General Discussion

mnhtnbb

(33,334 posts)

120. You are making me LOL. Seriously.

Tue Dec 15, 2015, 03:39 PM

Dec 2015

But, you gotta' know that for me, shooting means taking my camera out
to capture an image, a moment, a bit of light and life.

Guns are not meant for that: they are meant for killing.

My husband was an occasional duck hunter for many years. He still has a shotgun. And yes, he's an older
white male. But he would also tell you he has no need for a pistol or an assault rifle. He's also a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst
and can tell you that there are a LOT of people in this country who should not have access to firearms.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

125 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Today's Daily News cover for 3rd anniversary of Newtown CT shooting [View all] ErikJ Dec 2015 OP

Their trade group is headquartered in Newtown hack89 Dec 2015 #1

The Daily News is on a roll! smirkymonkey Dec 2015 #2

You bet they are! AwakeAtLast Dec 2015 #4

Hope they keep up the pressure 2naSalit Dec 2015 #3

I'm really glad to see this. liberalhistorian Dec 2015 #5

Or they blame Obama ErikJ Dec 2015 #6

Today is a difficult day lapislzi Dec 2015 #7

Your post made me cry . . . I am so sorry for your community. fleur-de-lisa Dec 2015 #8

I remember your post here on DU on that day snacker Dec 2015 #11

Damn hibbing Dec 2015 #14

I also remember your posting here on that horrible day, liberalhistorian Dec 2015 #20

My heart breaks for you and your colleague. AngryOldDem Dec 2015 #82

I can't even imagine...prayers to him. I think for me to survive something like that adigal Dec 2015 #86

wow, that's impressive , esp for the daily news. nt ellenrr Dec 2015 #9

You have no idea ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #13

And that is truly emblematic of just how liberalhistorian Dec 2015 #24

Good Article from RS...back in Oct. deathrind Dec 2015 #10

Um ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #12

Yes, and...? Hissyspit Dec 2015 #15

The entire document was... deathrind Dec 2015 #16

It's really very simple ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #18

Hmmm. if only there was a way to change only part of something kcr Dec 2015 #26

You missed the point entirely. Straw Man Dec 2015 #28

Is the entire document about guns? kcr Dec 2015 #29

You missed it again. The point, I mean. Straw Man Dec 2015 #32

Point not missed. What do you think the word Amendment means? kcr Dec 2015 #34

It has nothing to do with amendments. Straw Man Dec 2015 #38

Oh? I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about an Amendment kcr Dec 2015 #39

It has to do with the justifications given ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #41

But it doesn't apply equally to the rest of it, because the whole thing isn't about guns. kcr Dec 2015 #42

So use a criticism about guns. Straw Man Dec 2015 #43

Statements of fact are not ad hominem kcr Dec 2015 #44

They most certainly are, or can be. Straw Man Dec 2015 #45

Yes, but the word attack is key. Without attack, there is no ad hominem kcr Dec 2015 #46

Without attack? Straw Man Dec 2015 #48

But they were slaveholders kcr Dec 2015 #50

Of course they were. Do you think that's a good thing to be? I don't. Straw Man Dec 2015 #52

So, because I think their slaveholder status was relevant to guns, that means I think it's good? kcr Dec 2015 #54

You're trying to argue that "slaveholder" is not an ad hominem. Straw Man Dec 2015 #56

So they wren't slaveholders? kcr Dec 2015 #58

Please don't try to pretend I ever said that. Straw Man Dec 2015 #61

When you claimed the person stating that fact was making an ad hominem kcr Dec 2015 #62

Please look up ad hominem. Straw Man Dec 2015 #64

The definition does not say that all facts are ad hominem kcr Dec 2015 #67

What? Straw Man Dec 2015 #69

How is stating someone is a slaveholder when they actually are a personal attack? kcr Dec 2015 #70

So you read it as neutral? Straw Man Dec 2015 #73

So, you wanted it explained specifically how slavery was bad? kcr Dec 2015 #75

No, just specifically how it related to the Second Amendment. Straw Man Dec 2015 #77

I couldn't help it. kcr Dec 2015 #78

I see you still don't understand ad hominem. Straw Man Dec 2015 #79

I'm sure a lot of people now believe that calling slaveholders slaveholders kcr Dec 2015 #80

It depends on why you do it. Straw Man Dec 2015 #81

Once more, with feeling. Straw Man Dec 2015 #47

What? Even the title of the article has the word gun in it. kcr Dec 2015 #49

I'm not talking about the whole article. Straw Man Dec 2015 #51

Oh, I know exactly what you've been saying. kcr Dec 2015 #53

No, you don't. You really don't. Straw Man Dec 2015 #55

Well, they wren't alive for the whole thing, so it wouldn't make sense kcr Dec 2015 #57

Main document and the Bill of Rights. Straw Man Dec 2015 #59

Oh, so the 13th isn't Constitutional enough. Disregard the amendment that corrected THAT mistake. kcr Dec 2015 #60

I'm not the one moving the goalposts. Straw Man Dec 2015 #63

So, you didn't actually mean the entire consitution kcr Dec 2015 #65

No, just the part that was Straw Man Dec 2015 #66

You might want to look up the word entire n/t kcr Dec 2015 #68

Is this a "gotcha" moment for you? Straw Man Dec 2015 #71

Yep. It sure is. kcr Dec 2015 #72

Enjoy it. Straw Man Dec 2015 #76

This is the point where I click the "Back" button and go look for something else to read. NBachers Dec 2015 #105

Feel free to ignore anything you don't want to read. Straw Man Dec 2015 #108

Waters = muddied. Good job with your pointless nitpicking. Yay for you. n/t leeroysphitz Dec 2015 #97

The waters were already muddy. Straw Man Dec 2015 #106

Sorry, don't say this often - But that's an idiotic statement packman Dec 2015 #107

Only because you don't understand it. Straw Man Dec 2015 #109

I did not write the article... deathrind Dec 2015 #112

I was referring to a specific point ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #116

I understand your point... deathrind Dec 2015 #121

Thanks. Straw Man Dec 2015 #123

As a historian and former legal worker liberalhistorian Dec 2015 #21

Pardon me ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #25

Ah, yes, but the point is The Constitution has been amended to give full rights mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #87

Yes, to give full rights. Straw Man Dec 2015 #89

No. Any person wanting to serve with a State Militia (National Guard these days) mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #98

Sorry -- your interpretation of the Second Amendment is wrong. Straw Man Dec 2015 #100

The Constitution can be amended. I'll stand my ground on that one. It only takes mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #101

Of course it can. Straw Man Dec 2015 #102

Indeed. We have no need for more guns than people in this country. It's definitely a health hazard. mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #113

Nice graph. Straw Man Dec 2015 #117

Common mistake. Estimates of the number of people who own guns is quite different... mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #118

Nobody said ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #119

You are making me LOL. Seriously. mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #120

You're easily amused. Straw Man Dec 2015 #122

Gun Humper: snort Dec 2015 #90

Is this what they mean ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #93

Nope. This is what they mean by going to a Waltz. snort Dec 2015 #94

Confirmed: you have no interest in discussing anything. Straw Man Dec 2015 #95

And you are 'hear' to say: snort Dec 2015 #96

Thanks for the correction. Straw Man Dec 2015 #99

One name: snort Dec 2015 #103

... and assorted insults. Straw Man Dec 2015 #104

No. Never did. That was your idea. snort Dec 2015 #114

So you're not here for discussion. Straw Man Dec 2015 #115

Three years after awoke_in_2003 Dec 2015 #17

If Lanza's mom had keep the gun safe door secured, ManiacJoe Dec 2015 #19

If the assault rifle ban had not been liberalhistorian Dec 2015 #22

Connecticut had an "assault weapon" ban at the time. Still does. ManiacJoe Dec 2015 #23

If only there were a way to change laws... kcr Dec 2015 #27

It really don't matter what law they pass... virginia mountainman Dec 2015 #30

Does that apply to all laws? Because people ignore other laws too, all the time. kcr Dec 2015 #31

People tend to only follow laws they agree with and make sense to them. virginia mountainman Dec 2015 #33

Okay, so I'll put you down for "no laws" Gotcha n/t kcr Dec 2015 #35

Where did I say that?! virginia mountainman Dec 2015 #36

I'm sorry for misunderstanding kcr Dec 2015 #37

And yet we hear the phrase "law abiding gun owner" thucythucy Dec 2015 #84

"Law abiding" as in "not criminals." Straw Man Dec 2015 #85

So you're comparing reasonable gun regulation thucythucy Dec 2015 #124

Ah, the "R" words ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #125

Amen Lorien Dec 2015 #40

The 2A allows for the strict regulation of guns hack89 Dec 2015 #92

+1 AngryOldDem Dec 2015 #83

Lanza's gun would have been legal during the AWB hack89 Dec 2015 #91

Photos in remememberance... riversedge Dec 2015 #74

... sarge43 Dec 2015 #110

Bravo for the truth! valerief Dec 2015 #88

kudos to the daily news for the truth niyad Dec 2015 #111