Actually, I think its a great document to be the law of the land. But, sometimes things need updated. Bloodletting was common at the time, but i dont see people lining up to have that done still.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Requirement to apply for LTCH is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
- Thread starter hi-pointfan1
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Actually, I think its a great document to be the law of the land. But, sometimes things need updated. Bloodletting was common at the time, but i dont see people lining up to have that done still.
Joe Williams
Shooter
- Jun 26, 2008
- 10,431
- 38
Thank you. I have the answer, and know where you stand. To you, the Constitution is just fine, so long as we change it. Apparently, you feel the 2nd is one of the Amendments that needs changing. What other changes do you wish to make to that "outdated" document?
I withdraw my argument. You are clearly right. No need to adapt or change to the world around us.
a·mend·ment/əˈmɛnd
Show Spelled[uh-mend-muh
–noun 1. the act of amending or the state of being amended.
2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.
3. a change made by correction, addition, or deletion: The editors made few amendments to the manuscript.
Last edited:
Joe Williams
Shooter
- Jun 26, 2008
- 10,431
- 38
YOU are the one that compared the Constitution to blood letting, and by implication called it outdated. I merely asked you to expound upon your ideas, and inform us all of what changes should be made to the document that is the backbone of our entire society, since you feel it's no longer up to the task.
I see what your are saying rambone. Maybe you didn't get my intent. I fully support the 2A and its meaning. I don't see a middle of the road, I don't see some reasonable regulation of the 2A.
What needs fixing is both the judicial and penal systems. Let's say we lived in a world where viscous murders when captured and found guilty were executed instead of sent to a facility were they learn to hone their skills and then are released back into society. Lets say we lived in a world where if someone breaks in your house you have the right to defend yourself unequivocally. That would make more sense to me. Fixing the judicial and the penal systems is the answer not denying rights that the 2A states we have.
Would it be such a bad thing if our politicians were statesmen, men who had principles and stuck to them? So a few (or preferably, a LOT of) laws would not be passed. Would this be such a bad thing? I want my government to be ineffective and largely hamstrung. I want people in office who, if they say "I support the Second Amendment!" mean that they support that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and they'll be damned if they'll vote to infringe it regardless of what perk is in it for them or their district.
"Let me remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" --Sen. Barry Goldwater
Blessings,
Bill
Truth be told, none of us has the wherewithal to affect that kind of change....alone....today. Nonetheless, I agree with your reasoning in why you posted as you did. The problem is not with the courts nor with the legislature, but with us. We, the people, have allowed the state of affairs we find present today, and we, the people, are going to have to be the ones to change it. I posted in another (ok, lots of them
) thread that this is the reason I Appleseed. Like the program's namesake, I do this not to necessarily change things in my lifetime, though I would not at all object to that, but to change them in a return to the Founders' intent in future generations. I don't know that John Chapman ever ate a single apple from a tree he planted, but I think it's a fair bet that most of us have. The goal is to wake up Americans and get them involved, get them voting. Hopefully, this will eventually result in freedom-minded Americans voting in freedom-minded Americans to office and those freedom-minded Americans appointing and confirming judges and Justices who will make the changes we want to see.Along the way, I'm writing letters, calling officials, researching my votes, and doing what I can to stem the tide of statism. It is my hope that others will follow that example.
Blessings,
Bill
It clearly and obviously is unconstitutional. Requiring a permit or license to exercise a constitutional right is unconstitutional on its face, and one doesn't have to be a lawyer, judge, scholar, or even a college graduate to understand that. One of Charles Shumer's favorite lines, as seen on CSPAN and major networks during the '90s, was "The courts have repeatedly ruled!" -which should be one's last clue as to why they've been busy packing and stacking the courts with like-minded jurists for decades. After creating doubt and controversy over a formerly sacrosanct and unquestioned fundamental right, they're counting on people to always take such matters to court and say, in effect, "Whatever that judge, or panel of judges, says goes, since he's the 'expert' on what is, or is not constitutional." To do so is to assume infallibility and incorruptibility of judges, and even if not, why would anyone want to put such monumental decisions in the hands of one* or a small group of men?
(*Not meant to disparage outstanding jurists, some of whom are members here. e.g. - There is no guarantee that one will get a Thomas or Scalia. One may well get a Breyer or Stevens. Even if things did come out in your favor, you will have established a precedent that all such questions must of necessity be resolved in a courtroom, and all decisions are final and binding on everyone.)
No, none of that. In previous threads, sent rep so many times the system stopped me. Yet this is a key point that needs to be cleared up.
Sir, respectfully disagree. The Constitution of the United States - and the Indiana Constitution - say what they mean and mean what they say.
Correct. To be exact, court rulings can be overturned by subsequent court rulings, though they seem loathe to do so, and legislation can be repealed by the People, through their elected representatives in the legislature.
Correct. The health of a Constitutional Republic depends upon informed and educated citizens. The Founders wrote in plain enough language for the people to understand.
OK. Fair enough. If the people decide that a given statute is unconstitutional, unjust, or unwanted, the proper remedy is to have the offending statute(s) repealed or stricken from the code by their elected representatives in the legislature. No need to amend the Constitution.
Last edited:
cartmanfan15
Shooter
"I guess you must be a college kid at IU, all warm and safe with mommy and daddy paying the bills. A place where the Government is benevolent, the bad guy always gets caught and the puppies never grow up. I hope you enjoy yourself over there and successfully finish your liberal arts degree. I also hope that the transition to the real world goes smoothly, there are pointy edges out here.
You must be from out of state too, because even the girls in Indiana are braver than you sound."
Lol, wow. Yes I am a college kid at IU. Yet, I am a strong conservative. I pay my own bills, and have each year when I work 50+ hours a week. I have no issues facing the real world, I just feel that blind extremism is getting people nowhere. If this were not so then this whole discussion would not be happening. My concern is that often those who complain the most do the least to encourage or implement change. Many people just want to sit and complain and yet are not even registered to vote.
I am all for people carrying guns, I just feel that not everyone should be allowed to carry one. A gun toting society with all members carrying guns is not one I am 100% comfortable with.
You must be from out of state too, because even the girls in Indiana are braver than you sound."
Lol, wow. Yes I am a college kid at IU. Yet, I am a strong conservative. I pay my own bills, and have each year when I work 50+ hours a week. I have no issues facing the real world, I just feel that blind extremism is getting people nowhere. If this were not so then this whole discussion would not be happening. My concern is that often those who complain the most do the least to encourage or implement change. Many people just want to sit and complain and yet are not even registered to vote.
I am all for people carrying guns, I just feel that not everyone should be allowed to carry one. A gun toting society with all members carrying guns is not one I am 100% comfortable with.
Joe Williams
Shooter
- Jun 26, 2008
- 10,431
- 38
cartmanfan15;1362908snip Yet said:
cartmanfan15
Shooter
Just because I support gun control does not make me a liberal, just a realist. As another individual has said obviously there is something to gun control since so many cases have supported gun control. Just because we want to throw little fits and complain that the "evil" government is infringing on our rights does not make it so either. Extremists and conspiracy theorists normally take a very biased view in this type of discussion. I don't walk around thinking the government is going to break down my door, take my guns, and take away my liberties. We are the ones who give this government power so it is our own faults we are in this situation.
I.E., the Patriot Act was passed, which allowed the government to infringe on some of our rights and liberties in order for what they proposed as the greater good. We make concessions every day in order to achieve a greater good. This seems to just be another example of that.
I.E., the Patriot Act was passed, which allowed the government to infringe on some of our rights and liberties in order for what they proposed as the greater good. We make concessions every day in order to achieve a greater good. This seems to just be another example of that.
Joe Williams
Shooter
- Jun 26, 2008
- 10,431
- 38
It makes you a gun grabber, an enemy of the Constitution, a hypocrite. It makes you the same kind of person as Nancy Pelosi, and Rosie O'Donnell. The kind of smug person who is soooo confident they have the moral right to defend themselves, while denying that right to others.
