That’s the photoshopped image sitting atop thedailybeast.com‘s Foster Parents Sue to Tote Guns & Tots. The article’s about a brace of Sooners who aren’t OK with OK Social Services’ new “weapon safety agreement.” It requires prospective parents to “maintain weapons in locked storage while in the foster/adoptive home or when not in use; not be carried on the parent’s body while the child is present; and to be kept unloaded or disabled and stored in a locked container while in an automobile.” Let’s look at that image . . .
The key point: the pasted-in AK has nothing whatsoever to do with the story. The foster parents’ beef is with the state’s foster parent carry ban for handguns.
Stephen carries a firearm for protection “whenever possible,” according to the suit. As such, he says the provision barring him from openly carrying a loaded weapon in his car or being strapped while playing with his foster child is burdensome.
Playing with children while carrying a gun! A loaded gun! The Daily Beast clearly thought this was the most egregious indeed offensive idea possible, and created the image to highlight their editorial bias. To do so, they show an AK-toting dad irresponsibly throwing a child in the air with the mother reaching out with worry. Guns guys are irresponsibly macho. Get it?
Although the article presents both sides of the”debate” over two Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms – around children! – author Brandy Zadrozny can’t help display the same condescending cynicism subjectivity personified by their image above her post.
Notwithstanding the threat of terrorists descending on Moore, Oklahoma, we know that when guns are present in the home, the risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings skyrocket.
The good thing about illustrations is that they illustrate. In this case, the Beast has created an image the tells us exactly where they stand on gun rights. As if we didn’t know.
There are two things that are obviously wrong with this picture. I am not quite sure why this guy thinks that not having a muzzle break/compensator on an AK is a good idea. Also, I personally would mount some sort of an optic on that thing.
That nearly made me spit my drink out onto my keyboard. Good show!
Good thing that you didn’t see the broken barrel….
Wrong with it? It’s obvious…Scale.
That’s either an enormous AK or a little man.
Well your right on both counts according to the gun grabbers. Of course it’s a big gun, he has a small “man-ber”
No vertical cheek smacks or blown eardrums. Next time try saying a suppressor and don’t forget to add “suppose the muzzle threading is concentric”
i am pretty sure that having the sling points in those locations with a full magazine and a loose sling like that is a bad idea.
Also the kid should have a cape
There is too much starch in that sling.
That AK is defying the laws of physics!
Muzzle is pointing upward. Loose sling with those sling points is just sloppy.
Otherwise, not a damn thing.
Father playing with child. Child seems happy. Adoring spouse watches. AK in tow. Two point sling. Standard capcaity mag. Warsaw stock…. I’m really having trouble finding something wrong here.
Where’s Mom’s rifle?
Yeah, where is Mom’s AR-15?
Bite your tongue! Where’s her VZ-58? Would be More like it.
These parents are obviously into kommie guns, so that’s what she would be toting. Keep the caliber common an’ all.
Hmmm, it’s not raining (like it is here), they aren’t wearing parkas, so it’s probably warm.
I’m only seeing good things in the photo. Nothing wrong at all.
I see it as the Biological mother is throwing her unwanted child into a pit and the guy with the AK rushed in to to save him. Hence, the out of place slung rifle.
It’s funny because the article is about foster parents
I hold, care for, and play with my kids while armed. The firearm hasn’t jumped out of its holster and killed one of my children yet. I guess I’ve been “lucky!”
Funny. All I see is a soldier greeting his family.
There aren’t enough guns in the picture! And maybe he should attach his bayonet in case he doesn’t really have to shoot something. For the children!!!
And when evil presents, suppose the family complies or killed. Will bureaucrats sleep well knowing their rules took the life they wanted to preserve? Most likely yes because only ink matters in their world, not the reality of the arena.
I get that the children in foster care are still a ward of the state and therfore the states responsibility to keep the children safe, there are 10,000ish child related firearms incidents, but I also feel it would be the responsibility of the foster parents to keep that child safe. Safe from harming themselves or being harmed by others. Wonder how many foster children have biological parents that become unhinged and come looking for their kids?
I am having a hard time accepting your comment of 10,000ish firearm related child incidents — annually I presume? There were about 600 deaths last year from negligent firearm handling/storage and only about 200 of those involved children. Granted, those are only deaths and there would have been injuries as well. If we go with the data that says about 1/4 of gunshot wounds cause death, then there were about 800 incidents where children shot themselves (of which 200 caused their death). While there may have been more incidents where children handled firearms unintentionally, they did not suffer any harm and thus those incidents do not factor into actual risk of injury/death.
So, with at most 1,000 children each year injuring or killing themselves with a firearm, I don’t see a huge risk in general when parents have a firearm in the home.
