HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » David Letterman: "I'...

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:05 AM

David Letterman: "I've never seen a deer worth 30 rounds of ammo and an automatic rifle"

David Letterman took a moment out of Monday night's "Late Show" to get serious with his audience about last week's shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, CT. The late night host reacted first as a father, noting that school had always been a place he felt safe leaving his son. "You drop your kid off and you don't see him again? Honestly? That's really life now? That's what it's going to be?" he asked.

He then went on to react as a citizen. In particular, Letterman stated concern that the guns Adam Lanza used in the attack were more powerful than most Americans need. "I've never seen a deer worth 30 rounds of ammo and an automatic rifle," he joked.

The host ended his segment on an optimistic note, quoting excerpts from the President's speech at Sunday night's vigil, and concluding, "That's our President of the United States, ladies and gentlemen. Going on the record. And in a small measure I feel better he's looking out for us in this regard."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/david-letterman-sandy-hook-heartfelt-response_n_2325488.html

22 replies, 1686 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply David Letterman: "I've never seen a deer worth 30 rounds of ammo and an automatic rifle" (Original post)
onehandle Dec 2012 OP
safeinOhio Dec 2012 #1
dickthegrouch Dec 2012 #18
AnneD Dec 2012 #20
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #19
reformist2 Dec 2012 #2
davidpdx Dec 2012 #4
WolverineDG Dec 2012 #11
hack89 Dec 2012 #3
safeinOhio Dec 2012 #7
hack89 Dec 2012 #14
jmg257 Dec 2012 #5
Barack_America Dec 2012 #8
jmg257 Dec 2012 #9
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #17
appleannie1 Dec 2012 #13
jmg257 Dec 2012 #15
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #6
appleannie1 Dec 2012 #10
LP2K12 Dec 2012 #12
SDjack Dec 2012 #16
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #22
coldbeer Dec 2012 #21

Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:49 AM

1. If it takes you 30 rounds

To kill a deer, you may want to take up fishing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:21 AM

18. If it takes 30 rounds...

You're no sportsman.
You're a lousy shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dickthegrouch (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:14 PM

20. Vegetarian...

old Indian word for lousy hunter.

If you can down a buffalo with a bow and arrow, you can get a deer with less than 30 rounds. Shooting targets is another story. Multiple shots are fun in that instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:28 AM

19. I recommend bear wrestling

Only wimps use overwhelming force. You think you are a real he-man sportsman. You don't prove that by blasting an animal with a powerful rifle at a safe distance. Any moron could do that.

Show me you are a real man by taking on that bear mano a mano. Fists only, no holds barred. Now that would impress me.

Not up for bear wrestling? Well then at least show me you can catch a badger with nothing but your hands and superior intellect. Oh, and do have a friend capture a video of that. I'm sure it would be very interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:53 AM

2. I love that Dave is using his show as a platform for his views.

What's great about him is that he's just an ordinary guy, not a partisan on a team with an agenda. I dare say he was at least as important in the 2012 election as Jon Stewart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:37 AM

4. Very true

He went after both McCain and Romney on his show. I think he tried to stay neutral until McCain fucked him over by skipping his show. The he just let lose on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:17 AM

11. Hey John? YOU NEED A RIDE TO THE AIRPORT???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:57 AM

3. You can't hunt with 30 round mags in most states

a 5 round limit is typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:03 AM

7. Then why should it be legal to

walk down the street with one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:39 AM

14. Because the voters decided it should be. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:48 AM

5. Letterman is funny, but it really is time to stop belittling people who own AR type rifles

by equating them all with 'inadquate hunters'.

These are people that justifibly believe that the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.
These are people that justifibly believe that the 2nd amendment has only a little to do with "need".
These are people that justifibly believe their right to arms does not depend on the 2nd to exist.
These are people that the majority of don't even hunt.
These are people that if they do hunt know it can't/won't be with 30 round mags.
These are people that the majority of likely never shot a full-automatic rifle in their lives, and will think semi-autos offer lots of advantages.


Bottom line - these are people who DO NOT NEED deer or hunting to justify owning any type of firearm, any type of mag, and all the ammo they want as long as they can do so legally!

Stop making it about those irrelevant issues - showing ignorance to make fun of those you disgree with won't help. It pisses them off and causes them to dig in. .


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:10 AM

8. I'd make fun of them LESS if they used them for hunting.

Because if they're not using them for hunting, they're using them as toys rather than tools.

But I'll still make fun of them for using them for hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:13 AM

9. Good point. And this is the majority...

"Because if they're not using them for hunting, they're using them as toys rather than tools."

Time to convivce them that their fun is just not worth it. Trying to convince them their 'peace of mind' isn't worth it won't be as easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:53 AM

17. I don't think the effort to convince them of anything is worth it

If you look at the Heller decision, every single one of the liberal judges said...

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Yet you have people right here on a Democratic site that effectively say, nope the SCOTUS has spoken, that's the way it is, now go fuck yourself. If we can't even hope to convince gun worshipers of the liberal POV on a Democratic site, what hope is there of convincing the rest of the gun worshipers who predominately favor Republicans?

I don't hold out hope they will ever be convinced of anything that seeks to limit the access to guns one bit. I see more value in just marginalizing them, and to that end Letterman does a pretty good job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:23 AM

13. Most people would have "peace of mind" if their needless semi-automatic guns were destroyed.

Why should the majority of mankind have to lose their peace of mind so a minority of insecure people can have guns there is no need for except to kill people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appleannie1 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:45 AM

15. They shouldn't. They need the will to do what they have to to get it done. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:53 AM

6. This hunter agrees with him completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:14 AM

10. 30 rounds of ammo would maybe leave enough meat for a sandwich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:20 AM

12. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:50 AM

16. I wonder what the 2nd Amendment would look like if

shooters were murdering little school children at the time it was written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SDjack (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:58 PM

22. They murdered little kids in many other ways then

Including, actually, shooting. Very small children served on ships and in what passed for the military then, including dying in combat. They labored in fields , were sold into slavery, made into prostitutes, climbed down chimneys and sent into mines naked and crawling on their bellies.

Now, would the 2A look different if the very elite had their children shot? Maybe, maybe not.

Children were treated and thought of quite differently then (and we treat many badly enough now).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:49 PM

21. Have you ever been through a divorce

oh dear,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread