no women in the picture at all.
But you all added this up in your head to come up with this monstrosity:
If there's anything I remember, it's my own life. Pulling up a dead link from 2005 doesn't mean you aren't filling in your own blanks about what actually happened.Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
For enjoyment? As collectors items? I'm at a loss why anyone would need to own more than one or two cars, but people do all the time.
It should also be noted that fully automatic weapons are tightly controlled and regulated, but not by the assault weapons ban. Fully automatic weapons are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
It was most definately a rifle. Looked like an M16 but might have been an AR15.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
This actually made me check out those old photos on my hard drive. It was fun to look back.
But yeah, you all really have active imaginations about me naked with riffles. Sorta fascinating.
Pretty convenient how you snuck the word naked in there.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I don't think anyone said you were naked. I said you'd expressed that you had wanted to do that, with the gun being the only thing covering the saucy bits, but you didn't actually have the nerve *or if you did, you preferred to keep that private* And you can quibble about it being "a gun" rather than a rifle, but it was certainly not a hand-gun.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Except I've never a riffle in front of my groin. Or been photographed with a riffle like that. Or even a handgun in front of my groin. You are literally imagining this.
I'm proud of you Fuzzy for going into specifics about something for once, I wish you would do it more often. But I'm disappointed that one of the few times you delve into specifics on anything it's to describe a picture of me you claim you saw over half a decade ago that quite literally doesn't exist.
What is a riffle?
And...
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I really don't think they're arbitrary limits, usually people do have some rationalization to back the limits they want on 2nd Amendment rights. I'm fairly certain, or at least would hope that you'd eventually draw the line somewhere between a dull un-sharpened stone and a 100 megaton nuclear device, and have some rationalization for this choice...
. . .
What I don't get is why people who oppose the second amendment don't bring up the document from which the concept was taken: the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776). Unlike the ambiguous wording of the US Constitution, the Declaration of Rights is very clear about who is meant to have arms:
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."
Seems pretty clear that the right to bear armed belonged to a state-sponsored militia.One could argue that people have the right to bear arms as the Constitution doesn't expressly take away that right (due to the 10th amendment), but using the second amendment to justify private arms ownership seems a bit dishonest to me.
Hope is the denial of reality
Being, we had one convo about that and the convo was about you claiming I consistently mix them up (which is false).
Familiarize yourself with the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, which is the bill in question, and then we can talk about arbitrary limits.
Doesn't seem to say one way or the other about who is meant to be armed.
Interesting analysis of this. I don't really agree, but an interesting take on it.
January 16, 2011
After Tucson, Blanket Accusations Leave Much to Interpretation
By JEREMY W. PETERS and BRIAN STELTER
FOR every action in politics today, there’s an overwhelming and opposite reaction.
Last week, the reaction came from conservative politicians who bridled at suggestions in the media that Jared L. Loughner may have been influenced by right-wing rhetoric and talk radio when he killed six people and gravely wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords in a rampage on Jan. 8 in Tucson. In her video address on Wednesday, Sarah Palin said that journalists and pundits should not manufacture “a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn.”
The question left unanswered: which journalists and pundits?
While there was plenty of debate in newspapers, and on radio and television about the effects of a toxic politic environment, most of the direct accusations against conservative talk radio and pundits were leveled by people online, not members of the mainstream media.
Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC host and reliable bête noire of conservative pundits, used the opportunity to recall his own use of a violent image when describing the candidacy of then-Senator Hillary Clinton: “It sounded as if it was a call to physical violence. It was wrong then. It is even more wrong tonight. I apologize for it again, and I urge politicians and commentators and citizens of every political conviction to use my comment as a means to recognize the insidiousness of violent imagery.”
But on the Web, where anonymity often reigns, the blame game was much more pointed. In The Huffington Post, Gary Hart wrote about attacks on liberals and concluded that “today we have seen the results of this rhetoric.”
On Ms. Palin’s Facebook wall, thousands of supporters and detractors argued about whether she and other right-wing voices had any culpability in the shootings. Conservatives denounced Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the liberal blog Daily Kos, for writing on Twitter, “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin” and linking to the bull’s-eye map that featured Ms. Giffords’s district.
Tim McGuire, who teaches at the Arizona State University Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said that accusations against the media result in part from confusion about how to define the media in the digital age.
