PDA

View Full Version : Suspended for gun photo


lg_mouth
February 5, 2009, 01:32 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,488567,00.html

Not exactly sure how legal this is, but it seems like it shouldn't be legal at all.

Lg_mouth

gollbladder13
February 5, 2009, 01:38 PM
What shouldn't be legal? Her being on administrative leave or her pointing the gun at the camera?

That's the joys and downfalls of facebook. I have my facebook set on private so, unless you're my friend, you can't see it. Some of my professors are my facebook friends, but you gotta watch what you put on those things because you never know who might see it or how they'll react.

lg_mouth
February 5, 2009, 02:01 PM
It may be poor judgement to point a gun at a camera, but being put on leave over that should be illegal. It is a non school website, so they have no jurisdiction over it.

Lg_mouth

luvsasmith
February 5, 2009, 02:23 PM
This is really stupid. She should sue. I hate when people sue over silly things but something has to be done.

goodspeed(TPF)
February 5, 2009, 02:25 PM
I can't find the pic. Maybe I am blind. :D

bigrebnc1861
February 5, 2009, 02:33 PM
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is stupid. Don't people have better things to do then turn people in because they had a gun in a picture?

NAKing
February 5, 2009, 05:16 PM
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is stupid. Don't people have better things to do then turn people in because they had a gun in a picture?

No, no, no. You don't understand. Having guns is a sure sign of mental illness and depravity. We can't have our children exposed to sick people like this, can we? Do you hate children? :):rolleyes:;)

Seriously though. Was it a good idea? Probably not. Fire somebody over it? Not if that was the only "run-in" with this teacher.

JWT
February 5, 2009, 05:23 PM
Sad that school administrators don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to busy body parents that have nothing better to do than being up nonsense like this. Did the teacher use 'good sense'? Probably not, but suspension seems quite severe - and isn't there something in the Constitution that suggest we have free speech??

brickeyee
February 5, 2009, 05:32 PM
Lawyer up.

BillCA
February 5, 2009, 06:12 PM
I would think it depends on how many other photos the person has on their page. If it's the primary photo or the only photo...well maybe. But if it's one of 3 or more photos of them doing different things, then it's stupid to complain. Some people aren't happy unless they make trouble for other people.

gc70
February 5, 2009, 07:50 PM
The teacher will probably end up with a few paid days off, but should pray that the school district is stupid enough to fire her. Even a mediocre civil rights attorney could win a dismissal case.

kayakersteve
February 5, 2009, 08:00 PM
He could have used a tripod for the shot and then the camera was only pointed at a camera, so who cares!!

goodspeed(TPF)
February 6, 2009, 02:04 PM
Dos anyone have a link to the PIC?

lg_mouth
February 6, 2009, 02:07 PM
I am assuming with the media attention, it has been removed.

Lg_mouth

possum
February 6, 2009, 02:09 PM
Go here and read the story and watch the accompanying video.

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9781795

Listen to the panic. See the exaggeration and behold the panting and gasping for air.

These school administrators should all be fired and their salaries used for something useful, instead.

This teacher should sue the Hell out of all involved.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 6, 2009, 02:27 PM
Rather than ranting - what is the relevant civil rights issue?

It seems to me that she is engaging in free speech as she is presenting herself engaging in a legal activity (unless there is something in the picture, we don't know about).

Were does an employer have the right to engage in a job sanction for legally expressing yourself in a manner not related to the employer? If you got on the tube and said your company stinks and don't go there - I could see that.

Is it that there was a gun and this implies a lack of moral fiber. That is a stretch. Sometimes teachers get canned for naked postings.

Do employers have complete control over you (the dreaded carry in your car - it's their property, get another job debate!!). I seem to recall in our debates about carry at the work place, the Antediluvian position that you should bend over for the employer even when they violate basic rights.

The teacher in question should contact appropriate attorneys - NRA, ACLU - or employment law specialist.

Piper Cub
February 6, 2009, 02:31 PM
I bet if she was dressed as a Cowgirl with a 6 shooter they would't of done anything.

possum
February 6, 2009, 02:37 PM
Exactly.

She's done nothing wrong.

She's done nothing illegal, or even remotely illegal.

School administrators (whose salaries come from TAXES) have decided that a photo she put up of herself on a separate web site, that had nothing to do with the school, was "distasteful" enough for them to suspend her from her job pending an investigation.

