This is the mentality of the people we are dealing with.

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!
  • HubertGummer

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 7, 2016
    1,572
    38
    McCordsville
    From Facebook. We as a country are so screwed.


    This was his response when I asked him what laws he would like to see to prevent school shootings.

    "A requirement to have a safe in the home of anyone who owns guns. In addition, have testing before purchasing and continued testing to maintain a license. Personally, I would be thrilled with inspections of firearms in the home by experts but I know that would probably be too much to ask. Though I ask the follow up question of what is too much to save lives.
     

    IndyTom

    Expert
    Rating - 87.5%
    7   1   0
    Oct 3, 2013
    1,336
    63
    Fishers
    Maybe a response involving the number of deaths caused by texting and driving or swimming pools? Those seem to be popular ways of reflecting their hypocrisy.
     

    Hatin Since 87

    Bacon Hater
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 31, 2018
    11,404
    77
    Mooresville
    If saving lives is your concern it seems you would advocate for more firearms in the hands of responsible gun owners. Numerous studies have shown there are far more crimes prevented with firearms than committed with them. Furthermore if he’s ok limiting my 2nd amendment and requiring I have my firearms locked in a safe, I think the government should be able to require his cell phone to be locked in a safe while driving. After all, what is too much to save lives?
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    From Facebook. We as a country are so screwed.


    This was his response when I asked him what laws he would like to see to prevent school shootings.

    "A requirement to have a safe in the home of anyone who owns guns. In addition, have testing before purchasing and continued testing to maintain a license. Personally, I would be thrilled with inspections of firearms in the home by experts but I know that would probably be too much to ask. Though I ask the follow up question of what is too much to save lives.

    There is a complete disconnect from the reality of the situation.
    It is wacked out kids shooting up the schools. If they are wacked enough to pull this then locking up guns will not solve the problems. The problem is parenting. Monitor the kids. Know when you have a nut for a child and deal with it.
     

    nwihiker

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 22, 2018
    60
    6
    Lake County
    They never seem to support anything that could be reasonably implemented and also save lives. They screech at the thought of allowing teachers with permits to CC at school, or having more cops or guards at schools. The only thing they want are scary guns to go away, and they want to take the most invasive and Constitution-stomping actions to "get rid" of them
     

    HubertGummer

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 7, 2016
    1,572
    38
    McCordsville
    I just can't believe people would be willing to have the government come into their house to inspect anything. IMO we should take donations and construct a big catapult at any boarder. Any person willing to give this much power and control to the goverment gets a free ride on said catapult.
     

    IndyTom

    Expert
    Rating - 87.5%
    7   1   0
    Oct 3, 2013
    1,336
    63
    Fishers
    I just can't believe people would be willing to have the government come into their house to inspect anything. IMO we should take donations and construct a big catapult at any boarder. Any person willing to give this much power and control to the goverment gets a free ride on said catapult.

    They wouldn't be because they feel like it doesn't impact them (because they don't own a "nasty, dirty and murderous firearm"). They likely don't even see someone who would choose to own a gun as a person, so they have no problem with that sort of thinking.
     

    Spear Dane

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 4, 2015
    5,119
    113
    Kokomo area
    They never seem to support anything that could be reasonably implemented and also save lives. They screech at the thought of allowing teachers with permits to CC at school, or having more cops or guards at schools. The only thing they want are scary guns to go away, and they want to take the most invasive and Constitution-stomping actions to "get rid" of them

    They screech REALLY loudly when you require clear back packs and bags. Suddenly they care A LOT about THEIR rights.
     

    OutdoorDad

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 19, 2015
    1,950
    63
    Indianapolis
    I think it’s important to recognize two very different camps/arguments.
    1) those who actually ARE out to take my guns. And use school shootings to advance their own agenda. I try my best to ignore them. But I’ve been blocked by several when I call them out on FB.
    2) those who LIKE EVERY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER I HAVE EVER MET, wants to keep our schoolchildren safe.

    “Common sense” gun control, even if we agreed on what that is, won’t solve the problem. Just as prohibition didn’t make America stop drinking.

    And anyone who proposes confiscation as a solution would have to be responsible for every shooting that occurrs in the 150 years it would take to effect. They are blowing smoke up our collective asses to promote their agenda. Schoolchildren be dammed.

    So my strategy is to identify and call out type 1 folk. And disengage.
    Type 2 folk, I’m eager to solve this problem with them. And I’ve scored a few nice pistols from those who “don’t want them in their house anymore”. Oh. And 5k rounds of target .22!

    But more interested in finding a solution to this problem like all good people.
     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,735
    113
    Indy
    Not content to simply shred the 2nd Amendment, they want to shred the 4th Amendment to better enforce shredding the 2nd.
     

    NyleRN

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Dec 14, 2013
    3,834
    113
    Scottsburg
    I just can't believe people would be willing to have the government come into their house to inspect anything. IMO we should take donations and construct a big catapult at any boarder. Any person willing to give this much power and control to the goverment gets a free ride on said catapult.

    He's ok with .gov coming in homes for inspections cause he doesn't own anything that would subject him to that. See, it's all ok if it doesn't affect him. Wait till .gov tramples on some right that he has interest in and watch him whine like a ***ch
     

    Old Dog

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 4, 2016
    1,377
    97
    Central Indiana
    I have an idea... let's reduce the deaths by automobiles by doing the following. 1. No license until 21. 2. Must renew license every 2 years by way of actual road test. 3. Auto must be inspected annually by State Police for both safety and emissions, if fail then removed from road immediately! 3. Must be stored in locked garage to prevent theft. 4. May not be loaned to any other person. 5. Breath and Bio Interlock on all autos to prevent operation while intoxicated. That should reduce the 35,000 annual deaths by auto. Then sit back and listen to the hoards scream about their rights, non-constitutional privileges by the way!
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,699
    113
    .
    The list of people with gun safes with their make and location, bet burglars would pay well for that.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,689
    77
    Camby area
    Not content to simply shred the 2nd Amendment, they want to shred the 4th Amendment to better enforce shredding the 2nd.

    And the 1st to prevent dissent.

    I have an idea... let's reduce the deaths by automobiles by doing the following. 1. No license until 21. 2. Must renew license every 2 years by way of actual road test. 3. Auto must be inspected annually by State Police for both safety and emissions, if fail then removed from road immediately! 3. Must be stored in locked garage to prevent theft. 4. May not be loaned to any other person. 5. Breath and Bio Interlock on all autos to prevent operation while intoxicated. That should reduce the 35,000 annual deaths by auto. Then sit back and listen to the hoards scream about their rights, non-constitutional privileges by the way!

    You forgot a national speed limit on ALL roads of 25mph. You cant die if you arent going fast enough to kill yourself.
     

    rosejm

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 28, 2013
    1,775
    129
    NWI
    And the 1st to prevent dissent.
    It's always interesting to see the look on their faces when asked if it's OK to start limiting everyone's 1st amendment rights...
    "Just language that you disagree with? Or can we include things that I disagree with too? Shouldn't we ban all speech that could be possibly be used to hurt anyone?"
     

    Nazgul

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Dec 2, 2012
    2,542
    113
    Near the big river.
    There is a complete disconnect from the reality of the situation.
    It is wacked out kids shooting up the schools. If they are wacked enough to pull this then locking up guns will not solve the problems. The problem is parenting. Monitor the kids. Know when you have a nut for a child and deal with it.

    You are 100% correct church. The disconnect is in what to do before the kids start shooting. Teachers know the ones who maybe at risk to act, nothing can legally be done until the crime is committed. Our hands are tied by the gov mandating we continue to allow them full access to school regardless of their mental state.

    Problem is where to draw the line and how to handle them after they have been identified as a risk.

    I really feel for some of the students when I find out about their home life. Little can be done by law to mitigate the circumstances.

    Don
     
    Last edited:

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    Most folks I talk with either never learned any details of the constitution or have completely forgotten.

    M

    I have taken to having a pocket edition of the BOR's and the constitution when I know there will be snow flakes about. A yellow hi-lighter as well.
    When the discussion goes into full stupid I will hand them one of the 2 books and the hi-lighter. Instructions are to find said Stupid in the book and please hi-lite it for me as I have not read that part.
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,062
    113
    I have an idea... let's reduce the deaths by automobiles by doing the following. 1. No license until 21. 2. Must renew license every 2 years by way of actual road test. 3. Auto must be inspected annually by State Police for both safety and emissions, if fail then removed from road immediately! 3. Must be stored in locked garage to prevent theft. 4. May not be loaned to any other person. 5. Breath and Bio Interlock on all autos to prevent operation while intoxicated. That should reduce the 35,000 annual deaths by auto. Then sit back and listen to the hoards scream about their rights, non-constitutional privileges by the way!

    The person the OP refers to, would most likely have no problem with this. The vast majority of people would not like it; but "control freaks" like this one are not the vast majority of people.

    If you used your line of argument with him, he would just say, "Fine, that's good, there's old people who are a danger to society and shouldn't be allowed to drive anymore. I support that. And, I support the same thing for guns."

    And then, where would you be, in arguing with this person?

    The "Reductio Ad Absurdum" argument does not work on people who are control freaks. He would not learn anything from your argument; he would simply think you brought up more good points with regard to vehicles, which support his world view.
     
    Top Bottom