Emily gets her gun

[aray]

For those of you in sane states where it is easy to get a gun, you might like to see the very interesting series posted by Emily Miller of the Washington Times (not to be confused with the liberal and more well known Washington Post).

She is documenting her quest to obtain a gun in the District of Columbia, and how hard / byzantine they have deliberately made the process. She's weeks into the process and still not quite through the entire thing.

Anyway, it makes for a good read. Check out the series at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...-gets-her-gun/

(FYI a couple of times she mentions trying a Kahr in the series, but she didn't like it so much.)

[HDoc]

She is documenting her quest to obtain a gun in the District of Columbia, and how hard / byzantine they have deliberately made the process. She's weeks into the process and still not quite through the entire thing.

Anyway, it makes for a good read. Check out the series at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...-gets-her-gun/

(FYI a couple of times she mentions trying a Kahr in the series, but she didn't like it so much.)

I agree with the premise of the article, but she also (a complete gun newbie) whines about having to get range time with her safety course.
I have no problem with the permitting authority to require the NRA/NRA
equiv. course plus an hour of range time before allowing a citizen to carry
a CCW. Man, can you imagine thousands of folks with no idea of trigger
discipline, basic safety, or knowledge running around with weapons on their person? Can you imagine counting the holes in their ceilings, floors,walls,
or children or maybe me?

[TriggerMan]

For those of you in sane states where it is easy to get a gun, you might like to see the very interesting series posted by Emily Miller of the Washington Times (not to be confused with the liberal and more well known Washington Post).

She is documenting her quest to obtain a gun in the District of Columbia, and how hard / byzantine they have deliberately made the process. She's weeks into the process and still not quite through the entire thing.

Anyway, it makes for a good read. Check out the series at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...-gets-her-gun/

(FYI a couple of times she mentions trying a Kahr in the series, but she didn't like it so much.)

Interesting series of articles. It looks like she quickly became a good shot/

[Bill K]

Thanks for sharing. Is there anyway of following her story without having a Twitter account?

[wyntrout]

I agree with the premise of the article, but she also (a complete gun newbie) whines about having to get range time with her safety course.
I have no problem with the permitting authority to require the NRA/NRA
equiv. course plus an hour of range time before allowing a citizen to carry
a CCW. Man, can you imagine thousands of folks with no idea of trigger
discipline, basic safety, or knowledge running around with weapons on their person? Can you imagine counting the holes in their ceilings, floors,walls,
or children or maybe me?

It's called FREEDOM and it's not limited to 21-year olds with government-required course and licenses and fees. We expect 18-year olds to go to war and maybe die for their country and be responsible for their own actions... AND VOTE... but no drinking of alcohol or carrying a firearm. That's wrong.

Consider what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the U.S. Constitution... I'll bet you didn't have to be 18 for a lot of stuff back then... and certainly not 21 to be legally able to defend yourself with a firearm!

Anyone but violent felons and the adjudged criminally insane or medically incompetent should be able to carry without fee or permit. That's constitutional carry... freedom.

Wynn

[LMT42]

"After the man left, I was still suspicious so I went inside, grabbed my ********** and clicked on the icon for the camera. I walked down the street, and as I turned the corner, I saw about 15 scruffy young men standing around two pickup trucks. We were at the end of a woody, dead-end road."

Glad she got her gun, now she needs some common sense to go with it. Armed or not, she should have stayed inside the house and called the cops.

[JFootin]

It's called FREEDOM and it's not limited to 21-year olds with government-required course and licenses and fees. We expect 18-year olds to go to war and maybe die for their country and be responsible for their own actions... AND VOTE... but no drinking of alcohol or carrying a firearm. That's wrong.

Consider what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the U.S. Constitution... I'll bet you didn't have to be 18 for a lot of stuff back then... and certainly not 21 to be legally able to defend yourself with a firearm!

Anyone but violent felons and the adjudged criminally insane or medically incompetent should be able to carry without fee or permit. That's constitutional carry... freedom.

Wynn

+1 and amen!

[HDoc]

It's called FREEDOM and it's not limited to 21-year olds with government-required course and licenses and fees. We expect 18-year olds to go to war and maybe die for their country and be responsible for their own actions... AND VOTE... but no drinking of alcohol or carrying a firearm. That's wrong.

Consider what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the U.S. Constitution... I'll bet you didn't have to be 18 for a lot of stuff back then... and certainly not 21 to be legally able to defend yourself with a firearm!

Anyone but violent felons and the adjudged criminally insane or medically incompetent should be able to carry without fee or permit. That's constitutional carry... freedom.

Wynn

So for instance you don't believe in folks having driving lessons before getting on the road? Remember that for years, no one needed one for autos because transportation was considered a necessity and a right.
As for the military, how much training did you have to get before you were considered qualified to use even small arms? Hundreds of hours? Different training with every change in weapon or caliber? Training in poor visibility, winter training, night training etc. Sorry, I don't want citizens with no idea of the lethality of the hardware they bought to be walking the streets without a minimal of NRA or military training. With freedom comes responsibility.

[KMA]

It's called FREEDOM and it's not limited to 21-year olds with government-required course and licenses and fees. We expect 18-year olds to go to war and maybe die for their country and be responsible for their own actions... AND VOTE... but no drinking of alcohol or carrying a firearm. That's wrong.

Consider what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the U.S. Constitution... I'll bet you didn't have to be 18 for a lot of stuff back then... and certainly not 21 to be legally able to defend yourself with a firearm!

Anyone but violent felons and the adjudged criminally insane or medically incompetent should be able to carry without fee or permit. That's constitutional carry... freedom.

Wynn

Very good post! You are so right!

[TriggerMan]

So for instance you don't believe in folks having driving lessons before getting on the road? Remember that for years, no one needed one for autos because transportation was considered a necessity and a right.
As for the military, how much training did you have to get before you were considered qualified to use even small arms? Hundreds of hours? Different training with every change in weapon or caliber? Training in poor visibility, winter training, night training etc. Sorry, I don't want citizens with no idea of the lethality of the hardware they bought to be walking the streets without a minimal of NRA or military training. With freedom comes responsibility.

Well stated.

I was at the indoor range yesterday. About two minutes after apparently day dreaming through the safety rules, the guy in the lane next to me starts uncasing a rifle and a .45 behind the firing line, intending to carry them up to the shooting station. As I intercepted him, the RO arrived to remind him to only uncase with, weapon muzzle pointed downrange, AT THE FIRING STATION WHILE BETWEEN BULLET PROOF PARTITIONS. He acted like he didn't grasp the safety implication of what he tried to do.

Folks, it's about reinforcing good safety HABITS....100% of the time. I'm sure someone thinks what's the big deal. It was probably unloaded as brought from home. Right. One LGS has a glass vase about 14 inches high and large enough to hold a dozen roses nearly filled with live rounds taken from supposedly unloaded/empty guns brought in for service, consultation or trade in appraisals.

Now the best part. The idiot in the above story was helping orient a novice shooter. Heard him ask, "Do you want me to load that mag for you" and "do this like so". The novice was actually safer as I oberved over the next ten minutes. The older guy, about 50, was an inattentive idiot who shouldn't own a gun. He was continually stepping back out of his station, .45 in hand WITH HIS F'ing FINGER ON THE TRIGGER! He'll eventually shot someone's foot, hopefully only his own. What a dunce! end rant.

I left a few minutes early and advised the newly arrived RO to watch him. For some reason Friday around 12:15 was absolutely packed in there.

[wyntrout]

So for instance you don't believe in folks having driving lessons before getting on the road? Remember that for years, no one needed one for autos because transportation was considered a necessity and a right.
As for the military, how much training did you have to get before you were considered qualified to use even small arms? Hundreds of hours? Different training with every change in weapon or caliber? Training in poor visibility, winter training, night training etc. Sorry, I don't want citizens with no idea of the lethality of the hardware they bought to be walking the streets without a minimal of NRA or military training. With freedom comes responsibility.

You're mixing rights and "privileges". Driving on publicly maintained roads is a privilege, not a right. Careless used, a car is a large convenience capable of being used or "misused" as a weapon of mass destruction and murder. It's not your living room sofa, which won't kill anyone if you're texting or trying to make eye contact with your buds in the passenger areas.

I don't think that anyone should be driving on our public roads until they are at least 18 and have completed a REAL driving school... not the ones most of our kids are limited to in public school. In Europe CHILDREN aren't permitted to drive as ours are. It's costly and training is more comprehensive.

Self-defense is a HUMAN right... and we shouldn't be limited or restricted in carrying concealed or openly-carried weapons, but I'm not a FAN of open carry, either. I have nothing to prove and I want the element of surprise to aid me, not warn others that I'm a threat to be taken out early... or be robbed of my weapon.

Wynn

[TriggerMan]

You're mixing rights and "privileges". Driving on publicly maintained roads is a privilege, not a right. Careless used, a car is a large convenience capable of being used or "misused" as a weapon of mass destruction and murder. It's not your living room sofa, which won't kill anyone if you're texting or trying to make eye contact with your buds in the passenger areas.

I don't think that anyone should be driving on our public roads until they are at least 18 and have completed a REAL driving school... not the ones most of our kids are limited to in public school. In Europe CHILDREN aren't permitted to drive as ours are. It's costly and training is more comprehensive.

Self-defense is a HUMAN right... and we shouldn't be limited or restricted in carrying concealed or openly-carried weapons, but I'm not a FAN of open carry, either. I have nothing to prove and I want the element of surprise to aid me, not warn others that I'm a threat to be taken out early... or be robbed of my weapon.

Wynn

We all the get the rights vs priviledges arguement. I think we need to be practical too. No one is irreparibly harmed by getting trained in safety matters. Your freedom ends where my body starts. I live in a real world not a theorectical one.

[HDoc]

We all the get the rights vs priviledges arguement. I think we need to be practical too. No one is irreparibly harmed by getting trained in safety matters. Your freedom ends where my body starts. I live in a real world not a theorectical one.

Better said than me, but it reflects my sentiments. And of course
I don't think anyone here is talking about ultimately restricting anyone's
( bar felons; mentally unbalanced; or occupy Wall Street demonstrators) right to bear arms.

[kramm]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I must have missed the part that says unless this or that happens.

[wyntrout]

The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. I must have missed the part that says unless this or that happens.

That's the Larry the Cable Guy version... keep and BARE arms.

Wynn