Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL XXIV (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would assume you would call (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution, splashy

    a police officer a "Responsible Gun OwnerTM" until he shoots himself in the leg, then all of a sudden he's NOT a Responsible Gun OwnerTM, and should have all his guns taken from him, right? Obviously, he's not responsible, and has no business owning a gun, right?
    Shouldn't we keep guns away from irresponsible people?

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:40:15 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I would call him a human... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth

      ...do you have car insurance? Fire insurance? Life insurance? Do you wear a seat belt? Safety glasses when weed eating your lawn? Condoms with random sex? Do you put on sunscreen? Wear a life jacket on while fishing on a boat? It's impossible to prevent accidents and injuries by default. How do we know somebody is irresponsible before the fact? We simply don't. But if it were possible, I would say "hell yes", let's keep guns away from iresponsible people. There's such a thing called a presumption of innocence. We raise hell about racial profiling-and for good reason. How can we profile somebody who looks "irrresponsible"? Or how do we tell? What do they look like? Do they smell funny? From a background check, that's just a snapshot telling us that somebody hasn't done anything stupid enough to bar him from owning a gun...yet?

      "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:00:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To me the whole point of this series ... (3+ / 0-)

        ... Has been that maybe we're doing this whole thing (I.e., gun control) wrong. Maybe, in fact, the NRA and its allies are right and we really don't need any more gun control than we already have.

        What we need to advocate for instead is gun owner control.

        After all, if the Second Amendment can be read as broadly allowing the sale and possession guns via "the right to keep and bear arms," then the "well-regulated militia," in both the original and contemporary senses, demands that the state take an active interest in how those who keep and bear arms "for the security of a free people" keep and bear them.

        At the very least, anyone who's even carrying a weapon while legally intoxicated should (at least) temporarily lose the right even if they're miles away from anyone else and they don't take it out (You would be amazed at how few states have laws covering this broadly).
        Likewise, in any incident involving guns and alcohol, the investigating officer should be required to report that even where there was no legal intoxication, or the shooter/ heat packer was sober. I am continually amazed at in how many of these incidents (such as the one from GunFAIL XXIII where the guy in Cookesville, TN, took a few shots at his dog because it chewed up his sofa) alcohol is so obviously the elephant in the room, yet (the Missouri story above is a rare exception) no one mentions it.

        And I think we can solve the assault-rifle thing this way, too. AR-15s were made to defend the country against threats far more serious than a bunch of empties on a fence. You want to have one? You should be able to shoot as well as a U.S. Marine. The prerequisite for buying one should be proof that you've met the Corps' Fundamental Combat Marksmanship standards (for anyone with no military service, anyway). And if you want to have less restrictions (I.e., magazine size), you could level up all the way to Advanced Combat Rifle Marksmanship, the skill level required of every Marine infantry person.

        •  I agree tie ownership with... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenearth, Daniel Case

          ...passing an approved marksmanship course. I was an armor crewman ("tanker") on M60A-1's in the Army. Was 18 years old and never fired anything more lethal than a pop gun. So I couldn't qualify with the M-16 and I didn't graduate with my Basic Training Company. Did the Army fire me? No, they sent me to "special training company" for two weeks. All I did from sun-up to sundown was fire my weapon.  After firing thousands of rounds at camouflaged targets that stayed up for only one second at 100, 200, 300, and 400 meters, I was relieved to finally pass my qualification test for Expert on the 14th day. I can still disassemble and re-assemble it blindfolded. And you better believe it when I tell you, marksmanship is like riding a bike-it's a skill you never forget. I just hope I never have to use it in self-defense or in anger against anyone.

          Then, there was US Army Armor School at Fort Knox, KY. That's where the fun really began. Got off the bus. Greeted by a big burly Drill Sgt who told us, "Welcome to Fort Knox, home of the best damned tankers in the world. Give your heart to Jesus because your ass belongs to me! You will not be walking anywhere on this base at any time. Do you see this coaxial 7.62mm machine gun? Yes, drill seargent! You will become best friends with it and you will carry it on your shoulders everywhere you go!" I still have a dent in my left shoulder from it.

          "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

          by ImpeachKingBushII on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:36:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site