Through a miracle of modern jurisprudence, Washington, D.C. has transitioned from a complete handgun ban to “shall issue” concealed carry. (The government now must show good cause why they shouldn’t issue a carry permit to a citizen.)
This in The Washington Post’s own backyard! No surprise, then, that the rabidly anti-gun rights rag gave editorial space to an in-house Fudd to decry the partial return of firearms freedom to our nation’s capital . . .
I won’t be one of those trying to get a concealed-carry license.
Not that I am irrevocably opposed to gun ownership.
Records of the D.C. police will show that I am a registered gun owner — have been for years.
Got my license when I returned to the District after living in Maryland, where I acquired my .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle. Renewed the license last year after being fingerprinted and undergoing an FBI background check.
I know my way around guns, having fired an M1 rifle in Army training. I also am familiar with pistols. During my years as a special agent with the State Department in the ’60s, I was qualified in the use of a .38-caliber pistol and a .357 magnum. These were the weapons issued when I was assigned to protect visiting foreign heads of state.
Interesting that WaPo Opinion Writer Colbert I. King doesn’t refer to his .22 caliber semiautomatic firearm as an “assault rifle.”
Anyway, here’s why Mr. King won’t be undergoing the District’s unconstitutional training regime: paperwork, a criminal background check, two hours of range training and a 16-hour safety course. And no, it’s not because the Geneva Convention considers 16 hours of state-approved training a form of psychological torture.
While my own weapon is trigger-locked with the key out of reach, I don’t particularly like myself when I have a gun on my hip.
Recalling my experience years ago when I was pressed into service to help protect a foreign leader attending a U.N. General Assembly session and making an official visit to Washington, I back off the idea of carrying a lethal weapon.
I liked the experience way too much.
I loved the weight of the weapon on my hip, the glances I got from the people on the streets, in the hotels and at receptions who noticed the gun when my jacket slid open.
I liked too much the feeling of empowerment, and the what? — the itchiness to show off, to be seen taking on possible threats. Just spoiling for a challenge.
Back then, the lure of coming off macho was in my head.
It could be with me now.
So Mr. King is something of a nutcase. Sorry. Suffers from some form of PTSD. Condolences and, well, fair enough.
Mr. King is hardly the only gun owner I’ve met who won’t carry a gun because they don’t trust themselves to use it responsibly. Or not use it when they shouldn’t. In fact, props to Mr. King for telling the world he owns a pair of those “dangerous hands” the Post’s gun control advocates keep rabbiting on about.
That said, brickbats (as usual) for the assiduously anti-gun Post.
I’d be totally cool with Mr, King’s declaration of psychological/emotional instability IF his the paper published a piece from a responsible gun owner welcoming the change in D.C.’s carry laws. Yeah, that’s not gonna happen.
And yet The Post regularly accuses the NRA of being a bunch of fear mongers. Go figure.