One and a Half Miles of Guns, Knives and Accessories
The Nation’s Gun Show took place this past weekend in Chantilly, Va. I attended looking to meet a few members of armed America and, hopefully, D.C. residents shopping for revolvers—so far the only handguns they can buy.
First things first. After spending several hours trolling “one and a half miles of guns, knives and accessories,” I meet only two D.C. residents: two young men in khakis and oxford shirts who blanch as soon as I say I’m a reporter. When I ask if they’re shopping, one replies, “We’re being cynical, I guess.” Then they both scurry off, without buying the brand new Smith & Wesson commemorative Heller decision revolver. (If they had bought the gun, it wouldn’t have gone home with them. The seller would have to ship it to Charles W. Sykes Jr., the only federally-licensed dealer in D.C.)
More, plus photos after the jump.
In this show of force, swastikas outnumber rebel flags. One vendor is selling a German Army motorcycle helmet emblazoned with the symbol for $800. He wouldn’t let me take a picture, but said his target buyers weren’t racists. He says the antiques are proof we won. “They’re trophies of war,” he says. “We kicked their butts!” Apparently, offensive war memorabilia is a smart investment. He said values appreciate between 20 and 30 percent a year.
But I’m not here for a history lesson.
From my brief visit, I discern three phases of gun-nuttery: people who think guns are fun (for hunting, target practice, or just as sexy pieces of machinery), people who fear crime and think guns will make them safe, and people who think owning a gun proves their love of God, country, and freedom. The crazy spectrum seems to run from low to high as you pass from fun-loving gun fans to the God and freedom brand.
Of course, there’s lots of cross-over. I can’t quite place Nick Corrada, a 23-year-old Marine sergeant I meet at a table lined with semi-automatic handguns. He tells me he needs a small one and gestures toward his ankle. (Does that mean he needs one he can strap around his leg?) “I have all the others,” he says. “Others” meaning other sizes. “I have a 9mm and a couple of rifles and other stuff,” he says. When I ask what he needs the guns for, Corrada says he needs them in case someone invades his house, an off-base apartment near Quantico. At this point, I call his bluff. Come on, I say, the neighborhood around Quantico isn’t exactly known for home invasions. “You like guns don’t you?” I say, as if it’s revelation. The answer: “Of course.”
Then there’s the precious man I spot taking aim with a semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle. He’s bald and paunchy and wears a tactical green backpack. He’s eager to tell me what makes gun owners special. They believe in freedom. He breaks down the difference between gun shows and other shows I might attend: “You won’t find anyone burning an American flag at a gun show,” he says. Anywhere else, he says, I’ll find cowards who refused to serve in the armed forces. I tell him I recently attended an antique show in Arlington. Does he think they burn flags there? He doesn’t answer but seems suspicious.
Talking to the fun-loving gun fans is like talking to any other group of obsessives. Cool gear is cool gear. A guy with a musket points me to a gun everyone’s been talking about: a new .22 version of the MP5. This item is ironic, I’m told, because it’s a recreational version of a tactical submachine gun. You can’t do much more than shoot targets with the .22 bullets, while the real thing, a German-designed 9mm, is used by SWAT teams and commandos. I ask the vendor what else he’s selling and he tells me lots of people are buying shotguns because the price of ammo is up. He adds, “And AK’s, of course. Everyone wants one of those.”
Here’s that musket:
There are lots of t-shirts for sale. This one is designed to let the terrorists know we know what they think we are, or something. (Some Fairfax police officers admiring the shirt shake their heads at the state of affairs with immigrants in Northern Virginia.)
If you prefer a more domestic message, there’s this little number, modeled by a garroted mannequin.
One unpredictable element of the gun show: lots of little dogs. I keep spotting miniature pooches under the arms of burly men selling guns. Paris Hilton may have something in common with these people. At the table for Indian River Collectibles I meet Baby, a 9-year-old Pomeranian who serves as the company’s head of security.
“She’s been raised at gun shows,” says Curtis Ferrell, a former Navy commander who’s making a killing in his retirement on the gun show circuit. There’s a gun show every day of the year across the country, he says. “It’s better than putting your money in the bank,” he says.
