.

NJ Residents For Gun Control

NJ Residents for Action is a blog about our statewide resident group that was formed in response to the Newtown shootings.

Welcome to our blog, NJ Residents for Action .

President Obama’s address to the nation this week, as he outlined his proposals to reduce gun violence and protect our children was emotional, riveting, and profound.

In Newtown, 20 first graders were intentionally mass murdered in the safety of their classrooms. A teacher hid her children in a closet, told the gunman the children were in the gym, and was then gunned down execution style while those children were forced to listen. If we cannot make common sense gun control in the light of these horrors, when can we?

This is not the kind of country we want for ourselves, our children, or our children’s children. As our President said, we must take action.       

NJ Residents For Action is a statewide community-based group started by Westfield residents working towards meaningful legislation, which includes a federal ban on assault weapons and magazine clips, universal background checks , and stronger punishments for illegal gun purchases.

Common sense tell us that military assault weapons and magazine clips of unlimited capacity have no place but in the military, so why would any civilians need them?

I am as much of a supporter of the Constitution as anyone else, but the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms does not stipulate that any and all types of weapons are included, especially military grade weapons and unlimited ammunition clips. If that argument is to be used, than what about rocket launchers, grenades, even nuclear weapons ?

Clearly, this is not what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. In fact, (and it surprises me that this is not publicized or depicted  accurately), the right to bear arms for a  "well regulated militia" actually bore out of the fact that we did not have a standing Army in the U.S at that time. We have one now, so clearly, those who invoke the Second Amendment to allow for the use of any weapon or ammunition regardless of its ability to mass murder, are contorting the actual meaning and purpose of what our forefathers intended. 

When those opposed to any sensible gun control use the argument that all their guns will be taken away, it is like saying that since alcohol is considered a drug, if they outlaw heroine, there goes my Bud Light! You can see how ridiculous the leap is.   

A poll taken by Farleigh Dickinson Survey shows that over 75% of NJ residents support greater gun control legislation. Our mission is to make sure NJ residents know the issues, and most importantly know where our NJ Congressmen stand on this issue. NJ Congressmen will be pivotal in getting the votes needed to pass  meaningful  legislation.   

Since this is just the introductory blog, in the next blog we will be presenting the voting record of several Congressmen. This will enable the public to be better informed on where their Congressmen stand on this  issue and give constituents an opportunity to let their voices be heard.

We have an online petition below that you can access by clicking the link.

I will leave you with this thought. The time to act is NOW.

Our next blog will include names and numbers of your representatives for you to contact. Please let me know your thoughts. I hope you will follow us.

 

Until then , be safe......

Karen   Egert --  President of NJ Residents for Action

 Petition :

    http://www.change.org/petitions/pass-a-national-ban-on-assault-weapons-and-magazine-clips-in-congress?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=url_share&utm_campaign=url_share_after_sign

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.

CJV March 30, 2013 at 05:00 PM
Of course it is "OK" for federal law enforcement officers to have superior firepower to the dregs of society. I want the federal government to protect me from mind-numbingly ignorant trailer-trash like the Tea Party guntrash.
CJV March 30, 2013 at 06:46 PM
Well, if anyone in the Tea Party dares to raise a firearm against an FBI agent then there will be one more vote the Republicans have to find before the next election.
karen egert March 30, 2013 at 10:23 PM
To " I plead the 2nd " Your vulgar language is apalling I reported it .
karen egert March 30, 2013 at 10:28 PM
To Jersey , I just saw your posts now . Please email me at karenegert22@gmail for info . We would love to have someone like you on board our grassroots group NJ Residents For Acton
S.G. March 31, 2013 at 02:06 AM
Okay, just calm down... http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp Yes, the people who defend us should be better armed than most members of the general population. Yes, members of the President's families have been protected by the Secret Service - at home and on vacation.
S.G. March 31, 2013 at 02:13 AM
Odd, the Nazi survivors in our family did not own guns and supported gun-control.
S.G. March 31, 2013 at 02:14 AM
I remember Kent State , also. I support gun control.
Matthew Pilsbury March 31, 2013 at 02:44 AM
Look at our Congress and our President. We're not getting anything done. We are expected to get universal background checks AT BEST. Personally, I think that's perfect. Regardless of the law, which criminals will break, CRIMINALS WILL STILL GET GUNS. So when you push for legislation like this, it does nothing but hurt the law-abiding citizens! If a criminal breaks in to your house with an illegal assault weapon and all you have is a pistol, you're outgunned and must surrender. Moreover, banning any type of weapon would only affect products that are not yet manufactured, meaning that no matter what happens they're still out there. Even now you can buy illegal firearms on the 'Deep Web' or 'Dark Web' without a licence (I saw 2 AK-47s last week!) So what I'm saying is that a ban on anything would be ineffective. Furthermore, 65% of people believe that the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from tyranny. The point of still owning these weapons is for self defense. even assault weapons , but they are also to protect against a tyrannical government. Look at what and Stalin's agenda was. A top priority of theirs was disarming their people, so they were weak and could not resist. In conclusion, because it simply wont happen with our congress and president, it would hurt law abiding citizens, and, because it would be ineffective, we cannot enforce stricter gun control laws. - Matthew Pilsbury
BillBalls March 31, 2013 at 04:05 AM
S.G. You can believe in Snopes, I’ll continue to trust in my Mossberg and other arms.
S.G. March 31, 2013 at 06:45 PM
Hitler was not elected in 1938, but a vote was taken to annex Austria into the Third Reich. Nazis sent troops into Austris, held an "election", and claimed to have received 99.7% of the vote. Hitler did not restrict gun ownership, but loosened it. For a start: http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/
Carl Ben Witzig March 31, 2013 at 10:50 PM
The well regulated militia mentioned in 1750-1800s is the state national guard of today. We would not have vigilante militia groups running around without challenge. I don't believe anyone would support that. Or am I wrong? Assault rifles were not invented at the time. How about we just move to have dangerous mental patients register thru their diagnostians. It could help reduce those gun deaths from those sources. Not all of course, but a few. No rights violated, just a small step for man kind as the man said. It's something.
c April 01, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Here is the reality of what is happening in NJ with gun control. Listen to this, http://www.gunforhireradio.com/podcasts/GFH_Episode_96.mp3
Macster April 17, 2013 at 03:01 PM
Well said Austin !
Aman77 April 17, 2013 at 04:25 PM
Q: What's the definition of a "gun nut."? A: A liberal who'se been mugged.
Harry S Sebastian April 17, 2013 at 04:57 PM
What is the definition of ignorance? A liberal talking about guns.
Harry S Sebastian April 17, 2013 at 05:49 PM
The only firearm that can shoot at a sustained 10 rounds per second is a fully automatic machine gun, not a civilian "assault weapon". The published rate of fire for a FULLY automatic M16 military sub-machine gun is 650-750 rounds per minute. Now let's recall our grade school mathematics. 650 divided by 60 seconds = What?. A gold star for you if you get the answer correct. Furthermore, all semi-automatic magazine fed civilian firearms shoot at approximately the same rate, so that armed guard at school can return fire with his semi-automatic handgun at the SAME rate as the 20 year old decked out with a high powered "assault weapon". Regardless of how many magazines galore one possesses, you can only use one at a time. Of course, if one possesses "magazine clips" galore we have nothing to worry about, because there is no such thing as a "magazine clip". Ignorance is bliss right up until it affects others, then it is neither blissful nor even amusing. Rationalizing your stance against "assault weapons" based fictitious information should be an embarrassment for you.
TaxPayer May 14, 2013 at 12:39 AM
Yes it does but the people's right refers to an individual right.
Jack Zimmer June 25, 2013 at 04:51 PM
So Milburn. Still in favor of gun control? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA2p0ZqfMw
Fred June 25, 2013 at 05:30 PM
A camera outside could have helped as well.
I plead the 2nd tchk tchk June 25, 2013 at 09:43 PM
Jack. This boy in the video is just misunderstood black boy. If we as a community just maybe increased his food stamp allowance and gave him a bigger place to live, and a smart phone rather than a regular ol obama phone, and a car with free insurance, then he would not have had to break in that ladies house and beat the snot out of her. If we only gave more, it is our fault as white people that these things happen and we should take our beatings that we so much deserve and not defend ourselves with guns. Of course we need to keep guns out of the hands of the people. the 2nd amendment is just so out dated and doesn't apply today. We have police, can't you see? I am sure the police were called and first aid was administered and the bruises and cuts were counted and documented. See? the little girl wasn't hurt. So yes we need those evil guns taken from us.
paul r June 25, 2013 at 10:13 PM
Not really understanding the comment. Providing the woman passed the background checks and so forth, she could buy a gun, right? I'm not sure how "gun control" or lack of it would effect that or what happened. Unless you're saying she should have the right to put 15 rounds into the wall instead of 10.
Cranky Fake June 26, 2013 at 12:12 AM
Looked like a Chris Brown home movie, makes me sick. Watching that video, I don't know if she would have gotten to a gun in time if she had one and if she did, most likely he would have taken it away and shot her. I am actually surprised that this POS did not rape her while he was there. So what to do with him when he gets caught? I say they bury him alive, but I am sure he will get a couple of years and be on the street in months.
I plead the 2nd tchk tchk June 26, 2013 at 02:10 AM
Paul r, of course you don't understand. You are a NJian. There is this thing called the 2nd amendment. it goes like this. Amendment II 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. that means no gun control, no background checks.
paul r June 26, 2013 at 03:25 AM
OK, fine no infringement. Again though, how would gun control or lack of it have changed this situation? Still not understanding that part. Think grandma would've been carrying with no background checks?
c June 26, 2013 at 09:15 AM
I hear she's a convert to Mothers for Legal Guns. Millburn residents must be considered easy prey for thugs in neighboring Maplehood, Newark, Irvington and the Oranges. .
I plead the 2nd tchk tchk June 26, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Why couldn't this happen to Karen Egghead? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA2p0ZqfMw
BellairBerdan June 26, 2013 at 11:31 AM
Are you saying the mother couldn't pass a background check? Or are you saying that because of NJ's strict gun laws the man didn't have a gun?
Sherlock Homes June 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM
I live in "maplehood" and probably paid more in federal income taxes than you house cost, genius.
Ridgewood Mom June 26, 2013 at 11:56 AM
You would like this to have happened to Karen? Good for you to let us know who we should be afraid of.
Fred June 26, 2013 at 12:46 PM
If she had a firearm in the home, she may have had an opportunity to defend herself. Creating laws that make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain the means to protect themselves and otherwise ostracizing individuals who choose this route (labeling them as "gun nuts", etc.) makes absolutely no sense.

Boards

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 »