Letters to the Editor

It All Came Together on F.C.'s Farm Day

Editor, We could not have asked for better weather for the 12th annual Falls Church Farm Day last Saturday. It was an overwhelming success and wonderfully attended. The event would not have been possible without the support of many people and organizations in our community.

I would like to thank Sam's Farm for being so generous and donating the pumpkins for the event. They come through for us every year. I also would like to thank the Friends of Cherry Hill Foundation and in particular George and Joan Burgess for their many hours staffing the barn and preparing the apple butter. George had the apples cooking by 7 a.m. Another regular feature of Farm Day is the blacksmith demonstration. A special thank you goes out to LeeAnn Lewis for recruiting our blacksmith volunteers.

I also would like to express my appreciation to all of the volunteers who helped make the day run smoothly. Finally I would like to thank the Recreation and Parks staff for their help on Farm Day. You were all great.

Diane Morse, Cherry Hill, Coordinator, Falls Church

Objects to Wayne Besen's Images of Ex-Gays

Editor,

I object to Wayne Besen's article of September 30, 2004. His stereotype of big haired, politically polarized, fundamentalist, deceived ex-gays, bears no resemblance to the men and women I know who have chosen through the power of God to change.

Jill Strickland, Falls Church

Self-Defense Training Makes Safer Society

Editor,

Richard Barton (Our Man in Arlington, Oct 7) likens Virginia Citizens Defense League members to “thugs” for their protest against the Falls Church city manager's proposed police harassment of gun owners, and says citizens carrying holstered side arms are irresponsible and make the world “more violent.”

Americans trained and equipped for self-defense make society safer, not more violent. All citizens must meet state and federal standards to purchase or carry firearms.

Barton conveniently ignores the fact that open carry is the only legal option for citizens without a permit to conceal, and for those dining in many restaurants. So is he advocating breaking the law by illegal concealment, or does he want this particular constitutional right to “just go away?”

Barton's claim to believe in the second amendment is betrayed by his inference that it applies only to single shot muzzle-loaded rifles. By his flawed logic, our fourth amendment protection against unlawful search applies only in log cabins, and the first amendment protection of free speech only to the use of quill pens; certainly not to Barton's dangerous Assault Computer, with which any anti-freedom wacko could spray innocent children with lies and slander at a terrifying rate.

Dennis J. O’Connor, Prince George, VA

Citizens With Firearms 'Best Hope Vs. Terror"

Editor,

Your September 30 Editorial “The Truth About Guns,” was long on political posturing, misinformation and emotional hype, but contained precious little “truth” about guns.

You are right in asserting that Monday's demonstration might be seen in the context of homeland security, and that not all laws are rational, good or to the betterment of public safety. As a matter of fact, the so-called assault weapons ban was one of those bad laws, which was one of the reasons why it was allowed to sunset without re-enactment. During it's 10-year life, the Clinton gun ban (or the so-called assault weapons ban) had virtually zero impact on crime reduction. Recent Justice Department and public sector academic research showed conclusively that the Clinton gun ban didn't even come close to achieving its purported anti-crime objectives, a result the pro-gun crowd predicted long before the law was put into effect.

No one who knows anything about guns or how criminals and terrorists obtain them can seriously believe that the end of the so-called assault weapons ban will make the “proliferation of assault weapons on America's streets legal,” as you so irresponsibly and emotionally assert. Let's be clear about what was banned by the law: some semi-automatic weapons, some of which possessed “military-like” features. The law never covered fully-automatic weapons, which have been illegal since 1934.

There is no evidence supporting your irresponsible assertion regarding “other laws”-by which I assume you mean Virginia's law allowing open carry of firearms for law-abiding citizens - “that increase the likelihood of lethal violence among innocent civilians.” On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that legally armed citizens are a deterrent to crime.

If some of the good citizens of the City of Falls Church are uncomfortable at the sight of other citizens legally carrying firearms in public, they may want to consider that those comparatively few citizens who choose to carry firearms legally may someday be their best hope against crime or terrorism-yes, even in the streets or public squares of Falls Church. Falls Church's fine police force cannot be at the scene of crimes while they happen, but an armed citizen just might be there, where the mere presence of his/her firearm could save a life or otherwise deter a crime.

Mr. Snyder, whose “impassioned statement” you quoted in your editorial, does not have the corner on the market for disgust and shock at what “a .45 [caliber] bullet does to a human head when shot from close range,” despite his respectable experiences as a volunteer rescue worker. It is precisely because of the real possibility of such occurrences happening to good citizens, and because of a desire to exercise an individual, Constitutional right to bear arms for personal protection, that some citizens choose to carry firearms in public.

Andrew Wilson, Falls Church