I mean, Confederate flags, Nick? Fuse wire? Sexist, gun-lovin', hickish bumper stickers? "Concealed" handguns?

Some clichés are clichés because they're true. Most of the people you meet at gun shows are fine people. At the same time, anyone who's been to a gun show knows that there's some sketchy stuff about, morally if not legally, and Confederate flags are the least of it. Suggesting that such things are simply products of Kristof's imagination is not credible. You might as well scoff at the idea that there would be lesbians and vegetarians at an NOW meeting.

You forgot to mention the BIG LIE. I.E., that there's a CRISIS at gun shows because no background checks are happening. Of course the gun dealers are doing them. But private citizens are not required to do background checks. The idea is ludicrous. As is Kristof/NYT.

Yep alkali, we all have our radicals. Still, I hope you'll refrain from calling me -- and many other gun enthusiasts -- "sexist." One of the fastest growing demographics among gun users is women who have finally realised that saying "I surrender" does not defend them from rapes and muggings.

No more "Ms. nice victim". Now we are armed and dangerous. Live with it. Or die of it.

Well, Kristof's is such an obvious hit piece that it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously -- especially the absurd statement that terrorists are getting their guns at gun shows, which has been repeatedly debunked. Also, his ignorance (as pointed out in my earlier post) about guns undermines his credibility -- he's either ignorant, or misrepresenting. And the piece is so thoroughly rooted in VPC and Brady press releases that it's basically a regurgitation.

As for the suicide quote, I've actually talked with some gun-range owners about that issue. They're horrified at the idea of someone killing themselves at their ranges, and I can't imagine them saying the kind of thing Kristof quotes one as saying. Can you find someone to say that? Probably. Is it fair to represent that as typical, as Kristof does? No.

Most of what he says is kinda believable. You'll see confederate flags and "Driver carries $20 worth of ammunition" bumper stickers at many gun shows. The Polish assault rifle and talk about putting a round through bulletproof glass is less believable. For $129 I don't know what it is--for that price I'd guess a Mossin-Nagant bolt action rifle, which isn't much of an assault weapon, unless you think grandpa's deer rifle is an assault rifle. AKs run much more. Even an SKS will run a bit more, probably around $150, but of course that shoots a 7.62 X 39, which is pretty wimpy. On the third hand maybe the gun show vendor realized he had a live one on his hands and was telling him all sorts of stories about how this SKS was personally used by Stalin to shoot Hitler.

It's interesting that lefty columnists tend to get sucked into these matches with gun-rights advocates. They write something smug and anti-gun because Everyone Knows the gun owners are a bunch of stupid, foolish, unreconstructed rednecks, as opposed to their own enlightened views. As a result they get a bunch of mail (or, these days, blogosphere fiskings) that point out their errors. Then they go off on these fishing expeditions to confirm their original prejudices. In a way they're more interested in protecting their self-image as Right Thinking People by contrasting themselves with the Foolish Rednecks, rather than in any examination of the facts.

If you drew a neutral line between 2nd Amendment supporters and detractors, this "hit piece" falls so far to the extremely rabid gun-hating side as to be laughable.

If a piece by a gun rights supporter landed an equal but opposite distance from that imaginary neutral line imagine what it would sound like! Imagine how it would be regarded even by those of us that strongly believe in 2nd Amendment rights. Imagine how embarassed we'd be.

Kristof has shown himself to be a joke to any brain that matters in the arena of ideas.

Regarding Alkali's comments about stereotypes being rooted in reality; there's some truth to that. So, the next time the NYT decides to cover a conference run by the American Association of University Women, we should expect comments about lesbians, frumpy and dowdy biddies, and unshaved armpits? I mean, not as topics of papers presented, but as descriptors of what the attendees are like?

I mean, hey, I'm sure I could find ONE such person for each descriptor at an AAUW conference. But something tells me that isn't quite how they get covered.

Regarding Ernst Blofeld's comments about how such columnns evolve, comparing Kristof's piece on the gun-shows w/ his description of Somalia, I'd venture that he's actually more sympathetic to the Somalis (and isn't it interesting how his projection in the earlier article of the average NRA-supporter meshes so well w/ his real-life experience at a gun-show? The man's prescient!).

Sure, there are confederate flags and goofy bumper stickers at gun shows.

I've seen confederate flags on sale at German seaside resorts.

I've seen goofy pro-gun bumper stickers at my local hardware store.

So what? Do most Germans support Jeff Davis? Should I be afraid of the trigger happy shoppers at Home Depot?

Kristof adds these cliches specifically to make gun owners look bad. Sure, there might be vegitarian lesbians at a NOW conference, but to write an article which LEADS with that observation is simply to play to the percieved prejudices of your audience, not to engage in meaningful discussion.

If the issue is terrorists buying guns at gun shows, I can't see how a "sexist" bumper sticker (which my wife would laugh at) has anyting to do with it.

BTW, you can browse gun prices at gunsamerica.com. It's pretty unlikely that he was offered an SKS at that price, unless it was a real beater. The Polish version of the Mosin-Nagant M-44 is much more likely; you can see a picture of one at http://www.angelfire.com/realm/cruffler/polish_m-44_carbine.htm.

(Did the Poles even make an SKS? I don't think so, but I could be wrong, and in any case it could have been a misrepresentation by the seller. Wrong info? At a gun show? Is it possible?)

GUN HATE FANTASIES

Berkeley, CA --

A guard at the Violence Policy Center convention hall politely stopped me. "Do you know the lyrics of the 'Internationale,' comrade?"

By lucky coincidence, I had learned that hoary old Communist anthem while doing an undercover investigation last year at a NARAL convention. That, along with my convincing hippie disguise -- a snarled brown wig, granny glasses, striped bellbottoms and 'Flower Power' buttons -- got me access to the freakish underground world of gun control enthusiast.

I had heard the stories, but was unprepared for the stark reality; tables of bumper stickers -- "Better Red Than Armed", "My Other Car Is A Black UN Helicopter", "Visualize A Shredded Constitution" -- only hinted at the dark machinations of the cult of Second Amendment haters.

Each year, hundreds of the cult's members gather to conduct "Violence Seminars" where they pledge their hate for law-abiding American sportsmen and plot water fluoridation schemes. Many are driven to a frenzy by the ever-present communist literature and marijuana pills -- primarily supplied by local college professors.

"The dictatorship of the proletariat will be really groovy," says Moonflower Starbeam, a self-confessed groupie for the acid rock band, The Vanillaberry Freak-Out. "But it can't happen until we round up all the flyover squares and take away their hunting rifles!"

"Right on, chickee baby," agrees Mohammed Vladimir Al-Mao, Cell Leader of the New World Order Commune and one of Starbeam's six common law husbands. "And to think... we're using their own tax money to disarm them!"

-----------------
Um... can I get a gig on the Times OpEd now?

I have mixed feelings about this. He (or his editor) did cover his hindside by writing "But the background checks are not required when unlicensed dealers sell at gun shows", but he didn't mention that "unlicensed dealers" are not required to do background checks wherever they sell. Doesn't the law only allow five sales a year before you must be licensed? (In my state that's the same for cars, if you sell more than five, you have to be licensed by the state and follow different rules, like collecting tax.) He seems to try to give the impression that people just show up without licenses and dump a load of guns on a table. The cost of those tables is signifigantly higher than a booth at your weekend flea market and the organizations that run them are diligent in their sales. I have seen private sales conducted by gun owners at a gun show but ask Mr. Kristof how he, as an individual, could run a background check if he were to take Great-Grandmother's derringer to a show to sell it. BTW, many newspapers won't let you run an ad for that derringer in their classified ads.
Unbalanced? Yes.
Stereotypical? Of course, nobody can beat a lib at that.
Pandering to those that scan articles to become intelligensia without research or thought? See Stereotypical comment.
I expect him to assert that an unlicensed dealer offered to sell him an automatic weapon. Then we'll have him. All automatics require the seller and buyer have a Federal Firearms License.

I went to a "gun" show here in Albuquerque on Saturday. Few guns, lots of trinkets, camo, jewelry, camping gear, and junk. The worst thing about gun shows is that many of the dealers seem to inflate the value of their stuff.

As far as the crowds, I saw women, kids, minorities, punks, granola types, etc. I didn't see any terrorists there, but maybe I was too busy checking out the beef jerky.

One good thing about going to gun shows is that the prices are so high I've finally decided to get my C&R license, since I want to start collecting more older stuff anyway.

Heck, the bumper stickers you see at gunshows are nothing compared to the ones you can get at sci-fi conventions. Not only did I get a "Driver only carrys $20 worth of ammo" sticker at a con, but also one that says, "Will build thermonuclear devices for food". You can get stickers that proclaim your allegence to everything from the Klingon Empire to the Royal Manticorian Navy and anything in between. No one takes them seriously. Kristof has just shown that sci-fi fans have better grip on reality than he does. Bravo!

"Until you start taking gun owners seriously, the educated folks who believe in the Second Amendment will dismiss you as irrelevant."

Here's a tip: Until gun rights defenders stop wrapping themselves in the Constitution, the educated folks who know the history of our country will dismiss them as highly annoying.

The question is not whether one "believes" in the Second Amendment. It's not like some people are arguing that the Bill of Rights only consists of 9 amendments. The argument is over the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Advocates of gun regulation believe that the Second Amendment protects the rights of militias to keep and bear arms. This is an interpretation - Ashcroft notwithstanding - that has been supported by SCOTUS consistantly. So to "believe in the Second Amendment" as interpreted by the Judicial Review of our federal court system is to believe that the government MAY restrict individuals from possessiong guns.

"...I've actually talked with some gun-range owners about that issue. They're horrified at the idea of someone killing themselves at their ranges..."

The only case I know of personally was a kid crippled in a diving accident who shot himself at a range, with a range gun. It was a police range. The police had been taken in by his apparent desire to participate in a sport despite his new wheelchair-bound status, and had gone out of their way to give him access to their range and some of their firearms. Not surprisingly, the entire town was depressed by the whole affair. But I never heard anyone try to blame the police for it. I imagine that Kristof could, though.

Getting your shorts in a wringer over a Kristoff piece is a futile exercise. The Second Amendment isn't going away; Bush has said he supports instant checks at gun shows, and nobody is trying to take away your gun. Relax, take it easy, go do some plinking or something. Until Ashcroft proposes arming everyone in a full-court anti-terror posse, things aren't going to change much one way or the other.

". Advocates of gun regulation believe that the Second Amendment protects the rights of militias to keep and bear arms. This is an interpretation - Ashcroft notwithstanding - that has been supported by SCOTUS consistantly"

Uh..SR..I know this is a silly question, but have you actually READ the text of the Miller decision (the only SCOTUS decision where 2nd Amendment rights were adressed directly)? Thought not. See, the actual text of the majority opinion held that the Second Amendment could not be applied against firearms that HAD NO MILITIA UTILITY, such as the sawn-off shotgun in question. In other words, my big black assault rifle IS protected-specifically. Ain't that nice?
Second, since the exact formulation of "The People" is used in almost all other sections of the Bill of Rights...does that mean your right to free speech is held by the government alone, and delegated to you at its pleasure? Or does it mean that, in a section of the Constitution specifically dedicated to enumerating the rights of citizens of the United States, the Framers "goofed one" and slipped in a statement relating to state's rights by mistake? Or...or...

And as far as the Supreme Court goes, are you also defending Dred Scott?
Maybe, if you anti-gunners want to be taken seriously-and remember, you ARE in the minority- you'll bother to learn some history that DOSEN'T come from VPC press releases.

It amazes me that he has the nerve to complain about the "machismo" displayed at gun shows. This from the guy who said that it was just fine for him to use firearms as a "country hick" where all the boys went hunting, yet complained about the "feminists with guns" at Mt. Holyoke. As a feminist, I can laugh at the bumper stickers he mentions. BUT, I cannot tolerate the way that he would tell me that I shouldn't use firearms because I'm a woman that might hurt myself.

Nice try, DP.

First, the relevance of Miller is that weapons which would not have utility to a militia can immediately be dismissed as being protected by the Second Amendement - BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT PROTECTS MILITIAS. It does not logically follow that weapons which can be used by a militia are automatically protected when possessed by individuals. (btw, assuming what I have and haven't read only makes you look foolish)

Second, Dred Scott was overturned.

Third, I actually agree with you that the founders likely intended the Second Amendment to apply to individuals (or more accurately did not see any purpose in discriminating between organized militias and individuals). However, that is not how SCOTUS has ruled. My point that being pro-Second Amendment should in no way imply that you are anti-gun regulation remains valid.

Fourth, the purpose of the Second Amendment was that the founders believed that the presence of armed state militias would reduce the likelihood of standing federal armies. The anti-federalists, who had the idea of a bill of rights, wanted to guarantee the ability of the states to protect themselves from an overly powerful federal government.

Today, the idea of the U.S. not having a standing army is a joke. Clearly, we accept a powerful national armed force. The Second Amendment, as conceived by the founders, is an anachronism. Does that mean that people should be allowed to individually bear arms? Perhaps, but that is not what the Second Amendment was designed to protect.

So, your point is that SCOTUS decisions are set in stone when they can be misinterpreted to mean what you want (and check Glen's archives for relevant articles by people who deal with the law for a living, on how the 'collective' concept is less than 80 years old) but they can be 'overturned' when you don't like them? I see...