Suspend her from her job..........suspend.

Now, just posing a question.

Let's say that some teacher her had posted a pic of herself on Facebook hugging her domestic partner Joan.

And that said teacher's administrators had found the photo "distasteful" and had suspended her from her job.

What do you think the gay rights community would be doing?

There would be outcry. Legions of lawyers would descend upon the administrators like meat-starved legal werewolves.

This situation should be addressed in the same way.

Gun rights folks should descend upon this situation in droves. Lawyers ought to be lining up. These administrators should be hounded and humiliated at every single chance. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue until there's no blood left and then sue some more.

Pull out the big legal hammers on this one!

Go to the link I posted above and see the picture for yourself.

Go look at the picture. It's at the news link.

You will see EXACTLY the same sort of picture in most gun catalogs, on most gun-related TV shows, and even throughout the various posters made famous by Oleg Volk.

Go and see. And get mad.

In case you haven't yet, here it is again.

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9781795

Upper lefthand corner, "featured video"

madmo44mag
February 6, 2009, 02:55 PM
No, no, no. You don't understand. Having guns is a sure sign of mental illness and depravity. We can't have our children exposed to sick people like this, can we? Do you hate children?

Yes send these poor sick people to me Dr. Magnum.
After several sessions with my 44 assistants we should be able to cure this poor individual of even caring what people think of them and guns.

This is BS, what you do at home should not reflect upon your ability to preform the job you are trained to do. Just another example of over reactive A-holes

sholling
February 6, 2009, 03:29 PM
She has an awesome civil rights suit and the district is going to wind up paying up.

bclark1
February 6, 2009, 05:55 PM
Looks a lot more like a shotgun than a rifle to me. :confused:

I can't remember the last time I had a picture of myself where I wasn't shooting.

LouPran
February 6, 2009, 07:23 PM
Here's her defense ...

http://futuregossip.blogs.eplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/372px-sarah_palin_with_rifle_28cropped29.jpg

BrunoNorway
February 7, 2009, 02:40 PM
I had this photo as my Facebook profile-picture and i am not suspended.;)



http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42099&stc=1&d=1234035838



And i am a preschool teacher by the way. :eek::rolleyes::rolleyes:


EDIT: Image rezizeing.

BillCA
February 7, 2009, 10:34 PM
Were does an employer have the right to engage in a job sanction for legally expressing yourself in a manner not related to the employer? If you got on the tube and said your company stinks and don't go there - I could see that.

Not quite the same in a lot of states. Most teachers are employed under the terms of some "labor contract" negotiated by a teacher's union. In many states, your employment is "at will" and there is no legal contract or binding agreement. As such, if you work for a company and for some reason appear "in public" in a manner which could or does embarass the company, your job is toast. If you did commercials for Ford claiming that you're a "proud Ford owner" but your Facebook page shows you driving a BMW or (perhaps worse) displaying your "pride & joy" is a 2007 Corvette, you could expect Ford to fire you.

Today, when you're seeking a job, many companies will simply "Google" your name to see what pops up and if it is related to you. And they use various forms of your name too (e.g. Searching Elizabeth, Liz, Betty, Beth, etc.). If you've posted anything to the web (with your real name) it might come back to haunt you.

At what point it becomes censorship or infringing on your 1st Amendment rights is debateable. I don't think many parents would be accepting of a teacher who's Facebook page shows her in wet T-shirt contests or moonlighting as a stripper. And just because you have "free speech" does not mean you're immune from the consequences of that right.

gollbladder13
February 7, 2009, 10:40 PM
I said it earlier and I'll say it again... you gotta watch what you post on things like that if your profile is public because you never know what kinds of people might do or how they will react...

That being said, unless she's seen breaking the law, there's no harm in it in my mind... My facebook profile pic was me chugging a beer when I was only 19... nobody cared, or questioned how I got home that night... Just because it's a teacher makes no difference. Teachers have lives, too...

sholling
February 8, 2009, 02:15 AM
Not quite the same in a lot of states. Most teachers are employed under the terms of some "labor contract" negotiated by a teacher's union. In many states, your employment is "at will" and there is no legal contract or binding agreement. As such, if you work for a company and for some reason appear "in public" in a manner which could or does embarass the company, your job is toast. If you did commercials for Ford claiming that you're a "proud Ford owner" but your Facebook page shows you driving a BMW or (perhaps worse) displaying your "pride & joy" is a 2007 Corvette, you could expect Ford to fire you.
The relevant part here is that she is an employee of a government agency and is being punished for her choice of free expression on her own time and using no school resources. That's a 1st Amendment violation and grounds for a suit. It's also a 2nd Amendment violation. A government employer cannot punish you for belonging to the communist party, the NRA, attending a gay rights meeting, or anything else of that nature. Those are protected rights. Only moral turpitude crosses the line and even that is dicey. Private employers on the other hand (depending on the state) could fire you.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 8, 2009, 06:45 PM
It is time to make it policy, law, etc. that employers have no control over your life except for evaluating your performance on the job or how it directly effects the firm or institution by actions relevant to its business. Not indirect PR issues.

If some one wants to pose naked and Granny Tightbutt gets all twitter - not her business or the school board's.

Erik
February 9, 2009, 02:00 PM
"This is really stupid. She should sue."

Agreed: to both points.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 16, 2009, 01:52 PM
Some new info:

ACLU of Wisconsin defends Beaver Dam teacher (suspeneded for facebook firearm photo)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
MILWAUKEE (WKOW) - The ACLU of Wisconsin is defending a Beaver Dam teacher who was put on administrative leave after she posted a questionable photo on her Facebook page.

From the ACLU of Wisconsin:

ACLU of Wisconsin: School should allow teacher to pose with rifle on Facebook

A Beaver Dam Middle School teacher, Betsy Ramsdale, should not have been put on administrative leave simply because of a photo on Facebook showing her training a rifle at the camera. While school safety is of paramount importance, public school teachers do not lose their right to free expression when they are not working.

The context of the photo, the whole Facebook page, is important to understand before taking action against a teacher, who happens to be a gun enthusiast. Media accounts of the photo do not indicate any additional grounds for concern. Beaver Dam School District superintendent Donald Childs is reported to be unaware of any sinister intent.

"Absent any evidence that the teacher poses a threat, the district should not over-react to the sight of a gun in one of their employee's hands," said Chris Ahmuty, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin today.

The ACLU of Wisconsin is a membership organization devoted to the defense and promotion of civil liberties and rights for all Wisconsin residents.

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.a...nav=menu1362_2

------ What, the ACLU? Also, I reiterate my point that employers should have no control over things that are not directly job related.

JWT
February 16, 2009, 03:28 PM
One of the very few times I've ever wanted to applaud the ACLU.

Brian Pfleuger
February 16, 2009, 03:31 PM
I can hardly believe my eyes. The ACLU is doing something RIGHT! Wow.

Caeser2001
February 16, 2009, 10:37 PM
I can hardly believe my eyes. The ACLU is doing something RIGHT! Wow

The who:eek: ACLU

Mr X
February 16, 2009, 10:50 PM
Update from MKE on this case - just what people have been saying about it -

Our largest news-radio station's hosts brought the case up pretty much as it happened, support for the teacher was overwhelmingly positive with one disturbing note. Everyone said that it was no big deal, supported her privacy, right to engage in her hobbies etc.

However, what was not positive was everyone prefaced their argument saying that because this happened in Beaver Dam, WI, this whole thing was OK. They suggest that this is acceptable in what they implicitly called redneck Beaver Dam but not in a civilized place like Milwaukee. Some callers said this was fine in Beaver Dam but if it was a Milwaukee or suburban teacher, than this may have been unacceptable.

Plenty of the people I work with though thought that she deserved punishment because as a teacher, she should be held to higher standard of conduct and not play with guns. Sigh, that is quite a prevalent mentality here.

Obviously I support the teacher and wish any repercussions for school board stupidity didn't have to come out of the Beaver Dam tax-payers' pockets.

I agree with the above posts, particularly the hypocrisy I expected from the ACLU - if it was any civil right except firearms, they would have been on this weeks ago. Hence, hearing they accepted to at least review the case shocks me.

Some days I'm not proud of this place.

Al Norris
February 16, 2009, 11:12 PM
MR. X, the problem with the ACLU, and anyone else that disapproves, is that they are having a hard time divorcing the "gun" from the first amendment rights of the teacher.

The second amendment "problem" is merely a peripheral (if it is anything) note to her first amendment right that has been stomped upon by the school board.

Odd that so few really see this.

preston
February 17, 2009, 01:48 AM
one of the things I picked up from the video report is that some students might have been able to use school computers to access and perhaps print out right there at the school a nice laser printer copy of the picture. If that in fact is the case then having a bunch of these photo copies floating around the school might have been some concern to the administrators. but they let the genie out of the bottle because now even though it is no longer probably just on her facebook page it is all over the net and blinking like a big red light. But I think some states have clauses about professional behavior vs. doing no damage to school and/or students vs conduct unbecoming kind of thing, it's an ethics clause to try and keep the real sickos out of the system. The teacher, considering her position, was stupid to make it the primary pix which meant it was the public pix. unless she really was just looking for a nice lawsuit. I got a gut feeling there is something in her contract that might prevent her from any victory in the courts. She took it down. I agree with her doing that.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 17, 2009, 11:07 AM
Why is it a concern that students can print such a picture? It is not the school's business unless you accept that she is doing something bad.

So if a teacher is in a gun competition or hunting and posts a picture of such - they can be fired or disciplined?

Makes no sense. Employers are not slave owners.

Mike Irwin
February 17, 2009, 11:36 AM
Does anyone have a link to the actual picture?

OnTheFly
February 17, 2009, 12:19 PM
I believe this is it...

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42623&stc=1&d=1234891158

I don't know. She looks kind of dangerous (possibly mentally unstable) to me. :rolleyes: Just look at the way she's holding the gun. It's like she intends to actually shoot it. :eek:

Fly

johnwilliamson062
February 17, 2009, 12:26 PM
I kind of like the ACLU
Wish some firearms organization would step behind her.

I realize this is directly 1A, but if 1A does not pertain to 2A we have lost.
Be like saying Citizens have the right to bear arms, unless they are involved in free speech.

preston
February 17, 2009, 01:09 PM
i'm 57. but when I was in school through 4 years of college i sorta had what I would call a healthy disrespect for many of my teachers/professors due to what I would call excessive authoritarian personalities. It was a you are gonna absorb this information as I (the teacher) present it to you kind of thing. So I could see myself feeling somewhat repressed & controlled if the teachers at the time were also predominately displaying pictures of themselves with weapons that appear to be pointed at the viewer (me, the student) of the picture. Mild intimidation. At middle school level I'd probably have complained to the principle asking just what the heck this teachers message to me was with this photo. At the college level I probably would have registered a complaint with the university. Of course this was late 60's early 70's and with the war and the campus killings it would have been just another message from the *man* that my liberties are threatened and who gives a damn. Teachers/Professors with guns aimed at the viewer of the persons pix, what a lovely message.

teeroux
February 17, 2009, 01:34 PM
Not surprising in the least I have always thought school boards are given to much power and are very used to running things their own way outside of the law and BOR.

BillCA
February 17, 2009, 10:47 PM
However, what was not positive was everyone prefaced their argument saying that because this happened in Beaver Dam, WI, this whole thing was OK. They suggest that this is acceptable in what they implicitly called redneck Beaver Dam but not in a civilized place like Milwaukee. Some callers said this was fine in Beaver Dam but if it was a Milwaukee or suburban teacher, than this may have been unacceptable.

Plenty of the people I work with though thought that she deserved punishment because as a teacher, she should be held to higher standard of conduct and not play with guns. Sigh, that is quite a prevalent mentality here.

Why is it a concern that students can print such a picture? It is not the school's business unless you accept that she is doing something bad.

I think that, for some people, they see it as a morals issue. They equate guns with "bad things and bad people" due to the demonization of guns in America by the Bradys and the media. Thus, if she handles and is familiar with guns, she must be morally corrupt. Q.E.D.

Let's suppose that instead of holding the rifle, we saw a completely different photo of her. What else would cause parental complaints in a community?
- She posed with a joint in her hand or mouth.
- Photographed sloppy drunk at a party?
- A picture of her in a bikini hugging a teenage boy
- Participating in a wet t-shirt contest at Hooters?

Any of the above would usually be sufficient to warrant a school district to look into a teacher's background. Drug use, excessive alcohol consumption, potential sexual interest in student-aged boys, and public exhibitionism could all be used as part of a "moral turpitude" allegation that she was unfit and/or posed a risk as a teacher.

