The League

Doug Farrar

Doug Farrar

A staff writer

Bear Arms Responsibly


There's a fundamental difference between having a gun to protect oneself in the home, and taking an unregistered firearm to a nightclub in a state with the most restrictive carry laws in the country. Not having been there at the Collier or Taylor incidents, I can't say whether a gun would have saved Collier's career or Taylor's life. But it just makes sense that the right to bear arms has to come with the caveat that it's the right to bear arms responsibly.

Every NFL team has security personnel -- people who go over laws and ordinances with players and advise them of the possible need for bodyguards in particular situations. And I'm sure that the Burress incident will have the league focusing on what happens with their players in public even more.

That the Burress incident happened so close to the Redskins honoring Taylor (and not long after Collier's gunshot injuries) tells me that the league needs to be even more proactive in protecting its players. Discipline, yes, but setting up parameters under which players know how they can be protected is also important. Players feel more vulnerable than ever -- the Taylor shooting had a lot to do with that -- and people will react to that fear in different (and sometimes, less intelligent) ways.

By Doug Farrar  |  December 4, 2008; 9:31 AM ET  | Category:  Crime , Plaxico Burress Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Protect Your Temple | Next: The Delay Game


Please email us to report offensive comments.

You're right, there is a fundamental difference. It is the difference between the first half and the second half of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the constitution. Given the recent decision on the subject by the supreme court, I'd wager that many state and local laws will either change or fall by the wayside.

Posted by: Lindly | December 3, 2008 1:26 PM

Doug, you made a great point. Sean Taylor was armed with a machete to try and protect himself and his family from intruders with guns. If he had still been able to have a gun at his residence, he might be alive right now.

Posted by: trolltown | December 3, 2008 2:53 PM

That's right! In the immortal words of the Dead Milken, "If we all got guns, then we won't have crooks."

Posted by: JohninMpls | December 3, 2008 4:56 PM

Doug's picture looks like a mugshot, he looks likes he's abducted several young children.

At least Joe Theisman didn't post anything, he was the worst announcer in memory.

Granted, Dierdorf is awful, but Theisman was worse.

Posted by: Kenneth | December 3, 2008 11:18 PM

I'm a self proclaimed gun nut. Every gun magazine I read preaches safety, that it is better to avoid or flee from danger than confront it, and the severe repercussions of using a firearm. The press and liberals make us out to be trigger-happy yokels, but the vast majority of gun enthusiest are responsible, sane, adults. Guns are tools, not fashion accesories, and are to be treated with great respect.

Posted by: JD | December 4, 2008 4:54 AM

Thanks, Doug. You are right: if Burress was truly concerned about his safety, then he should have ponied up the money for a bodyguard during his club outing. A guy like him can afford one, and it would be the responsible thing to do, rather than carry a gun illegally while boozing it up.

Posted by: K-Romulus | December 4, 2008 11:09 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company