It makes you someone I expect to see on the other side of the bridge someday. If you've got the guts to fight for the ability to strip others of their rights.
cartmanfan15
Shooter
A gun grabber? I am not going to go in and steal guns from anyone. I don't care if other people carry guns I just don't feel comfortable allowing anyone who can buy them to have them. I understand that only those who obey the laws are the ones who are hurt by regulation, but that does not mean we should just make it a free-for-all.
I am not smug, I don't care if others defend themselves as long as they are responsible. If gun control laws are the method the government uses to deem individuals responsible to own/carry guns then so be it.
I am not smug, I don't care if others defend themselves as long as they are responsible. If gun control laws are the method the government uses to deem individuals responsible to own/carry guns then so be it.
Gun grabbers usually don't do the stealing of firearms from their owners themselves, they pass laws to make it legal for agents of the state far braver than they themselves are to go do it for them. Chucky Schumer and Dianne Feinstein and Jim and Sarah Brady don't have the guts to try to come confiscate guns from anyone personally, they'd rather have other people (peons, minions, menials, whatever... most of us call them LEOs) who paradoxically have guns to enforce their government-given authority take the risk incumbent on that action for them.
Consider that the more laws we have, purportedly attempting to "control the guns", the higher our crime rates go, while when those laws are relaxed and lawful gun ownership increases, crime rates diminish. After enough examples of this, and there are plenty, it ceases to be correlative and can be shown to be causative.
The old saying is that "'gun control' is not about guns, but about control" is very true.
There's another saying that's also very true about the "need" for "gun control"...
The LTCH and similar documents in other states are common. That does not make them right nor Constitutional. At one time, "Separate but equal" was common, too.
Blessings,
Bill
SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
You're a college kid, so unlike others, I'll not call you names (which is pretty tacky by the way. If all you can do is tell someone they're stupid and not articulate why it just means you're the stupid one, IMHO). I'll try to teach you something.
There's no such thing as the greater good. It's the battle cry what one class of people says when they want another class of people to sacrifice of themselves. Do it for the greater good. It's what one class of people says when they ask another class of people to fight in their stead. Do it for the greater good.
Who are the people who act for the greater good? Mother Teresa. she and one other are the ony two historical people i know of who selflessly acted for the greater good. There are certainly others. We'll call them the Mother Teresas.
Who else? Politicians and bureaucrats. They call for the greater good. Why? Do they really care? No. They want a job. They want to get paid. They want to take no risks. They want YOU to fund their job. So they make up a story about how they need to perform a service for the greater good. You say OK, let them raise your taxes, and they have their job and hire their brother in law and enough friends that they can continue to get paid for doing little to nothing.
Who else? The justice system, that locks people up (most of whom need to be locked up far longer than they are) and then turns around and lets them go so we need parole officers and probation officers and more prosecutors and police and judges and clerks and public defenders and lawyers in general, and criminologists and phycologists and thereapists and CSI shows and ... We pump billions of dollars into a system that protects the greater good.
Who else? The uber rich, who want to prevent you from getting rich. They say we must raise taxes and redistribute income for the greater good. It's not fair that there are people that won't eat tonight. These people like George Soros (Satan's messenger) Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner. The people who get together at a televised event and stand up and commit to give the entirety of their wealth to help the greater good. After they die of course. The people who are less concerned with the unwashed masses than they are in allowing others to join the club of the rich. The people who view other rich people as competition for for uber cool resources. The rich want you in a soup kitchen line, not in a Ferarri dealership or horse auction bidding against them for their next insane purchase.
Who else? People who have made it their life's work to serve the greater good. In the old days we called them snake oil salesmen. They pick a cause, find a financial target, and bleed it dry so that their benefactors feel good because they supported the greater good. People like the top top enviroment groups who paid themselves a minimum of $261,000 a year.
