Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37
  1. #1
    Marksman myhightechsecurity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    The Region
    Posts
    649

    Daniels: Defending the right to bear armsówith limitations

    Alternate headline: Former U.S. attorney for Indiana shows complete ignorance about firearms

    https://www.ibj.com/articles/64960-d...th-limitations
    Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

  2. #2
    Member of the Legion wtburnette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    SW side of Indy
    Posts
    10,094
    Wow, reasonable read until it took a sharp turn and went straight off a cliff...

  3. #3
    Hop
    Hop is offline
    Master Hop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    3,321
    Glad to see her getting beat up in the comments. Kirk is in there too.

  4. #4
    Grandmaster GodFearinGunTotin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mitchell
    Posts
    34,922
    Another "butter".
    INGOer #18,319

  5. #5
    Member of the Legion wtburnette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    SW side of Indy
    Posts
    10,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Hop View Post
    Glad to see her getting beat up in the comments. Kirk is in there too.
    Thanks for that. I hadn't read the comments, so I went back and did so. Good stuff...

  6. #6
    Grandmaster actaeon277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Merrillville
    Posts
    46,975
    Ugh
    "Una salus victis nullam sperare salutem."

    "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs." Benson Everett Legg - Woolard v. Sheridan

    If you're a noob, develop thick skin, and read the FAQs

    Actaeon - act'-tee-on
    The death of Actaeon - http://www.paleothea.com/Myths/Actaeon.html

  7. #7
    Somewhat Purple-ish rhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    24,436
    I admit that I’m a bit astonished to see this and don’t currently plan to join them, but I absolutely believe in their right to arm themselves for self-protection.
    . . . as long as how they do it complies with her arbitrary standards based on her obvious ignorance of firearms, self-defense, and the 2nd Amendment.


    Now for the other side of the coin: What’s wrong with passing a few laws that won’t limit the ability of law-abiding people to carry weapons but will help to limit their availability to others? I’m thinking in particular of the gun-show loophole. I see no reason not to close it and require background checks of all purchasers at gun shows.
    They just can't let go of this "gunshow loophole" boogeyman. It's been repeated so much that they just assume it's factual.



    And frankly, I don’t see any need for the general public to own semi-automatic weapons or armor-piercing bullets. Those who want to shoot such weapons for sport should be able to do so at a firing range, safely, but why should they need them anywhere else?
    She's spent some time with the Shannon Watts-approved reading list, I see,


    I’m sure I’ll now hear from National Rifle Association members who will tell me it’s their Second Amendment right. I’m aware of the constitutional issues, but can’t we be reasonable and find a middle ground?

    Oh, wait—it’s that polarization thing again. No, I guess not.
    Ah, apparently she is not aware.



    "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
    INDIANA CONSTITUTION
    Article 1 - Bill of Rights - Section 32

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    To prevail you must ACT!

  8. #8
    Grandmaster actaeon277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Merrillville
    Posts
    46,975
    Semi autos make up the majority of the market.

    It's like saying, I'm okay with cars, but no one needs an automatic transmission.
    "Una salus victis nullam sperare salutem."

    "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs." Benson Everett Legg - Woolard v. Sheridan

    If you're a noob, develop thick skin, and read the FAQs

    Actaeon - act'-tee-on
    The death of Actaeon - http://www.paleothea.com/Myths/Actaeon.html

  9. #9
    Master KellyinAvon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Avon
    Posts
    4,871
    That's even more ignorant than a reply from Joe Donnelly.

    And frankly, I don’t see any need for the general public to own semi-automatic weapons or armor-piercing bullets. Those who want to shoot such weapons for sport should be able to do so at a firing range, safely, but why should they need them anywhere else?

    There it is, "need". If I wanted to be told what I "need" I'd move to a country run by Communists. And does this person understand the difference between "pull-bang-pull-bang-pull-bang" and "pull-bang-bang-bang-bang"?? I think not.

  10. #10
    Grandmaster Expat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    48,898
    I heard one of the leftists on TV this morning saying that guns in Virginia prevented people from using their 1st amendment rights. I was thoroughly convinced...

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •