Gun Owner Offends Writer For Posing in an Unacceptable Manner

"Most gun owners would not hold their gun in this same posed manner."

Why Not?   He's at  a GUN RANGE!

Parkland Teacher Attacks Kyle Kashuv Over Gun Photo | Daily Wire:

This photo was apparently NOT taken at a "School", so the presence of a young man holding a rifle is not obviously a threat to a school

It's possible that  the criticism is because the photo shows the young man at a shooting range, facing UP RANGE, and he is behind the line of fire.   But there's no reason to believe that the firing line had not been cleared before the photo was taken.

But the comment is "... hold their gun ...", and all we can tell from the photo is that:

 (a) his finger is OFF the trigger;
 (b) the gun seems to be unloaded (no magazine inserted);
 (c) the muzzle is not discernibly pointing "up-range".

There's nothing "unacceptable" with his firearms safety procedures.

Here's the "posed manner":

Photo Source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbRcweDW4AEpZMy.jpg*Kyle Kashuv on Twitter*

NOTE: "Range Rules" not obviously violated. The Critic doesn't identify the "problem".


Here is the article's full quote from the critical teacher, in the context of the Daily Wire article:

In response to a photo that was taken of Kashuv, American History teacher Greg Pittman tweeted: "As a teacher from Stoneman Douglas, any student posting photos holding guns, knives or other weapons would be questioned. 4 federal cases have ruled in the last 10 years that assault weapons are not protected. Most gun owners would not hold their gun in this same posed manner."

The quote's emphasis seems to suggest that the criticism concerns the validity of Student + Photo + Guns/Weapons = BAD!

My Opinion:
Any American who is not forbidden by virtue of insanity, felonious history, or certain other legal bans (include domestic violence ) is acknowledged by the Constitution to the right keep and bear arms.   Age Limits may apply; parental discretion is a defense.


I am not criticizing the author's opinion; it's only that he doesn't specify WHY he considers the subject's "Pose" to be unacceptable.  Unless and until he clarifies his statement, we are left to conjecture ... which is often based on assumptions of our own.





As an "aside", I was (in 1961) a member of a Junior High School "shooting club".  I owned firearms, drove to matches as soon as I was legally permitted to drive, and purchased a firearm (a Valmet "Finish Lion" match single-shot .22 caliber rifle) by spending a summer working the Pea Harvest.

Nobody criticized my legitimacy, or my sanity, for wanting to own a firearm.  My parents were proud of my ingenuity.  I paid for my match fees by mowing lawns during the summer and baby-sitting during the winter.

Americans are now frightened by the concept that even people who obviously want only to compete in their chosen expertise are considered "dubious" ... there must be something wrong with us, if we want to own a gun.

Today, even "The Brits" (once the free-est people in the World) are afraid to "allow" their Free Citizens to own a gun.  This, even though their popular pass-time is to throw darts at a target ... at a pub!  A bunch of drunks sending pointed missiles down range?

You could put an eye out with that thing!

One can hardly keep track of the plethora of firearms restrictions in the world.  And we're still shooting each other, despite all the unenforceable laws which liberal Wonks seem interminably determined to impose of our freedoms.

It seems as if the governments are so involved in keeping us safe (Universal Health Care isn't working so well, is it?), but all they really seem to accomplish is to push us more inevitably under their thumb.

Is this really the Utopian we had been promised?.

Firearms owners need fewer restrictions, as long as the police are not "REQUIRED" to protect us, as individuals.

But instead, we find ourselves under constant criticism for doing what our elected politicians promise ... but haven't the Testosterone to actually accomplish.