Will You Be Celebrating Gun Appreciation Day?

Coalition of Gun Rights, Conservative Groups Proclaim Jan. 19 "Gun Appreciation Day." Will you be celebrating it, and if so, how?

A broad coalition of gun rights advocates and conservate groups have proclaimed Jan. 19 "Gun Appreciation Day."

In a press release, this coalition urged citizens to use Jan. 19 to go to local gun shows, ranges and stores to show support for the 2nd Amendment. Scheduled to send a message to Washington two days before President Barack Obama's second inauguration, the "Gun Appreciation Day" is expected to rival "Chick-fil-A Day" as a public statement of protest against government policies.

"The Obama administration has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people," Gun Appreciation Day chairman Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc said in the press release. "If the American people don't fight back now, Obama will do to the Second Amendment what he has already done to the First with Obamacare -; gut it without a moment's thought to our basic constitutional rights."

The Gun Appreciation Day includes coalition members such as Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Special Operations Speaks, Revolution PAC, Citizens and Country, Social Security Institute, Committee to Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano, Conservative Action Alerts, Women Warriors PAC, Conservative Action Fund, and Political Media, Inc. The National Rifle Association, however, is not part of this group. 

Gun Appreciation Day member organizations urged their supporters to line up "around the block" at gun stores, gun counters, gun shows, and gun ranges "to protest the Obama administration's post Sandy Hook assault on gun rights."

Gun rights movement leader Alan Gottlieb founder of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms stated, "We need to ban politicians who assault our rights, not firearms that are used thousands of times a day to protect lives and property from criminal attack."

Will you be celebrating the first Gun Appreciation Day and if so, how?

jim armstrong January 20, 2013 at 02:23 PM
the same purpose to have a 10 round, or a 5 round, or no magazine. Why have a cr that holds 20 gallons insteaD of 10 gallons? It's the choice oif the owner, not some arbitrary number. BTW? its a magazine not a clip. they are 2 distinct items, please LearnToResearch, THEN submit.
Dave Emanuel January 20, 2013 at 02:47 PM
Jim- for the immediate future, I don't think you'll see the word "confiscate" entered into the dialogue by anyone of consequence. From what I can see, the Obama administration is simply loading up its anti-crime arsenal with sound bites. That's not to say that Obama wouldn't jump at the chance to ban all types of firearms, simply that he realizes any attempt to do so would be disastrous. I believe Obama's agenda is ultimately to severely restrict 2nd Amendment rights as his 23 executive actions had precious little to do with crime prevention and much to do with restricting the options available to law abiding citizens. Notice that none of the Obama's 23 "agenda items" contained any provision for increasing penalties for crimes committed with guns. However, I also believe that the fear of gun confiscation is unwarranted at this time. Although the 2nd Amendment may be under attack, it has a sufficient number of defenders to prevail. It will take more than sound bites to disarm America.
Rogers Lackey January 20, 2013 at 02:52 PM
I dont have to my research was those kids that was killed.Sudmitted
Good Grief Y'all January 20, 2013 at 03:13 PM
Kenneth, perhaps, but it doesn't seem so. I wholeheartedly support the 2nd Amendment, and the 1st. I have repeatedly stated so. And, yet, I continue to be lumped by my own detractors, easily evidenced above, into a category of anti-gun, anti-2nd.
Good Grief Y'all January 20, 2013 at 03:14 PM
Brian, agreed. David, agreed.
Michael Robinson January 20, 2013 at 04:19 PM
I appreciate guns from an engineering perspective. They're a work of technical art. I don't, however, appreciate the unstable people who seem drawn to them. Of course, stable and responsible owners of guns should show their appreciation for these mechanical marvels. I don't see a problem with it.
Mack January 20, 2013 at 05:45 PM
The only way we should celebrate is when someone tries to break into our homes(like Loganville) and they are taken out. we should be thankful that we are permitted to have firearms each day to protect us from the criminal element. Had on person in that school had a weapon (legally) maybe the death toll would have been lower. Look at Isreal schools for example.
Brian S. Wilson January 20, 2013 at 08:12 PM
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court defined "well regulated" to mean disciplined and trained; therefore it is constitutionally permissible to require individuals be checked to ensure they are able to meet this requirement. This lets out felons, the mentally ill, and persons with orders of protection against them. As written, members of a trained and disciplined militia members prepared to defend the United States have this right and if you are not such a member then you don’t. British removed arms from loyalist militias so the amendment was written to secure the common defense of the state, not for individual defense (that's why we have police). IMHO: Large ammunition clips, assault rifles, etc. for use outside of a trained and disciplined militia can be regulated without violating the 2nd amendment (i.e. Heller was incorrect legislation from the bench). Under the current wording of the Heller decision, any weapon (i.e. missile launcher, Nuclear weapon…) is fair game since the amendment says nothing about the type arms involved. That way lays madness. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Justice Robert H. Jackson See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2, http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html
Michael Robinson January 20, 2013 at 10:51 PM
I think most gun owners are on board with this. Unfortunately, there's a large, noisy, and minority contingent of people drowning out any meaningful discussion with nonsense about the government coming for their guns.
Tim January 20, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Brian, the bottom line is you are not going to change any gun owner's mind or the Supreme Court for that matter. The Supreme Court has already ruled and settled the matter and it IS for individual defense. These are justices a whole lot more intelligent than you and I and for you to say they are incorrect is laughable.....the only madness that has been layed in the last 237 years is what the criminals and dictators down through history have created....and what you are saying here....... Your ignorance is astounding! @David Emanuel, I'm with you brother.
Dave Emanuel January 20, 2013 at 11:59 PM
Tim- For what it's worth- I've participated in a number of 2nd Amendment discussions, and for a variety of reasons, some people honestly believe-- facts to the contrary aside- that a ban on assault-type weapons and restricted magazine capacity will have an impact on crime and the activities of mentally disturbed people. Every death is a tragedy, yet, there is little, if any talk about proposals to address murders resulting from the use of knives, blunt instruments, fists, feet and shotguns. (Which, according to FBI stats, are used much more frequently to commit homicides than rifles of all types.) So it appears that for some people, the Sandy Hook tragedy, is "too good" to waste as a means of pushing for firearms restrictions. Rather than discussing the means by which crime and violence can actually be reduced, anti-2nd Amendment folks are championing proposals that will have virtually no impact on crime, but a significant impact on law abiding citizens.
David Brown January 21, 2013 at 01:41 PM
Hal, allow me to paraphrase Psalm 20:7. "Some trust in chariots, some in horses and some in guns, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." Let me cite just four instances out of innumerable instances where Christians have trusted God in dangerous situations and came out victoriously. I was coming out of my apartment in New York City and encountered my drugged-up neighbor, who began approaching me with a sword. I talked to him and quoted Scripture. He soon turned around and reteated into his apartment. Several weeks ago here in Atlanta, a woman was home when a man broke into her home. She began shouting in the name of Jesus. The burglar quickly left the woman's home. An old friend of mine was entering her apartment building when a man attempted to rape her. My friend began shouting Psalm 91:11, "For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." The rapist quickly said "Okay, okay", got off my friend and retreated. A missionary from my former church also foiled an attempted rape while she serving in Nigeria. She shared her Christian testimony with the rapist and he quickly retreated.
Hal Schneider January 21, 2013 at 02:07 PM
David, tell all of that to the kids in New Town, Aurora, Columbine and Virginia Tech!
jim armstrong January 21, 2013 at 03:32 PM
NOW, think how short your repetitious list would be if : 1)the door he broke into had been secured (impossible to break in to) with an alarm, just ONE trained and armed man/woman to respond to him breaking in. The body count just might have been ONE, the perpetrator. Good guys with a gun CAN stop bad guys with guns. The type of firearm is irrelevant, the 'extended' magazine (not clip to the uninformed) is irrelevant in the CT massacre (that feeble minded mental case didn't empty the magazines he had, (he changed magazines when he had used about half the rounds). think of how shorter your list would be, just once, with an emphasis on THINK!!!!
David Brown January 21, 2013 at 03:36 PM
Hal, there is a definite difference in our perspectives about guns. You feel that the presence of guns might have lessened the loss of lives in Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and Virginia Tech. My perspective is that trusting God might have lessened the loss of lives in Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and Virginia Tech. God bless you and enjoy the rest of your Martin Luther King holiday.
Good Grief Y'all January 21, 2013 at 03:51 PM
Dave, I haven't heard any anti-2nd Amendment talk. Seriously, I haven't.
Mark Zeilenga January 21, 2013 at 04:28 PM
If "most" gun owners are on board with this, then it is because they don't truely understand the 2nd A. They believe it guards the rights of hunters and that's it. Sen. Fienstien said years ago that she would take every gun away if she could get the votes needed. So yes, the gov't does want our guns.
David Brown January 21, 2013 at 06:08 PM
Mark, please cite your source for claiming that Senator Dianne Feinstein wants to take away your guns. When and where.
Brian S. Wilson January 22, 2013 at 03:11 AM
A fanatic sticks to their guns, whether or not they are loaded. I may not change some minds, but I would like to discuss the issue anyway; I'm sure some aren't immune to reasonable discourse. The court decided in a narrow 5-4 split so this isn't a matter of intelligence. Like the Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson decisions (and many others; eventually overturned), Heller was decided incorrectly and ignored the principle of Stare Decisis (IMHO in an effort to pander to the right wing vote in the then upcoming 2008 elections). In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller, sub-section one of the Decision section basically points out that the Supreme Court ignored the plain text requirement of a "well regulated militia" in deciding the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right. Sub-section two affirms the right of the government to impose restrictions on who may own what kind of arms and how, where, and when they may or may not be carried by individuals. Which is all that is being proposed today. Sub-section three strikes down bans (I agree) and the trigger locks (something that prevents accidents or unauthorized use and seems reasonable to me) or storing disassembled (I agree its overreaching regulation). A requirement that guns be secured to prevent theft or misuse should have been addressed; but unfortunately wasn't. The dissenting opinion is of particular interest as it is in line with previous court decisions and interpretations.
Brian S. Wilson January 22, 2013 at 03:38 AM
As to Dave Emanuel's point on the issue of crime and homicide reduction; David raises a good point. The 2011 FBI report (and other similar reports) can be found at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20 and clearly shows that the number of homicides by firearms (not just rifles) heavily out weighs homicides from knives, other weapons, or hands/feet combined in every state. This trend is common in years past as well. Clearly firearms seem to be the weapon of choice (for some reason) in deadly criminal behavior. Which is the more dangerous weapon, one which can be used with lethal force from a distance and which affords the intended victim no opportunity to out run the projectile/attack (such as a firearm), or something (like a knife) which must be used at close range and from which the intended victim may run away from the weapon/attacker. I can tell you I've heard of very few drive by knifings lately.
Racer X January 22, 2013 at 01:23 PM
Brian- Why do you think the police got so pissed off at New York's oversight that made the magazine limit law apply to them as well? Because that would give the bad guys a heck of an advantage. Now, I ask you, why should bad guys have an advantage over good guys? John B.- As usual you are spot on. There are ways of discussing things and working things out that do not violate the public trust. Executive order isn't one of them.
Racer X January 22, 2013 at 01:35 PM
David Brown- Is it possible God put people like Hal, Tim, Kenneth, John B. and Cowboy on this Earth to act as instruments to protect those who can't (or won't) protect themselves? Is it possible that they are instruments of God as much as anyone else is? I know I give you a lot of crap but you seem like you are probably a good guy, rather than evil, and I appreciate that. I think you will agree that bad things can happen to the best people. How do you think God is going to protect you and your children? Do you think you are magically shielded from harm because of your faith? If so, good for you. I believe there is good and there is evil and that there are brave men and women who stand between the two. Somebody put them there and one should respect the possibility that these folks may be answered prayers rather than part of the problem.
Racer X January 22, 2013 at 01:41 PM
Brian- For the record, trigger locks are more dangerous than none at all. In an emergency situation, time is everything. You cannot ask an attacker to wait a minute while you get the trigger lock off your gun, ask any cop.
Racer X January 22, 2013 at 01:53 PM
Brian- Why is it that none of the attackers in the recent mass killings have been identified as members of the NRA? Why is it that they have been mostly Democrats? Just wondering. Ft Hood~~~ Registered Democrat ~ Muslim Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals. Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff ~ Registered Democrat Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal. Connecticut School Shooter- ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians. I'm no Republican, but it sure makes me wonder if the far left is just incapable of understanding gun safety and maybe they are indeed quite wacky.
Michael k January 22, 2013 at 10:48 PM
I'm not a gun owner or supporter and I didn't celebrate on the 19th, but I don't have a problem with those that did. As long as it is a freedom, you are free to celebrate. Knock yourselves out. Play safe.
Racer X January 23, 2013 at 02:45 AM
Kenneth- Nobody answered your challenge. All I hear is crickets.
Racer X January 23, 2013 at 02:48 AM
Rogers- Ask a cop.
Brian S. Wilson January 23, 2013 at 12:47 PM
What's that have to do with a 2nd Amendment discussion? They're all male, breathing, and had recently eaten, are you saying that being male, breathing, or eating makes a mass murderer? This originated with Roger Hedgecock's right wingnut radio show and he couldn't provide support for his claims either (See also: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-idea-that-recent-mass-shooters-are-mostly-registered-democrats-is-a-myth for analysis). Roger's claims are dubious at best; some are obviously false; and he ignores all of the right wing assaults carried out over the years (see article). Timothy McVeigh was right wing fanatic; by Roger Hedgecock's standards, the worst case of domestic terrorism must have been done by a Republican (as far as I know he wasn't so let's drop the inflammatory name calling and get back on topic). Nidal Hasan asked for a particular type of weapon "...the one with the highest standard magazine capacity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting) before his rampage at Ft. Hood. Loughner used a 33-round clip and was stopped when he ran out of ammo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting). Sounds like limited the clip size would have helped in both of these cases. Preventing a mentally ill individual like Lounghner from getting a gun would also be a good idea. Perhaps felons or people with orders of protection shouldn't get guns either. It is within constitutional authority for the government to regulate these all of issues.
Brian S. Wilson January 23, 2013 at 01:09 PM
In Response to Racer X: A good trigger lock takes seconds to get off of a gun. It usually takes an intruder far longer to kick down a locked door. A good gun cabinet can secure weapons without posing an undue hardship on the owner. Storing weapons unloaded is basic gun safety. While none of these ideas can totally prevent the dangers of owning a weapon, they are basic safety precautions that can keep guns out of the hands of unauthorized users (i.e children, thieves, etc.). Recent studies (http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/, http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home, http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full, http://phys.org/news/2011-04-guns-home-greater-health-benefit.html, etc.) show that accidental or self inflicted death or injury from a firearm is far more likely than that the weapon will be used against an intruder for self defense.
Brian S. Wilson January 23, 2013 at 01:12 PM
It occurs to me that most of the weapons in areas of gun control come from outside those areas. New York has long complained of very lax laws and even worse law enforcement from the surrounding states.


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 »