Baseball player owns rifle.
Burglar steals rifle.
Anti-gun sports columnist loses his shit, sneers.
But we hadn't heard about a certain "personal item" that belonged to Longoria. Nothing too important, you know, just your average run-of-the-mill ... AK-47 assault rifle.
...
An AK. That's a big gun, and probably why it was a good thing Longoria and Co. weren't home during the invasion. Somebody would have been armed. Say hello to Longo's little friend, etc., etc.
...
It's also perfectly understandable Longoria wouldn't want word to get out that he was careless and irresponsible enough to store an unsecured deadly weapon in a rented home that had little or no apparent security system and would frequently be unoccupied.
...
Yes, just wash those hands. Meanwhile, we've got another powerful gun on the street in a criminal's possession. I don't know why Longoria owns (or owned) an AK-47, but no matter if it was for protection or for fun, he shouldn't get it back — if police ever recover it in the first place.
Actually, I'm also put out by this story.
I'd expect a major league baseball player could afford an AR-15.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This also fits the "Just Who's side is he on" tag that I'm developing.
ReplyDeletehat's a big gun, and probably why it was a good thing Longoria and Co. weren't home during the invasion. Somebody would have been armed.
So criminals shouldn't be confronted by armed home owners?
Is he saying that we shouldn't interfere with thugs who want to steal, shouldn't try to stop them?
PROPERTY ISN'T WORTH A LIFE JUST GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!!!
ReplyDeleteBecause of course, the world is a better place when robbery carries fewer risks.
Yup. Nothing like making the ball player the bad guy.
ReplyDeleteHeck, he ought to be able to afford an M1A.
ReplyDeleteAs long as we're spending a pro-baller's salary, why wasn't he defending his rental house with a BAR? ;)
ReplyDelete