One Million Moms for Gun Control Protesting Gun Show Near Newtown Massacre Site

Saturday's "East Coast Fine Arms Show" in Stamford is too soon after massacre.


The majority of Mothers of America made a promise after Newtown that we would not move on again from another mass shooting without action. We must join together to say that this is not acceptable: not in this community, and not now.

— Shannon Watts, founder of One Million Moms for Gun Control

The non-profit organization One Million Moms for Gun Control is urging organizers of the East Coast Fine Arms Show to cancel its event this weekend out of respect for the still grieving community of Newtown, Connecticut. The show is slated for Stamford, just 40 miles from the Newtown shooting site. Westchester Collectors, Inc. is putting on the show.

Shannon Watts, founder of One Million Moms for Gun Control, agrees with Stamford Mayor Michael Pavia that the timing of the show is too soon.

“The idea that life has already returned to normal for the community of Newtown less than one month after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School is shocking. Newtown residents have not even had a full month to heal,” said Watts. “Allowing this show to go on without protest would be tantamount to saying, ‘It’s time to move on.’ The mothers of America made a promise after Newtown that we would not move on again from another mass shooting without action. We must join together to say that this is not acceptable: not in this community, and not now.”

Kara Baekey, of the Fairfield County, Connecticut, Chapter of One Million Moms for Gun Control said, “As a lifetime resident of Fairfield County, the same county as Newtown, I believe it is too soon for a gun show to be held so close to Sandy Hook. We are still under the microscope of the media, our children are still asking questions, and we are asking for time to grieve. Instead of hosting a gun show, we should be working to strengthen our state and federal gun laws. This is not the time to be celebrating and marketing guns in Connecticut.”

The 8th Annual East Coast Fine Arms Show will take place in Stamford, CT, at the Plaza Hotel located at 2701 Summer Street, presented by Westchester Collectors.

About One Million Moms for Gun Control:

One Million Moms for Gun Control, a nonprofit that supports common sense gun measures, was formed in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, which claimed 26 lives—20 of them children. Our goals: 1) Reinstate the ban on assault weapons and related magazines.
 2) Close gun-show loopholes that encourage private gun sales without background checks.
 3) Set boundaries on how much ammunition a person can purchase.
 4) Limit the scope of concealed weapons laws at the state level. For more information, visit onemillionmomsforguncontrol.org

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Tom jones January 07, 2013 at 08:09 PM
it is simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications: I think what the author is missing, is these people are EVIL before, during, and after medication,you just don't create a correlation to pysch meds and killing. They probably felt those evil thoughts for a very long time.Millions of people are on SSRI in this country,a very small percentage have gone on to kill. How many mass murderers were not medicated, was Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris's Dylan Kiebold medicated?
brutus January 07, 2013 at 08:35 PM
Tom, as with anything that has potential side effects, only a small percentage of people experience side effects. some psychiatric medications do in fact list homicidal/suicidal thoughts as a side effect. considering millions of americans are on these drugs means even a miniscule percentage would be significant and cannot be overlooked. it is certainly more meaningful to look at this than gun control. also, even if what you say is correct....that these people were evil even before the medication....that doesn't mean they were homicidal. I'm not a doctor or a psychiatrist, so I'm just throwing a guess out there, but perhaps it's the drugs that make these people make the leap from homicidal thoughts, to homicidal actions. we all think of doing something bad at one point or another, but our conscience keeps us from acting. maybe these drugs allow someone to ignore their conscience.
brutus January 07, 2013 at 08:57 PM
professor and others, take a look at this chart: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/americas-biggest-killers-the-chart-anti-gunners-dont-want-you-to-see_01052013 why look at rifles vs. hammers? let's look at the more general "firearm" vs. "non-firearm" as well as many other causes of death. firearm deaths rank pretty low. I guess we should start banning cars, alcohol, doctors, and bats before we ban guns.
Tom jones January 07, 2013 at 08:58 PM
." maybe these drugs allow someone to ignore their conscience." O.K. fair enough Brutus- I see your point Than why medicate them AND send them back out into society, IF there are clear signs they are dangerous to themselves and others? Often times the parents say in reflection i knew he/she was troubled but didn't know what to do
Will Wilkin January 07, 2013 at 09:11 PM
"Finkleman appears to come to his conclusion based upon a draft of the 2nd and if I acquiesce to this opinion (I really don't accept it, but I digress) it still leaves me with the question as to why the Framers were compelled to do a rewrite." Finkelman cites many different pieces of evidence for his argument the Second Amendment is a collective right of the States to keep militia. Most salient of these was citing the Constitution in the several parts where it gave Congress and the president shared responsibility for the ultimate control of the militia. He also describes how many proposals of the Pennsylvania Antifederalists were incorporated into the Bill of Rights almost word-for-word, in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Amendments. So the Founders certainly were aware of and influenced by the Penn Antifederalists, but nonetheless rejected to include their insistence that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals." Instead the Second explicitly begins with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." The Constitution puts that Militia under state-appointed officers and subject to Congressional regulation and, in emergency, Presidential command.
Marcus Poulin January 07, 2013 at 09:15 PM
You would be wrong saying few Luvox administered patients had side effects. It has a horrible side effect profile.
Will Wilkin January 07, 2013 at 09:28 PM
Finkelman goes on to explain why "Congress completely rejected the Pennsylvanians' demands for state control of the militia and for personal ownership of guns," listing many subsequent events that proved "they were shrewd enough to know that the lack of national military power --and with it the power to disarm those who are in rebellion or might be in rebellion-- would undermine any national state. Having just created a stronger national state in the wake of Shays's Rebellion and similar rebellions in other states, the Federalists in Congress, many of whom had been in the Philadelphia Convention, the state ratifying conventions, or both, took no steps to undermine the ability of the national government to protect itself from enemies without or rebels and traitors within." That is why, he argues, "in drafting the Bill of Rights, James Madison and his Congressional colleagues emphatically rejected the sweeping provisions of the Pennsylvania minority and other Antifederalists relating to the military, the militia, and firearms and instead adopted a much more limited amendment, directed at only one particular issue: the preservation of the organized state militias as a military force."
cheryl January 07, 2013 at 09:33 PM
The former U.S. Marine who penned a blistering letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in response to her strict gun control proposals is continuing to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Appearing on “Fox and Friends” Monday, Joshua Boston warned that history repeats itself, saying in the “Third Reich” no one “saw [gun control] coming until it was too late.” Boston also referenced the former Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin and how he implemented gun control in order to expand his power. “[I]t’s something we’ve seen happen time and time again in history,” he added. Perhaps the most memorable portion of Boston’s letter to Feinstein read: “I am not your subject. I’m the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I’m the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I’m the flesh and blood of America. I’m the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American.”
Will Wilkin January 07, 2013 at 09:40 PM
Other evidence cited by Finkelman includes the Congressional debates over the Amendments, stating "Nowhere in the debate is there the slightest hint about a private or individual right to own a weapon. This should not surprise us, for as one of the leading military historians of the period notes, 'in all the discussion and debates' over the Second Amendment, 'from the Revolution to the eve of the Civil War, there is precious little evidence that advocates of local control of the militia showed an equal or even a secondary concern for gun ownership as a personal right.'" Finkelman also uses as evidence the records of state courts and legislatures, "as numerous courts accepted the notion that to 'bear arms' was a term solely connected to the militia and the military." He cites the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1840 understanding the term "bear arms" had a "reference to their military use," and quotes that court thus: "A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane." In other words, to "bear arms" was understood to have a martial sense, which indeed conforms to the exact wording of the Second Amendment that starts with "A well-regulated militia."
Will Wilkin January 07, 2013 at 09:49 PM
I will agree with you VOR that Finkelman overstates his case regarding the First Amendment as "as anything but a collective right," but it certainly included that sense, which was his point, that the term had different meanings in the Constitution depending on context. He said it could only mean an individual right in the Fourth, but an individual cannot "peaceably assemble." Nor can an individual, I would add, qualify as "a well-regulated militia." ...Out of time, many points unanswered I admit, but I am swamped with work I hope will turn into paying work. You can have the last word here, my attention is stretched by many things. I am grateful for your thoughtful discussion, thanks again VOR.
Tom jones January 07, 2013 at 09:52 PM
DBjr I was asking, and the word- partner- was omitted, was Dylan Klebold medicated, seems to me he wasn't or it would have been referenced
David Chesler January 07, 2013 at 10:32 PM
An individual may certainly assemble, when acting in concert with other individuals. The right to assemble belongs to each individual, before they choose to assemble. The plain text says RKBA is a right of the people. By statute, the unorganized militia is all adult males between the ages of 18 and 45 (and women who volunteer) just like the electorate is all adult citizens. The militia isn't going to be particularly effective if the members don't assemble and act in some coordinated manner, nor if they don't practice shooting straight.
John M. Joy January 07, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Holy cherry-picking, Batman! Finkelman ignores a tremendous amount of evidence as to the Founders' intent. See, for example: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol76/iss4/5
Tom jones January 07, 2013 at 11:15 PM
I guess we should start banning cars, alcohol, doctors, and bats before we ban guns. Limitations on who should own guns would be more accurate, All the causes of death on that chart are preventable to some degree,yes,as well are homicides when they committed by misuse, just as a car can be misused.
jim laguardia January 07, 2013 at 11:19 PM
DBJr..... would that include DeborahLee Hovey who posted "Gabby Gifford stay out of my towns" on her facebook page that sure sounds like a conservative using a casket for a soapbox
Tom jones January 07, 2013 at 11:33 PM
All the doctors with malpractice deaths attributed to them are liberals?? Do non-liberals doctors "kill" or is that data not broken out?
Tom jones January 07, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Here you go people some "facts" for both sides to chew onhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
jim laguardia January 08, 2013 at 12:29 AM
DBJr... you dissapoint, I had high hopes that maybe you would not try and defend her, oh well I guess i was a fool to think that way..... what did the FORMER congresswoman do that was political? DLH follow up comment was that SHE was not informed that Giffords would be there. By the way I would at the very least think you would have a problem with her refering to Monroe and Newtown as "my towns" .... isnt that ironic
Erik Musick January 08, 2013 at 12:50 AM
Wayne LaPierre said that good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns. When you punish the good guys for having guns you don't harm the bad guys with guns. All this bickering is asinine.
Tom jones January 08, 2013 at 01:11 AM
Well I have re-read the article,and it really is ambiguous at best, the author sites, SSRI , Valium(an anti-anxiety med) different classes of meds, both Yates and Pittman admit to "voices in their heads" , which is schizophrenia , probably not brought on by meds, Not to mention the side effects of most any medication, blood pressure,etc, can be very extensive. Once again these people had LOTS of issues and thats why they were put on the meds, probably of their own free will so as to attempt to feel "human'
jim laguardia January 08, 2013 at 01:47 AM
"cuz"?? really "cuz" ?? i am a real person who uses their real name, cant say the same for you.... you think defending a heinous action means you "smack" me "down" good for you, i really had higher epectations but like i said i guess i was the fool for thinking you had a shred of humanity in you..... let me put this so you (a person who uses "cuz") can understand.... you be illin, why you ackin so cray cray?
Tom jones January 08, 2013 at 02:05 AM
Since I have witnessed not much compromise from either side and I have been called a "cupcake" because I am been accused of being so afraid of guns, I will be posting no more, silly me for thinking this was a thread for working through a major issue, just remember to some extent the same data can be used by anti and pro gun advocates to come to vastly different conclusions. Then at the end of the day the 2 camps turn their backs and settle into the same old messaging with nothing accomplished.
COSMO P January 08, 2013 at 02:08 AM
Professor PJ Moriarty 2:36 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013 cheryl - Do you stand by your earlier postas being the Truth? cheryl 1 hour ago stats 2011: 323 death by guns You failed to say how many were justified!!!
sebastian dangerfield January 08, 2013 at 02:11 AM
Here is also the truth If Nancy Lanza didnt have 1 gun in her home, then lots of people would be alive today. Try to counter that truth. Gun advocates look at Chicago as their city to show how laws dont work. But why not examine, on this site, a closer city, like New York, with anti-gun Bloomberg as mayor? Are you unaware of the huge and continuing drop in gun deaths? Or is it more convenient to only state the facts that support your b.s. point of view? The bottom line needs to be looking at the country's laws vs other countries. As it stands now, I can buy 15 guns in colorado--drive a few hundred miles and sell them in chicago. Hardly a great argument. Compare England to the USA and then decide if gun laws have no impact. Hint-they do. And just explain why I cant look at England and USA when making conclusions. If you cant--then you have lost the argument. Sorry-but that is the facts. You tell me about chicago-but i have a retort-- the guns in chicago are bought elsewhere. Now its your turn to tell me why england has so few gun deaths.
Tom jones January 08, 2013 at 02:30 AM
See above, I was to post no more, HOWEVER I wonder why you are citing data from 2003????
COSMO P January 08, 2013 at 02:39 AM
@ the liberal progressive Obama loving Gun grabbing Professor M. FBI: Michigan's crime rate down 10.5% with CCW law in place. The bad guys hate armed citizens. Wonder why?
brutus January 08, 2013 at 02:43 AM
mr. dangerfield, so you only care about gun deaths? if people are killed in other ways, that's ok? of course if you ban guns, gun deaths will go down. there are less guns! but does overall crime go down? good for england and their low gun death rate, but their violent crime rate is higher than ours. people are being brainwashed to only care about guns and are ignoring what really matters, and that is why would someone want to murder 20 little kids in the first place? but why ask the tough questions....just ban guns, right? your claim that if nancy lanza had no guns, then lots of people would be alive today is ludicrous. there are many ways to kill people. and in fact, if he had no access to guns, then maybe he plants a bomb and kills 100 people instead. the point is, you can take away the gun, but the crazy is still there.
sebastian dangerfield January 08, 2013 at 03:54 AM
brutus, You would have to establish that adam lanza had an ability to kill 20 plus people in order to actually mention that that was a possibility. Can you? If you want to bring it to the absurd, like it seems you do (lets not deal with facts, but with suppositions) --may I ask does the 2nd amendment cover your right to own a nuclear weapon? A bazooka? A tank? Where, in your mind-that is capable of enormous elaboration, does it end? No, Id rather deal with reality, even though it does have the inconvenient nusiance of having a gun, that did kill lots of people....sorry to take you back to reality. Lots of 'crazy' people exist in this country....they all have 2nd amendment rights---so in your scenario, you accomplish nothing. I dont deal in absolutes, so once again, we have to deal with things more reasonably when debating me. I dont think that limiting or banning guns will solve all crime. I dont think that only bad guys will have access, and I do think that some bad guys will have a much harder time obtaining weapons, with intelligent application of laws. So, there are starting points to all problems. Im not suggesting to ban ALL guns-- brutus. Do you suggest there should be NO limits? Unlimitied weaponry and access for every man woman and child? Hopefully not-- so please dont characterize those of us who desire less guns in our society to be absolutists-with total bans, etc... A reasonable conversation about the problem is what is desired.
Tom K June 03, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Just what we need, another self-serving, special interest group like 'MADD' force their political agenda down our throats. Do us all a favor and go home!
COSMO P June 04, 2013 at 05:11 AM
I would hope that the One million moms would not object to a total ban on pressure cookers along with a law that only allows you to buy only 10 nails and ban the sale of roller bearings or restrict them to a purchase of only 10. And lets not forget any cell phone that can be used as a detonator for a home made BOMB. Along with every model car plane helicopter or boat receiver on this planet. This way hundreds of people would have been safe in BOSTON.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »