Tuolumne County sheriff's officials on Sunday afternoon arrested a 71-year-old man suspected of firing a gun at a store in La Grange because he was upset about who his granddaughter is dating.You never know which one of the formerly lawful and responsible gun owners is going to lose his temper. When that happens people can get hurt.
James Wesley Kennedy was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon.
The confrontation began when Kennedy encountered a man whose son was spending time with Kennedy's granddaughter. Sheriff's officials said Kennedy objected to the relationship and a heated argument ensued. Kennedy fired a handgun, sheriff's officials said, but nobody was hit and no injuries were reported.
After deputies conducted an investigation, they took Kennedy into custody.
Since it's difficult to identify these dangerous folks before they get caught doing something wrong, we must take their actions very seriously. Any misuse of a firearm should result in the loss of gun rights. No plea bargaining, no calling it an accident, no nothing. One strike you're out.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
No where in the article does it say the guy was a lawful gun owner. You're making a half-assed opinion without any facts.
ReplyDeleteBullshit. When a guy is not charged with being a felon in possession or illegal possession, we can safely assume he was a lawful gun owner gone bad. What we don't know, cause no one's checking, is if was also a concealed carry permit holder.
DeleteJump the gun much? It says he was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. As it happened only two days ago (and you probably have not bothered to check) you do not know if any additional charges were tacked on. So, you do not know for sure if he was a lawful gun owner or not. As for your comment regarding if he was a CCP holder, that shows you just want to add them to the list of targets in your crosshairs.
DeleteIt takes about a half hour for them to determine if he's a convicted felon or not. No, he was just another idiot who owned guns legally.
DeleteWhile the article doesn't say that the man was a lawful gun owner, here's the question you have to ask yourself; if this man applied for a gun permit, would he have got one? And the point remains the same; do you think if someone was to fire a handgun off in a store, he should lose his permit? In my opinion, buying any sort of firearm should require the prospective gun owner to submit a form with the legitimate need for said firearm.
ReplyDeleteWhy should I have to show a "legitimate" need to exercise a right? Why do you trust the government to be a good caretaker of our rights? But the key point here is that we have no indication that this man had a criminal record. Until a person does something wrong, he is a good citizen. Then you have to address the question of why you would deny gun ownership to a good citizen. That way of thinking labels all of us as pre-criminals.
DeleteYou should have to demonstrate need, "may issue" in other words because it's only a "right" in your twisted understanding of the 2A.
DeleteHere is a question for Alan and MikeB302000: If you apply it for firearms then you could effectively apply it to other areas as well. Take the following as examples (all justifiable as green and money saving).
DeletePersonal vehicle - You have no NEED for a personal vehicle; public transportation can be made available to you...or you can walk.
Personal residence - You have no NEED for a personal residence; public housing can be made available to you.
Personal clothing - You have no NEED for personal clothing; standardized clothing can be made available to you.
Personal possessions - You have no NEED for personal possessions; everything you could need will be provided for you while everything else would be considered excess and depriving others of what they need.
See where I am going with this? There is no "twisted understanding" of the 2nd Amendment...except to those who seek to deprive others of their freedom to exercise it.
"If you apply it for firearms then you could effectively apply it to other areas as well."
DeleteIs that right? Who decided that?
Let's make it one of those SAT-type questions, an easy one. "Which one of the following does not belong?"
A. vehicle
B. clothing
C. Possessions
D. Gun
A, B, and D are examples of C, therefore C, being the name of the category and not a specific element, is the answer.
DeleteSo in other words, you're advocating that sportsmen should have to beg for permission to buy a rifle or shotgun to hunt with. Or a small business man must beg for permission to buy a handgun to protect himself when he has to make that nightly bank deposit?
ReplyDeleteY'all are all about choice when it comes to Women's right to choose or gay marriage, but when it comes to our choice whether not to buy a gun, we're not supposed to have any choice...nice.
I feel that we've indulged in political stereotyping; I simply ask that a prospective gun buyer puts forth a reason for purchasing a firearm before he buys it. Hunting, sportsmanship, and self defense all would work, although I would ask that if someone buys a gun for self defense, they go to mandatory classes taught by trained professionals on how to safely use a firearm. Hell, even buying a gun to take your kids to the range would work.
DeleteWell, when you go to a gun store, the owner or one of his representatives will typically ask you what you want the gun for. They want to make sure you get the right gun. And I believe in training for people who buy a gun for self defense. I took the training myself, paid the fee and waited three months for the background check to be completed to get my CWP permit.
DeleteI just think that requiring someone to get permission to buy an inanimate object is wrong. Think of something that you really enjoy and think how you would feel if you had to get permission to buy it.
Well, just because something is inanimate doesn't mean it's not dangerous- take something like explosives. It's inanimate, alright, but you shouldn't hand it out on the street. People don't kill people, and guns don't kill people; people kill people with guns, and ease of access helps improve the odds that someone will misuse a firearm. For what it's worth, I agree with the author; once you use a gun for something as stupid as intimidating someone in an argument, you should lose your right to own a firearm.
DeleteThat being said, I feel the need to add that I don't have a problem with ninety-nine percent of gun owners. As with most rights, it's the loud and obscene minority that gives the majority a bad name.
Alan, you're being reasonable. Mikeb has accused up to half of all gun owners of being hidden criminals or of being otherwise unfit to own guns. The man in this article committed a crime. Upon conviction, he will be a prohibited person under U.S. law. The trouble is that gun control people want all of us to have to prove that we're worthy of exercising our rights. They believe that everyone is either guilty or wicked until proven otherwise.
DeleteMike, you sound like an hysterical teenage girl when you liken demonstrating need to begging permission.
DeleteI shouldn't have to demonstrate need to exercise a right.
DeleteI could say the same for you because you think every single citizen who owns a gun is a hidden criminal.
Mike, your explanation of this particular situation is perfectly sound.
DeleteMike, you should refer to today's post of George Carlin talking about rights. When you have no argument you fall back on the "rights" argument.
DeleteYou should have to demonstrate need and everyone should be subject to licensing and registration if they want to own guns because there are so many fuck-ups among you lawful gun owners.
The same could be said about any right, Mikeb. How many people make bad choices while voting? We should require voters to show a need. There should be literacy tests and required civics classes for voters. And on and on.
DeleteAnd don't tell me that this is a false equivalence. Voters elect politicians who make decisions for the whole nation. How many people die from respiratory illnesses when we could have legislation that would require cleaner air? How many die in wars that our politicians choose to fight? The president of this country has a huge nuclear arsenal at his disposal. If he chose to kill millions, he could do so. That has a far greater affect than what gun owners can do with their guns.
Let's be clear: Mikeb is showing us that he denies firearms ownership as a right. He's showing us that we wants to restrict ownership to approved people. We've heard it all before, but here's a reminder. This is what the gun control freaks want. They're not asking for minor inconveniences or tiny revisions. They want to decide for us whether we get to own guns.
ReplyDelete