Who else? People who are unwilling to support themselves. People who have their hand out when you walk by. People who work harder trying not to work than if they did. People who become a poitician's power base because the politician is an enabler.
Who else? You. You, because you want to feel like you are making a difference. You who say that you have enough to eat, you'll be happy to share with someone who doesn't. You who say I'm not using this [insert name of thing you're not using anymore], so I'll give it away to someone who can use it. You feel better because you contribute to the greater good. But you haven't really contributed anything. All you done is give away some old stuff.
So you see there is nothing good about the greater good. It is evil incarnate. The personification of the seven deadly sins. The greater good has many enemies. Who are they?
God (or whomever you hold in high regard, if anyone). When people rely on God they don't need to rely on man.
Who else? The church, because it tells people to rely on God and not on man.
Who else? The family, because the family turning inward to the family in times of crisis and need dilute the power the greater good holds over people's lives.
Who else? Self reliant people, because the more you rely on yourself the less you need to rely on politicians, and the less power and influence that politician holds.
Who else? The rich that aren't protecting their gold, because they show that there is a path to prosperity without reliance on the greater good.
Who else? The freemen, those that have the will and means to fight the greater good.
Now, tie this back to freedom. The greater good has nothing to do with taking away freedoms like the Patriot Act does or rights like gun ownership. Freedom is the antithesis of the greater good. You see, it's about controlling those that fund the greater good. If you have freedom to say no, then you don't fit into the plan.
First they became your family. Then they became your God. They became your friend, indulging the needs and wants of the unwashed masses. They chip away your freedom, bit by bit, and keep feeding you the poison that makes you believe that the greater good is actually worth sacrificing for. Pretty soon, you are a bona fide, indulging member of the greater good.
So spend some tiome thinking and reflecting. You have a brain. Use it. Consider not only the perceived good that comes from the greater good, but the evil that it represents.
If you still decide the greater good is a good thing, answer me just one question. Name one culture that has not been destroyed when it shifted from a society predicated on personal freedom into one supporting the greater good.
Prometheus
Master
"Shall not be infringed"
For those who care what a few black robes idiots in DC think, the USSC has already ruled (not in relation to the 2a obviously) that "A right restricted is a right denied".
If the RKBA is a Right (and it is), then obviously restricting it IS DENYING IT!
CCW/CCP/CWL/LTCH's are unconstitutional. In Indiana (and many other states) they hold the dubious distinction of being unconstitutonal x2 since the Indiana constitution is also clear on the matter.
For those who care what a few black robes idiots in DC think, the USSC has already ruled (not in relation to the 2a obviously) that "A right restricted is a right denied".
If the RKBA is a Right (and it is), then obviously restricting it IS DENYING IT!
CCW/CCP/CWL/LTCH's are unconstitutional. In Indiana (and many other states) they hold the dubious distinction of being unconstitutonal x2 since the Indiana constitution is also clear on the matter.
If the constitution is a perfect document, why was a second amendment(change) needed? What about the other 27 amendments(CHANGES)? By your logic, we should repeal all amendments because the document is flawless.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- jminnick4743
- Michigan Slim
- Terry A
- hhi7410
- Titanium_Frost
- tomcat13
- JTL165
- Doug28450
- IndianaRidgeRunner
- Smith& W
- Indyspeed66
- NHT3
- Mcoleman85
- krvincen
- Garry79
- DoggyDaddy
- wtburnette
- BigBoxaJunk
- sescbo
- tjones
- Longhair
- baglorious
- Jacobm
- SmileDocHill
- kevinj110
- BeDome
- d.kaufman
- fordfarmboy
- LokhXIV
- tge45
- Jim5528
- starbreather
- 88E30M50
- Maverick
- cobber
- G-Niner
- x34822
- KLB
- shibumiseeker
- mcapo
- S8MS-01904
- Bh1917
- EOD Guy
- Springer
- Bugzilla
- Cavman
- KJQ6945
- edwea
- Ziggidy
- lafrad
