An Interesting Gift

As all my family, and many of my readers know, I have a penchant for vests, both dressy and every day. So it was no surprise when I received black wool winter vest from a family member – delayed more than a week by the recent storm that savaged the mid-section of the United States. At first glance, it appeared to be a slightly dressier version of an older vest.

Then I noticed the glossy, multi-colored and professionally printed card attached to the vest, topped with the words, CONCEALED CARRY. Directly below that was the image of a revolver on top of a U.S. flag, beneath which were the words, in smaller caps, SECOND AMMENDMENT [spelled exactly that way], followed by a paragraph declaring that the maker/seller of the vest supported the right of citizens to bear arms and to carry licensed and concealed firearms.

A second and more careful inspection of the vest revealed pockets and straps inside designed to hold two revolvers – one on each side. Above the left-hand inside straps was a machine embroidered six-bullet-point list for safe use of the straps.

It’s rather unlikely I’ll be using the vest for its apparently intended purpose, particularly since I don’t have a concealed carry permit, but, since it is a handsome vest, I’ll certainly wear it.

But what puzzles me the most is how a fairly well-known retailer/manufacturer could go to all of the trouble of designing, manufacturing, and selling such a vest – and then fail to spell “amendment” correctly.

Or aren’t most of those who would buy the vest able to tell that “AMMENDMENT” was misspelled, or does it matter in the slightest to them? In this regard, I have noticed that many of those who cite the Second Amendment most vociferously have the least understanding of what it means, legally and constitutionally, so why would a mere misspelling matter in the slightest? Just as a certain segment of the House Republicans apparently have no real understanding of their responsibility to govern and how to exercise that responsibility.

10 thoughts on “An Interesting Gift”

  1. Grey says:

    I don’t know, the grifters are thick and deep preying on gullible conservatives right now. I have my doubts that this company cares at all about these issues and it’s just looking to make a buck by modifying their existing best product to hold guns – too bad whatever Chinese subcontractor factory cranked these out misspelled it.

    Also, am not much of a gun person, but cross-drawing a pistol from something floppy like a vest seems like a recipe for shooting yourself.

    1. R. Hamilton says:

      If the vest is woven rather than knit fabric, it may not be that floppy, and it could be reinforced where needed.

      And unlike a lot of dangerously stupid photos, one should most certainly keep one’s finger OFF the trigger and out of the trigger guard until actually ready and intending to fire, an error probably responsible for quite a few accidental shootings.

      There are always people selling products targeting any group with strong views, whether conservative or the opposite, or various others too. I get lots of survivalist and similar spam email, but also the occasional ads for items or events considerably further from my taste – evidence that not all mailing lists are well targeted, I suppose.

      But as to the product in question, expanded marketing might simply be recognizing demand, given that following Supreme Court rulings, some states have recently made it somewhat less near-impossible to get a concealed carry permit.

      (Maryland has until recently been “may issue” rather than “shall issue” (unless disqualified) and required justification – usually for those whose work requires them to carry large sums of cash – that might still have only resulted in a permit that’s restricted to the circumstances in question; general self-defense wasn’t even a consideration. So now maybe I’ll get one, even if I would very rarely use it, preferring not to go anywhere that I wouldn’t feel reasonably safe without carrying…but thinking that I like to maintain options, esp. if I put a bit more time into practicing, reading up on the legalities, etc. And it would simplify the logistics of transporting a reasonably powerful handgun in case one wanted to go for a walk in the woods, and have some recourse if one was surprised by a bear; not all dangers are human.)

      1. Lourain says:

        If you shoot a bear with a handgun, that is going to be one seriously angry bear. Good luck!

        1. KevinJ says:

          If I’m ever attacked by a bear, even with the best of luck I’m undoubtedly dead. It would be nice if I could at least anger the bear on the way out, though. But of course that’s purely personal preference.

          (And no, I don’t own any firearms.)

  2. Bill says:

    Anything for a buck – “Greed is good” has become the mantra for many. This isn’t surprising. Mr. Modesitt this seems like a fairly harsh statement. It makes me wonder how you have changed over the years and why?

    1. I may have become slightly more cynical over the years, but I suspect American culture has changed far more than I have.

  3. KTL says:

    Seems this type of item is aimed at someone who assumes an event requiring the use of a gun likely, when the national crime statistics would more than support that is NOT going to happen. Further, the statistics indicate self harm or unintentional harm to others from the use of the gun also more likely than the number of times a gun is successfully used in self defense.

    To RH’s concern about meeting a bear in the woods on a walk or defending himself, I’d say that he, as a pedestrian, is MUCH more likely to be hit by an automobile than any other unexpected rare event that would require self defense. Perhaps the concealed carry pockets could better be used to carry a couple first aid kits? Just saying.

    1. R. Hamilton says:

      I might use the 2nd pocket for a 1st aid kit (there are two pockets on such vests not to carry two handguns, but because not everyone is right-handed), except I doubt I’d use a vest like that in the woods, as a concealed carry handgun would be small vs what one might want in the woods (larger caliber, longer barrel, heavier) best carried “open”, in a regular holster, for quick access and to handle the weight.

      In a populated area, IMO if one carries, carrying concealed makes more sense; and as it becomes known that a lot of people are carrying concealed, that provides some deterrent also protecting those who aren’t, as well as avoiding concerns that someone might try to take the firearm and use it against the bearer or others. (not too long after concealed carry became common in Florida, distinctive rental plates had to be made non-distinctive, because those with rental plates, presumed not to be carrying, were getting attacked more; reciprocal carry permit agreements also reduced that problem) But in the boonies, open carry may be more practical.

      While I agree that there are in most places likelier hazards that do not require a firearm, interpretations of statistics suggesting one never needs one if making a reasonable effort to avoid trouble, are IMO not compelling; they’re a value judgement, such as whether one would rather stick to absolute pacifist principles (nothing wrong with that if it’s just your own life you’re risking) rather than do what it takes to survive. Presuming one is aware and prepared and responsible, options are ALWAYS a good idea, regardless of how many people may disapprove. Options should be defended and asserted where not imprudent, and the offended certainly don’t have to exercise them, so they can just kiss off.

      There are a few sad people who think that carrying gives them magic powers, but the overwhelming number of fatalities (not counting suicides which might happen anyway by other means; don’t blame the tool!) are criminal (likely gang or armed robbery gone bad), not crazies or delusional people.

      But one way or the other, the tools are not the problem, human conduct is the problem. 60 years ago, a high school student in the boonies might have a gun rack on his pickup, quite possibly with a rifle in it, and not alarm anyone if the rifle was there while parked at the school parking lot; and target shooting clubs associated with rural schools were not uncommon. The guns haven’t changed that much, behavior has. Fix that! Arrest parents of troublemakers, stop teaching that everyone is a victim and has an excuse for everything, etc. Support private institutions that offer hope and encourage constructive behavior as an alternative to violence.

      1. Lourain says:

        Nope. Lived in the boonies 60 years ago. No teenagers with gun racks in their pickups at school, because teenagers didn’t HAVE cars! (Except the local car dealer’s son.)

        1. Daniel Evans says:

          20ish years ago, my high schools gun policy changed… We had to ensure our car/truck was locked if we brought a gun (assumed to be for hunting) to school. Previous rule was it had to stay in the car unless it was being used in a hunter safety class. We did live out in the boonies though

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *