Reread my post. All the horses are mounted by people except the dead ones. You don't see any person on or of a horse herding any livestock anywhere. All you got is a dude with his machinegun, with his bandana covering his face killing people and animals. Exceptionally obvious it's a hardcore criminal making a massacre. This is just like them gangsters who also used machine guns as their weapons of choice,.. glorified and romanticizes in Hollywood.
Your crazy, there is no way to assume all those notions from a grainy drawing an artistic rendering, it probably could be a Ranch owner living in an isolated place with no Sheriff close by and defending himself from armed cattle Rustlers, this was still common place circa 1935-1940's, you simply want to Glorify your hatred & Bigotry and Race issues as well as an Anti Gun Agenda.
I see a dead horse. I see a guy with a bandana over his face with a machine gun. The assumption that a person covering his face, is a criminal, is a classic way how things have been depicted in western movies for decades. Hence it's a small leap that the criminal killed that horse and is trying to kill more horses and people. It is how ever totally crazy to assume that the person covering his face with a machine gun is stopping criminals herding his livestock away, since no livestock is being herded in the picture, while it's not clear at all in any way that the other people are criminals.
The guy is covering his face from the dust and other crap in the air, he likely is the Ranch owner or a Ranch hand, since he likely lived there, he would not benefit from a disguise of any kind. Anyway, this is an artists drawing, not a photo, so it is all an assumption, when you assume, you make an Ass-U-Me.
It reminds many of Muslims yet if you studied the drawing where he has the machine gun, nope, he has no mask. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-cowards-who-hide-behind-7112875
No, the Democrats realized that the ethnic minorities would eventually get them and for the last 100 years have done everything they can to disarm those minorities.
Cowboy with a bombbelt.... yeah I can see that it could remind people of Muslim extremists. But just a bigger gun... seriously no doubt that people think about the old west, western movies, the genocide against Indians, etc. But it fits the picture that you think a picture where no livestock is being herded, is about stealing livestock. You've lost a couple of marbles along the way.
No he doesn't. I was looking at it on a phone and was able to zoom in. His bandana was down and covered his neck like any cowboy would. You can see the knot in front of his neck. You can see his mouth kinda opened, you can see his chin jutted out. And if you think logically why would they portray the good guy with mask on? Give a list of massacres and prove it.
The left wing added the amendment where you couldn't purchase or possess a fully automatic weapon that was manufactured after 1986. But new isn't always better and the best fully automatic weapons were manufactured back when America was great when we had a skilled workforce and an industrial base to produce some of the best full automatic weapons. Hard cold milled steel not stamped aluminum or steel and plastic.
You can absolutely not see any mouth. While the classic way to wear a bandana as a cowboy, is to have the knot in the NECK not as a gay 1980's scarf like accessory at the throat. In a rather extreme way suddenly sticking out at the botten. That can not be a chin. That's cloth. Oh get real. All crimes skyrocketed with the start of prohibition due to gang warfare. Al Capone even had to drive around in an armored car
Can't tell if the OP is satire or just a really really bad political statement but it's funny because even the so-called "Wild West" had fairly strict gun ordinances. Carry a gun through a town and you liked to get yasself shot by the Sheriff pardner.
No it's not. You can see the shadow of his nose on his face. He's not wearing a mask. Besides, why would they portray the good guy with a mask? This is the day when the good guy wore the white hat. Please provide stats.
Post 10. You called the entire bill Left wing. Were you lying when you did that, or did you just not know anything shot the bill until I effectively forced you to research it?
The left wing amendment to outlaw fully automatic weapons made the bill left wing. No different than when you had liberals in Congress who had an amnesty amendment added to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that turned the Republicans immigration enforcement bill into an amnesty bill. If you actually read the entire IRCA of 1986 you notice that only a few paragraphs deal with amnesty, most of the bill dealt with securing the border, interior enforcement of our immigration laws and making it illegal to hire illegal aliens. But one left wing amendment turned an enforcement bill into a liberal amnesty bill.
So Republicans in Congress and the Republican in the White House voted massively in favor of a left wing bill without a fight? Wouldn't that make them left wing?
If you consider that 130 Republicans in the House voted "nay" on H.R. 4332 as being that they voted "massively in favor" of the bill, I suppose that's your definition of "massively in favor." In 1986 the 99th United States Congress House of Representatives consisted of 253 Democrats and 182 Republicans. Maybe you were trying to say the Democrats massively supported the bill ???
Ummm...perhaps you should get educated: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1986/h508 Only 15 Republicans voted against the bill. If they were so against this "left wing bill" why did they not even attempt a filibuster? Why did Reagan not even threaten a veto?
