Page 28 of 111 FirstFirst ... 18 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 38 78 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 1107
  1. #271
    Grandmaster oldpink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Farmland
    Posts
    5,821
    Quote Originally Posted by GPIA7R View Post
    Even if this passes, the LTCH needs to remain for this reason.
    Thanks for answering my question right there.
    IOW, for anyone who has no intention to carry beyond the state line, constitutional carry is great, but those of with lifetime LTCH in no way have a worthless card in our wallets for when we should go beyond the state line to the more rational states.
    First time I drank was prom night....Zima... took me years to regain my man card. -Kutnupe

  2. #272
    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Bill of Rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my wife and the bacon are. Anywhere else is not living, just existing.
    Posts
    16,633
    Quote Originally Posted by jamil View Post
    Regarding #3, I just don't see many criminals bothering to go through the hassles to get a carry license. Basically, the carry license is exclusively for people who obey laws. Yeah. Sometimes a LTCH holder does bad stiluff with a firearm. And the LTCH didn't prevent it.
    What percentage of legal drivers have a driver's license that DOES require you prove that you have been trained to drive (by someone)? That's easy, if they're legal drivers, 100%. So by the logic of some of the antis, if you have a driver's license, you will have no accidents or unsafe behaviors. Since the number of accidents and unsafe behaviors is nowhere near zero, let alone not BEING zero, and the number of those accidents and unsafe behaviors by legal drivers is similarly non-zero, it can be inferred that training and licensure do not stop accidents and unsafe behaviors, and possibly argued that that number is not even reduced by licensure.

    Any criminal could carry a gun? Yes. And as stated, they do. So should police be able to stop and check people out solely because they possess a gun?

    We'll come back to that.

    A person carrying a pen could be about to commit forgery, and a person with a cell phone or tablet or laptop could be about to commit identity theft, in either case stealing someone's life savings and reputation. The consequences of these actions could be very far-reaching, beyond only that person; depending on who the victim is, it could affect many lives. A person entering a theater could be about to shout "FIRE!" and panic everyone in there, causing a melee toward the exit. Should people be required to obtain a LTCP or a LTCCPor a LTCT or a LTCL? Should police be able to stop someone, confiscate their pen, phone, tablet, or laptop, disassemble the same, and return it to the owner in pieces with instructions to not reassemble it until the officer is gone? Should the theater-goer have to super-glue his mouth closed, leaving only an opening large enough for a piece of popcorn or a drinking straw?

    There is the famous story, which may be a joke or may have happened, I don't know. It seems a man stands accused in court of unlawfully entering and stealing from a business, and the prosecutor in her expensive suit makes the argument, "Mr. Smith, when you were arrested, you had all the tools on you needed to commit a burglary!"

    He replies to her, "And Madame Prosecutor, you presently in this courtroom have all the tools necessary to commit prostitution. Should you be arrested?"

    There is a concept known as "prior restraint", which as I understand it, says that even though a person has the ability to commit a crime does not permit infringement upon his rights until there is more evidence to prove he intends to do so. That's a grossly oversimplified definition, but I don't believe it's erroneous. Any of our legal eagles is invited to correct any (alleged! ) error in the preceding statements.

    What it all boils down to is that we, the citizens of Indiana, are being prosecuted for exercising our rights without paying a "tribute" to obtain permission to do so. In Virginia, a few years ago, a person could carry openly without permit, but could not conceal without one. The argument was made that people were being arrested on the charge of wearing a coat without a license. It could be argued that we are being arrested not for carrying a handgun, but for not possessing a pink receipt.

    Blessings,
    Bill
    Thanks for your help in keeping this a great forum!
    Forum Rules#######Classifieds Rules##############?!?! wait...what?

  3. #273
    Masticator Trigger Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    20,869
    This is about holding these representatives accountable for the oath they took.
    denying us constitutional carry is dereliction of duty.

  4. #274
    Sith Lord of Sarcasm jamil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    up the hill
    Posts
    19,026
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    I never met a law I didn't want to repeal.
    Ya. Me too. I mean, like, have you ever read Indiana Code Title 35, article 42? ****ing statist *******s. I think we should start with the complete repeal of chapter one. Or at least get section one repealed. That one is particularly egregious.
    Current Trump Approval rating: +9.

    Latest:
    +5 for the successful nomination of what I think is an originalist justice. It's really the reason I voted for Trump instead of writing in Al Bundy.
    +1 for the hutzpah to strike Syria.
    -2 for actually striking a sovereign nation who did not directly threaten us.

    net: +4

  5. #275
    Le mot juste blue falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    NWI
    Posts
    6,549
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    I never met a law I didn't want to repeal.
    That would be fine if all men were believers.

    As it is we need some way to respond to malefactors including believers.

    Πάρτε σπαθί μου, όταν σας να εξετάζω το από το χέρι μου κρύο νεκρός

  6. #276
    will argue for sammiches. ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Crawfordsville
    Posts
    19,527
    Quote Originally Posted by jamil View Post
    Ya. Me too. I mean, like, have you ever read Indiana Code Title 35, article 42? ****ing statist *******s. I think we should start with the complete repeal of chapter one. Or at least get section one repealed. That one is particularly egregious.
    I have no use for it.


    www.reveresriders.org

    Say no to drugs. Say yes to bacon!

  7. #277
    will argue for sammiches. ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Crawfordsville
    Posts
    19,527
    Quote Originally Posted by blue falcon View Post
    That would be fine if all men were believers.

    As it is we need some way to respond to malefactors including believers.
    There have always been ways to respond. Unfortunately, our laws generally serve to shield some from just responses.

    The abuses of that unnatural state are quite predictable throughout history.


    www.reveresriders.org

    Say no to drugs. Say yes to bacon!

  8. #278
    Excellent! I'll be calling my Rep.

    Nice link to look up both your state and federal legislators: http://iga.in.gov/legislative/find-legislators/
    Last edited by Phase2; 01-11-2017 at 17:52.

  9. #279
    If this passes I will have no idea what to do with the pink card in my wallet. I remember how happy I was to get that thing in the mail and finally start carrying. I can't imagine how crazy the crooked politicians in Marion county will react if this law is enacted.

  10. #280
    Sith Lord of Sarcasm jamil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    up the hill
    Posts
    19,026
    Quote Originally Posted by courier6 View Post
    If this passes I will have no idea what to do with the pink card in my wallet. I remember how happy I was to get that thing in the mail and finally start carrying. I can't imagine how crazy the crooked politicians in Marion county will react if this law is enacted.
    Keep it. Use it when you cross state lines where they have reciprocity with Indiana.

    Current Trump Approval rating: +9.

    Latest:
    +5 for the successful nomination of what I think is an originalist justice. It's really the reason I voted for Trump instead of writing in Al Bundy.
    +1 for the hutzpah to strike Syria.
    -2 for actually striking a sovereign nation who did not directly threaten us.

    net: +4

Page 28 of 111 FirstFirst ... 18 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 38 78 ... 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
  •