I don’t normally care much about Nicholas Kristof’s take on things, but I just wanted to point to a few paragraphs in his latest offering (“Gun Show Fantasies”) that I found particularly grating. Kristof begins the column this way:
A guard at the entrance to the convention hall politely stopped me. ‘You’ve got to check your guns here,’ he explained.
By lucky coincidence, I wasn’t carrying a concealed handgun. But the Michigan Gun Knife Show, held here over the weekend, was the place to buy any kind of pistol and lots more: huge .50-caliber semiautomatic rifles, fuse wire, Confederate flags and 75-round clips for an AK-47 in case I wanted to pursue moose that lacked the sense to flee if I missed the first 74 times. Plus instruction manuals for converting semiautomatic rifles into machine guns and, for $10, ‘How to Build Your Own Bazooka.’
Gun show bumper stickers are big on machismo: ‘I just got a gun for my wife — It’s the best trade I ever made’ and ‘Warning: Driver only carries $20 worth of ammunition.’
Now, perhaps I’m hypersensitive to these kinds of things, but Jolly Old Slant Nick seems to’ve larded down his prose with a bunch of caricaturish signifiers meant to demean and villify gun enthusiasts. I mean, Confederate flags, Nick? Fuse wire? Sexist, gun-lovin’, hickish bumper stickers? “Concealed” handguns?
The only thing missing from Kristof’s heavily-armed strawman city is the tobacco-spittin Mayor, a moron in camouflage who “ain’t gonna sell no gun to no Jew,” but “sure as shit’ll shoot me some. Yeeehawwww!”
Here’s a tip, Nick: Until you start taking gun owners seriously, the educated folks who believe in the Second Amendment will dismiss you as irrelevant. Either that or they’ll put a slug in your ass.
Now please. Come up with some material you haven’t cribbed from the neo-Nazi scenes in Pink Cadillac. I mean, even sitcoms have gotten past this kind of cliched dreck, fer Chrissakes…
[update: Instapundit and friends have a few choice things to say about Kristof’s piece as well. Oh, and while I’m at it, I may as well point you toward Kopel and Reynolds’ interesting NRO essay, “The New Frontier.”
Because I’m not sure anyone else will link to it, is why. Uh huh.
update the second: Ted Barlow’s been to a gun show, too. But — unlike with Kristof — you can trust Ted to be fair with his description. Though he’s wrong about the so-called gun show loophole…]
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Someone tell me how this translates to any moron or terrorist being able to go to a gun show and buy an AK47 or a grenade launcher (which, as you seemed to have forgotten in your PC sensitivity to NRA bashing, is the thrust of Kristof’s column). Though come to think of it, I s’pose al-Qaeda is a well regulated militia.
No one, I believe, has argued that al-Qaeda has the “right” to supply itself from American gun shows.
It has been explained at length to people like Skobie and Kristof that there is no evidence that Al-Qaeda or any other terrorists organization has done so. AK-47’s in the US are semi, not full auto, and cost much, much more than they do in the Middle East. Why buy inferior products in the US at inflated prices?
The comment about “grenade launchers” is a red herring, and I suspect Skobie knows it. You can’t buy any such thing at a gun show.
Reasonable people may reasonably differ on the whole gun show issue. Until someone can convincingly demonstrate that there is a problem (no one has yet done so) there is no justification for government action.
I have no “PC sensitivity to NRA bashing,” Skobie. I criticized Kristof’s caricatures for being hackneyed, unfunny caricatures—not for being meanspirited, or for their potential to injure the feelings of gun enthusiasts.
It’s people like you—people who don’t even bother to understand what’s being written but who feel compelled to regurgitate their memorized agitprop in “response” to any pro-Second Amendment mention nevertheless—who are weakening their own causes.
As for the rest of your breathless hyperbole, what BobL said…
Why do I buy CDs for $15 when I could get them for pennies in China? Because I’m here, and the Chinese CDs are over there.
I’m not terribly impressed that no one can prove that terrorists have bought weapons at gun shows. They probably didn’t. So what? No one can prove that terrorists are targeting power plant, or shipping in weapons of mass destruction. It’s still prudent to act as if they are. If we wait until the terrorists have acted to take any action, we’ll always be catching up.
It has been explained at length that there’s no evidence that terrorists have acquired assault weapons, Bob L.? Who explained this, exactly? Bob Meuller? John Ashcroft? Gee, that’s comforting. As for AK47s being cheaper in the Middle East, well duh, if you want to attack people here it’s probably easier to buy the weapons at a Michigan gun show than it is to smuggle them on a transatlantic flight. And you say that until someone demonstrates that there is a problem, there’s no need to close the loopholes at gun shows. That sounds just like the sort of aggressive, pro-active terror-fighting that we had on Sept. 10.
As for Jeff G., what are you talking about, dude? I asked you to explain how the Second Amendment (you know, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) permits individual wackos to buy arms at gun shows, and all you can do is say that people like me don’t understand the issue. Well enlighten me then, Oh Constitutional Scholar.
And wouldn’t it be ironic if terrorists read Kristof’s story and got a new idea how to stockpile armaments.
No, Skobie. I didn’t say you misunderstood the issue. I said you mischaracterized my post because you didn’t bother to read it.
And now you’ve proved me right a second time by not understanding my comments.
MY POST was about taking gun owners and gun users seriously. I suggested that should Mr. Kristof wish for me to take his critiques seriously, he might try taking his subjects seriously—and not reducing them to a set of absurd stereotypes.
I have no idea what post YOU read.
Skobie, read the Federalist Papers, it’s quite hard to understand the Constitution without some context.
I’m going to give you a <a href=”http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpeo.html”>link</a> to a site that uses them to explain the individual right to arms but you are of course encouraged to read the <a href=”http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/”>source material</a> yourself.
The Second Amendment does not permit individual wackos to buy arms at gun shows. Nor terrorists for that matter. But an individual must be proven to be a “wacko” or terrorist to lose the right. You seem to infer that any person who desires to buy a gun is not worthy of owning one, and therefore should be prohibited. In the late 1700’s, the militia consisted of all able bodied men who could aid in the common defense. The National Guard had not been invented yet. Well regulated did not mean encumbered by law. It meant well equipped. Go down to your local book store and buy a copy of the constitution. Read it. All of it. Then maybe you will understand the basis and importance of our freedoms. Fighting terrorism is NOT more important than preserving liberty.
First of all, thank you Blow Olson for the link. Second, I never claimed to be against the right of individuals to own guns. What I do support is closing the loopholes that make it possible, Douggo, for the wrong people to get a hold of weapons that are designed, let’s face it, to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. I mean, if we’re gonna give the FBI and CIA expanded powers at the expense of “liberty,” then why the heck not apply the same scrutiny to gun shows as we now apply to Internet users named Muhammed? If you don’t mind the FBI stopping Arabs in their cars and going through their things in the name of security, why shouldn’t gun shows be monitored by law enforcement, and gun buyers of questionable or suspicious origin be subject to meticulous checks? Do you suggest we wait for someone to commit an act of terror before we do anything?
I haven’t read the Kristof piece (and probably won’t bother). But my understanding is that you *can* get Confederate flags and sexist bumper stickers at gun shows, so it’s not really caricaturing to point it out. And as he mentioned, you can get guns, too.
Yes. And you can also get Diet Coke, Doritos, and—if you’re exceptionally lucky, a fantastic handjob from a total stranger—but that’s not the point, because Kristof didn’t lead with those items or descriptions. Why? Because as a writer, he was hoping to set a scene. A particular scene. For a particular purpose.
Don’t want to admit that’s so? Fine.
Both Skobie and Ted Barlow argue for, in essence, preemptive actions on the part of law enforcement in the war against terror. This is a surprising argument, since it would, to begin with, justify things like racial profiling.
Why? Because both essentially make the argument that, because terrorist <b>can</b> or <b>might</b> use gun shows as a source for weapons, therefore those gun shows should be treated as though they ARE a source for terrorists (and, logically shut down).
Now, this opens up all sorts of interesting corollaries. Since terrorists of the 9-11 sort have been shown to be Muslim males in the 18-40 age range, and we want to get ahead of these terrorists, rather than simply reacting in a 9-10 sort of way, presumably they should be treated as though they ARE terrorists, nu?
And, since they might utilize other resources, including rental trucks, to transport large explosives, the access to such means should be limited (otherwise, the terrorists MIGHT win)—ditto for purchases of oil, fertilizer, etc. Should we even allow such people to take training here, at all, to become pilots?
But wait, it would seem that Sheik Abdul Rahman has been using his lawyer and others to transmit messages. Now, in this case, they seem to have deliberately cooperated, but since others, e.g. Moussaoui, MIGHT do so, should we not restrict their access to communications? Including inadvertent communications?
Preemptive moves, what was that Franklin said? About liberty and security……
I was planning to post something along those very same lines, Dean.
You’ve saved me the trouble. Well said.
When I lived in Indiana during the 90’s, I attended many gun shows. Being a country boy myself, I have always owned weapons, and I loved going to gun shows to pick up accessories for my arsenal. I am a Liberal, but I am a Hoosier Liberal, which means I have no problem with individual gun ownership. Many of my friends back home still hunt for 50% of their meat stocks (the other 50% they raise) because they hate store-bought meat. The right to bear arms to them is more about putting food on the table.
I have to be honest, some of the people at the gun shows were pretty creepy and wacko. They reminded me of the idiot militia people who got so much publicity after the Oklahoma City bombing.
Nicholas Kristof’s descriptions are not that far off, Jeff. I am like you, I detest flippant stereotyping. Although I am educated and fairly enlightened, I remain a redneck Hoosier at heart–and I hate the general redneck stereotype, which is FAR from reality–but I have seen some of these people he is describing at gun shows, and they disturbed the hell out of me too.
The issue of whether or not there are scary people at gun shows is a red herring. There are “scary” people at the local Food Lion buying bleach and other “scary” people at Home Depot buying fertilizer. Does that mean we should shut them down as well?
We value individualism and freedom last time I checked. There’s a double helping of elitism offered up here to smear the less sophisticated because they are, well, less sophisticated. Little Nicky is painting a one-sided picture with a very broad brush to try and take away some of your freedoms so that he’ll feel more secure. It won’t make him more secure, but his intentions are pure and he will feel better about it.
Do you think Nicky can see LA from from his aprtment in NY?
What kills me the most about this coversation is the fact that the very same “Hillbillies” that Kristof is trying to depict in his article probably wouldn’t let anyone who even remotely resembled someone of arab decent to even come into thier gun show, much less sell them weapons.
The way I figgure no terrorist in his right mind would walk into such a crowd to buy his implements of terror.
Not to mention, of course, that there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole.” Glenn has pretty much demolished this myth.
Dealers at gunshows have to do background checks there, just as they do anywhere else. Private individuals there don’t have to do background checks, just as they don’t have to anywhere else. There’s nothing different about a gun show.
OK Skooby, let’s try this again: Fighting terrorism is NOT more important than preserving liberty. That includes the liberties of those you would have the government target.