ALCOA, Tenn. -- The son of a well-known Alcoa pastor has taken out an order of protection against his father, claiming he was threatened with a gun during an argument at a church over his lack of church attendance.
The order of protection was filed by 32-year-old Michael Louis Colquitt against 60-year-old Joe Colquitt, pastor of St. John Missionary Baptist Church.
The younger man told police his father pulled out a handgun when they met at the church to discuss church attendance. He told officers his father pointed the gun at him and threatened to kill him, his wife and family.
It seems a bit incredible to me that Rev. Colquitt is at liberty and still in possession of his gun. This is exactly where things need to be tightened up. When legal gun owners demonstrate instability they should immediately be deprived of their guns. The chances of this type of behavior being an isolated one-off incident are extremely low. We all know people with anger management issues; they are repeat offenders. The ones with guns are dangerous, as was outlined in The Famous 10%.
What's your opinion? Do you think identifying people who are unfit to own guns based on incidents like this and taking the action necessary to disarm them is a wishful pipe-dream in a State like Tennessee? What about New Jersey or California?
Please leave a comment.
"When legal gun owners demonstrate instability they should immediately be deprived of their guns."
ReplyDeleteWhile this sounds noble in theory, in practice it only opens the door for abuse by vindictive spouses and angry teenagers.
And as i've said before, if someone, due to their behavior, can't be trusted to own a gun, they can't be trusted walk free in society. So why stop with depriving them of their guns? If someone is that much of a threat, lock them up.
"Do you think identifying people who are unfit to own guns based on incidents like this and taking the action necessary to disarm them is a wishful pipe-dream in a State like Tennessee? "
Yes.
"What about New Jersey or California?"
Considering how far the Second Amendment has been eroded in those two states, it would be fairly easy to implement there.
Aztec nailed it. What burden of proof is to be required as the basis of deprivation of a person's fundamental human right to have an effective means of self-defense? Disarming someone is, after all, potentially facilitating his murder.
ReplyDeleteOnly a sick, evil individual would condone doing that without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.