Now, having said all that, I am the first to recognize that many foster children have grown up in horrendous conditions and may very well be WAY more at risk of harming themselves or their foster family. That being the case, if I were the governing authority, I would mandate that foster parents of foster children age 2+ must keep all firearms locked in a safe or on their body.
Okay, go ahead and flame away.
The 10,000 number comes from Obama drones I forgot to add that in parentheses next to the number. I believe if you have random kids around it should be on your hip or in a safe. Your own children, it’s up to you. Foster kids fall into the random kids until you know them well, then again it’s up to you.
The kid isn’t wearing the California safety gear required for all childish or child like behavior(helmet and water wings). Come one guys, for the kids!
Not enough information.
Perhaps the kid is kinda ‘mouthy’…
Mom, dad, child, a Kalashnikov, what’s not to be happy about? All they needed was a pickup truck parked in the background.
So, does OK require foster parents to keep staircases locked, medicines and chemicals locked, and not to convey foster children via automobile?
As for the image? It seems to be violating Newton’s Third Law. I’m not sure how you toss a baby into the air while simultaneously having an upward-slung rifle on your back fly straight backward.
Pools drained, food mashed, outlets with plastic plugs, tv on the floor, foam padding on everything and does the car have 6 airbags?
Make sure that pool has deck secured over it so the kids won’t skateboard in it and maybe break an arm…
It’s hard to break an Arm if the skate board won’t roll through the padding.
Yes Chip they do require staircase gates, plugs in sockets, securing children per veery stringent child care at laws, and require locking of all cabinets with meds/toxic substances AND they make home visits monthly to quarterly.
I am a kinship foster and told them straight up that I would continue to carry due to the instability of the methods addict parents of my foster son. I did not have to sign an agreement when I first started doing this 2 plus years ago but they re-up your agreements yearly and I refused to sign it and attached my lawyer’s contact information. They have not come for my boy in the interval 8 or 9 months since that time.
Since when have the laws of nature matter to Progressives?
Looks like a happy family to me. Heck, he even removed the bayonet, for safety I’m sure.
Look at this baby!
Wow… just wow.
Goes to show that the real objective isn’t to ban handguns… it is to ban weapons that actually give the populace a fighting chance against an oppressive government!
Rifle should be more securely on his shoulder. Don’t put the kid in front of the rifle’s barrel. Otherwise, nothing wrong here.
I guess that Oklahoma has so many good foster parents that it needs to thin the herd.
Or maybe the politicians simply get a lot of “financial support” from orphanages. “Kids for Cash” has happened before and is probably still happening. Maybe in Oklahoma.
Whenever a media establishment pundit says “We know that…” in an article about guns or gun owners, you can be 101% sure that what they know just isn’t so.
I wish my rifle were lighter than air.
I don’t. Then buttstroking wouldn’t be as fun.
we know that when guns are present in the home, the risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings skyrocket.
I am still in bewilderment of how I survived being at my Grandparent’s and Great Uncle’s homes. People born in the 19th Century did not put up with this nonsense. Thank God!
Of course terrorists / psychotic name seekers do not exist in Oklahoma.
Just as they don’t in San Bernardino, Paris, Indonesia, Australia or Africa etc
So you have no need or reason in her view
Also I’m not sure but doesn’t the traditional two point sling on an ak attach in front of the hand guard? In the picture it is attached near the front of the receiver.
Depending on the variation, the front sling loop is either part of the front gas block, or on the upper hand-guard retainer.
I don’t know. That AK looks like it is trying to break free of the sling and go on a killing spree.
You take the states $ you have to abide by their shite rules. And here I thought OK was a gun paradise(it seemed really nice when I was in Tulsa 30 years ago)…
We must have an overabundance of people willing to be foster parents to make such stupid rules… right?
I don’t understand the sling configuration that holds the rifle out away from the body pointed up like that. Also, I don’t see the wife’s VEPR. Maybe the angle or something…
So can cops not adopt?
Is it OK to home carry with an empty chamber?
Robert, your enlightened readership just didn’t understand the point of your piece. I understand. By the image they concocted, yes you can obviously infer their bent on the argument. To bad you have to rummage thtough such nonsense about silencers and mother’s not carrying and feel it’s still worth it.
Well, other than the violation of the laws of physics that Chip notes, the most egregious thing missing from this picture is there’s no dog. Boys need dogs.
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
1. I don’t own an AK.
2. All of our children (not counting one grown one) are girls. Four at the moment and another girl soon to be added to the family.
Of all of the news coverage concerning our case, the Daily Beast has been the most entertaining so far.