Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: What would YOU do with YOUR gun? (w/Poll) (285 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's not what Catholic Charities... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW

    ...did.  They refused to abide by state antidiscrimination laws and maintained that they could refuse to consider prospective parents who were gay.  That's a world away from asking them about, for example, the stability of their romantic lives or other questions that are asked of prospective adoptive parents.  And sexual orientation (and race and religion and other factors) are routinely taken into consideration where it touches on the best interests of the child.  The NRA lives in a dream world, and your comparison is off.  

    The best apology against false accusers is silence and sufferance, and honest deeds set against dishonest words

    by Alec82 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:49:14 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree again. (6+ / 0-)

      You are wrong. The commonality is, "lawful practice."
      I am neither a hoplophobe or a homophobe, or any other kind of bigot, and would not discriminate against potential adoptive parents on either basis.

      Any man playing grabass or fightin' in the building spends a night in the box.

      by kestrel9000 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:50:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not the issue (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW

        The NRA's position is that the question itself is unlawful.  There's no "commonality" at all (and if there was such a commonality, it was apparently immaterial to the NRA, which has yet to file an amicus brief in the case challenging FL's ban on gay parents, which is the state in question).

        You can disagree all you like; there was a position taken by Catholic agencies that was incommensurate with state antidiscrimination laws.  There's no positive law, to my knowledge, prohibiting prospective adoptive parents from being asked whether they have guns in the home and taking that into account, under the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether or not a child should be placed with them.

        The best apology against false accusers is silence and sufferance, and honest deeds set against dishonest words

        by Alec82 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:53:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please let me know (4+ / 0-)

          when the NRA begins to file amicus briefs on behalf of gay parents.
          I don't keep up with them, they have nothing to do with me, and I'll probably miss it.
          Firearms are legal.
          Are you saying that adoption agencies should be able to discriminate on that basis because you personally don't happen to like them or the people who own them?
          That makes you a bigot, in my book.

          Any man playing grabass or fightin' in the building spends a night in the box.

          by kestrel9000 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 05:55:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you even reading my posts? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            I'm saying that the NRA's legal position is untenable; I'm not stating that prospective applicants should be denied on that basis, but that it is relevant to placement.  The follow up questions are the real issue: What steps are taken to make sure the guns aren't loaded, that children don't have access, etc.  Those are material to the best interests of the child, whether you like it or not.  

            The best apology against false accusers is silence and sufferance, and honest deeds set against dishonest words

            by Alec82 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:01:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whether someone owns guns (6+ / 0-)

              absent a felony conviction, is under no circumstances a proper question.

              Any man playing grabass or fightin' in the building spends a night in the box.

              by kestrel9000 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:02:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not getting your point either. (5+ / 0-)

              Owning firearms is a legal action.

              Being homosexual is a legal action.

              Neither is particularly germaine to becoming an adoptive parent.

              What is the disconnect here?

              •  Neither alone (0+ / 0-)

                On the other hand, owning a gun, which is an inherently dangerous weapon, is a bit different than being attracted to members of the same sex.  And inquiries into the romantic and social lives of adoptive parents are common.  

                The best apology against false accusers is silence and sufferance, and honest deeds set against dishonest words

                by Alec82 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:32:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmmm, I own knives, bats, various power tools, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gossamer, KVoimakas

                  and many sports and outdoor items that are inherently dangerous when used as weapons.  (Is there a weapon that is NOT inherently dangerous?)  The danger is not the weapon, it's the intent.  They should be concerned about whether or not I am a maniac, not what items I own.  

                  •  It might not be (0+ / 0-)

                    Or it might be.  If you do not keep the guns locked up in a safe, that's material to the best interests of the child.  The NRA's position is that adoption agencies may not even ask about gun ownership.  That's not comparable to outright bans on adopting kids because you are gay.   It's a facile and shallow comparison.

                    The best apology against false accusers is silence and sufferance, and honest deeds set against dishonest words

                    by Alec82 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:06:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  uh (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rockhound, KVoimakas

                      What if I keep knives, but they are not locked up in a safe?

                      What if keep a car, but it's not locked in a safe?

                      What if I keep a rock, but it's not in a safe?

                      What if I keep a framing hammer, but it's not in a safe?

                      Taken to it's logical conclusion, adoptive agencies should be allowed to ask questions about any of the above because they are 'weapons' (in sofar as you are defining a weapon as a tool used to apply force for the purpose of causing harm or damage to persons, animals or structures.)

                      I don't give a whit about the NRA, I think they're a bunch of blow-hard lobbyists.  And yet your position is that any myriad of tools should be asked about in adoptive questioning.

                      That's bunk.

                      "We are the ones we've been waiting for"

                      by gossamer on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:28:05 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Cars, knives and... (0+ / 0-)

                        ....rocks and hammers are not designed with the purpose of killing, and certainly knives, rocks and hammers don't kill as efficiently as guns.  And I'm sure the presence or absence of an automobile, along with your driving record, even if it is not a criminal one, are factors adoption agencies look at.  

                        My position is that there's nothing to stop adoption agencies from asking about the presence of guns in your home and, given their inherently dangerous nature and the ease with which they can be used to kill another human being, following up with questions about the precautions you will take to prevent that when you have children living with you.

                        The best apology against false accusers is silence and sufferance, and honest deeds set against dishonest words

                        by Alec82 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:31:50 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  sorry (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KVoimakas

                          and certainly knives, rocks and hammers don't kill as efficiently as guns.

                          I'll give you a choice:

                          scenario #1: a knife or hammer or rock in the hands of a trained military combat officer.

                          scenario #2: an unloaded gun in the hands of an overweight, middle-aged computer technician.

                          Which do you think is going to "kill more efficiently?"  

                          Is the gun going to perform per its design?  Maybe if Fatty throws it.

                          Does our combat officer need to "arm" or do anything else to his rock to make it work?

                          Again, it strictly depends on the intent of the user.

                          Asking these questions about objects is absurd.  One object is only more threatening if it is used that way.

                          given their inherently dangerous nature and the ease with which they can be used to kill another human being, following up with questions about the precautions you will take to prevent that when you have children living with you.

                          Then I expect to see you lobbying in favor of adoption agencies asking about knives, rocks, cars, power tools, and everything else that can - by design - be used as a weapon depending on the intent of the user.

                          "We are the ones we've been waiting for"

                          by gossamer on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 02:54:14 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Your comprehension of the words "weapon"... (0+ / 0-)

                          and "efficient" seem to be lacking.

                          Non-firearm weapons can be extremely efficient.

                          There are many types of guns that are not "designed with the purpose of killing".

                          I suggest you study up some more, and come to the debate with an open mind.

                •  Statistically speaking (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rockhound, KVoimakas, PavePusher

                  the agency should be more concerned if the parents own a pool, have stairs, plan to drive the child in a car, have plastic bags at home, or have household cleaners under the sink than if the parents own firearms.

                  All of the above kill far more children annually in accidents in the US than firearms but I really doubt the adoption agencies intent is the safety of the child here.  It is simply a nice window dressing for their political agenda of creating a stigma for gun ownership as a indirect disincentive for doing so and fear of being rejected for adoption as a direct one.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site