To liberal-leaning minds, guns equate to people who are criminals, have criminal desires, are beer-swizzling rednecks or violent schitzes ready to "go off". Thus they see this as "morally corrupt" in their belief system.

It's true that a picture is worth a thousand words and a "photograph tells a story". But the viewer can hear the wrong words or get the wrong story from a photograph too. A bikini-clad teacher hugging a 13-15 y/o boy or posing in a "fond embrace" would certainly raise eyebrows today. Unless the caption says "Betsy hugging nephew Danny at his summer birthday BBQ".

Likewise, the rifle photograph tells a story. The question is whether or not the viewer is listening to ESPN or NPR.

That her "behavior" (what little we can tell of it in the photo) is acceptable in a rural setting but not in "the big city" is preposterous. If we turn this around and say "being openly gay in public is okay in the big city, but will get you fired in rural America" the gay rights activists, the ACLU and liberal nitwits would descend on that like locusts.

The Bradyites get free press when they refer to guns as "killing machines", "weapons of war" or that "so many of our children die because of guns". Unfortunately we stand on our "Constitutional Rights" as a moral high ground, something that has an intangible feel to most people.

We - the firearms community - should be putting forth images and/or advertisements that show family recreational shooting or cowboy shooting, happy responsible adults urging safety or training classes both for education and fun. The only way to counter the "bad moral image" the anti-gun propagandists have spread is to show positive images of gun ownership.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 18, 2009, 10:18 AM
I have no use for left wing or right wing thought police to make it easy. You do your job and don't break the law. I don't care if some right wing tight butt is concerned with your legal sexuality and I don't care if some left wing tight butt is concerned with you legally using a firearm.

A plague on both their houses. The principle is easy - your behavior off the job, if legal, and doesn't DIRECTLY attack the employer - is not the business of the employer.

I see no difference between a teacher being a topless dancer or posing topless for a college art class as an advanced art elective in painting.

Not the employer's business.

pax
February 18, 2009, 10:29 AM
And just because you have "free speech" does not mean you're immune from the consequences of that right.

I distinctly remember reading a newspaper article, back when I was in high school, which had in it an interview with a high-ranking member of the Soviet government (back when there was a Soviet government). Wish I still had the article. The interviewer asked the Soviet official about free speech in the USSR. "Oh, we have freedom of speech!" the official explained. "It's what happens after you speak that is sometimes the issue. We do have to make sure that these people are not enemies of the state."

Don't worry about it. I'm sure it will never get that bad here.

pax

teeroux
February 28, 2009, 10:27 PM
I can hardly believe my eyes. The ACLU is doing something RIGHT! Wow.


Don't kid yourself even a broken clock will still show the correct time twice a day.;)

Mowog
March 1, 2009, 08:44 AM
Legal or not, posting pictures of yourself posing with a gun on the internet is a dumb idea.
As a sanity check, imagine what it will look like to a jury if you ever face charges for a defensive shooting. No thanks.
Because firearm enthusiasts are at the leading edge of personal responsibility, we need to behave that way.

shortwave
March 1, 2009, 09:40 AM
Mowog, Also work diligently to change the mindset of the general public (that are our jurors) that just because you own/like guns your not bad. Shooting guns is a sport and good clean fun. MORE pics of people/families enjoying this sport should be made public. Not hidden! Thats the way it should be looked at. Shooting/having guns is not illegal and if I were this lady the law suits would fly.

44 AMP
March 1, 2009, 01:32 PM
Is that there was no caption stating that the camera was tripod mounted. So, it appears, and people assume, that she is pointing the gun at a person (holding the camera). And, by extension, she is pointing a gun at the viewer.

I wouls suggest that pictures showing enthusiasts holding, and using guns in a positive, recreational manner should be encouraged. Pics pointing the gun at the camera should not be. Don't want some emotionally insecure paranoid individual getting scared by a picture, now do we.

OnTheFly
March 1, 2009, 02:19 PM
Because firearm enthusiasts are at the leading edge of personal responsibility, we need to behave that way.

Mowog...are you saying that she was not responsible because she posted a picture of herself with a firearm on the internet? If so, this is the kind of anti-gun attitude we need to confront, not foster.

As I see it, a person can go two directions. They can keep all their firearm enthusiasm contained and not displayed in such public places as the internet, or they can proudly (and yes, responsibly) proclaim their interests in firearms. Even if you don't post pictures of yourself with firearms, do you really think an attorney is not going to drudge your hobby up? The number and type of firearms you own will be discussed as will how often you frequent the range or what kind of ammo you have. You won't be able to hide this, nor should you. What we have to do is insist, through the legal system, that people aren't unfairly convicted because of these details.

Please don't take this as a personal attack Mowog, but if any DA were to look at your blog, they would see that you have shot USPSA matches. That's no big deal, right? Well, you are running around simulating a gunfight. You are shooting at human shaped targets, not rabid badgers. Do you think that might portray a gung ho, "I want to shoot somebody" attitude? I'd bet you dollars for donuts that an attorney would sure try to spin it this way. Again...I'm not attacking you or anyone else that would shoot in these matches. It's just food for thought.

Is that there was no caption stating that the camera was tripod mounted. So, it appears, and people assume, that she is pointing the gun at a person (holding the camera). And, by extension, she is pointing a gun at the viewer.

I wouls suggest that pictures showing enthusiasts holding, and using guns in a positive, recreational manner should be encouraged. Pics pointing the gun at the camera should not be. Don't want some emotionally insecure paranoid individual getting scared by a picture, now do we.

I agree...why make people wonder how dumb or unsafe you are? The problem is that even if you post a comment detailing what precautions you took when pointing a gun at the camera, those details won't necessarily follow the photo when it flies through cyberspace and is duplicated countless times.

Other than that...I don't have an opinion. :rolleyes:

Fly

monkey95
March 1, 2009, 10:47 PM
The Rules Mrs. Palin, the Rules.

On topic (sort of),always be careful what you put on the net. Right, wrong or indifferent, someone will disagree and give you grief.

Mowog
March 2, 2009, 07:33 AM
@ Shortwave:
"work diligently to change the mindset of the general public (that are our jurors) that just because you own/like guns your not bad."
I agree. To be more clear - posing with a gun pretending to menace the camera or behaving poorly is a bad idea. I think this instance counts.
@ OntheFly:
I'm not taking it as a personal attack, thanks! Absolutely correct that a person's firearms hobby would be used in court, and any evidence with respect to type, quantity, clubs or activities (even if its not on the internet!). I think its a bad (dumb) idea to show a deliberately provocative image of yourself pointing a gun at the camera, sends a bad message. Smiling photos of everyone having a nice time at a match or the range - that makes a more 'responsible' presentation. Why provide a bad image for use against yourself or your hobby if you can responsibly avoid it with some internet common sense. My opinion of course.

shortwave
March 2, 2009, 06:20 PM
Mowog, Thanks for clarification! Picture form, bad idea,maybe but not illegal. IMO,Getting put on admin. leave from job for this picture taken on her own time is wrong. As previously stated, this is a 1st Amend. not 2nd Amend. case. Seems as though I remember a situation where a female firefighter posed nude for Playboy and was fired. Believe she sued and got her job back. Since both teacher and firefighter`s are public servants it will be interesting to see the outcome of this lawsuit(if filed). Posing nude;)-holding evil gun:eek:

armsmaster270
March 2, 2009, 06:39 PM
Do what I do put a disclaimer below it then no one can say jack
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff207/armsmaster270/writings/Ronsighting.jpg
Gun is Loaded

Picture taken with timed camera on tripod NEVER try this with a hand held camera
You can find this picture on my web site under My Brother Ron Nichols and if you want you can use it if you wish.

armsmaster270
March 2, 2009, 06:52 PM
Quote: On The Fly
I don't know. She looks kind of dangerous (possibly mentally unstable) to me. Just look at the way she's holding the gun. It's like she intends to actually shoot it.

And how should she hold it? Like a Bat?

shortwave
March 2, 2009, 10:04 PM
armsmaster, glad you chose the 'evil gun' pic rather than 'posing nude' pic.:eek::D:D

OnTheFly
March 2, 2009, 10:45 PM
And how should she hold it? Like a Bat?

armsmaster270...In case that was a serious question, you left out my :rolleyes: (sarcasm) and :eek: (eek!) smilies. That was a display of my odd, dry sense of humor.

Fly