Skip to content

Someone actually cares about MLB's gun policy

Feb 21, 2010, 10:11 AM EDT

When Major League Baseball decided Saturday to officially outlaw guns in clubhouses we figured the story would draw a few laughs and maybe some snarky remarks.  What we didn’t expect, however, was serious, disappointed reaction from a current professional.

According to the always reliable St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Cardinals closer Ryan Franklin didn’t take too kindly to the rule change:
“If you grew up around it, being in the outdoors and stuff, I was taught as a young kid to respect firearms,” Franklin said after a Saturday workout. “First of all, you don’t get stupid with it.  Always treat a gun like it’s loaded.  That’s what I taught my son and daugthers.  There’s a place for them. … If it wasn’t for the NFL guy a couple years ago brining a weapon to a nightclub … you’ve just got to be smart.
To us, “smart” is ensuring that no firearm ever finds its way into an MLB workplace, period.  And that’s exactly why the new policy was put into effect.
  1. steve - Feb 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM

    I will carry concealed reguardless of the law. Law has gotten way out of hand in our daily lives. I can carry on a pleasant conversation, (without drooling even a drop) with you and you will not know I have a weapon, knife included. I will learn to avoid any “gun traps” to keep me and mine safe from real criminals in this world. Including those who wish to control me.

  2. Rick's Real - Feb 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM

    Well MAYBE if there had been two guns instead of one, 30+ people wouldn’t have died. But ABSOLUTELY if there had been zero guns instead of one, 30+ people would not have died.

  3. Mike - Feb 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM

    If you don’t know or understand gun laws, and your rights as citizens, then you should think twice about what you say. Look up the Castle doctrine, concealed carry laws and maybe even the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Then come back and have an intelligent discussion. But inside a MLB clubhouses? Yeah, no need to go there.

  4. wmtipton - Feb 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM

    and who is giong to protect us from YOU when you get pissed off at someone for whatever reason?
    ==========================================================
    Thats right…all gun owners are just time bombs waiting to go off.
    Tell that to 80 MILLION law abiding gun owners in the USA, friend.
    ==========================================================
    there is absolutely no reason for ANYONE to take a gun into a clubhouse, stadium, hockey game, basketball game, amusement park and most definitely a national park. the nra has a lot of pull obviously and needs to be drawn in and curtailed.
    ==========================================================
    No….in YOUR OPINION theres no reason.
    Apparently nothing has happened to you yet thats made you understand the truth of the matter.
    Felons dont keep the schedule you might want them to, Im afraid.
    .

  5. Surthurfurd - Feb 21, 2010 at 3:57 PM

    I agree with the notion that the man has a right to own a gun. I further agree that it is the right of any group to restrict those entering it having weapons of any kind. If you do not like the organization’s policy, then do not attend.
    We have a twisted view of our rights. First, we miss that any right is a responsibility. Second, we are quick to declare our right to impose limits on other’s rights.

  6. John Pileggi - Feb 21, 2010 at 3:59 PM

    How about Franklin trades the right to carry a gun into the clubhouse for a hard salary cap in the next CBA? I am sure his priorities will be the same as they seem to be at this moment.

  7. ProGun - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:00 PM

    There are good arguements on both sides of this debate. Remember, however, the Supreme ruled that it is an individuals “right” to keep and bear arms. That of course does not end the debate. But I will say this, for those that want nothing to do with guns, leave them alone. For those who do, do so safely and responsibly, and enjoy.
    It may be an individuals “right” to keep and bear arms, but it;s also that individual’s “responsibility” to do so safely, or face some rather severe consequences that may include a variety of unpleasent scenarios, including death, whether it be your own, or worse, someone that you care for more than life itself. I have witnessed the consequences of both gun carelessness and agregious gun violence in my personal life. Each time, it wasn’t the gun that should be blamed, but the participants. And don’t believe that getting rid of guns will solve either the problem of carelessness or agregious violence. People will always find a way to hurt themselves and/or others.
    Getting rid of guns is not the answer. Since “Og” formed the first knife and discovered what it could do, man has sought to rise above others to positions of power. To hope otherwise is to bet against mother nature. Mother nature will always create aberations in human beings who will abuse power. That aberation may be as small as a petty thief on the street against a helpless victim, or as large as the monster we know as Adolf Hitler. Either way, as long as mother nature continues to create such aberations, this world will need a way to defend against them. They did it with swords, spears, etc. way back when. Today, it is done with guns.
    For those using the, “get rid of guns arguement”, should we believe that you also advocate the elimination of cars? Knives? Baseball bats? The list goes on. More people are killed and injured as the result of automobile accidents in this country than are injured or killed by firearms. And the death or injury is just as senseless. If there were not cars, there would be no accidents. I for one am happy that this great country allows us to have cars and to keep and bear arms.
    As far as the sterotyping that has gone on throughout this discussion, let’s leave it at the door folks. The reality is that many people from many walks of life use and enjoy guns on a daily basis for a variety of differnct reasons, including for what they perceive as a real threat to personal safety. And yes, some use them to compensate for however they feel inadequate, which may or may not be legitimate. However, to judge all gun owners on such a simplistic basis is silly at best and should not be a part of the debate. To categorize gun owner’s as this or that, really only exposes the accuser’s ignorance and lack of understanding of the human condition.
    When is this debate going to end. Hopefully never. It only makes us better and more responsible human beings and gun owners.

  8. CardsFan4Ever - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM

    Bye, Bye, Mr. Franklin. Hope you like Kansas City and watching the Cards play in the World Series on TV.

  9. buffalo bob - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM

    How moronic a question.
    The plain fact is Franklin is dead nuts on — you treat every gun as if it is loaded. You do not point at anything you do not wish to destroy. You should make sure that whatever is behind the target is something you do not wish to destroy.
    The sooner lob-jobs such as you understand what respect is, the sooner situations melt away.
    Anyone ensuring these boys aren’t a bit over indulgent in their celebrtions and maybe getting behind a wheel?
    Face it, I could clean your clock as easily with a Sammy Sosa corked bat as with a firearm….should we ban bats in the clubhouse?

  10. Bobert - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM

    1. If a man steals YOUR car and then hits someone else with it YOU get to go to jail along with the car thief.
    2. If someone breaks into YOUR home and steals a knife and stabs someone with it YOU go to jail and get the same punishment as he does.
    I mean, you’re going to be fair and equitable in your logic and reasoning, right ?
    ——————–
    wmtipton,
    Stop comparing apples to oranges. All NRA people I have talked to (mostly my friends) say exactly the same thing (paraphrased of course): “I have a gun in my house for one reason, to protect my family. If I use it, I intend to kill the intruder, not just stop him.” A knife or a car are NOT kept for the main purpose of protection (killing or maiming). They are used for cutting food/materials and travel, respectively. So your questions are moot and don’t belong in this conversation. But if you are talking about a hunting knife but you don’t intend to use it for hunting, then yes, my same logic applies to it.

  11. william - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:04 PM

    you sir, are a small minded idiot. we do not live in a day and age where we need to bring a gun to shoot our dinner at the grocery store. the gun laws in this country are a little too antiquated (that means old) and should have been rewritten years ago. we do not need to continuously one up the competition, and yes, since there are so many who have openly shown that guns are abused and misused, then it clearly shows they need to be removed from the general population. remember 3rd grade? now go stand in a corner and think about what you’ve done.

  12. $ugar - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:04 PM

    To us, “smart” is ensuring that no firearm ever finds its way into an MLB workplace, period.
    ironically, .you might want to involve some thinking the next time you define ‘smart’

  13. Marc - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:06 PM

    “And, as with most hunters, you probably take 10-15 gallons of beer with you on your hunting trips (don’t deny it, it’s people like you that Budweiser makes the “hunter’s case” of beer for).”
    This just goes to show your ignorance on the subject. I am hunter, and have not, and will not, bring any type of alcohol with me on a hunting trip, and I have also have not met anyone who has done so. Any responsible hunter and gun owner knows that 1) Mixing alcohol and guns is irresponsible, and 2.) It’s illegal. Just because you hear of one instance, or see a camouflaged case of beer, you automatically think the two go hand in hand, of which this is not the case. The majority of gun owners are responsible and careful. The ones who are not, are criminals. Gun restriction laws do not cut down on crime. Banning guns will not decrease crime. If law abiding citizens are not allowed the constitutional right to own a firearm, then only the criminals will have guns. Try living in a world like that. It is a proven fact that concealed carry laws actually reduce crime, not restricting gun ownership rights.

  14. $ugar - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:07 PM

    do you feel qualified to determine which of one’s constitutional rights are optional in one’s workplace?
    the mere thought of this idea is enough to clearly illustrate the lack of logic to your stance

  15. Fondue Irene - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:09 PM

    And someone ought to point out to you that no one gets stabbed minus knives, screwdrivers, pencils/pens, fingernail clippers, etc.
    And no one gets clubbed minus golf clubs, bats, rocks, etc.
    And no one gets smoothered minus plastic sacks, thick towels, etc.
    Oh, and no one gets burned minus cigarette lighters —
    After playing with what objects to remove, then let’s begin with diets, prescription drugs, what is appropriate to wear, read, and on and on.

  16. Jeremy COhrt - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:11 PM

    As much as I understand and value Americans have a right to bear arms, why the hell doesn’t the NRA make a statement that shows their leadership on “intelligent” use and retention of firearms, rather than just the usual blind-support for anything involving a gun?
    The NRA will say “people kill people, guns don’t kill people.” But, WTF can’t they make a public statement and say “People with guns shouldn’t do stupid things.”? They can then list what is stupid–i.e. killing someone or yourself, or threatening others or bringing a gun to a public place for no other reason than to be proud or intimidating?

  17. Mike A - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:12 PM

    The reason guns are used in so many crimes is BECAUSE the general public, for the most part, is NOT allowed to carry a loaded firearm. If a criminal feels he/she has an overwhelming advantage, a crime may take place because the chance they will be successful versus ending up in jail/shot is very LOW. The risk becomes worth the reward.
    Do you think if someone plans to rob a store with 5 people in it that they won’t pause to think, “Damn, that could be 5 guns vs. me…”
    And for all you anti-gun nuts that want to talk about putting guns in cribs for babies to play with, please remember you get no points for just pulling absurd statements out of your rear. That’s a tactic of the weakest minds.

  18. Dave G - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:14 PM

    Why would anyone need a gun in MLB clubhouse?
    Why would anyone need a gun in Luby’s Restaurant in Kileen, Texas?

  19. jen king - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:20 PM

    Your screen name is die hard cub fan forever and you’re referring to Franklin as an idiot?? You’re a born loser..sucks to be you.

  20. NCSailor - Feb 21, 2010 at 4:20 PM

    It doesn’t seem that long ago that a man could bring a gun into the workplace and show it off and to his peers and bosses without having homeland securtity involved. I suppose it was different back then when men were men. In today’s world we have children playing ball and sissys throwing hissies and showing zero respect for their teammates and fellow citizens. It is probably a wise rule that should have never had a reason for becoming.

1 8 9 10
Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Red Sox shopping Lester and Lackey
Top 10 MLB Player Searches