“I don’t see that the mainstream media has been pointing fingers or coming to conclusions about who is to blame. I think they’ve reported,” Mr. McGuire said. “You can talk about the fact that there has been certain legislation in Arizona and that people have used vitriolic language around target practice and the like. You can talk about those things without citing a cause-and-effect relationship. But I see very few mainstream media operatives trying to draw a cause and effect.”
But, Mr. McGuire added, “I think there was some of that on social media, some were trying to do that. But that’s the nature of social media: citizens expressing their opinion.”
One of the first people to raise the issue was not even a member of the media: Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik suggested that “vitriolic rhetoric” on radio and television was hurting America. His first statement contained no references to any single political figure, cable network or radio personality.
But his subsequent remarks, in which he called Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators “irresponsible,” ignited wrath from the right. The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer called Mr. Dupnik, a Democrat, and liberal pundits, “rabid partisans.” Ann Coulter, the conservative author and columnist, called him “Sheriff Dumbnik.” Mr. Limbaugh called him a fool.
Andrew Tyndall, who analyzes network newscasts for his newsletter, the Tyndall Report, said he thought Mr. Dupnik’s media critique overreached. “Of course” conservative rhetoric “should be more moderate,” he wrote Wednesday, but “linking such language to these killings, by making such over-the-top hypotheses about their influence, makes the mistake of elevating its speakers to a status of self-righteous victimhood.”
Commentators on the right were quick to condemn their perennial adversaries, including The New York Times, for drawing a cause-and-effect relationship between overheated political rhetoric and the shootings.
“Besides the senseless violence, there is another disgusting display sweeping America, and that is the exploitation of the murders by political zealots,” Bill O’Reilly opened his show on Monday night. “The merchants of hate who are peddling this stuff should be accountable. So let’s begin with The New York Times.”
Mr. O’Reilly went on to cite a column by the Times Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman and a Times editorial as evidence that The Times and others were blaming Sarah Palin for the killings and portraying those on the right as “accessories to murder.”
The Times editorial did not actually blame the right for Mr. Loughner’s actions, saying, “It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members.” Mr. O’Reilly, who did not read that sentence on the air, did read the section of the editorial that said “But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger” that has produced an increase in the number of threats toward members of Congress and the judiciary.
On his program Wednesday, Mr. Limbaugh said he was home alone watching a football game Saturday afternoon when the shooting took place.
“I hadn’t been to Tucson, Ariz., in 20 years, and all of a sudden, I read it’s my fault, and I’m hearing people say it’s my fault and that it’s inspired by me and what I do,” he said.
Mr. Limbaugh’s name was uttered only twice on cable television over the weekend, according to a search of the closed-captioning records of the channels. Those two times came on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” a media criticism program. Google Blog Search shows no blog posts over the weekend directly blaming Mr. Limbaugh, either.
Liberal Web sites lighted up later in the week when a photo turned up of a billboard in Tucson promoting Mr. Limbaugh’s show with the tagline “straight shooter” and an array of illustrated bullet holes. The billboard was quickly taken down, and Mr. Limbaugh had a field day with it on his show Friday. The illustration, he said, made it look like “somebody had been shooting at the billboard, meaning angry liberals.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/bu...a/17media.html
Convo? Really? Convo? Your hands tired or what?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Considering how close the phrasing is to the Constitution, it's pretty clear that the onlyDoesn't seem to say one way or the other about who is meant to be armed.
relevance of arms is their relationship with a state militia. It also doesn't really make sense to view the second amendment as granting people the right to do something, as all other amendments are negative (i.e. the government's ability to act is restricted). Why have an amendment just to give people a certain right when the 10th amendment already does that?
Hope is the denial of reality
Boy, you really are sensitive about your college days being mentioned, you've already started with the subtle attempts at ad hominem discrediting. I don't recall that you've ever actually tried to pull that on me before. Did you put your moderating activities on Atari or here in a resume or something, is that why you're so intent on pretending your past never happened? I suppose then that we shouldn't bring up the hip flask and the themed party(s) either.
