What Do You Think of Gun Appreciation Day?

Today gun owners across the country are celebrating their right to bear arms.

With new gun laws being proposed by at least one MetroWest-area state legislator and at the federal level, gun owners are rallying around their Second Amendment right.

The organizers of National Gun Appreciation Day are advocating for gun owners and supporters to "send a message."

"On 1.19.13 go to your local gun store, gun range or gun show with your constitution, American flags and your 'hands off my guns' sign to send a loud and clear message to Congress and President Obama," the website says.

Not everyone is in favor of the gun appreciation day, though. More then 30,000 people have signed a petition on SignOn.org to stop gun appreciation day.

"Gun groups are planning to have a National Gun Appreciation Day on January 19th, the same weekend that Americans celebrate the life and service of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., an American leader who was assassinated by a rifle's bullet. This is an outrage and a slap in the face to Americans who value life and freedom!" the petition reads.

What do you think about National Gun Appreciation Day? Is it too soon after the Sandy Hook shooting and too close to Martin Luther King Day or is now the last chance gun advocates will have to show thier support?

Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 01:39 AM
[Part II] A second premise is that there are various estimates on the number of guns owned by individuals - private property I might add - to the tune of perhaps 4 per every man, woman, and child in America. Example: There are more deaths in the United States with children drowning in swimming pools than guns. Ban swimming pools? http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 01:40 AM
[Part III] Third premise. Firearm owners (Andy included) will never let the Government confiscate by law or force their private property – especially their firearms no matter the type or configuration. Thus he should respect mine. Now, explain to me exactly what your solution is here? Are you really willing to ask the Government on your behalf to kill those of us who are unwilling to capitulate to these emotional hoplophobic whims of particular firearms? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia Given the above, do you still knowingly abdicate your personal responsibility for your safety or are you willing to accept that the only thing thus far that has kept you safe has been your pure dumb luck? Some of us haven't been as lucky, sir.
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 01:47 AM
[Part IV] Mr. G. Said, "I have no idea what your actual qualifications are to do that other than being an avid advocate with conventional talking points." I have yet to see an original thought or any evidence to defend your opinion in any of these messages. I am not repeating 'talking points'. I speak from the heart and one that has taken the Oath and sworn to protect and defend the United States Constitution (including you), from enemies foreign and domestic, so help me God.
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 01:51 AM
SKK, On that point I will agree 100%. it's not about 'Guns' at all...it's about Freedom and defending our civil rights. The wrong message was sent using this title, but non-the-less I stood outside the State House showing support for my fellow firearms owners. Something Andy could learn.
Kira Gagarin January 28, 2013 at 02:13 AM
Now how did he become a Dictator? Was there a coup that I slept through? Or did the guy you vote fore lose so you call the democratically elected president of your country a dictator?
Kira Gagarin January 28, 2013 at 02:15 AM
There is also the right to free speech. That has a limit on it as, to use the most common example, you cannot scream "fire" in a crowded theater. None of these rights are absolute, they are all interpreted by the various branches of our government and evolve with time. So, there is a bit more to say, as you can see...
Kira Gagarin January 28, 2013 at 02:23 AM
OK, so it is her fault he got the gun. And there are responsible gun owners. Fine... No one is debating that... But now what? As a society we need to make sure that people do not have the option to make a mistake in that kind of fire arm keeping. We all suffer from those mistakes and it is not a risk I am willing to take.
Dennis Wilson January 28, 2013 at 02:38 AM
SKK, I might agree with you that ban on assault weapons might not do any good as they (currently) account for a small amount of gun deaths. However, there was a time before semi-automatic weapons and a time before 30 round magazines. As the technology of firearms continues to progress, where would we draw the line as to what civilians can own for sport shooting or hunting? It seems that firearms are produced for the military then sold to civilians in a somewhat altered fashion. What is the next level of military hardware that might (is already?) being sold to civilians? I might think it is drones. Police departments are beginning to buy drones that can carry night vision cameras and tear gas and can be configured to carry a firearm. There are 'helicopters' and other flying objects that can be purchased now by civilians and controlled by a laptop or smartphone. Will it be only be a matter of time before one these flying objects is weaponized by someone intent on mass murder? I think drawing the line at a 10 round magazine (personally, I would prefer 7) and specifying the maximum size round and its energy might halt the next round of technological advances in weaponry from being sold to civilians. I also think that civilans do not need to be able to purchase body armour any more than they need to be able to purchase hollow point bullets which, I believe, are referred to as 'cop killers'.
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 03:09 AM
Kira, The Brandenburg v. Ohio case basically overturned Schenck v. United States. Yet the media and folks like yourself love to try and use old case law in support of tired arguments.
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 03:13 AM
Kira, once again you're wrong: "As a society we need to make sure that people do not have the option to make a mistake in that kind of fire arm keeping. We all suffer from those mistakes and it is not a risk I am willing to take." Yes, we all suffer. That's life. People make mistakes that cost others their lives, and their fortunes. That's no excuse for what you're suggesting which is that everyone is "Guilty" before they've done anything wrong. Wrong! You're innocent until you're proven guilty in a court of law.
Ron Goodenow January 28, 2013 at 03:15 AM
So Andy is opposed to civil rights and freedom??? What gives you the right to say that? And he should stand outside the State House to support those when it was GUN APPRECIATION DAY just a short time after innocent children were gunned down in cold blood, and many more murders have taken place. I find the thought that Andy is against civil rights and freedom as expressed by a gun propagandist who thinks he is the only person who knows the constitution as repugnant. Where do you guys get the right to own the constitution, judicial process, and law? Are the rest of us just plain stupid? Brainwashed? Uneducated? Are people in the middle dumb? The many NRA members who absolutely oppose its policies and raving officers bought off? Mr. Bokleman, I think you are a sad excuse as both a writer and representative of intelligent gun owners. Frankly, in line with what you said, I think a lot of you send wrong messages and then get all uppity when they are disagreed with. And, sir, of course it is about guns. There's not a dimwit on the planet that cannot see that.
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 03:18 AM
Dennis is now repeating tired old arguments. A mother in Georgia recently defended her home, and her two children using 6 rounds from a revolver. If she'd had 8 rounds rounds in her chamber she'd have been a criminal under your view point. Right? A Rep. in NY recently pointed out this same thing. Are you willing to limit Police to 7 rounds and no so-called Assault Weapons too? Or are you silly enough to be so hell bent on disarming Americans that you'll allow the Government to have a monopoly on the use of force? Anytime in history that has happened...it has ended badly for those that were disarmed.
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 03:24 AM
Mr. G. I see that you've offered yet another compelling argument and have refused to try and refute my previously well stated positions. Instead you have engaged in name calling and made uncalled for accusations. Excellent use of the written word, sir. Excellent.
Ron Goodenow January 28, 2013 at 03:46 AM
I don't respond to your arguments because I fail to consider them particularly 'well stated' or definitive, lost as many of them are in fogs of generalization and condescension towards thoughtful criticism by Andy and others. I did not call you a name, but opined that you are not a persuasive writer who comes across more as a propagandist than an expert, perhaps in a bubble. I also think that like many, you seem to hide behind the Constitution and constructions of it that are extremely narrow. I don't want to take your rights away, but I do respect many who would regulate them in the public interest, something it is perfectly constitutional to do. Failing that I would be happy, personally, to see the Second Amendment amended....something that will happen if we keep having slaughters. In any event. I am bowing out of this thread, persuaded I have at least made my points. Fire away.
Dennis Wilson January 28, 2013 at 04:04 AM
Ron Bokleman 10:24 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013 "Instead you have engaged in name calling..." Ron Bokleman 9:18 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013 "Paul you're the lead Clown here." Mr. Bokleman: Are you part of the final bulwark against tyranny?
Ryan Seavey January 28, 2013 at 04:07 AM
To the people saying banning guns in any way, shape or form will do anything to solve violence of any sort I have three thing to say to you that completely defeat your logic: 1) Timothy McVeigh 2)The 9/11 Hijackers used box cutters 3) Australia has had a 62% increase in firearm related violent crimes since modern weapons were outlawed and taken from responsible gun owners. not to mention that the Columbine massacre occured in the height of Clinton's "Assault Weapon Ban" , not to mention that even the Clinton administration admitted that the AWB had virtually no impact on firearm related crimes during its 10 year stretch no really, the logic behind banning any firearms is flawed and self destructive.
Ryan Seavey January 28, 2013 at 04:15 AM
The old saying " Outlawing guns means only outlaws have guns" may sound like some cheesy, right wing nut-job rant, but it really is completely and utterly accurate, you can ban anything you want, but the only the law abiding will comply, I mean, look at any illegal drug if you want a good example lol Home invasions in Australia have become some horrible fad ever since there gun ban. Restricting guns , and making them harder to get don't matter to the gang-bangers and bank robbers who buy them illegally anyways, seriously ,gun laws don't affect anybody but the good guys.
Ryan Seavey January 28, 2013 at 04:20 AM
I LOVE guns, but I agree, It's like having a day to appreciate your car, or your hammer, why are you celebrating tools? Happy screwdriver appreciation day!
Ryan Seavey January 28, 2013 at 04:25 AM
Dennis, in case you didn't know, before we had magazines for our rifles, we had Gatling guns capable of firing hundreds of rounds with the crank of a lever, and yes, civilians COULD purchase them back in the 1800's , gun technology isn't exactly as simple as steps on stairs lol
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 12:09 PM
...and I made an apology for that comment earlier as well. I'll assume you missed it.
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 12:12 PM
The rally at the State House had nothing to do with the tragedy in CT. I had everything to do with the legislation introduced by Linsky and Patrick as a headline grabbing, knee-jerk reaction. It's nothing new for either of them as they have introduced these bills before...and the Joint Committee(s) on Public Safety/Judiciary have toss them into 'Study' most appropriately.
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 12:17 PM
The reality here is, Ron G., that you don't respond because you have no response. Instead you want to hide behind your elitist position without backing up your point of view. I too am done here attempting to carry on a debate with those that have no interest in presenting facts in support of their well informed opinions. I would ask one more time what part of "...shall not be infringed." do you not understand? Thus take your regulation in the public interest in your pipe and smoke it.
Kira Gagarin January 28, 2013 at 03:11 PM
Hi Ron. No, I am not wrong. I am entitled to my opinion just like you are to yours. Its a lovely thing... I am not content with saying: "Yes, we all suffer. Thats life. People make mistakes that cost others their lives". That doesn't work for me when children are executed in schools. Those are not the kinds of mistakes I am ok with making it easy for people to make. In my opinion, there is no need for anyone to own those weapons, with very limited exceptions.
SKK January 28, 2013 at 04:02 PM
@Dennis, I see your point on technology and I understand it but comparing guns that can be purchased in any town and drones is to me sort of a stretch. Yes police are looking at it but they are the police. Is there dangerous technlogy out there (yes) but to compare guns to a drone is in my respectful opinion a stretch. Dennis, I would also worry about another McVeigh and ferterlizer and fuel being used prior to any drone. But, I understand that yes technology does move forward and we as a nation need to make sure what is for the people and what is not. Gun technology has almost remained the same for the last 100 years. Guns fire in the same way they did decades and decades ago. and just for the record. I don't own a gun.
Ron Bokleman January 28, 2013 at 06:11 PM
Kira, I do not dispute your right to an opinion, so the first portion of comment doesn't even apply. In all your emotion, you failed to understand my point. Which, stated more clearly, is that you've somehow acquired a mystical power to prevent all gun related accidents. (MA has strict storage laws already.) That you have the right to tell all licensed firearm owners, that because they MIGHT commit a crime or have an accident, you advocate taking them all away. Hence my 'Guilty' before being proven 'Innocent' comment, tongue-in-cheek. I would ask you to tell us all from what authority do you derive that ability? Hundreds of children will be killed or injured today in car accidents today. Do you also hold that same authority to tell them they can't ride in cars? Or better yet, that we need to ban these 'Assault Vehicles'? "Those are not the kinds of mistakes I am ok with making it easy for people to make." Who died and left you in charge of anyone else's kids, let alone mine? You are not responsible for their safety, nor the school, nor the Police, nor society. "In my opinion, there is no need for anyone to own those weapons, with very limited exceptions." Many of us already own these firearms and have for years and years without issue. They were purchased with my own $ and legally. Who are you to suggest someone on your behalf and take them? Confiscation of anyone's private property will not be tolerated, or did you obtain that power too?
Ray Dauphinais January 28, 2013 at 07:14 PM
Wow, I really don’t know where to start, there’s just so much misinformation, errors and outright lies here, but I’ll give it a shot anyway. First let me start by saying, everyone do yourself a favor and go to the Marlborough Public library and borrow the movie “We need to talk about Kevin”. It came out last year and shows an evil kid who grew up with every opportunity his upper income family could provide. But he’s evil, so he goes to school one day and starts killing everyone there with his bow and arrow set he got for Christmas (after killing his father and sister at home). No guns needed. Evil people exist. Tools, weapons and inanimate objects don’t do harm on there own, they need an evil person assistance. Someone earlier in the comments said that machine guns were banned. WRONG! Machine guns are not banned. Anyone who wants to go through the process of getting the appropriate tax stamp and paying for it can, along with paying exorbitant prices for a fully automatic machine gun can have one. The federal governments ruling on this makes the manufacture for civilian use illegal after a certain date (mid 80’s) therefore every machine gun on the market is now a collector item and very pricey, but thousands exist. PS. Adam Lanza’s mother did everything legal, but she was not a responsible gun owner, and there lies the difference between responsible and irresponsible. No one with any mental disability should be allowed access to firearms.
Dennis Wilson January 28, 2013 at 07:16 PM
SKK, I agree that linking guns to drones (at this time) is something of a stretch. Police in many cities seem to have become more 'militarized' when it comes to weapons and SWAT tactics. I'm not complaining about that; they need to be safe and not be out-gunned. As weapons manufacturers seek markets in addition to the military and police, it seems that they begin to make 'civilian models'. You can Goggle drones or 'unmanned aerial vehicles' and find models ranging from $300 to $5k. The larger ones can be customized & carry heavier payloads. And not to be argumentative, but I doubt many folks would want to go to war today with the weapons in use 100 years ago.
Kira Gagarin January 28, 2013 at 07:16 PM
Ron, your point is that there should not be restrictions on gun ownership? Or am I missing it again? If that is your point, that is not the case today as there are many restrictions. And if it isn't, then great, we agree... There should be restrictions on gun ownership. "Who died and left you in charge of anyone else's kids, let alone mine? You are not responsible for their safety, nor the school, nor the Police, nor society." Well, to start, lots of kids have died, thats who. Really? The school, police, nor our community isn't responsible for the safety of children? So only parents are in charge of each of their children? Comparing prohibiting/restricting certain guns to prohibiting cars is just ridiculous and shows a lack of any reasoning. Do you really mean to say you can't differentiate between car ACCIDENTS and gun murders? Why do you think there isn't the same outrage over children killed in car accidents? No reason, right? They are totally comparable? Who am I to suggest regulation and control what you do? Uh, thats how things work here. We make laws as a society deciding who can own what, who can smoke what, and even who can marry whom. We vote for those that share our opinions and thats how we enact regulation. Seems like public opinion is clear on this issue and we will see that throughout the coming months. Works for me.
SKK January 28, 2013 at 07:56 PM
Dennis, I apologize if you thought I was discussing muskets (I wasn't). There have been full auto and semi automatic rifles and handguns for over 100 years. The M1911 I think may still be the issued sidearm of some military and police. It is almost unchanged since 1911. If you remove the material technology and tighter tolerance manufacturing capabilities they work in the same manner. I think we both know what we are discussing here. Also, Let's not confuse a hobby store glorified remote control plane or copter with a camera as a military UAV as you brought up. if you are talkng about those then I own a UAV. I can go buy a rocket at the hobby store but it doesn't make it a scud.
SKK January 28, 2013 at 07:58 PM
A scud may not be a good choice because they are just glorified hobby shop rockets. But again, I think you know what I mean.


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