Fake right wing meme alert: that WAS a cop guarding Obama's plane in London!

[alp227]

Friend posted this on Facebook this morning:



Basically the caption claims the man is "not engaged in a police action" but rather guarding "one man...(who) believes that you and I should not have access to the less powerful, less lethal semi-automatic civilian version of this weapon so that we can provide similar protection to our families and ourselves."

However, the real photo by Getty Images is below.



Notice a difference? The right wing page (http://www.facebook.com/WeLikeGunRights) that was the source of this photo posted an EDITED VERSION that wiped the word "POLICE" from the guard's vest!

(Source of original: Click #8 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7526952.stm)

[Ohio Joe]

1. teabaggers lying... There is a surprise...

or not.

[skydive forever]

27. Good god

These guys will stop at nothing. Simply pathetic.

[Recursion]

2. I read that as "police action" as in like Vietnam (nt)

[bettyellen]

5. guards was intentional, the RW thing now is to carp about "elites" having "guards". I learned that

here on DU, where a "Dem" complained about Malia and Sasha having "guards".
You can't make this shit up.

[RetroLounge]

50. So then why did the teabagger remove the word?

anything NRA, all day, on DU!

RL

[Whovian]

3. K&R. Needs as much exposure as possible.

[Warpy]

4. I wish people would realize

that any bunch who feel the need to Photoshop pictures in order to prove a point don't have a point worth proving.

I wish they'd realize they're being conned.

I wish they'd realize they're being robbed.

I wish they'd realize that they're fools only as long as they allow themselves to be fooled.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

6. This is their new meme, apparently

I've noticed the words "Sidwell Friends School" popping up in my Facebook feed a lot lately. Obama's kids are protected but yours aren't blah blah blah.

The tortured, false equivalency logic of the gun nut is easy to deconstruct.

[barbtries]

7. i get so tired of it.

they still refuse to get it regardless. it's frustrating. all i want to look at is stories of people who are seeing the light. i know they're out there, the numbers tell it.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

9. It's real simple

They care more about their "right" to arm themselves than they do about their country as a whole.

[barbtries]

12. yea.

sigh. i actually saw an interview with a young man at a firing range asking "why should i suffer" if assault weapons were banned, because he likes going to the range and shooting his assault rifle. he would SUFFER if he had to find something more useful to do with his time! aaargh
see what i mean? frustrating. all the dead bodies from senseless mass shootings, all the wounded and the dead and he doesn't think he should suffer by giving up his gun?!

[snort]

86. I really enjoy 'plinking'.

I've been doing it for a long time. So what did I do for Christmas? You bet, I went and bought a new gun. A rifle for target shooting. Its a single shot. One load, one shot. I bought a high powered pellet rifle. An airgun. Same experience for target shooting. And the ammo is 'cheap cheap cheap' (attribution: Bluth).

[Chemisse]

92. Why not have those weapons available to rent at firing ranges?

There are lots of ways to compromise that will make people safer. But they don't want to give an inch.

[barbtries]

130. i hadn't even thought of that.

it makes too much sense i guess. good thinking

[Bernardo de La Paz]

48. Nope. It's not "Obama's" kids, it's the President's kids. Same thing for the Bush kids out drinking

They weren't protecting the "Bush" kids, they were protecting the children of the President of the United States of America.

It's all about framing the issues with language, folks. Learn how to debug it so that you can counteract it. Learn how it works so that you can use it in your (Democratic Party, issues, and candidates) favor.

[treestar]

136. Yes very easy

What a stupid argument. Like right wing nutters are targets like the President might be. They are too hilarious. When Bush was President, the security was fine.

[adieu]

137. When Bush was president

He was protected from people attempting to use 2nd amendment solutions, as well as FIRST AMENDMENT solutions.

Remember those "Free Speech Zones" that were located practically in the next county from where Bush was scheduled to speak or make a public appearance?

[treestar]

139. Yes and did a single right winger complain about that?

Or the expense of it? Oh no. Nor did they whine about the expense of keeping Cheney in undisclosed locations. Or flying Bush around the country all day on 911.

Right wingers. Their photos are in the dictionary by "hypocrisy."

[OneMoreDemocrat]

8. Kinda semantic...

Regardless of whether he's a cop or not, the point is still valid.

I think it's good that President Obama has armed protection.

What am I supposed to be outraged by again?

[sarchasm]

14. ... ooookay.

.. do we REALLY need to spell it out for you?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

16. No thank you...

I much prefer sarcastic empty comments.

But I really appreciate your offer.

[marble falls]

127. Wonderfull line.

[JaneyVee]

21. Not really about semantics. I would be more open to the idea of people carrying guns IF

they had even an ounce of the firearms training that man has. Sadly, most gun owners are the same people you see on those 'Worlds Dumbest' television shows.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

28. I'm not really in favor of people carrying guns at all...

but to get all worked up over something so lame is just...well, lame.

I also have to disagree with your assessment of 'most' gun owners, all of the folks that have owned guns that I've known (except one) are good, smart people who are either in law enforcement or simply like to hunt or use them for sport.

[Drunken Irishman]

38. Sounds like you're getting a bit worked up over it considering you've replied 7 times in this thread

Just sayin'.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

47. You are absolutely right...

I just wanted to (quickly) point out that it's not particularly deceiving and now I'm apparently arguing in favor of the deception and whatever else I'm being blamed for supporting.

Oh, the tangled webs we weave.

[billh58]

64. Do you really believe

that Photo Shopping a photo in order to make the President of the United States look bad is "not particularly deceiving?" I would be interested in learning how far the Republican, neoconservative, right-wing NRA would need to go for you to find them "deceiving."

[OneMoreDemocrat]

88. The unfortunate thing...

is that no one is actually talking about the fact that it's so simple to bolster the argument for these weapons using one simple photograph of our President's plane; they are talking about Photoshop.

To answer your question though...a lot farther than this. Transparency is rarely deceiving.

[Kaleva]

65. It is a bit deceiving

By photoshopping the word "police" out, my guess is the intent was to distract from the fact that that person had to go thru a rather extensive background check(s) and years of training. Caption of the changed photo seems to be arguing that since the President can have any John Doe armed with a weapon to protect him, he ought to be able to do so too to protect his family but without the extensive background checks and training.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

74. I can see what you're saying...

but it does seem to be a bit of a twisted way to go to come to that conclusion.

I think it was aimed at getting a much more visceral reaction...'Obama is fine with guns as long as he's protected but not us' sort of thing and it does get that reaction. I think they could have gotten the same reaction even without taking out the word police from the uniform.

[Kaleva]

78. Person could have made the same arguement without photoshoping

Then others would have just agreed or disagreed with his point of view rather then have suspicions raised as to why the picture was altered.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

79. Which is why it would have been better just to leave it...

because now it takes away from the point of view of the creator of it.

Even though the thing wasn't made for 'us' as an audience, the fact that it was altered is what's being discussed for the most part appeared in the subject line of the OP, and not the point of the picture itself.

[Kaleva]

81. Reminds me of that flap over Bush's service records.

IIRC, there was a big fuss about the copier and that completely overshadowed the original story.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

83. My gosh...

that is what I've been trying to say for the last 30 posts or so; that it's not the missing words that we should be addressing, it's the idea that it's so simple to bolster the argument for these weapons using one simple photograph of our President's plane.

I never thought such a simple idea would be so difficult to express...probably my fault but still.

[Jim Lane]

114. No, that person absolutely could not have made the same argument.

Part of the argument is that the person holding the gun "is not engaged in a police action." By that phrase the author implicitly recognizes that the statement "police carry guns" is not a good argument for the conclusion "people who aren't police should be allowed to carry guns."

If the composer of the posting hadn't photoshopped the picture, then he or she would have had to explain why police access to guns was relevant to any point that the composition was intended to support. That would have made the argument substantially different (and substantially less persuasive to the target audience).

This is not just ill-advised (the "because now it takes away from the point of view of the creator of it" of OneMoreDemocrat in this thread). It goes beyond poor tactics and reaches the point of outright dishonesty.

[LanternWaste]

125. Editing, by definition, is deception

"t's not particularly deceiving..."

Editing, by its very nature and definition, is deception; regardless of whether or not one gets worked up over it, or weaves threads from it....

[Rex]

22. The fact that they photoshopped the word POLICE

off of the vest of the armed officer. Not really outraged, just acknowledgment of how shameless the GOP is in trying to win an argument they already lost long ago.

Think you can do that?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

24. Oh, so it's the word 'police' that has gotten you in a tizzy..

Obviously anyone who saw that photoshopped picture would have assumed that the guy was just some concerned citizen who happened to be there with an assault rifle and volunteered to protect the President of the United States.

Taking the word 'police' off of the uniform sure does make it seem like he's not an officer. Makes sense. Thanks.

[Rex]

30. Nice try.

Way to miss the point entirely on purpose.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

33. For you?

Only the BEST !!!

[RetroLounge]

51. For you, a PPR soon

RL

[OneMoreDemocrat]

54. Whatevs...

If I actually do anything to warrant it, then sure.

Until then...

[lolly]

31. If photoshopping the "POLICE" out doesn't make any difference

Then why do it?

Oh, wait. I know. It's to make a false claim.

Kinda like the "teacher" in Israel who brought a gun to class every day, slung across her shoulder, proving that teachers here in America would be better off if they did the same.

Except she wasn't a teacher, and teachers don't bring assault rifles to class every day, but whatever.

[Rex]

35. You have to want to be sincere in asking that question

and obviously said poster was not and doesn't care about the obvious. Waste of time with that one.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

37. Now you're talkin'....

Obvious that this guy is a 'POLICE' is exactly what it is !!!!!

You got it !!!!!

[Rex]

39. Nope. You lost the argument - you cannot backpedal now

but I give you an A for trying.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

36. Does it really make a difference?...

Would you honestly have been fooled by it?

Would you think he wasn't the 'police' if he wasn't wearing a sign saying POLICE (!!!!!!!)?

Really?

[Rex]

40. And forget the attempt at deception in 3...2...1...

[OneMoreDemocrat]

41. You again?...

But, but, but, I thought you WON (!!!!!!) the argument already.

Anyhow, it would be deceptive if it were actually deceiving and unless you're pretty stupid, it isn't.

You weren't deceived now, were you?

[billh58]

70. Bingo! You just made everyone's point:

The Photo Shopped picture was aimed at "pretty stupid" NRA members and right-wing gun owners, and guess what? They believed that it was a private security guard hired by President Obama carrying an assault weapon, so it worked.

Thankfully, we weren't deceived, as evidenced by this thread, but some of your gun-owning friends may have been. Thank you so much for dropping by to make sure that we are all okay.

Toodles...

[OneMoreDemocrat]

72. Very well crafted...

Funny, caustic and all around clever.

Your parents must be so proud.

[billh58]

75. Wouldn't know, as they've

been dead these past 43 years, but I appreciate the thought and the compliments Bubba...

[OneMoreDemocrat]

77. Sorry to hear that...

but honestly it was a well crafted zinger.

Most people who only want to insult and hit & runs are far less talented wordsmiths.

[farminator3000]

145. you stole my ball-bust!

i was maybe gonna mention the legal and mental ramifications of having a pic of a guy with police written on him, and the words 'not police' 2 inches below.

what is wrong with these people?

i was literally trying to figure out where to put what ya wrote, and there you were!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. Then why did the caption say he wasn't the police?

"anyone who saw that photoshopped picture would have assumed that the guy was just some concerned citizen"

The caption says he isn't the police.


They lied. Both in their presentation AND the caption.

Why defend it?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

44. Ugh, not defending it...

Were you fooled?

No?

Me either.

Pretty fucking stupid to get all bent out of shape over, no?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

46. Bullshit. Yes you were.

"Regardless of whether he's a cop or not, the point is still valid. "

[OneMoreDemocrat]

49. How is it not valid?

We entrust our President to be guarded by men with extremely powerful weapons and wouldn't have it any other way.

But it's not OK for people to own less powerful weapons that they are allowed to possess? (until the Bill of Rights is amended).

The photo exposes the hypocrisy that a lot of gun control advocates display...and does it easily...they didn't even have to photoshop out the word POLICE to do it. Kinda like Schumer being very vocal about gun control while having a CCW.

I don't like the fact that people want to own these weapons, but this is a very good ad.

[Dirty Socialist]

71. Schumer is like me

I am against assault weapons, but am for concealed and carry.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

76. ...and there is nothing wrong with it

but it's really easy to point to it and say 'well he's fine with it as long as he's allowed to have a gun'.

That's part of the problem with an absolutest argument, especially where guns are concerned because we can be extremely against assault weapons but then have to acquiesce the fact that they are necessary in some cases.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. It's a lie, on several levels; I can't see why you think that makes it a 'very good ad'

First, they took out 'POLICE' to allow them to imply it wasn't a police officer ('not a police action')

Then, they imply that the decision to arm the man was Obama's - when he's actually a British police officer.

Then, they imply Obama gets this protection where the 'ordinary person' doesn't. But the one place in Britain you will regularly see armed police, with guns like that, is at airports, among the public:

https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=638&q=police+heathrow+armed&oq=police+heathrow+armed

Though, unsurprisingly, visiting heads of state are going to get more intense protection than the rest of us.

If you're happy describing a litany of right wing lies as a 'very good ad', you are, at best, a cynical person who doesn't take sides in politics.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

82. Geez...

It's a good ad because it elicits a visceral reaction.

"Guns are OK for Obama but not for me apparently".

They didn't need to remove the word police, they didn't even have to add the text...it points out a simple hypocrisy and does it well.

I am in fact a cynical person a lot of the time but I am a Democrat through and through, and once in a while I even think for myself and don't see everything the way I'm 'supposed' to.

I am not in favor of assault rifles being used by the general populace, I don't see the need. I don't own any guns and never have.

I only commented originally because arguing about the missing word 'police' misses the point entirely...and then I've found that I am apparently a gun nut and troll and right-winger and liar and stupid...oh and that my post count means I'm from the NRA.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. No, it's your enthusiastic adoption of NRA talking points that has caused us all to hate you

It is not hypocrisy. That you are saying just what LaPierre has told his followers to say, even if you don't consider yourself one, when it's not true, is what is getting you the "you are a ... " responses.

The visceral reaction is "anyone who thinks this is a good ad can fuck off back to the NRA".

[OneMoreDemocrat]

87. Ah, well...

I guess I'll be hated then (for an opinion...on a Democratic discussion board), but it is a good ad that successfully gets it's point across whether you like it or not.

The unfortunate thing is that no one is actually talking about the fact that it's so simple to bolster the argument for these weapons using one simple photograph of our President's plane; they are talking about Photoshop.

NRA talking points? Not so much.

[farminator3000]

146. Ah, BULLSHIT!

the unfortunate thing is that you are such a turd, see post #70 from bill.

read it carefully

the word was PHOTOSHOPPED out because there are probably (maybe?) some people who saw it that were smart enough to pick up on the police/not police conundrum, so they LIED to their followers.

this is called PROPAGANDA

stop being so pig-headed

[CJCRANE]

90. But you're missing the point

that he's a regular police officer that would be there anyway (as anyone who's been through Heathrow would know).

[OneMoreDemocrat]

93. How is that the point?...

The point is that no one is actually talking about the fact that it's so simple to bolster the argument for these weapons using one simple photograph of our President's plane; instead, they are talking about Photoshop.

[Chemisse]

103. So if I was walking through Heathrow

And was photographed with this police officer in the same frame, people could legitimately complain that I enjoyed armed protection while I oppose others having access to these weapons?

That is just silly, and it is no more a good gripe when it is the president - who really NEEDS as much protection as he can get.

You say it is a good ad, but I think it only holds power over those who want to reach a particular conclusion. If it was shown to a group of politically neutral people, I think most would find it the point of it to be ludicrous.

So your adamant assertion that this is a good ad suggests you are a pro-gun zealot, since most of us are more swayed by things that support our own opinions.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

105. Being swayed by things that support your own opinion suggests that you can't think for yourself...

and I can, and do, and am in this instance.

You are a nobody and as such don't need this kind of protection. President Obama is a somebody and does...and what does he surround himself with? People with ferocious weapons.

Now, if you were a gun owner do you think that phrase 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' would have meaning in this debate at all when you see this photograph (whether there is photoshopping or not), of Obama's plane being guarded by a guy (police or not), holding a ferocious weapon.

OK, so you hear a bunch of saber-rattling about how dangerous these weapons are and that no-one should have even ones that are far less powerful. So, you think...well, it's OK if HE has one but not me; even though I am allowed by law to have one.

This one picture exposes why it is so difficult to have an absolutist viewpoint on this issue, because it's impossible to say there is no need for the weapons when we use them to protect the very gentleman who is saying there is no need for these weapons.

Your adamant assertion that I am a pro-gun zealot suggests you are in fact a giant washing machine with wings.

[Chemisse]

122. This washing machine with wings says that most people accept

that some groups would always need such weaponry, even if there is an assault weapon ban on the general population. And one of those groups would be those people charged with protecting the president.

Where you and I may worry about a burglar, the president has to worry about assassins, terrorists, and wackos. And MANY of them would like to kill Obama.

Since the threat is so far out of proportion to that faced by ordinary people in their day-to-day lives, only the most paranoid gun zealot would see this as ironic and find it to be a powerful statement. (Thus my suspicion that you are a gun zealot - it's simply logic).

[farminator3000]

153. being paid to say things nobody wants to hear suggests you suck

1. OK, so you hear a bunch of saber-rattling about how dangerous these weapons are and that no-one should have even ones that are far less powerful.
2. So, you think...well, it's OK if HE has one but not me; even though I am allowed by law to have one.
3. This one picture exposes why it is so difficult to have an absolutist viewpoint on this issue, because it's impossible to say there is no need for the weapons when we use them to protect the very gentleman who is saying there is no need for these weapons.

1st sentence-
the automatic in the picture is really f'in dangerous, and you seem to imply it isn't, and to imply that somebody wants to take ALL normal handguns and rifles away from your gun bunny friends.
YOU ARE WRONG

2nd-
you are describing the person the picture was intended to dupe, even though bill, a true patriot and veteran, already called you out on it. this is the 2nd time i pointed that out

3rd-
the picture exposes an absolutist viewpoint. absolutely wrong. it actually fucking says "we want LESS LETHAL versions of this gun in our homes is what it fucking says.
and the part after the comma is a truly shining example of monumental Orwellian doublespeak jibberish.

[tblue37]

115. Just curious-- Why

woul a pic of the pres's plane be an argument? What would the argument be that the plane pic would convey?

[Historic NY]

95. As if he had any say in the matter when it was Heathrow Airport....

and he was a high risk visiting dignitary. Candidate & President Obama had no say over security arrangements made by the Metropolitan Police.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

98. Of course not...

When he's in Paris they guard him with poodles, when in Bangladesh, a plate of rice, when he's in Spain sometimes they use sling-shots, but more frequently they just blow bubbles in the face of would be attackers...it's ridiculous to think that President Obama should have a couple of guys with full-automatic weapons to protect him, I mean who does he think he is, the Leader of the Free World or something?

[Chemisse]

97. You are suggesting that people should not be disturbed by the photoshopping of the word police.

That is a back door defense of it. That, along with your confusingly contradictory posts about this matter, clearly show that you are here in this thread to do some damage control.

One might almost think YOU were involved in this photoshopping incident, for all your forced nonchalance.

You might want to keep in mind that people here on this web site are - on average - quite a bit brighter than the Obama haters this photo was geared toward.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

101. Oh dear...

You most certainly win the award for most ridiculous assumption with regard to anything I've said.

That's pretty cool, you had to work pretty hard to win that one.

If you are 'disturbed' by the Photoshopping work done to the image, then once you figure out that the real discussion should be how with one photo it's so simple to bolster the argument for having and using these weapons, I'm honestly afraid your head will explode in rage and anguish; but, maybe you'll actually discuss it and stop projecting your fantasies.

[Chemisse]

104. Ok. Then explain how you can prove that this one photo bolsters the argument.

You keep saying it, but I really don't see how this bolsters anything, other than already-held beliefs.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

106. I just did in response to your calling me a 'pro-gun zealot'...

It's down stream somewhere.

[tblue37]

117. I finally figured out what your point about the pres's plane

was. I think. Are you trying to say that the plane, being evidence that he is, after all, POTUS, is in itself sufficient justification for armed guards, since only an idiot would think a president doesn't need or shouldn't have such protection, considering the obvious danger of an attempt on his life-- and the impact that would have.?

[Chemisse]

121. That must be it - because that makes a lot of sense.

[farminator3000]

147. nicely said!

he's just a stooge, don't give him that much credit!

did you mean forced, like at gunpoint?

[Chemisse]

151. LOL! No, forced as in fake.

Although your interpretation of it certainly opens up all new scenarios! (NRA guy pointing to the computer, DU on the screen, telling the guy to push the NRA talking points. He aims the gun, commenting, "Do it now, and you'd better be nonchalant about it.&quot

[farminator3000]

152. hee hee!

"Do it now, and you'd better be nonchalant about it.&quot

now that sounds like a Sam Spade line.

"is that a gun in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?"- Leslie Nielsen?

[RetroLounge]

53. It's what they do

defend anything pro gun

RL

[OneMoreDemocrat]

57. I can only guess you are saying that I am 'Pro Gun'...

Unfortunately you are mistaken, but that's probably not a first.

[RetroLounge]

61. Nice try...

RL

[OneMoreDemocrat]

69. You know, it is in fact possible not to be in lock step with what you are 'supposed' to think...

and think for yourself.

The moment one has an independent thought that others see as 'proof' of being in the other camp doesn't make it so.

It's no wonder that this country is so divided when we can't even be on the same side even when we're on the same side.

[RetroLounge]

118. Yeah, that must be it...

Thanks for setting me straight with your "independent thought" that marches lockstep with the NRA...



RL

[farminator3000]

148. why don't you get "lock fingers" and stop typing?

your post sounds like an NRA motto:
think for yourself! think like us!

[G_j]

124. does deliberate deception

bother you?

[RedCappedBandit]

43. The point is not valid.

It is absurd to think that the average citizen requires the same level of security as the president of one of the most powerful nations in the world.

The fact that they need to lie to make such a weak point is quite comedic.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

45. Actually, they weren't advocating that an average citizen requires the same level of security...

Maybe you didn't read the fine print?

[RedCappedBandit]

52. Oh please.

Have a nice day.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

58. I will thank you...

You too !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chemisse]

99. Defending the photo again?

It's pretty funny seeing you do damage control in one sentence, and pretend you are not pro-gun in the next.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

102. What the Hell are you talking about?...

What damage control?

Pretending I'm not 'pro-gun'?

Jesus.

[RetroLounge]

63. and it's always the lost post count gunners jumping to their defense

RL

[OneMoreDemocrat]

67. Yep...

Especially those who have been here since 2003.

Spend a lot of time in your namesake do 'ya? Good way to bump your post count.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. No. Because its making a bullshit argument.

COPS HAF TEH BIG GUNS SO I SHOULD BE URLOWED TO, TOOOOOO!!!!!

Sort of like

TEH AIR FORCE HAS ICBMS SO I SHOULD BE URLOWED TO, TOOOOOOOO!!!!

[OneMoreDemocrat]

113. Yep, JUST like that...

Thank you for your contribution.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. Yep.

If the argument wasn't bullshit, why bother to photoshop "police" out?

I'll tell you why: so the weapons fetishists could imagine that it was just some random person with an assault rifle.

[buzzroller]

126. Or because the President can authorize nuclear weapons

I should be able to as well-if you want to take it to the absurd.

[Ikonoklast]

10. Record threats of violence against this president, his wife and family from raging Right Wing

fucksticks, yet the Insane Right doesn't want that threat countered or defended in any way.

It's all logical if one is on hallucinogenic drugs.

[Cha]

17. Yeah! And, he's not trying to take away their fucking

guns..

The homeowners who have guns need to be as trained as those Protecting our President.

[Flatulo]

56. I think most of us here understand that the hard-core right would not shed a tear

for our President. They don't say it aloud, but you can hear it in the contempt in their voices. Sadly, I know people like this.

[mzmolly]

11. When do these people read their Bibles? That Ten Commandment thing,

appears to elude them.

[Lex]

13. Do they not know the difference between a police op and an ordinary citizen?

Or are they intentionally being obtuse?

[DaveJ]

15. Gun advocates have an emotional attachment to guns that supersedes truth.

Regardless of statistics, they just want their guns. They love their guns. They will make up any lie to have them. What really interests me is that they often think of guns as protection from the government. Delusional.

[MsPithy]

59. Yes.

Holding a gun like that makes their penis feel 3 inches bigger.

[humbled_opinion]

18. Yes but it adequately portrays

how they feel, they think that they have the inalienable right to arm themselves to protect their property from anyone that would come and try to take it away. This entire anti-government mindset is part of the larger problem. They actually beleive that the Constitution gives them rights outside of what the majority of Americans decide. So they feel that they can determine when government has overstepped its bounds and therefore their logic allows them under the second amendment, to protect themselves with leathal force.

Unless we change that mindset we will never win the argument for banning guns.

[humbled_opinion]

19. It is way past time for a new Constitution......n/t

[irisblue]

29. no, no new constution...imagine the RW trying to find Madison

Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Morris or Dickinson in their ranks. Just not a possibility in current politics/national thought.

[humbled_opinion]

34. True but...

it always seems like when the country tries to adopt some common sense change, it always comes up against the hard and fast rules of the Rightwingers strict constitutional nonsense.

[Rex]

20. And this is why the GOP is the party of failure and humiliation.

They have no shame.

[sakabatou]

23. Not surprised

[PatrynXX]

25. photoshop anyone

oh you mean that BJ my favourite actress is giving is fake? X_X course I wouldn't want to see my favourite stars on a photo doing a BJ.. But many of those photos look real enough

[They_Live]

26. Our President is "Commander in Chief"

so actually it IS a military/police action. So there.

[irisblue]

32. and the good reason to protect The PRESIDENT

whoever she or he is, that person, is of more value to the world then any keyboard commando sitting in Cheetos crumbs in moms' paneled basement. yes, I went there...
.

[underthematrix]

55. so let me get this straight, the rightwing nutjob

who photoshopped the image to suit his purposes is alleging that rightwing nutjobs like him or herself have been threatening his family via FB, Twitter, email, phone, text, and snail mail and fired shots at his residence? I know these threats and actions have been made against both candidate and President Obama but I didn't know someone was after this rightwing nutjob.

[Dash87]

60. Terrible logic. By that concept, we should all get to have nukes.

Since the US uses those to protect itself, civilians should have them too. Also, rocket launchers too.

[graham4anything]

62. I have nothing against secret service or national guard for every single person in the nation

and NO individual can have one then, how about that?

[freshwest]

66. They would use their guns to shoot the police (NWO thugs to them) so they can't give credit.

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Police officers are not known to support military grade weaponry in the hands of the public so they can mow cops down just for fun when they are on the job. The RW photoshop of this photo is so dishonest on so many levels it's nauseating.

[SoapBox]

68. Lies, Lies, Lies...and more lies...

OH!

And CHRISTIAN too!

[Tiggeroshii]

73. It would be pretty worrisome if somebody who wasn't a cop and not engaged in a military action, was

holding that weapon.

on edit: I'm also curious to know what the makers of that meme were assuming that man's job was. Did they assume he was a contractor? Cause if he was secret service, he would still hold police powers -which would place him under police action. And I'm pretty sure that "protecting the president" also falls under police action.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

85. Some people apparently don't get it

that the President of the United States of America needs lots of protection- him and his family need WAY more protection than the average citizen. Anybody whom seriously believes that they need an equivalent level of protection needs to seriously re-evaluate their associations, lifestyles, surroundings, etc. The teabaggers posting this sort of c**p also fail to note the irony that the more hate and venom that they spew against him and his family the more protection they'll need.

[sulphurdunn]

89. If the gun fetishists

ever needed to actually use automatic weapons to defend the country against invasion or insurrection, there would be plenty of them lying around they could take from their enemies.

[CJCRANE]

91. People on both sides of the argument are missing the point as per post #80

that the police at Heathrow are armed like this, it's just routine.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

94. desperate measures from desperate people

[TheBlackAdder]

96. The POTUS Lands in England... And He is Responsible for the Security Decisions?

Did I get that correctly?

Not only was the British police officer's vest photoshopped, but this is British security forces, not American ones?

Since when does the POTUS or Secret Service dictate the equipment England uses to protect foreign dignitaries?

[underpants]

100. Anyone who has been in a European airport knows that they carry automatic weapons

[mwooldri]

108. which isn't that many Americans a of late.

I knew the first one was 'shopped right away. The butt of the rifle is hiding the police badge, and whoever altered that photo didn't realist they had missed a few things.... besides just removing the word 'police' from the vest.

[underpants]

112. Life inside the bubble. Our weather maps have no weather in Canada or Mexico

My brother noticed that

[mwooldri]

156. AFAIK national weather forecasts have always been about the nation at hand.

BBC, RTE, TF1, ARD - all show just their national weather. Oh, and btw according to CBC and Environment Canada there's no weather in the USA either.

[underpants]

157. Thanks I didn't know that

[UtahLib]

107. FAIL! and an assinine one too. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

109. that's a Metropolitan Police firearms officer.

With an H&K MP5 SMG with shoulder stock and reflex sight (it's not an "assault rifle"; the Metropolitan Police firearms unit has those as well, but they're the H&K G36). And it's not fully automatic, it's semi-automatic (the MP5SFA2 variant, "SF" for "Single Fire&quot .

[Historic NY]

120. They have been armed with a like weapon for a number of years..

in the late 80's the Airport detail was armed with these. I recall being a bit amazed at first seeing them. It just became commonplace to see them.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. Right. He's supposed to be just some random dude with an assault weapon.

Classic.

[defacto7]

119. Same old same old

If they can't make a point with facts and reality, then lie, fake it, and cover up.

[justiceischeap]

123. Even if the photo hadn't edited the word "police" out

the guy was still doing a police "action." Guarding the President, no matter whom he/she is, is a police action.

[lynne]

141. Seems to be confusion as to definition of "police action" -

- and guarding someone is not a "police action", even if you're the police. Being an oldster, I remember the term from when it was used to describe the Vietnam War.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police%20action

[justiceischeap]

143. Yes, I'm familiar with the way every one else describes it

but we are talking about wingers. They're a bunch of morans.

[heaven05]

128. "less lethal"?

Fully automatic or semi, a bullet is the lethal quotient here. God, these wing nuts are so insane with fear of their own government.

[farminator3000]

155. doesn't that sound like something from Orwell's 1984???

BLAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

[aandegoons]

129. I get these emails from time to time.

Usually take time to rebut them. Now when I do I include the statement that nearly every right wing email I get from you has some sort of distortion or outright lie. Why do you think that is? What makes someone so unsure of their position that it requires a distortion or lie to make it palatable. Snake oil? Maybe you should rethink your position.

I get on less and less email list as the years role on. It's a double win.

[Skittles]

131. have you noticed

how many otherwise supposedly intelligent people pass that shit along when ten seconds of research on the web would tell them it is crap? It confirms my belief that wingnuts simply WANT to believe what they are being told, regardless of truth or logic

[sellitman]

132. Bookmarked for use later

That would be if one of my friends sends this to me via email or FB.

Thanks!

[Buzz Clik]

133. This is NOT rightwing only phenomenon. We have many DUers just like this.

It's no less insane.

[louis-t]

134. What are they blathering on about today?

Another faux outrage? It must suck to spend your life being outraged about EVERYTHING.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

135. They also resent a white guy guarding a black guy....

....they consider him to be a traitor to his race.

[caseymoz]

138. This is exactly what they do to statistics.

They will tell the little lie just to get you to believe the rest of what they do. Unfortunately, if there's many of them telling little lies to convince each other, it probably means much of the factoids they believe are bullshit.

[lynne]

140. Uh, he's still not participating in a "police action" -

- by guarding someone even if he is a member of a police force. Doesn't matter if the word "police" is or isn't on his vest.

[dutchroll]

144. "Not participating in police action"? What, he's just having a cup of tea with the missus is he?

He is actively guarding the President. That's police action. Just like being pulled over on the highway is "police action". He is on duty, and watching around for any security threats, and that is why he is carrying a big gun.

If he were standing there watching the football, then yeah, you might be right in saying he's "not participating in police action". Taking the kids to school? Yeah, not "police action". Going to the bathroom? Sure, not "police action".

That is a very poor argument to justify why the photo was altered to remove "police" from his vest and then stating that he is not involved in police action. The deliberate deception in an attempt to make a political point is pretty obvious to most people here.

[wordpix]

142. these lying repukes will say anything to cling to their guns, money and legalized bribes to Congress

[farminator3000]

149. they should have photoshopped military out, too..Commander in Chief? um

i'd think guarding the top guy, the commander in chief of the us armed forces, kinda sounds military in action!

isn't it funny how they only read one half of one line from the constitution?

[farminator3000]

150. oh my!

from their FB: (gun rights)
Mission
Spread information about the Second Amendment(one fucking sentence?), and the inalienable right to self defense.
Description
We support the Right to Bear Arms. This does not just apply to the United States, but it also applies to our brothers and sisters in foreign countries who may not have such right. The Right to Bear Arms is more than just owning a gun for hunting, or sportsmanship; it is the inalienable right to self defense. End of Discussion.

there are actual people on that site spouting the same shit as here?!?!?
i looked for like 2 minutes and i'm nauseous..

[farminator3000]

154. K&R

not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but that picture says

"less-lethal version"

so you want a less lethal gun to protect yourself...riiiight.