The way you've reacted I'm quite sure it literally doesn't exist anymore, if you hadn't deleted it from any and all photo collections before, you've certainly done so now. We've already seen that a number of people do remember it existing at one point, though, since it has been several years as you pointed out, some details of the photo you posted have been forgotten or conflated with other photos you shared from that trip or another one.Except I've never a riffle in front of my groin. Or been photographed with a riffle like that. Or even a handgun in front of my groin. You are literally imagining this. . . it's to describe a picture of me you claim you saw over half a decade ago that quite literally doesn't exist.
edit: You know, if you'd shown some basic courtesy and told me via PM at the beginning that you did not care to have stuff from the last decade of forum-activities brought up on here again, I would have gone along. But you decided to treat me like I was lying or crazy.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Ok, I'm going to admit, I did not foresee the discussion going into this direction when I revisited this thread.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Ah, right. So the National Firearms Act is more legal than the assault weapons ban simply because it's older or what? Using your logic, it also imposes a restriction on gun ownership upon the citizens. And regulations would also be evil in your book.
Also: Why are you not allowed to possess a nuclear bomb?
Let me point out that painting such laws as "evil" just because they impose certain restrictions is a very, very dumb move.
This metadiscussion of "But it takes away our freeeeeeeedom!" is not very smart, an old hat and makes absolutely no sense.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Of the few hundred photos I took of my assignment in Israel, that photo you describe was never taken. I was never in such a photo and there was never a photo like that in my personal collection (or anyone else's).
I'm not trying to hide anything, but I can't prove a negative here. I don't know why you're so intent on this fabrication/memory glitch you're having. However it's healthy for you to simply admit that your memory isn't perfect sometimes. I have no problem admitting when I forget things.
If I seem annoyed it's because I'm sick of people (GGT in particular) filling in their own blanks about my life. But I have nothing to hide in this, the photograph you're describing of me was never taken.
PS- Part of me wonders if you're conflating my posts about Israel with that guy "OldMan" or whatever his name was. He was the one who claimed to be a former defense contractor sleeping with tons of Israeli soldiers, I'm beginning to suspect he posted a picture and you're thinking of him.
I would like to declare here that in my life I have only once touched an actual gun, IIRC a Glock this or that or another type, that the security was on and that at no point did I pull the trigger or hold the gun in any position to cover any parts of my naked body.
Just for the record.
Congratulations America
Dread, I need some advice on how to make a percentage of people on a forum turn on me - can you help?
You seem so fucking good at it!
For starters, the NFA didn't outright ban firearms for looking 'evil,' and instead required that stamps be acquired and the firearms in question be registered. Do I find that particularly palatable? Not really, but I do think it's head and shoulders above the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. Secondly, I never questioned the legality of the Assault Weapons ban, I questioned the motivation behind passing it, and it's efficacy.
I'm not painting any laws as "evil," (I don't think I've said evil so I don't know why it's in quotes) I'm painting them as stupid.Let me point out that painting such laws as "evil" just because they impose certain restrictions is a very, very dumb move.
For someone talking about old hats, you and others seem quite content at dismissing arguments with the trite and tired "freeeeeeedom" nonsense. People in glass houses and all that.This metadiscussion of "But it takes away our freeeeeeeedom!" is not very smart, an old hat and makes absolutely no sense.
They key is to not do something, then deny when people say that you did that thing.Dread, I need some advice on how to make a percentage of people on a forum turn on me - can you help?
You seem so fucking good at it!
Do i also have to ask for investment advice?
Heh. Can you handle the heat that will come from that kind of trolling?
A copy of your PM. Or your PM was a copy of this. Either way I just wrote the reply and it didn't get saved to Sent Messages, and I'm not going to type it again. Other people remember it, your own old post cites it, and your repeated attacks against me *or hell, maybe deliberate semantic games at this point over what "like that" might mean since you did briefly dredge up memory of posing with the gun* in an attempt to discredit me are just making me want to counterattack.
edit: The ginger mop it had on top kinda speaks against thinking of a photo with someone else.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 01-17-2011 at 06:37 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I replied to you with a summary of a photo I did post half a decade ago and how it was different in every single way. You are wrong, Fuzzy. Welcome to mortality.
I don't recall any photo with a police officer showing you a handgun, but you posted a decent number of pictures and it sounds fairly uninteresting. It's certainly not the photo 5 people are recalling.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Maybe time for a poll?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
No, this is an echo chamber. You suggested something, GGT weighed in with some remark about remembering "boobage" and then Rand said he recalled something familiar.
I would be willing to post the actual photo, but you're so dead-set on not admitting that you don't totally recall a photo of someone else you saw five years ago that you're backpedalling by saying "well there could have been other photos."
Bull, Fuzzy. In 2005 I posted on photo of me holding a gun and it's nothing like you or GGT have described. Nothing about it matches anything described here:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote