Carl, this is your best Patch blog to date.

Carl. you hit it on the nose.

Kills the cats! Kill the cats!

I own three cats and three guns.

However, that the cats and the guns stay locked in the house at all times, and are confined to a sturdy plastic case with a handle when I take them out of the house. The cats can roam the veterinarian’s exam room and the guns can only be pointed downrange at the rod and gun club.

I have always believed that personal freedom comes with personal responsibility.

Same with owning a cat.

Same with owning a gun.

Great blog post Carl.

(http://northborough.patch.com/blog_posts/i-am-a-gun-owner)

I don't mind normal cats. What I don't understand is why ANYONE needs a black cat. Black cats evolved only to conjure up bad vibes and bad luck. They are meant only for witches and sorcerers to inflict misery on others. The average person should not be allowed to possess these harbingers of doom. How many more must have their lives ruined by black cats before we take action? If you REALLY want a black cat, join the local coven and get the proper training. It's time to stop the insanity.

And while we are at it. What about those double pawed cats? What cat needs 80 claws instead of 40? What purpose other than to inflict more damage on our fine feathered friends? Wake up people! Have you no shame? Time for a National ban on doubled clawed cats.

House cats are great.. But we ought to be able to prevent people from owning Bengal Tigers, even though they are also cats.

We have laws that define what a legal house cat is. We also have laws and documents which define what a "well armed and regulated militia" is:
" Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack." - Militia act of 1792. It should also be noted that those allowed these weaponry as a militia were "white males between the ages of 18 to 45."

Twenty four bullets TOTAL, in a weapon that is single shot. Funny, I don't see "semiautomatic rifle with a 36 round magazine" there anywhere. And this was considered MILITARY... This was the National Guard until 1903.

Well armed militia meant twenty four bullets and a single shot gun.

NRA CEO and executive vice president Wayne Lapierre testified before Congress in 1999. He stated that the NRA supports background checks.

Watch the Super Bowl commercial:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/mayor-bloombergs-gun-control-super-bowl-commercial-goes-after-nra/61733/

And that is the point Paul. So called assault rifles are no different than any other semi auto rifle. They only look different (like the black cat). And because the _look_ scary, some folks want to ban them.

Regarding your comments on the militias. The idea at the time was to guarantee the populous the ability to defend themselves against the government if necessary. No where did it limit them in what they could have. It gave _minimum_ standards of preparedness. Today's soldiers don't carry muskets any longer, there weaponry has evolved. If we agree that the citizens still have a right to defend themselves, then shouldn't there means of doing so evolve also?

I don't see any rational point to this blog. "people killed by guns in the US every year which is only in the tens of thousands". Really "only" 30,000+ Americans are killed a year by guns.

The debate is over personal freedom not public safety. You can't discuss one with out the other. If the debate is over freedoms and not public safety can we talk about why I'm not free to drink a 30 pack of Corona, do a 8ball then drive the wrong way on 128 at 5:30 in the afternoon.

Proud Resident of Northborough there is a huge difference between assult rifles and semi auto rifles. Assult rifles are a selective fire rifle. You can select from fully automatic, semi auto, and burst. Examples are a m16, ak-47, and stg 44. They look scary because they are scary weapons.

Resident, what has to be admitted and addressed is that a person who is intent on owning a military rifle or a weapon that is made to look like one is a person whose intended use is to show off and/or kill people. If the person is buying the weapon to show off and intimidate, that is not safe or reasonable gun ownership.

Your statement is that the military styled weapons are no more dangerous, and I agree, but the people who pay four times the price to buy the military styled weapon are NOT as benign as those who buy the non-military styled weapon.

In Newtown, the kid grabbed the AR knockoff because it LOOKED intimidating and deadly.. There were others to choose from- but the MENTALITY of military weapon is what attracted him. We have to be honest with ourselves. If a person wants a machinegun or a weapon that looks like one, we the public OUGHT to know who this person is, and most likely they don't have a legitimate use other than overcompensation for tiny and/or grossly misshapen private bits.

Please explain the SOURCE of the both the act and the amendment: The Whiskey Rebellion and Shays rebellion. Never was it intended that a citizen should access all military weaponry... You couldn't have, as a private citizen, cannon or artillery.. or private ownership of militarily equipped sailing vessels.

Yup @ Andy. I let Michaels comment go because I thought we all knew automatic weapons were banned but it seems some do not. I am aware though that collectors can file paperwork to own automatic weapons so it seems to me that it isn't an outright ban. it has loopholes. My question is where do we stop? 10 rounds? 7 rounds? a single round? Yes smaller magazines mean less bullets in said gun and then the need to reload but it will not stop shootings. It may make some crazy people carry more clips if they set out to kill a bunch of people. If you look at recent shootings the shooters grabbed whatever they could and brought multiple weapons so each gun even with a 5 round clip adds up. I still thnk people are reacting emotionally not sensibly. Just my thoughts.

This is awesome, love it.

The other thing with magazines people need to understand is, they are a little piece of sheet metal and a spring. They are not complex, they are as basic as you can get. A person with minimal ability could make some in their garage in an afternoon.

There are also MILLIONS of magazines. Literally over 30 million of them. Right now they are all sold out everywhere. A report I saw last week said there is a 1 million count back order on high capacity magazines right now. There is a huge run on everything. If you go to a gun store, 75% of their stock is sold out. The firearm makers are running at 100% capacity and cannot keep up with the demand.

The only part of the economy doing well under Obama is the Gun industry. Obama is the biggest gun salesman in the history of the world.

Oh yeah in 1998 when Massachusetts passed very strict gun control, the number killed by guns was 65. But in 2011, after 13 years of very strict gun control the number of gun deaths was 122. Assault with guns are up significantly, armed robberies are up a lot, and so on.

So gun control doesn't stock criminals for killing, robbing or raping. No law will stop someone from killing or raping, etc. They are criminals, they do not follow the law and adding a few more will do nothing but pester law abiding people.

Leave the lawful gun owners alone and go after criminals and illegal guns.

Mike, you can provide no justification for your standpoint other than 'I want it'.

Just how bad a hunter are you that you need so many bullets, Mike? If your aim is that bad, you should not be allowed a gun simply due to public safety.

I was a JNRA member, ten years as a NRA member, grew up hunting (Wisconsin) and though I sold them a few years back, I have owned guns most of my life.

Do you understand that it is lunatic rants like yours that will actually lead to more restrictive gun laws?

Paul, there are a couple of Michaels here commenting, and I don't think your last comment was aimed at me but I'd like to respond. The notion that guns are only for hunting is a straw man arguement. I don't hunt. I own guns as a "just in case" resource just like my 7 days of water and food the red cross recommends. Things happen. I truly hope I never need to use my guns but I also have a family to consider. I see that you are a good person and are very concerned about the public but the average gun owner should be your ally, not enemy. We want criminals off the streets as much as you do. But you put us in a defensive mode when you attack our motives, state of mind, and character. With that said there is room for improvement, I just don't think bans are the most effective means.

Number one, when it comes to home and property defense, by far the most effective weapon is a shotgun. My preference was a Mossberg 500e, chambered for 410. Not only is it a tremendous brush gun for hunting and very cost effective, NOTHING is more intimidating to an intruder than the sound of a pump shotgun action. Loaded with number six shot, even at interior distances, it requires far less accuracy in the heat of the moment (as the bird shot spreads)- and is also far less likely to kill.

Second, the fact is that the illegal guns are out there because of supposed "responsible" gun owners who weren't. A properly secured gun doesn't get stolen. Sadly the overwhelming number of handgun owners I personally know are incredibly careless with their weapons.

We need to get a better handle on multiple fronts. Fewer on the streets. Better examination of people before we sell them guns. The ability to disarm and/or refuse to arm those under treatment for mental disorders.

What we don't need is irrational screaming.

The mossberg is a fine home defense weapon. But who are you to tell me what's best for me and my family? To your second point I agree. At one point most of those illegal guns were in the hands of people who legally owned them (unless smuggled in). This is where you and I can have some common ground. What can be done to prevent the transfer from the legal owner to the illegal owner. This state issues licenses. I think once you have a license you've passed the background check and unless its revocked it should be gtg. There are already laws on the books about securing weapons when not in use. What we need is better enforcement of current laws.

Home defense a shotgun would most likely be the best option. For property? Depends on the property. A ranch in texas or Arizona, or a business during the riots in south central LA after the Rodney King trial? A shotgun would not be the best option an AR or AK would probably be best. But the reason why people need options is because situations are different. Do many around here have a need for a 50 caliber handgun? Probably few. But in Montana, Alaska and other areas it is something that is fairly common.

You want to legislate morality. You sound like a liberal who thinks they can pass a law and get people to live morally because of some law. That's foolish. And gun safes and gun locks are not perfect. It doesn't stop all theft. There are laws against straw buyers, they are rarely enforced. On the state level in MA there are all kinds of laws but gun crime and violence is much higher than when it was passed in 1998.

The mental disorders aspect depends on the details. It needs to be narrow to restrict people who are a clear danger and not just used as a way to disarm people who were depressed 5 years ago after a divorce, death in the family, etc.

What we don't need are laws aimed at legal gun owners. Fewer on the street? Illegal guns yes, restricting lawful ownership? NO! Any laws need to be directed at the criminals, that is the only issue that will make a difference.

Amazing the words you are trying to put in my mouth. Sorry, but your foolish rants make it clear that though I don't want to limit the rights of legal, responsible gun owners, I think it is in the public interest to make sure that YOU don't have anything more dangerous than a pillow.

Sorry....(3)" Loaded with number six shot, even at interior distances, it requires far less accuracy in the heat of the moment "

Were I to spray and pray, my choice would be a Mossberg 590 12ga. Any responsible gun owner knows that you never shoot to wound. The 590 takes care of that.

Well, Buckle up. News outlets are reporting Obama is going to use Executive Order to pass some controversial things that HE feels are good for the country. 1. Gun laws 2. Immigration reform and 3. Gay rights. Now It doesn't matter how I feel on any of those issues but the fact Obama is going to circumvent Congress to pass what HE things is right fo the country makes me nervous. Feels alot like a dictatorship. He decides what is good for us? I thought in the U.S. the FREE people got to vote on things. Didn't he pass Obamacare this way? by going around congress. The good thing is a court just ruled some of Obamas past sneaky deals were unlawful so we shall see.

Tree Hugger, I have no problem with anyone getting healthcare or being able to wed IF it is voted on by the people. You say gay spouses? Were they legally married? If gay marriage isn't legal where they are then they are not legal spouces but partners like a boyfriend or girlfriend. Once they are legal they should get all the benefits that anyone else gets but that needs to be voted on by the people. I think everyone should be able to marry but I want all this voted on so the laws represent what the people want not just what one side wants. Personally I find the debate about gay marriage going on today disgusting. Did we not learn anything from the civil rights movement? People are people and sexuality (like color or religion) shouldn't matter at all. They should be able to marry and be afforded the same benefits as anyone else. BUT Obama shouldn't be able to tell the people what is right because he thinks it is. The people should vote and they will do the right thing!

Excellent and thought-provoking post, Carl!!!