63 Responses to “One and a Half Miles of Guns, Knives and Accessories”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Extended Drinking Hours at Inauguration: It’s Official (1
)
The vote is 9-4 in favor of extending hours of alcohol service at local taverns and nightclubs until… - Extended Inauguration Drinking Hours Not a Done Deal! (1)
DCist points to a load of confusion over the District's plans to extend drinking hours in the days l… - Sean Taylor’s Officially Fair Game (0)
On WTEM's "Monday Morning Quarterback" show yesterday, host Andy Pollin led a discussion of Sunday's… - AU Professor Proposes Using Complex Online Scheme to Make D.C. Simple to Understand (0)
Washington, D.C. is a complicated place. Journalists in D.C. bureaus are getting laid off in droves.… - Postcards From Home: Film and Paper Archive (0)
Medical Museum, 1993…
- Extended Drinking Hours at Inauguration: It’s Official (1
September 16th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Gee, This was a snide little piece. Snotty, elitist view of a gun show. Little suggestions of racism, facists, inbred morons with their little dogs. What an out of touch metrosexual lefist wrote this piece of sewage? Many Americans own guns including: men, women, blacks, gays, republicans, democrats, etc. If this bothers you then move to Europe.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
This is quite a concerning piece. I really don’t know where to begin in criticizing this public display of naked stupidity. As an individual who has held a home invasion robber at gunpoint until the police arrived I have a unique appreciation of the ability of firearms to save people’s lives and protect the innocent. For the record it took them over 15 minutes to arrive - what do you think could have happened in those 15 minutes if I didn’t have my handgun? Who knows Angela, perhaps someday one of us “people who fear crime and think guns will make them safe” will protect your life one day.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
NOW that we have gun ownership in DC homes let’s pass CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) Just think - every murderer, rapist, car jacker, thief, robber, hoodlum, meth head, crack head, gang banger (all of which DC has a lot of) can carry a gun - anytime - anywhere - 24/7 in DC. But the law abiding, honest, trained, tax paying DC citizen CAN NOT. This is the lunancy of DC gun laws. 48 states have some form of concealed carry laws with about 38-40 permitting their law abiding citizens that privilege on a “shall issue” basis. DC - wake up to the 21st century.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Charlz, Joe and John Q.: Lighten up. This was an excellent story. Your comments say far more about yourselves than the Valdez story says about her or the paper. Don’t you realize you clowns are coming across as whiny, thin-skinned babies? On top of that, babies that don’t understand statistics. You truly think carrying a gun or having one in your home makes you safer? Look at the numbers. You are wrong.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:55 am
I’m from Australia, don’t own a gun and still this did seem more than a little condescending. Asking a person why they own a gun is like asking someone why they own a fast car. The reason most don’t answer “because I like them” is because that is just not possible in this political climate. When every day the news blares out a new effort to prohibit some aspect of their hobby/interest, you tend to be left a little on the back foot.
Its a never ending fight to justify something that really doesn’t need to be justified. It seems to be a forgotten concept that theres needs to be justification to *violate* property rights not keep them. Its irritating that proponents of gun control can’t actually supply any evidence that it works. That’s why gun owners cling to justifying what they do; their advantage is that they’re in the right. Were I to own a gun and somebody asked me why, I would answer “why not?”
September 18th, 2008 at 8:57 am
The Nazi paraphernalia is everywhere at those shows. Oh, and you can buy those AK-47s (and handguns and whatever else) from private sellers with no background check at all.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:10 am
You make a good point and a foolish and wrongheaded one, Seb. You’re right that people don’t need to come up with idiotic explanations as to why they own a gun or guns. Just say you like them. You also say that “proponents of gun control can’t actually supply any evidence that it works” is wrong. Not sure who you’ve been talking to about this but there is plenty of hard evidence that people who carry guns or keep them in their home are far, far more likely to be the victims of gun violence. It is indisputable.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Jim, the study claiming “guns more likely to kill you than help you” is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years. Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:
Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the “home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman's study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home.” In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed “by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household.”
In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim’s “high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group.”
So, if you are a drug dealer, pimp, or mobster - yes, you are more likely to be killed by a gun wielding competitor. But someone who minds their own business, follows the law, and avoids flashy displays of wealth (expensive cars, jewelery, clothes) will have a slim to none chance of ever being killed by someone with a gun.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:35 am
The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. (New England Journal of Medicine, 1993)
The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold. (New England Journal of Medicine, 1992)
Half of gun-owning households don’t lock up their guns, including 40 percent of households with kids under age 18. (American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2007)
States with high household gun ownership have more suicides than states with low household gun ownership. The excess suicides are almost entirely due to firearms. (Journal of Trauma, 2007)
A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a suicide than to be used in self-defense. A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. (Journal of Trauma, 1998)
The presence of a gun in the home made it 6 times more likely that an abused woman would be murdered than other abused women. (National Institute of Justice Journal, 2003)
September 18th, 2008 at 10:54 am
OK JIMBO - let me make a jackass out of you - because that’s just what you are. DC has had the strickest handgun control law in the country for over 30 years. You would think with all that gun control there wouldn’t be any murders, robberies, car jackings, accidental shootings, etc etc. BUT guess what Slick - for those 30 years - DC has been the most violent, dangerous, crime filled city year after year - anyone knows that and has earned the title Murder Capital of the U.S. I agree with Precious in the above article - bet you never served in the U.S. military - because you’re a wimp. Because you probably don’t own a firearem - if the thugs can figure out where you live - guess what?
September 18th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I don’t mean this to sound too harsh, John Q., but you’re not actually very smart, are you?
September 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Jim,
Of course! The medical industry is exactly the authority to cite when dealing with gun ownership! That’s why when I went to buy my new car, I asked my weatherman if I was getting a good deal.
Having a gun in the home does NOT correlate to suicide rates. Japan and South Korea have some of the highest suicide rates in the world (26.1 per 100,000 and 24.2 per 100,000 respectively), and civilian gun ownership is almost completely banned. The United States is only 11 per 100,000 and a majority share of the world’s guns.
Locking up your weapons is ineffective in preventing “gun deaths” (boy I hate that term.) California had a 1994 “safe storage” law that required guns to be locked up to “save the children.” They saw a 12% decrease in deaths resulting to improper firearms usage by children. Texas, which had and still has no law, saw a 28% decrease the same year. (National Center for Health Statistics) Teaching children about firearms safety is far more effective than letting their curiosity and ignorance of firearms get the better of them. Additionally, keeping weapons locked away can lead to dangerous results. In Merced, California a man stabbed 3 young women to death with a pitchfork (maybe we need pitchfork control!) The oldest child rushed to help her young sisters but could not open the gun safe.
A “gun in the home” does not make it more likely that a woman will be abused or murdered - in fact this was debated in the recent Heller case as follows:
“This statistic has some verifiable basis only when particular adjustments for other risk factors are weighed. Most importantly, any validity that statistic holds is only for battered women who live with abusers who have guns. The odds for an abused woman living apart from her abuser, when she herself has a firearm, are only 0.22, far below the 2.0 level required for statistical significance. The presence of a firearm is simply negligible compared to obvious forewarnings such as the man’s previous rape of the woman, previous threats with a weapon, and threats to kill the woman. Moreover, the “most important demographic risk for factor for acts of intimate partner femicide,” is the male’s unemployment.”
You also ignore that many women’s lives and dignity are saved by guns. When an armed woman faced with a rapist, she only has a 3% chance of being sexually assaulted vs. 32% when unarmed (U.S. Justice Dept, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization Survey)
September 18th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
That wasn’t a garrotte around the model’s neck, it was The Gun Show Loophole.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Some interesting points, Raskolnikov. I’ve been interested in reading a bit more on the pro-gun side of things now that D.C. is (in my opinion) going to change for the worse (personally, I don’t think the way to decrease violence in D.C. is to have more guns around). If there’s a good book on the subject, I’d like to get a recommendation. If possible, though, I’d like it to be written by a journalist–not just a pamphlet from the NRA or something.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Angela Valdez wrote:
“I discern three phases of gun-nuttery: people who think guns are fun (for hunting, target practice, or just as sexy pieces of machinery), people who fear crime and think guns will make them safe, and people who think owning a gun proves their love of God, country, and freedom. The crazy spectrum seems to run from low to high as you pass from fun-loving gun fans to the God and freedom brand.”
Ms. Valdez, who apparently has earned a graduate degree in Haughty, Uninformed Leftist Sneering at her local college, nonetheless comes up woefully inexperienced in, and ignorant of, the subject group which she attempts to analyze with her amateur mental health evaluation.
Now “gun-nuttery” no doubt exists, however most cases are found among true hoplophobes who are so frightened of firearms that they wish to deny the access of other law abiding folks to them. There is also a group of delusionals who ascribe moral values and evil intent to inanimate objects, believing that the mere presence of a firearm can lead to violence. This anthropomorphism of simple tools is common among Northeastern effete liberal snobs, so it is fortunate that they stay away from firearms by choice, lest they be frightened into chattering, mindless, simpletons. I mean, more than they already are.
Seeking such “gun-nuttery” at gun show seems a waste of time to me, but that is the least of the problems with Ms. Valdez’ piece. You see, the three artificial categories for “gun-nuttery” she creates assume that someone cannot be say, a fun-loving sportsman while still concerned about home defense, patriotism and political tyranny.
One might as well divide the users of prophylactics into one category concerned about preventing pregnancies and another worried about avoiding STDs. It’s a two-fer, you see. Thus is it with firearms. And if Ms. Valdez is going to categorize us in terms of mental illness, then she should know she forgot one other type. And that is, uh, me.
Well, not just me. I have friends, of course. We call ourselves the “three percenters” as we believe we represent at least 3 percent of the gun-owning population. If you insist on calling gun owners by false appellations suggesting various lunacies, think of us as the Hannibal Lectors of “gun-nuttery.”
For not only do we embrace all three of Ms. Valdez’ false dichotomies, but one other. We are not only willing to die for our beliefs (”the God and freedom brand” I think she called it) but we will reluctantly kill in defense of them as well. If there are gun owners who inhabit only one of Ms. Valdez’ artificial constructs and not the others, then they are merely slightly “off” and no doubt can be medicated by the government lest they disturb Ms. Valdez’ sleep. Following this faulty logic, we, on the other hand, would be stark raving bonkers by her measuring stick.
And if it is true that we are crazy, given that we are still armed to the teeth, that just complicates the hoplophobes’ problems doesn’t it? On the subject of our God-given fundamental liberty, we cannot be reasoned with, we refuse to be medicated and we will not go away quietly.
Indeed, with people such as us, it would be wiser for sneering, ignorant hoplophobic amateurs not to describe us as mental cases lest we come to agree with you. Then, we just might embrace the horror.
So reconsider your false constructs, your psychiatric similes and metaphors, and try to think of this as an early Halloween present.
“Boo!”
Mike Vanderboegh
The Alleged Leader of a Merry Band of Threepercenters
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
September 18th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Good post there Mike V.
III
opaww
September 18th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Mike sounds crazy.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Jim,
A good place to start from the statistical end of things is “More Guns, Less Crime” and “The Bias Against Guns” by John Lott, former economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission for the DOJ and currently professor of the University of Maryland.
There are two videos that are worth watching as well - “Innocents Betrayed” by the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) on the results of gun control and “In Search of the Second Amendment” on the legal aspect of gun ownership.
- Raskolnikov
September 18th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Jim,
Every subgroup has a few confrontational people, including the Brady group (Peter Hamm once threatened to shoot an internet blogger who disagreed with him. And he says *we’re* the violent ones.)
September 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Thanks for the book tips. I’ll definitely read one or both. Much as I’d like to keep an open mind about it, though, I can’t ever see changing my mind about more guns in D.C. meaning a safer city.
September 18th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Jim,
Calling Mike crazy, says nothing about him, but it speaks volumes about you. Mike is FAR from crazy. He is one of the leading advocates for a group of Americans who cherish our Constitution and the Rights enshrined therein. He is not one of the pragmatic gun owners who feel it is best to beg the government for permission to exercise our God-given Rights. Our founding documents state plainly that Rights are endowed by our Creator, and governments are instituted among men to protect those Creator-endowed Rights. They held those truths to be self-evident, and so do I.
We feel it is the decent thing to speak up and inform those who twist and violate the Constitution that there are unintended consequences to their attacks. Some view that as confrontational, but it is more accurate to call it ‘fair warning’.
I, for example, am retired from the Infantry. I have sworn an Oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I take it seriously and have put my life on the line as proof of my loyalty to the Constitution. I would hazard a guess that most of us are current and ex-military, law enforcement and otherwise trained and dedicated individuals that see the Constitution as our supreme law. We understand that “shall not be infringed” does not allow for any “reasonable infringements”. Speaking out now is a minor fulfillment of my Oath to defend the Constitution, but I have and will go much further, when required. My goal is restoration of the Constitution, not revolution. We know what we face if the government decides to disarm the United States citizenry. We have seen the results in other nations that have enslaved their populations. In order to prevent such a terrible conflict, it must be known that a contingent of armed citizens stand ready to defend our Constitutionally protected freedoms.
I am willing to risk death to preserve my Constitutional Rights. If those who would subvert the Constitution are not willing to risk death to achieve their ends, I suggest they pick a new hobby.
III
September 18th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Wow! “Ad Hominem” much there buddy?
I am waiting with bated breath to read your article on “rabid anti-gun nuttery” - you can start with yourself.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“…I discern three phases of gun-nuttery…” Funny. I only know of one phase for snide, disrespectful, uneducated, ignorant, MSM reporters. You appear to be right in the middle of this phase. Imagine that.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
As a counterpart to this snide little piece I’ll offer two sites that will be of interest…
Why would a person want to carry a handgun?
http://hubpages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public
Answers to those who think gun control is best.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Answers-for-those-who-think-that-gun-control-is-the-best-for-America
September 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Jim,
Congratulations of having the integrity to read one of Lott’s books. If you still come out fearing for your safety, then so be it. It is interesting to note that the famous criminologist Gary Kleck also did not believe in the reported efficacy of self-defense with guns…so he decided to do his own study ). He found that guns are used several million times per year to avert crime (note how much this exceeds death, both criminal and accidental, by firearms). He was very surprised, but being an honest researcher, he published results contrary to his politics. He still remains out of the NRA thrall, but stands by his work (as do all we gun-nutters).
September 19th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Angela:
Your bigotry is roundly unappreciated. Terms like “gun-nuttery”, “offensive war memorabilia”, “crazy spectrum”, and “group of obsessives.”
I can’t believe you couldn’t “place Nick Corrada” … because you seem quite sure of yourself otherwise.
You want us to be open minded and celebrate diversity, and then you look down at those that are different from you with scorn and bigotry.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Gee, I thought we got past this kind of mainstream commie propaganda back in the 90s. Angela must be a fresh graduate of our Marxist university system. Wait, I notice this isn’t a ‘real’ newspaper but one of those little local commie rags found in many larger towns, established because the local commies thought the local large daily wasn’t commie enough.
I only have two words for ya’ Angela: “Liberal” season.
Hope to see ya’ then.
For those who want to develop a clue, start here:
http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm
or maybe here:
http://willowtown.com/reality/blacksburg.htm
and for those want to see what happens to countries that allow freaks like Angela to run things:
http://willowtown.com/reality/britsinsane.htm
We need to get in these freaks’ faces, and start telling them “No! Hell NO!” and we must stop tolerating their garbage, and we need to do it yesterday, in fact decades ago, or we have no future. This is supposed to be America, they don’t belong here.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:02 am
The so-called “gun show loophole” just means that you have exactly the same rights at a gun show as anywhere else. People wanting to “close” the “loophole” want to pass new laws making transaction illegal at a gun show that are perfectly legal anywhere else. Private individuals (not dealers) may sell guns to other private individuals without licenses, background checks, or other inhibitions (they must have no reason to believe the purchaser is legally barred from possessing firearms). The BATF already watches closely for people making *lots* of private sales, and can prosecute them for being an “unlicensed dealer” if necessary. But a retired man selling off his lifetime collection is doing nothing wrong, and nothing requiring the government’s permission. There’s nothing broken here, stop trying to fix it!
People probably know people largely like themselves. Of the gun owners I know socially, a dozen or so, only three of them have been in the armed forces (a fourth has worked for them as a civilian contractor). But then I tend to know college-educated pro-choice gun owners. Oh, and I don’t think *any* of them associate with a religion; at least not religiously (at least three are atheists of Jewish ancestry).
Nobody in this thread has yet mentioned the distressing increases in violent crime and property crimes with high risks of encountering the property owners (”hot burglary” and the like) that have been going own for some years now in England, Australia, and even Canada, apparently as a result of some major increases in restrictions on self-defense in those countries. It seems pretty clear that people being prepared to defend themselves really does deter crime (Lott found that by studying changes across states implementing carry permit laws, too).
September 19th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
waypasthadenough sounds super crazy.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
A PROCLAMATION
Upon this Nineteenth Day of April, Two-thousand and Eight Years A.D.,
We The People, Do Hereby Declare and Proclaim Ourselves;
To Be in Agreement with the Spirit, Meaning and Intent of the Constitution which Established the Republic Acknowledged as that of These United States, and In General with the Spirit, Meaning and Intent of Constitutions Having Established Our Respective States within the Union.
We the People, Do Hereby Declare and Proclaim Ourselves;
To Be Peaceful and Law-abiding American Citizens and Hold every Honest Intent to Assent, Abide and Bind Ourselves to;
All Constitutionally-Permissible, Just and Rightfully-Enacted Laws.
In Honor of and Having Respect for, Those Patriots who Responded to the Crisis which Occurred on the 19th day of April in 1775;
In Honor of and Having Respect For, Those Righteous Persons who Sacrificed All Which They Had to Cause Tyranny and Despotism to Be Abolished;
In Honor of and Having Respect for, Those who Courageously and Brilliantly Brought Forth from the Articles of Confederation a System of Government by Consent of The People;
A System which Separated the Powers Within and Limited those Powers Afforded to the New General Government;
In Honor of and Having Respect for, Those Who Sacrificed and Died, those now Passed Away, Those who Served and those Now In Service Defending Our Nation from Our Enemies
We The People, as Self-Governing, Self-Regulating and Responsible American Citizens, Do Hereby Issue to All Federal, State and Local Governments;
All Branches, Agencies, Agents, Authorities, Officials and Representatives of The People Thereof and Therein,
An Order To;
Cease and Desist from Any and All Further Attempts to Infringe Upon the GOD-Given and Common-law Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
As Any and All Governments within these United States Derive their Just Powers Only From The People; and
Continue to Govern Only In Accordance With the Will, By the Grace and With the Consent of The People;
We the Independent, Peaceful and Intentionally Law-Abiding American Citizens Residing as Members of the Whole Body of The People;
Do Declare and Proclaim by All which We Hold to Be Morally Right, Just and Consistent with Individual Rights Endowed Upon Each Person by Their CREATOR;
Not In Any Way Granted or Afforded by Any Lesser Authority;
In Accordance with our Moral Obligations and Duty to Ourselves, Other Citizens, State and Nation;
WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT EVER RELINQUISH OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
As Testament To and In Accordance With Our Will;
We The People Do Hereby Declare and Issue This PROCLAMATION.
As It Has Been Said, So It Shall Be.
anonymous
September 19th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Jim, I wish you well on your reading. However, your mind is made up. You simply don’t like guns. Thats OK. We live in America.
I learned long ago to give up when every time I defeat the position presented by someone like you, I get called a “crazy person.” However, I cannot resist.
I am well aware of the stat that someone who owns a gun is more likely to be a “victim” gun violence. Since I have no idea by what exactly you mean by “gun violence.”
I must assume that you mean the use of a gun. Since you are more likely to be victimized by someone you know and you use “gun violence” to save your life, how does that make you a victim of “gun violence?” Therefore, is “gun violence” always bad? It cannot be bad when it is used in the act of self defense.
My personal opinion is that when someone brings violence upon me, which threatens my life, I intend to bring more violence against that person than they can handle. I excercise my fundamental “freedom of choice” to not be a victim. Further, I choose to use the only means that places me on an even, or superior, playing field.
You are free to choose for yourself. However, your freedom ends when it interferes with mine.
September 20th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I’m perfectly willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments like that, Sam. But if we’re all being honest, a lot of the comments here, and probably the majority of people that attend gun shows, seem (to liberals like me) fucking crazy. Again, I’m happy to read a book on the subject and listen to reason, but my mind is made up. More guns won’t make D.C. a safer place. I’d like to understand the issue better, but crazies are crazies and I’ll continue to call them as I see them.
September 21st, 2008 at 12:13 am
No Jim, that’s not what you’re doing. What you are doing is protecting your opinion based turf. Now, that is perfectly alright. You have the right to do that. I won’t try to stop you. Nor, I think will any other of what you call crazies.
But, you see, here’s the sticking point. I love my family, I love my country, I love my liberty. I love them enough to defend my right to retain the means to defend them. If you do not, well, only you know what any of those things are worth to you. But do not make the mistake of assigning like value to those things for me.
At the point you attack those things listed, which I value, or attack my ability to defend those things, you are on the hospital side of me, if you are lucky.
As I said, earlier, I won’t try to make you into something you do not want to be, but I would like to ask what you have against people who value God and liberty. Assuming, of course, you agree with Valdez’s snide comments, as it seems you do.
Oh, and you are wrong about DC. If and when the residents there regain their citizenship and can keep and bear arms. After a short learning curve, (rash of bad guys being shot), you will see a dramatic drop in crime. When such happens, is your course so set, that you still will not change your mind?
September 21st, 2008 at 8:00 am
Are you honestly saying that someone who opposes what could be a huge influx of handguns into his or her neighborhood does not love his/her family? Or value liberty? You’re asking what I have against people who value god? While your post lacks the sheer nuttiness of some of the others on here, I have say: Give me a fucking break. I just don’t want more guns on my street. And as far making fun of the dipshits who get all weepy and sensitive the first time a weekly newspaper’s community blog makes fun of crazies at a gun show, I guess I just value my First Amendment right more than my Second Amendment right.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am
JIMBO - please move to Communist North Korea - there’s no private ownership of guns there and I’m sure you’d be much happier among your own kind!!! Why don’t you give all of us a “fucking break.”
September 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Thanks jimmy boy, from you that’s a compliment.
Assuming you are really sincere in your ignorance, which I doubt, go to my links and educate yourself, learn to value human Liberty, and fight for it, and welcome home.
But if you continue to either serve evil, or cling to your ignorance, remember this: When we sent our ignorant 19 year olds to kill ignorant German 19 year olds in WWII, who were led by allegedly ‘educated’ men, they still had to kill those kids in the opposing fighting holes, because of the alleged danger they presented to us.
When “Liberal” season comes, and it needs to come soon, it won’t matter if you really understand what you do or not.
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am
I think the article presents the reader with a fairly accurate classification of gun-minded people. In addition, from the commentary above, one may discern a contingent of assorted individuals who defy easy classification. Of whom the learned gentleman from Alabama deserves the first prize.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 am
A Mp5 in .22lr? Wow thanks for the heads up!
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Jim, you say “You truly think carrying a gun or having one in your home makes you safer?”.
Could you please explain to me why Washington D.C., with if not the most then near most strict gun control in the US, has such a high crime rate with guns, while other states such as nevada with very little gun control have far less crime with guns?
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I understand about the sportsmanship, shooting animals and discouraging criminals, but how exactly ownership of a gun proves the owner’s love of liberty, constitution and god, as opposed to, say, suppression, socialism and the Satan? I mean, in what respect?
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Ernest, you said “I think the article presents the reader with a fairly accurate classification of gun-minded people.”
So you are saying anyone who believes in their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is crazy?
What about people who believe in the right to freedom of speech? Believe in not allowing unreasonable searches and seizures? are they crazy too?
Can’t have have 1st amendment without the 2nd.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Peggy, what do you think the founding father supported? love of liberty, constitution and god or suppression, socialism and the Satan?
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Whatever they supported, the fathers never said one has to purchase a gun to prove one’s love of god and liberty, or did they?
And speaking of liberty, the gun-people often profess the love of liberty yet hatred of liberals. There has to be an explanation.
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
No. I never used the word “crazy” and neither did the author of the initial post, Joey.
The author used the expression “gun-nuttery” in a sense ‘obsession with guns” , which by no means implies those folks were literally nuts.
Therefore, I wouldn’t fuss about it.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Peggy, no one ever said owning a gun is the only way to show love of god liberty and freedom, but why cant that be someones way of doing it??
You talk about gun-peoples hatred towards liberals. What about during the RNC when the liberals broke windows of local businesses, destroyed cars and attacked republican delagates, resulting in some having to be taken to the hosiptal? When is the last time responsible gun owners did that?
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“I never used the word “crazy” and neither did the author of the initial post” actually, he did
Ernest, this is in the original article:
“The crazy spectrum seems to run from low to high as you pass from fun-loving gun fans to the God and freedom brand.”
Hmm, the ‘crazy spectrum’ seems to be encompassing all gun owners
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Joey, your insistence on the noncraziness of gun fans would be a lot more effective if one of your fellow pro-gun commenters in this very thread weren’t talking about murdering people who disagree with his politics.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Hey wait, Joey, I’m a she! Sheesh! Get things right. My crazy spectrum applies to gun nuts, who are just one subset of gun owners. The gun owners, and aficionados and collectors and experts, I know, all like to joke about gun nuttery. And it’s not all bad! Who doesn’t love a nut?
Perhaps this is over sharing, but I am actually pretty open-minded on the gun control question. I enjoy shooting and I think guns are pretty fascinating. And not to toot my own horn, but way back in the day I wrote a book on gun control for middle school readers. I didn’t get paid very much for it, but I met lots of nuts on both sides of the debate in researching it. It’s still for sale on Amazon, and don’t worry, I don’t get royalties.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Angela Valdez seems to have forgotten where she lives.
In the good old USA we have a Constitution and thankfully it provides some protection from the vitriol opinions like those so profoundly professed by Angela and the like.
These Control-Nuts seem to think that their Inalienable Right to Free Speech gives them the right to belittle, condemn, and ostracize those that believe in our other Inalienable Rights of which they do not.
What a shame that someone so immersed in her love of just one of our Rights feels so compelled to treat others so poorly for their different opinion of another Right.
Angela here’s wishing you wake up and realize the error of your ways before the Control-Nuts decide to come after the First Amendment too.
Jim, I think you fall into this category as well. You surely have shown a propensity to lean the same way as Angela. However, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and look forward to hearing about your rebirth should you really go through with reading the books as you promised above.
As for me, well, maybe you would call me a gun nut for carrying a gun for over 30 years. However, after all that time I have never killed anyone. I have needed my gun exactly twice and both times it saved lives, once mine and my wife’s and once an innocent mom and her children. In both instances, not a single shot was fired. The only thing required; the presence of an honest man with a gun.
I’m just one of millions. You do the math.
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I’m a big supporter of the First Amendment, DJ, but I know you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. The Second Amendment was never intended for the kind of firearms that are available today. Face it, your right will never, ever be as “absolute” as you think it should be. And that makes me quite happy.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Exactly what type of guns was it meant for? Last time i checked it said SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Jim Said: “The Second Amendment was never intended for the kind of firearms that are available today.”
The Supremes rejected that line of logic quite soundly. In fact, I believe they were even derisive about it.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:47 am
So you folks are saying any American should be able to own any kind of arms, regardless of the weapon, the carrier’s age, mental state, criminal record, etc.? And that there should be no regulations on how the gun is stored, regardless of whether there’s an 8-year-old in the house? That’s foolish.
What I’m saying is that the First Amendment gives us the freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, but there are limits on each of those, just as there are limits on our right to bear arms.
No matter how much the gun nuts complain about it, there will always be limits on the right to bear arms. And I think there should be even more limits on that right because I think too many idiots own guns.
DJ, don’t expect a “rebirth” from me after I read the Lott book (I ordered “More Guns, Less Crime” for about a buck at a used online store). I’m eager to read it, but it is doubtful that it will make me think more guns in my neighborhood is wise.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 am
Jim Says: “So you folks are saying any American should be able to own any kind of arms, regardless of the weapon, the carrier’s age, mental state, criminal record, etc.? And that there should be no regulations on how the gun is stored, regardless of whether there’s an 8-year-old in the house? That’s foolish.”
No we’re not saying that. That’s a strawman argument. Almost all of us are happy with the Federal regulations that restrict ownership according to “the weapon, the carrier’s age, mental state, criminal record, etc”. There is an “instant” NICS check for every commercial firearms purchase that checks all of these criteria. Some may disagree, of course, but the status quo is more or less reasonable. What often becomes unreasonable are the many local restrictions that are added on to this Federal floor.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
@ Mike Vanderboegh, CorbinKale, etc.:
why do you keep referring to the 2nd Amendment as being “God-given.”
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 am
I think it better not to inquire.
altogether, open firearms sales are tolerable I suppose, provided it’s ensured mentally unstable, extreme and low IQ individuals are legally prevented from purshasing, which obviously not always the case.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
Peggy: “altogether, open firearms sales are tolerable I suppose, provided it’s ensured mentally unstable, extreme and low IQ individuals are legally prevented from purshasing,”
This is already the case, but there are limitations. I believe that the legal criterion is that you cannot sell to a person who has been involuntarily committed (someone else can verify this). In theory, the NICS system should have the data so that commercial sales should be blocked. Also note that it is illegal to transfer a gun privately to anyone who cannot legally own one (including those with mental disorders). However, the questions of where you draw the line and still maintain patient privacy are up for debate (I, for one, am happy with the current limitations). Also, it is important to keep the NICS database current — Cho slipped through because Virginia did not do their part (although he still could have ultimately purchased anything he wanted illegally “on the street”).
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
So you’re saying that state’s rights shouldn’t apply here? You are saying that you’re OK with what the feds say you can and can’t do with your gun (current laws, that is), right?
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Jim: “So you’re saying that state’s rights shouldn’t apply here? You are saying that you’re OK with what the feds say you can and can’t do with your gun (current laws, that is), right?”
Well, state’s rights obviously do apply here, as the SA hasn’t been incorporated. My PERSONAL feeling is that the less the state adds to the Feds, the better. Vermont is a case of minimal additional regulation. My state of TX is also low on the scale. Note that the Fed regs cover interstate transactions, automatic weapons, and age/criminal history/mental health restrictions. Both commercial and private sellers must abide by those restrictions. The feds do NOT cover issues of open or concealed carry, storage conditions, etc.
As I said, I like it that way and the state of Vermont seems to get along quite well with minimal regulation. Please note that the MISUSE of a firearm is readily covered by other laws against brandishing/threatening/assault/battery/murder. An equivalent circumstance would be misusing the First Amendment by shouting “FIRE, etc” without a fire being present — there are no prior restrictions, only a penalty for misuse.
Just my $1.00, currently being inflated to a buying power of $0.02.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
i hardly think it’s fair to compare Vermont to DC. The population of the entire state of Vermont, according to 2000 census data, is roughly 624,000, or 65.8 people/square mile. The population of the District of Columbia, according to the same Census, is roughly 582,000, or nearly 9,400 people/square mile. (Texas, although it has a population of nearly 24 million, still has only about 80 people/square mile).
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
urban pioneer:
Well, Houston is the 4th largest city in the country. If is WAY bigger than DC. I’ve also lived 6 years in Manhattan as well as in the sticks. I can tell you that my ethical/legal behavior does not change due to population density. Nor does the behavior of anyone I know. Your mileage may vary, but I doubt it. I don’t see that there is any reason to believe that density per se induces illegal behavior.
Besides, that’s irrelevant, as there is no reason to say that one’s Constitutional rights should be altered by population density.
Now I can admit that urban areas may have more than their fair share of criminals. But again, the presence or misbehavior of deviants must never be used as an excuse to restrict the rights of the non-criminals…do what you want to interfere with the criminals, but only if you leave the good guys alone. It is NEVER permissible to knowingly punish the innocent for the bad behavior of others.
Now I am open to the suggestion that local conditions might require different punishments for the MISUSE of firearms. I just cannot countenance prior restraint of a primal right. And there are plenty of legal precedents that concur with this philosophy.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:15 am
since when is gun ownership, (guns, by the way, were invented by MEN, not by God) either a “god-given” or a “primal” right? don’t you see the fundamental problem with that claim?
September 24th, 2008 at 10:24 am
urban: “since when is gun ownership, (guns, by the way, were invented by MEN, not by God) either a “god-given” or a “primal” right? don’t you see the fundamental problem with that claim?”
No. I am an athiest, so you can keep gods out of this. To me, the right to one’s own life is primal (all else is secondary). It follows that being able/allowed to defend oneself is also primal. It follows that one should have access to the sufficient means to do so. In this day and age, the handgun is the most effective and efficient means — it permits a senior citizen in a wheelchair a reasonable change to fight off a small gang.