Response from Joe Donnelly

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!
  • drillsgt

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    108   0   0
    Nov 29, 2009
    9,627
    149
    Sioux Falls, SD
    I sent a letter to Sen. Donnelly regarding some of the renewed talks about gun control after the latest stabbing/shooting, anybody else get this? Not sure exactly how veterans got thrown into the mix?

    Thank you for taking the time to contact my office about Second Amendment rights. Like you, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and have consistently voted to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. However, like responsible gun owners, I believe it is only reasonable for us to consider ways to reduce gun violence and protect public safety.
    Whether a gun owner or not, we can all agree that we can take steps to reduce violent crime without sacrificing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. My concern has never been with those who follow the law, but with those who do not. For this reason, I have opposed proposals to ban assault weapons and continued my longtime support for national recognition of Indiana licenses to carry.
    We, however, also know that too many individuals with criminal records or serious mental illnesses are getting guns by exploiting loopholes in the current system and, in the process, endangering the lives of others and the rights of law-abiding gun owners. In fact, history has shown that Congress often begins reexamining gun laws after someone who should not have a gun in the first place uses that weapon to commit a crime.
    To that end, I supported the Manchin-Toomey amendment to S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013, to improve the background check system, and to prevent terrorists, criminals, and the mentally ill from jeopardizing the rights of law-abiding citizens. This amendment would require instant background checks for sales made at gun shows or over the Internet, but would ensure that parents, friends, and neighbors could engage in private transfers just as they do now. In addition, the amendment reaffirmed current federal law that no information obtained in a background check could be used to establish a federal registry of firearms.
    As we seek answers to the problem of gun violence, I hope we can also have a serious conversation about mental health, particularly the needs of many of the men and women who serve our nation in the military, as well as veterans. It is my strong belief that we can better identify risk factors that often lead to violent behavior and even suicide.
    As Congress continues to debate proposals to responsibly improve our gun laws while also protecting the Second Amendment, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.

    It is a privilege to represent you and all Hoosiers in the U.S. Senate. Your continued correspondence is welcome and helps me to better represent our state. I encourage you to write, call, or email if my office can ever be of assistance. You can also check out my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter by visiting mywebsite.
     
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 21, 2013
    4,905
    63
    Lawrence County
    th


    No Joe - NO!

    Fix NICS! Don't expand it! NO!!!
     

    Scutter01

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 21, 2008
    23,750
    48
    Joe Donnelly said:
    I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and have consistently voted to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. However...

    Oh, there's a "however" after that statement? How surprising. :rolleyes:

    "However" gives the lie to the statement that you are a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". It makes you a wishy-washy supporter at best. Here's a tip, Joe. If you have to remind me that you're a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment", then you're not one.
     

    dmarsh8

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 10, 2011
    1,422
    63
    Katmandu
    Oh, there's a "however" after that statement? How surprising. :rolleyes:

    "However" gives the lie to the statement that you are a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". It makes you a wishy-washy supporter at best. Here's a tip, Joe. If you have to remind me that you're a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment", then you're not one.

    ^^^^:+1:
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    No to Joe! Your no friend of the 2nd Anendment. I'll make it simple for you Joe and your colleagues. "Shall not be infringed" . I would hope members of congress (senate and house) would be smart enough to comprehend that text. But apparently not. Your overstepping your granted authority and I hope you are voted out of office. You do not represent me nor our constitution. Rethink your oath Sir.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    War is peace
    Freedom is slavery
    Ignorance is strenght

    Supporting the second is gun confiscation

    Leadership, you know when they are lying
     

    SmileDocHill

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    61   0   0
    Mar 26, 2009
    6,159
    113
    Westfield
    Scutter you always seem to be dead on with these things! I especially like what used to be your sig (or maybe just another great synopsis of a gun control effort). It was basically comparing the "compromise" concept with negotiating with the thief stealing your possessions...'OK, instead of taking your car, home and money, I'll just take your car. There, I've met you more than half way haven't I?'
     

    Redhorse

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 8, 2013
    2,124
    63
    The only good part about it is he called it a License To Carry, not a permit or ccw.
    And he said he supported national recognition for our LTCHs. On a side note, that is comforting that national reprocrity is supported by a democrat.
     

    SteveM4A1

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 3, 2013
    2,383
    48
    Rockport
    And he said he supported national recognition for our LTCHs. On a side note, that is comforting that national reprocrity is supported by a democrat.

    It's just him trying to play both sides. Look, I am for your right to carry...then to the left, look I helped you with gun control! :rolleyes:
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    So other than expanding NICS to gun shows, what exactly is INGO opposed to in that statement? How did some folks arrive at confiscation out of that?
     

    Redhorse

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 8, 2013
    2,124
    63
    So other than expanding NICS to gun shows, what exactly is INGO opposed to in that statement? How did some folks arrive at confiscation out of that?
    To be frank, I was wondering the same thing. If background checks weren't required for private sales but at gun shows and on the internet then I don't see the big deal as long as national reciprocity was passed as a compromise in the process. That would be a much larger expansion of gun rights than background checks would be as an infringement upon them. I don't see how running a quick check on someone at a gun show or on someone on the internet that one has never met or saw in person before would be such a major blow to gun owners especially if such a compromise could be reached.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    To be frank, I was wondering the same thing. If background checks weren't required for private sales but at gun shows and on the internet then I don't see the big deal as long as national reciprocity was passed as a compromise in the process. That would be a much larger expansion of gun rights than background checks would be as an infringement upon them. I don't see how running a quick check on someone at a gun show or on someone on the internet that one has never met or saw in person before would be such a major blow to gun owners especially if such a compromise could be reached.

    You've confused mandating recognition of permission slips with expanding gun rights.

    Repealing infringements is the only way to expand rights - not by compromising for the particular infringements we're most comfortable with.
     

    Scutter01

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 21, 2008
    23,750
    48
    To be frank, I was wondering the same thing. If background checks weren't required for private sales but at gun shows and on the internet then I don't see the big deal as long as national reciprocity was passed as a compromise in the process.
    What's so special about gun shows that private sales should have to do background checks there, but not in the parking lot of McDonald's? Next time, they'll want to close the "parking lot loophole". Private sales are none of the government's business.

    That would be a much larger expansion of gun rights than background checks would be as an infringement upon them.

    I am not interested in compromising. Gun owners have been giving in for decades and I'm not having it anymore. Why should I give up more Rights to get back some other Rights? Why don't you just pass national reciprocity without making me give you background checks in return?

    I don't see how running a quick check on someone at a gun show or on someone on the internet that one has never met or saw in person before would be such a major blow to gun owners especially if such a compromise could be reached.

    Sure, it's just this one little thing. Surely you're not opposed to this one little inconvenience? It only costs $15-$75 each time and takes anywhere from a few minutes to five days to complete. What's the big deal? Oh, and we promise that this will be the last little thing we make you gun owners do to comply. For realsies this time! Won't you just do it for the children?

    We already have to jump through enough hoops. I'm done adding more hoops, no matter how "easy" they are.

    Also, you keep using the word "compromise", but all I see is that we're giving up more of our cake.
     

    Hunter58

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Jun 26, 2009
    110
    28
    Lafayette
    In 1957 there were over 500,000 institutionalized in State Mental Institutions and we had reasonable involuntary commitment laws. We had no modern "gun control" laws, could buy your M1 Carbine through the mail along with all the 30 round magazines you wanted- yet mass random shootings NEVER HAPPENED!!! Was 1957 America a police state? Doctors and judges made the decision who to keep in the loony bin, and they could not get out until they were no longer a threat to self or a public threat. You still had the rights to a lawyer and judge to prove your sanity and get out if there was no basis for the decision.

    Today we have emptied and closed the State Mental Institutions, created the homeless population, made involuntary commitment impossible until AFTER you commit a crime- and then try and blame guns for the actions of the mental patients!!!


    This is NOT a "gun control" issue!
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    If background checks weren't required for private sales but at gun shows and on the internet then I don't see the big deal as long as national reciprocity was passed as a compromise in the process.

    Red,

    1. Gun control is a cancer. It never stays still. It is removed or it grows.

    2. The gun culture has a miserable history with "compromise". Need I remind you of the NFA, GCA/SSA or FOPA? We only lose with "compromise" (insert cake analogy here).

    3. We in Indiana have played their universal background check nonsense from 1974 to 1998. It was feckless. It prevented no crime. It prevent no prohibited persons from obtaining firearms.

    4. A UBC is an unconstitutional expansion of federal power and a direct violation of the 10th Amendment a la Mack/Printz.
     
    Top Bottom