A Note To "You" (the gun owner)

The gun culture in America must change.


On one day, in one American town 13 times as many people (27) were murdered by gun than were murdered by gun (2) in one entire year (2006) in Japan, a nation of 127,000,000 people. And yet we dither. The warning from the Right is that “they are coming for your guns.” This is partially true (we’re coming for some of them) except that “they” is actually “we,” and “you,” whether you know it or not, are actually part of that we because that we includes family, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens, which is not nearly as nebulous an entity as your favorite bogeyman “the government.” We the people are coming. And you, as a person who may have no respect for government, need to respect that.

We are told that we must come to you now politely and with respect to gain your support or at least your lack of resistance to the new set of laws and regulations that, hopefully, will soon apply to the guns you covet and worship. I for one am in no such mood. Accountability is a big word in your dialectic, and in your unyielding attitude toward gun ownership in America, and in your support of the NRA I am holding you accountable for enabling the gun-available environment that led to the mass slaughter of children in Connecticut, to name but one incident. You will resist this characterization because you are a sportsman or a hobbyist or a perceived self-defender who is merely exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. You are innocent. But you are not. What you’re guilty of is indifference, in the face of brutal statistics (31,000 gun deaths per year in America), to the mayhem inflicted on your communities, near and afar, by your stubborn affection for guns.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That is correct. That is why severe limitations on gun ownership and access to guns must be in effect in the United States. The reality of our imperfect and increasingly violence-tolerating culture (if you visited another world and witnessed children entertaining themselves with virtual games of shooting and death, would you view them as peace-loving or something else?), is something you can no longer ignore. That reality, not your connection to times past or to the glowing mythology of guns in America, demands an adaptation and a response to the killing power of modern guns.

This much I know. If I had a tradition, activity or even a need that involved guns, and I saw what guns at large had done to my country, I would gladly limit or compromise my access to guns for the greater good. Not to do so would be disgracefully un-American and insupportable, but most of all selfish. As good, responsible and deserving as you think you are, our society is peopled by many who are hostile, irresponsible, uncontrollable, ill-trained, and imbalanced. Efforts to control or monitor those members of society have and will always fall unacceptably short. That leaves guns as the controllable variable in the American equation of death by guns.

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.

Boggs February 25, 2013 at 08:16 PM
Mental checkups on gun owners. Same as governor Christie wants !!!!!!!!!!!!
Concerned Parent February 25, 2013 at 08:40 PM
@Boggs...the truth is, and they don't have the guts to admit it, is that they thirst for these high-capacity magazines and use the facade of paranoia of a potential gov't initiated incursion and the 2nd Amendment so they can keep them. Forget that the fact that these guns have the same firing power with a smaller clip. They just want their 20+round magazines. And when you ask them directly why they need a high-capacity magazine, they will come back with the same bolier plate response.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 25, 2013 at 09:19 PM
Common, Actually right now this is the focus of what I am doing, responding to anti-gun comments and rhetoric. I have things to do, and this is my priority.
cheryl February 25, 2013 at 09:23 PM
"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state" Article 1: Section 15 Connecticut Constitution Does anyone care about our state and federal constitution anymore?
Donald Borsch Jr. February 25, 2013 at 09:30 PM
Dear gun control advocates- Answer this question with a reassuring YES, and I will immediately recant my position and donate my time and efforts to any anti-gun group going: Can you propose or implement or enforce any gun-control legislation that will stop people in CT from shooting one another? ----------------------------------------------------- Since your answer is logically No, I'll see you around. ;)
cheryl February 25, 2013 at 09:30 PM
Or do you just want to make up your own laws & regulations to take law abiding citizens rights away? What these politicians should do is have a laws i.e. Florida. Mandatory--From highway billboards to a state government Web page, a high-profile campaign praises Florida’s 10-20-Life law, which authorizes mandatory sentences for pulling a gun during a crime. The 10-20-Life law, which went into effect in July 1999, requires that a felon who used a gun to commit a crime, such as armed robbery, serve at least 10 years in prison. Firing a gun increases the penalty to a 20-year prison term and shooting a person bumps it to 25 years to life. In addition, any felon who even possessed a gun, regardless of whether it was used during a crime, must serve a three-year prison term. NOW THAT IS A PLAN.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 25, 2013 at 10:03 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life It's just Wikipedia, so...more research is required. But this is a good start.
Ed P. February 25, 2013 at 10:25 PM
Paul McQueen: "That's like saying the carnage at Hiroshima was not a bomb issue". . . . If Killer Bees were flying all over inside the school in Sandy Hook... I'd say he had a Killer Bee problem. If someone brought IN a Killer Bee, released it INTO the class room.... do we still have a Bee problem?
Paul McQueen February 25, 2013 at 11:14 PM
"...a Killer Bee and released it" A bee, means a singular bee. No, one bee is not a problem. Did Lanza bring just one bullet ? I'm missing your point.
Ed P. February 25, 2013 at 11:29 PM
you are a clown. you dont "Get it" you will NEVER "get it". DEAD IS DEAD PAL!. doesnt matter how many bullets, how many people, that is decided by the insane person! not by YOU!. What are you going to do if a day comes when all the guns in the WORLD just go away? and the next week some kid sets off poison gas? a bomb? sets the place on fire? and at that moment, you realize WHAT the problem really IS? Are you going to drop your head into your hands and weep like a little girl? GROW UP SIR!!!! and face your REAL PROBLEM!
cheryl February 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM
I'm not sure if these people are just commenting to fuel decent or are they really interested in the issues at hand? It seems to me they are a bunch of teenagers or college kids that are not part of life and still living off their parents. If they were somewhat intellectual they would have logical, sensible, comments and I don't see either. There is no debating that mentality. They are kids and we know how kids act. They will be nice little comrades marching to those FEMA camps when things go bad. Or they will be the ones causing chaos. They certainly don't have the reasoning skills needed for survival.
brutus February 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM
"In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections." this is the problem I have with our courts. this mentality, and using case law and stare decisis to form opinions is fine to an extent. but what this line of reasoning also means is that the Constitution itself, and the intent of what is written in the Constitution, are essentially irrelevant. if laws are passed and courts continually rule a certain way for 200 years, well we must follow it no matter how unconstitutional. utterly ridiculous.
brutus February 26, 2013 at 12:04 AM
uhh Ed, I don't "thirst" for anything. I own one gun with one 11-round magazine. that's it. nothing more. so you idiots can label me a gun nut, gun freak, paranoid, right-winger, blah blah blah. but by placing all those labels on someone who so clearly is NOT any of those things, you only prove your own ignorance and lack of an ability to win an argument with actual facts and reasoning. by the way, Chris Christie said absolutely nothing that "gun nuts" like me would disagree with. he merely stated that gun control needs to be part of the debate. and he's right. we all agree that rights are not absolute. felons and the mentally ill should not own guns, for example. however what you want is to infringe upon the rights of regular, law-abiding citizens, and that I will not stand for.
sebastian dangerfield February 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM
"But some knuckleheads want to get all emotional with the name calling," Awesome
sebastian dangerfield February 26, 2013 at 10:33 AM
I am sure that the family of the woman oscar pistorius shot to death never knew he was mentally ill. Or is he? I guess anyone who shoots dead innocent people are menttally ill--but for those of you who feel that is part of the solution, can you tell me how you are going to determine when someone is mentally ill? Would you have denied oscar the blade? I highly doubt it-so what you mostly argue is why you shouldnt give up YOUR gun.
Ed P. February 26, 2013 at 12:13 PM
OK Libs... Help me understand... In Japan we had a "Bomb Issue"? Clinton had a "Cigar Issue"? Senator Byrd had a "Sheet Issue"? Ted Kennedy had a "Water Issue" David Berkowitz/Son of Sam had a "Dog Issue"? OJ had a "Knife Issue"? (or maybe a "glove Issue"???) Jefferey Dahmer had a "Refrigeration issue"? . Ahhh....ok..... I get it now.
Laura February 26, 2013 at 01:43 PM
Y'all make my head spin...
Ed P. February 26, 2013 at 01:46 PM
Maybe Y'all was spinn'in alreedy?
Laura February 26, 2013 at 02:13 PM
Too funny EDDIE P....
Ed P. February 26, 2013 at 02:30 PM
Hey.....i DO what I can. . But Im no Paul McQueen!
Donald Borsch Jr. February 26, 2013 at 02:53 PM
WR2A now on social media! Woo-hoo! http://wr2a.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/social-media-alert-facebook-page-and-twitter-now-active/ Hope to see you at Facebook or Twitter! Spread the word!
Boggs February 26, 2013 at 03:05 PM
Be Careful out there.. http://www.lohud.com/article/20130225/NEWS03/302250036/Nanuet-man-accused-threatening-federal-officials-indicted?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpage&nclick_check=1
Ed P. February 26, 2013 at 03:12 PM
do you think the reason Liberals want gun control is maybe because through history, they have proven, that their method of terrorism is the use of Bombs? Ill ask Bill Ayers.
brutus February 26, 2013 at 03:32 PM
first, the gun control proposals out there won't even save lives. but setting that aside, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. saving lives is not a good enough reason. putting a camera on every street corner and in ever back alley would save lives too. so would armed drones hovering over every home in america. maybe we should have a nationwide curfew of 8pm. that would save lives. heck, let's eliminate free speech and freedom of religion since that's the root of so much violence as well. I realize these are extreme examples that don't equate to background checks on all gun purchases.... but I'm just trying to prove a point. we live in a free country and this comes with risk. you want to be safe, then go live in a totalitarian police-state. then come back and tell me how great it is.
Concerned Parent February 26, 2013 at 03:42 PM
Cheryl...Whats your position, as it relates to your freedoms, about making magazines that hold 20+ rounds no longer available to the general public? It should be added that there would still be an availability of magazines that accommodate less than 20 rounds to gun owners. And there would be no impact to the fire power of those guns. The overall goal is to develop a solution which both addresses this issue and does not infringe on every American's Constitutional right to "OWN" a gun. Speaking for myself, I respect the right to bear arms, however, I also see a need to put some limits on the firing capabilities of some of them, specific to the size of the magazines in which they accommodate. Your thoughts.
cheryl February 26, 2013 at 03:45 PM
great that some ONE is standing for our freedoms and liberties. Good job...
Donald Borsch Jr. February 26, 2013 at 03:52 PM
@Ed P., No, no, no, Bill Ayers is not a villain, Ed. He's a hero. A true, patriotic, free spirited American hero. He supports our President, Ed. They are friends. How dare you cast dispersion upon Mr. Ayers and President Obama by default. Mr. Ayers' actions were done out of a love of America, not a hatred for it. Um...sure. Ha! :0
Donald Borsch Jr. February 26, 2013 at 03:56 PM
Prof Her. Molon Labe, "Jimmy". LOL!
Donald Borsch Jr. February 26, 2013 at 03:58 PM
brutus, If they can limit the Second Amendment in their mad rush to "do something", does this mean they can limit Free Speech using the same illogical emotionalism? Which Amendments of ours within The Bill of Rights is safe?
summer June 06, 2013 at 08:12 AM
All the anti gun persons want to strip are rights away next comes the nonsense. The real problem is clothing . If all people were nudists no one would have a place to conceal a gun .We would all be able to see anyone who had a weapon on them . Donald Borsch Jr. February 25, 2013 at 09:30 pm Dear gun control advocates- Answer this question with a reassuring YES, and I will immediately recant my position and donate my time and efforts to any anti-gun group going: Can you propose or implement or enforce any gun-control legislation that will stop people in CT from shooting one another? -------------YES-its called enforcement of curent laws on record . Also having people transfer all guns with a licenced FFL dealer and letting the FFL do the back ground checks . Not allowing people whom have mentally challenged people in the family to have guns . A 30 day stay in a mental facilty for anyone thought to be dangerous . Not letting police decide whom is dangerous or not but arresting people who do dangerous things like comming on a person property or who are stalking and watching other persons . Watch the news one police officer stated that by the time they responded to a person breaking and entering into your home . You would most likely be killed by the intruder so best to defend yourself and family . How would you handle the situation of someone in your home with a weapon ?


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 »