arma virumque cano (et alia)
Ah yes. You pulled out two photos of white families with some overweight members, leaving out the pictures of thin folks, women, people of color, etc. What's wrong--other photos didn't fit the narrative?
Actually, the first picture was about obesity, the second one was about child abuse.And, if I really had a "narrative," I would have left out the link.
Mike, you missed better opportunities if you wanted to highlight obesity of what you believe to be child abuse. There are many excellent photos on his website.http://charlesommanney.com/STORIES/Gun-Control/1/ I do happen to disagree with you in regards to you beliefs about child abuse. First, the child is supervised by her parent, as mine are when I take mine shooting. And secondly, keep in mind that these are posed shots under direction of the photographer. I have to admit, I don't know if I'd be so accommodating to a stranger's request.
And we're back to it being child abuse to take your kids shooting.Funny how you will make fun of gun owners for suggesting that you would persecute them if you got your way, and then will turn around and say they are abusing their children--a statement that would imply support for removing their children from their home.
And yes, you did include the link--one shred of integrity remaining here.
The four youngest kids in that picture are not even holding guns, and the two oldest ones are. Are you really calling it "child abuse" to allow a pre-teen to handle a gun under supervision?
Well, what two families' versions of it look like, anyway. Are we (eventually) to learn of some point here?
Can someone please explain what a persons age, weight, color or gender has anything to do with firearm ownership? Or home ownership? Or job? Or financial position? Or anything at all?
In many areas, we call judging a person's moral or intellectual worth on the basis of the person's appearance to be bigotry of one form or another, but Mikeb does insist on being a bigot when it comes to guns.
It matters to Mike, because if they're all, or mostly, fat white folks, mostly male and mostly old, then their opinions don't count for much in his opinion.
It's a form of reverse racism just as despicable as any other form of racism.
I do question the priorities of families when they have their pre-pubescent children walking around with guns strapped to them and the guns are half the size of the child. Is that the priority of a young child, to know how to kill with a gun and have one strapped to their body?
I do question the point of Slate magazine going to people's homes and asking them to pose with their guns so their liberal readers can get all aghast.
"I do question the priorities of families when they have their pre-pubescent children walking around with guns strapped to them and the guns are half the size of the child." Anon, if you had actually read the article, you would see that this is a prearranged posed photo. He didn't pass them by on the street and ask to take the photo. So, a posed photo, likely by the photographer for his project, kid under supervision of parents. Considering that shooting sports are part of the Olympics, in oder to be competitive, you have to start young. Do you have the same issue with archery?
They weren't forced. The parents obviously wanted their children photographed with guns, a family photo for the world to see. Were they paid for the sitting? I question the appropriateness of the parents showcasing their kids with guns. I would not allow my kids to become worldwide viral, celebrities, even if they were holding muffins.
Oh, and I did read the article, but thanks for your false condescending garbage.
I like the lady sitting in her bed with her shotgun. She looks like she means business!