Skip to main content

View Diary: Your Daily Gun (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, that image is from a Bloomberg ad. (9+ / 0-)

    This what the man is saying in the ad:

    In the other ad, the man, a hunter, is shown with the rifle and children playing in the background.

    "I believe in the Second Amendment, and I'll fight to protect it. But with rights come responsibilities," he says. "That's why I support comprehensive background checks."

    So you are projecting onto that image an interpretation that doesn't exist. In fact, the Bloomberg ad uses the man and the setting to make the case that this hunter supports background checks.

    Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

    by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 07:44:15 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed, it gives the guy credibility, (0+ / 0-)

      when he should have none.

      Guns -- even in the hands of "responsible owners" -- just get people killed.  A wife killed in a gun-cleaning accident here, a child popping off his brother there, of course also by accident; pretty soon it adds up to a real problem.  

      •  credibility? With his finger on the trigger? n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock, noway2
        •  That's exactly my point. (1+ / 0-)

          Here's an idiot with his finger on the trigger, and yet the setup is (if I'm not mistaken) designed to appeal to existing gun owners, with statements like "I'm willing to fight for my rights," . . . all in the interest of making Bloomberg's legislation seem "reasonable" to the unwashed masses.  

          What I find abhorrent is the idea that such an image is necessary to establish credibility -- it only perpetuates the idea that "willin' to fight fer my gun-ownin' rights" is a legitimate stance.  It isn't.  

          •  Yep, its potentially offensive on a few levels (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eikyu Saha, ban nock

            If anything it speaks to the divide between rural and urban America.

          •  Here is where we absolutely disagree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ban nock
            it only perpetuates the idea that "willin' to fight fer my gun-ownin' rights" is a legitimate stance.  It isn't.  
            If anything, fighting to preserve the Bill of Rights is very much a legitimate stance.  If you, or anyone else doesn't like the fact that we, as American Citizens, have that right you are absolutely free to petition to have the Constitution of this country changed.  Until such time as you have managed to do so, these petty little "attacks" on this rights are the illegitimate factor here and I am sure that before too long this will be addressed by the courts.

            If you don't like it, then you can also apply the same kind of reasoning to the 1st amendment and you will have zero ground to stand upon when someone who disagrees with and dislikes you comes along and silences you.

            •  Not at all. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Free Jazz at High Noon

              The Constitution was designed for people to fight things out at the ballot box and in the courts, not in the streets.  If you think Armageddon is around the corner and we'll need guns to defend ourselves against drones and zombies, then you need to get real.  

              Various provisions of the Bill of Rights have been altered, disambiguated, and even canceled -- all with due process.  

              And, just as I think the Three-Fifths Compromise was an atrocity, I think the Second Amendment, as it has come to be misinterpreted, is also an atrocity.  Time for it to go.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site