Gut Rumbles
 

February 13, 2005

steal my gun

I read about this story on several different sites, but this is the best account in MY humble opinion. I can't imagine MY father ever doing something that asinine.

If he saw me mishandling the weapon, he might take it away until I remembered the gun safety rules he taught me with my first BB gun, or he might demand that I sell it because I was too stupid to own that kind of rifle. He might have said, "You don't need this thing. I DO!!! Here's the money you paid for it and it's MINE now."

But he wouldn't have called his doctor and then his girlfriend for advice before stealing the gun and giving it to the cops. I read that part and wondered... This guy has a GIRLFRIEND? What must SHE be like?

I think the guy's a blithering idiot myself.

Comments

Pull my finger

Posted by: Bob on February 13, 2005 11:13 PM

As du Toit would (and will) likely say: That asshole deserves a swift kick in the balls. If he has any.

My father bought me my first "assault rifle", a Mini-14 with all the naughty options and a pack of high-cap mags, for my 16th birthday. I must have put five thousand rounds through it before it was a week old. Never had a single "accident", either.

Then again, my dad was a real man who taught his kids right from wrong, and not a pussified candy-ass who went running to whiney women for their council.

Posted by: Mr. Lion on February 14, 2005 12:37 AM

You and your buddy missed the only part odf the story that is anybodies business:

"Or you might say that when Abrams' son brought an SKS semiautomatic home..."

Dad's house, Dad's rules. You may not approve of Dad's methods, but the bottom line is, if it's in his house it's his business. Your blogger buddy forgot the little detail: you can't steal something you already own.

If it's in my house, I own it. I don't care if the kid's 38.

Posted by: Steve on February 14, 2005 12:37 AM

Steve,
Hate to break this to ya but property Rights are something that can only be justly negated by consent or implicit action.

Yeah; it was the guy's house & the guy's rules. He'd have been fine if he told the kid to get the thing out of his house & never bring anything like it back inside. But what he did was steal the rifle. That means take someone else's property without their consent.

Here's a little test for ya - next time a buddy comes over & spends a few hours in your house take his watch from him & go sell it. Then try to tell the local DA that since it was in your house it became your property.

Now I can agree that it was the dad's house & he could make up any rules he wished. Almost. A rule that says he can steal or abuse any & every one under his roof just wouldn't fly (well not without a lot of consent forms being signed). If the dad was such a hoplophobe (despite his intensive Army training with A real assault rifle) he should have told the kid to get rid of it, not steal it with the aid of a doctor, his g/f & the local cops.

Posted by: Publicola on February 14, 2005 02:58 AM

I would disagree with the statement that military weapons are not designed to kill people . That is exactly what they are designed to do. They may also be used as hunting and recreational shooting. I agree with the part about the guy being an idiot. He is also not much of a father.

Posted by: James Old Guy on February 14, 2005 10:41 AM

James,
It's a semantic point but an important one. Besides it really pisses of an anti when you try to explain it to them.

Any firearm is designed to launch a projectile. Any car is designed to propel itself. Now obviously some firearms are more suited to other tasks than other firearms are. Despite the U.S. military's logic (or lack thereof) you wouldn't want to take a .22 into combat the same as you wouldn't want to take a .416 Rigby on a squirrel hunt. Driving to work in a Honda seems reasonable, but maybe not driving to work in an Indy car. But both firearms mentioned above are designed to do the same thing; launch a projectile. Both cars are designed to do the same thing; propel itself. what differs is the suitability of the features to specific applications.

Like I said it's a bit semantic, cause it hinges on "designed for" being applied literally & not as a substitute for "ideally used for" or "will work well for".

But yes, the military uses firearms that are well suited for killing people (well except for ours which is enamored with some wounding theory bullshit) & those firearms are designed with military use in mind. But their primary function is still to simply paunch a projectile. Where that projectile ends up & for what reason is not a design feature, but a decision made by the person using it.

The reason I make a big deal out of this is by bowing down to the idea that a weapon is designed to kill it gives the anti-gun lobby a little more ammo so to speak. It helps them segregate firearms into those "designed to kill" & those with a "sporting purpose". Every firearm can be used to kill. Damn near every firearm can be used for target shooting as well (some better than others though). If we give them a wedge they'll damn skippy use it. remember those ten years where an "assault weapon" was expensive as hell? That's cause we let them ban weapons they claimed were "designed to kill".

Sorry if I rambled on a bit, but I think this kind of thing is very important. The anti-gun lobby has been winning the war of words for quite a while (often turning our own phrases against us) & if we don't stop it then things won't look good for us at all.

Posted by: Publicola on February 14, 2005 05:10 PM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.