Future Pro Gun Rallies

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • cayce

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 17, 2018
    188
    18
    Carmel
    Sorry no PRO rallies. There are the usual anti's that are paid by a certain group financed by former minority President that are hitting the streets in Fla and Cali.

    How about Anti FBI rallies? THEY are responsible for the last spree. Sadly you can't sue the Federal Gov. Works out well for them.
     

    KUJO2388

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jul 26, 2015
    128
    18
    Terre Haute
    Your statement is misleading and false. The FBI may have failed at preventing it but they are not responsible for it happening. The idiot that did the shooting is responsible for it.

    Sorry no PRO rallies. There are the usual anti's that are paid by a certain group financed by former minority President that are hitting the streets in Fla and Cali.

    How about Anti FBI rallies? THEY are responsible for the last spree. Sadly you can't sue the Federal Gov. Works out well for them.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I would caution that, while I would absolutely defend the 2A in any confrontation, timing is very important.

    If the events of Sandy Hook and Las Vegas have taught gun folk anything, it is to be patient. Give the antis some space to mourn, vent, and scream. It is part of the human experience. To avoid giving them that risks making us all look like douchebags.

    When they try to organize legislatively, then we can respond on that field of battle - because it favors us.

    When we see counter-examples of GGWG defeating BGWG, then we can respond - because it favors us.

    When we respond emotionally to emotional arguments, then it does not usually go well.

    All IMHO obviously.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    I would caution that, while I would absolutely defend the 2A in any confrontation, timing is very important.

    If the events of Sandy Hook and Las Vegas have taught gun folk anything, it is to be patient. Give the antis some space to mourn, vent, and scream. It is part of the human experience. To avoid giving them that risks making us all look like douchebags.

    When they try to organize legislatively, then we can respond on that field of battle - because it favors us.

    When we see counter-examples of GGWG defeating BGWG, then we can respond - because it favors us.

    When we respond emotionally to emotional arguments, then it does not usually go well.

    All IMHO obviously.

    A pro-gun rally before the bodies are even cold in Florida? Yeah, that's a bad idea. If someone proposed one this soon, I would actually think that their motive was to make gun owners look bad.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Yeah, and in re-reading the quote of my post, let me be clear - this is more about grace and politeness than about "winning" the court of public approval.

    We should have confidence that this episode will also fade. The quiet confidence.

    Oh, all references should be to "Modern Sporting Rifles" rather than a particular model.

    Again IMHO.
     

    ddenny5

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 28, 2009
    378
    16
    Some where in the USA
    Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I think letting the left wear down does work. It just seems to me that gun owners stay on defense. I would like to go to a rally when the time is right. I just wanted to know because I want to attend and miss it.
     

    cayce

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 17, 2018
    188
    18
    Carmel
    Your statement is misleading and false. The FBI may have failed at preventing it but they are not responsible for it happening. The idiot that did the shooting is responsible for it.



    I believe you are in error. The job of the FBI is to INVESTIGATE crimes and tips. The head of the FBI admits they dropped the ball and did NOT follow up on the MANY tips. Now it turns the shooters former girlfriend also reported him many times. YES they are responsible for not doing their jobs.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I believe you are in error. The job of the FBI is to INVESTIGATE crimes and tips. The head of the FBI admits they dropped the ball and did NOT follow up on the MANY tips. Now it turns the shooters former girlfriend also reported him many times. YES they are responsible for not doing their jobs.

    I'll play ball. :)

    Let's accept that the young man threatened to shoot up the school.

    What federal law does that violate?

    I understand that the FBI has come out and said they should have "investigated." But that leaves me wondering... for what? That hasn't been made clear.

    Rather, state law "intimidation" or other threatening behavior type crime makes more sense. The locals would've had more ability to do something about it than the federales. I am absolutely open to correction on this, though.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Also, we are in a post-Heller world. That significantly changed the legal landscape of the 2A as an individual right.
     

    CraigAPS

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 26, 2016
    903
    18
    Muncie
    I read this article a while ago. With the emotional outcry and call for more of the same knee-jerk actions, I wouldn't have guessed this.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/blog...Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Cooke

    Thanks for the link. That was an interesting read, as were the linked articles from the WaPO and CNN within the NR post. Those two really surprised me! They said pretty much the same thing as the NR post, but were mainly focused on the lack of pro-gun control advocates in the under 35 group. The CNN article made me wonder, as it continually contrasted that specific age group's change from the '99-'00 time period, when more under 35ers were for more gun control, and the last five years, when they're pretty much split down the middle. I wonder if it's less the current tragic events' lack of coloring them toward a "more gun control is needed" state of mind or if the attacks on 9/11 have urged them toward a "we need to protect our right to protect ourselves" (my personal summation of the 2A as to why it's so important)?? I realize that no one can give a definitive answer to this. Just something that is rolling around in my head after reading these articles/posts.
     

    cayce

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 17, 2018
    188
    18
    Carmel
    I'll play ball. :)

    Let's accept that the young man threatened to shoot up the school.

    What federal law does that violate?

    I understand that the FBI has come out and said they should have "investigated." But that leaves me wondering... for what? That hasn't been made clear.

    Rather, state law "intimidation" or other threatening behavior type crime makes more sense. The locals would've had more ability to do something about it than the federales. I am absolutely open to correction on this, though.


    Honestly? How about Intimidation? Threatening MURDER a Federal FELONY? Using the internet for threats, FEDERAL FELONY. Those I can remember but I heard he has 15 charges.

    In all due respect get someone who has watched the news in the last week to keep you posted.
     

    cayce

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 17, 2018
    188
    18
    Carmel
    Thanks for the link. That was an interesting read, as were the linked articles from the WaPO and CNN within the NR post. Those two really surprised me! They said pretty much the same thing as the NR post, but were mainly focused on the lack of pro-gun control advocates in the under 35 group. The CNN article made me wonder, as it continually contrasted that specific age group's change from the '99-'00 time period, when more under 35ers were for more gun control, and the last five years, when they're pretty much split down the middle. I wonder if it's less the current tragic events' lack of coloring them toward a "more gun control is needed" state of mind or if the attacks on 9/11 have urged them toward a "we need to protect our right to protect ourselves" (my personal summation of the 2A as to why it's so important)?? I realize that no one can give a definitive answer to this. Just something that is rolling around in my head after reading these articles/posts.



    Amazing "PISTOL GRIP?" "COLLAPSABLE STOCK?' Well the Mauser, Enfield, O3 Springfield, SKS, M14 and M1 Carbine did a great job killing without those. Pelosi is INSANE.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    I believe you are in error. The job of the FBI is to INVESTIGATE crimes and tips. The head of the FBI admits they dropped the ball and did NOT follow up on the MANY tips. Now it turns the shooters former girlfriend also reported him many times. YES they are responsible for not doing their jobs.

    I'll concede the point. It is estimated that the FBI gets (not counting crimes they're investigating themselves) anywhere from 700K-1M tips a year. There are approximately 35K people that work for the FBI... not agents, people. The math tells me that they can't possibly thoroughly investigate every single tip that comes their way. The warning sign with this kid were there, and I don't think it's possible to place blame solely, or even mostly on the FBI. There was failure on many different levels.
     

    CraigAPS

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 26, 2016
    903
    18
    Muncie
    Amazing "PISTOL GRIP?" "COLLAPSABLE STOCK?' Well the Mauser, Enfield, O3 Springfield, SKS, M14 and M1 Carbine did a great job killing without those. Pelosi is INSANE.

    None of the gun control advocates have an ounce of "common sense," though they'd obviously disagree! Because if you can't ban the scary object outright, then at least ban the really​ scary parts! Yeah. That'll work. Just ask California...
     

    Restroyer

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 13, 2015
    1,187
    48
    SE Indiana
    I'll play ball. :)

    Let's accept that the young man threatened to shoot up the school.

    What federal law does that violate?

    I understand that the FBI has come out and said they should have "investigated." But that leaves me wondering... for what? That hasn't been made clear.

    Rather, state law "intimidation" or other threatening behavior type crime makes more sense. The locals would've had more ability to do something about it than the federales. I am absolutely open to correction on this, though.

    I think you incorrect because since last Wednesday Cincinnati schools has had 4 kids arrested and Boone County (Northern Kentucky) has had 5 school kids arrested. All for making copycat threats either at school or social media. So, it is against the law to make a terroristic threat against a school.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    I think you incorrect because since last Wednesday Cincinnati schools has had 4 kids arrested and Boone County (Northern Kentucky) has had 5 school kids arrested. All for making copycat threats either at school or social media. So, it is against the law to make a terroristic threat against a school.

    Federal Law
     
    Top Bottom