Big Chicken...

[Jack Ryan]

I have a family to support. I'm economic chicken ****.

I figured it was a rhetorical question.

 

[Lost Californian]

OK. I was potty trained with a snub nosed 38. I've been around guns since I was born. In fact, I heard gun blasts BEFORE I was born. Guns aren't my problem. Here is my problem:

I've read the 2nd Amendment maybe 500 times. Can some one tell me why I feel like I am betraying it if I go to the sheriff's dept. and ask permission to excercise it? I wan to CC but I just can't get myself to be treated like a criminal (fingerprinted) and ask permission to do what God has already given me the right to do.

Can I just print out the 2nd Amendment and laminate it? Sheesh!

Advice please.

Cain't speak as to why you "feel like" you are "betraying" anything. The way I read the 2nd, and the way I read Indiana law....

You have every right to keep - at your home - and bear - on your property - any type of firearm you so desire. Now how it goes once you leave the homestead...I don't rightly know that I would call it 'infringed' to be told the State wants me to pay them for a piece of paper to keep my handgun on my person when I leave my property.

This is just MY opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. E. Burke

 

[haldir]

There's a lot of things the Federal government has assumed power to control that it has no business being involved with. Over the years we have encouraged SCOTUS to allow more and more infringement for the common good. Some of it, some people on this page may applaud. Most of the Civil Rights laws are based upon a questionable reading of the Constitution, same goes for Abortion rights.

 

[jsgolfman]

Cain't speak as to why you "feel like" you are "betraying" anything. The way I read the 2nd, and the way I read Indiana law....

You have every right to keep - at your home - and bear - on your property - any type of firearm you so desire. Now how it goes once you leave the homestead...I don't rightly know that I would call it 'infringed' to be told the State wants me to pay them for a piece of paper to keep my handgun on my person when I leave my property.

This is just MY opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. E. Burke

I recognize that it is your opinion, but I don't see how you can be reading the 2nd amendment, the Indiana Constitution or Indiana law to reflect that opinion:

2nd Amendment - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free and secure state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Indiana Constitution - "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the state."

Indiana law requires you to have a LTCH in order to carry said weapon anywhere but your property. While I agree this is the law, I also think it can be safely said that this is an infringement.

Infringe - to encroach, trespass, break, interfere with (as in a law or right).

The definition of infringe hasn't changed since 1787. Are all rights absolute? No. Where does the line end then? Your ability to exercise your right ends where it begins to "infringe" upon mine. Rights are not granted by government and are not subject to government limitations, regardless of what Justice Ringo said in 1824.
There is a difference between liberty and license, when you cross from the former into the latter, you cease to exercise your right and begin to oppress mine.

We should not be making a distinction between the 2nd and all other amendments in the bill of rights. Would people be so meek about their rights if they had to acquire a license/permit prior to speaking outside their home?

 

[indytechnerd]

See, here's the rub. I don't think I need a license to carry a weapon, I think you (in the generic sense, not any specific person on this board or otherwise) need something saying that you're not a nutjob criminal. Follow? Of course, everyone thinks that. So, what we have is 300,000 people saying "I'm perfectly capable, but I don't know, and very possibly don't trust, all these other folks". The State of Indiana says, "Fine, we agree with you. We'll make them get a LTCH so that you feel more comfortable. Unfortunately, by agreeing with you, we also have to agree with these 299,999 other folks. Therefore, you need to sign on the dotted line and get printed so we can give you a LTCH so that guy over there feels comfortable."

Problem solved, right? We all have seen it, and some have said it; your rights end where mine begin. Now, last time I was around some INGOers, I had no reason to believe any of them were whackos, or had the capability of doing grievous bodily harm to me, my wife, or kids. I can assume, then, they are responsible carrying their individual weapons. However, from a larger picture perspective, we have to pony up. Where do you differentiate a lawful gun owner, responsibly carrying his/her weapon, from a thug who may or may not be getting ready to jack your car?

Lawful people have nothing to fear from the law. I need a background check to help out at my kids' school, even though I'm the parent of someone in the classroom. Is there any difference there? Nope, I'm showing the administration and teachers that they have nothing to fear from me while I'm there. All you're doing when you get the LTCH is affirming that you are, indeed, an upstanding member of society, willing to be checked out by local, state, and federal law enforcement to prove that you're not a danger to anyone. That's the way to look at it. Treat is as less of a 'Licence To Carry a Handgun' and more of a "This guy is a sane, responsible adult. You can trust him." card. Why else would the damn thing be a nice calming shade of pink?

 

[NateIU10]

See, here's the rub. I don't think I need a license to carry a weapon, I think you (in the generic sense, not any specific person on this board or otherwise) need something saying that you're not a nutjob criminal. Follow? Of course, everyone thinks that. So, what we have is 300,000 people saying "I'm perfectly capable, but I don't know, and very possibly don't trust, all these other folks". The State of Indiana says, "Fine, we agree with you. We'll make them get a LTCH so that you feel more comfortable. Unfortunately, by agreeing with you, we also have to agree with these 299,999 other folks. Therefore, you need to sign on the dotted line and get printed so we can give you a LTCH so that guy over there feels comfortable."

Problem solved, right? We all have seen it, and some have said it; your rights end where mine begin. Now, last time I was around some INGOers, I had no reason to believe any of them were whackos, or had the capability of doing grievous bodily harm to me, my wife, or kids. I can assume, then, they are responsible carrying their individual weapons. However, from a larger picture perspective, we have to pony up. Where do you differentiate a lawful gun owner, responsibly carrying his/her weapon, from a thug who may or may not be getting ready to jack your car?

Lawful people have nothing to fear from the law. I need a background check to help out at my kids' school, even though I'm the parent of someone in the classroom. Is there any difference there? Nope, I'm showing the administration and teachers that they have nothing to fear from me while I'm there. All you're doing when you get the LTCH is affirming that you are, indeed, an upstanding member of society, willing to be checked out by local, state, and federal law enforcement to prove that you're not a danger to anyone. That's the way to look at it. Treat is as less of a 'Licence To Carry a Handgun' and more of a "This guy is a sane, responsible adult. You can trust him." card. Why else would the damn thing be a nice calming shade of pink?

I see what you're trying to say, but I simply don't agree on most your points. I'll trust anyone else to have and carry a firearm until they prove themselves to be inadequate or devious. To keep people from yelling "fire" in a movie theater, are people not allowed in? Are they bound and gagged? No, they are punished after.

I'm really not a fan of the "if you've got nothing to hide, let them search you" argument too.

 

[indytechnerd]

There was some exaggeration in that post, to be sure, Nate. I'm in a venting, bitchy, kinda mood today. The nuts and bolts, though, is until the laws are changed, we either follow them or break them. I doubt anyone here would willing wander into Paris, IL with a Glock on their hip, even though the 2A says the right to bear arms cannot be infringed.

Like others, I get a little perturbed when someone essentially says "we don't need no stinking badges", when part of our (the gun owning community) whole purpose is the 'lawful' ownership and carry of firearms. If you're gonna carry, get the LTCH and then bitch about the laws. Don't become a statistic for the Brady folks because you carried, needed the weapon, and got hooked up on a felony gun charge.

God, I'm gonna have to put that 'you' disclaimer in my sig line or change my writing style.

 

[ntrngr]

26 U.S.C. § 61​

[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
. . .

26 U.S.C. § 1​

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:


Married persons are covered by 26 U.S.C. § 1(a).

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:


Please, entertain me.

Yep! See, there it is all in black and white. I'm totally wrong. Argument over. See, wasn't that simple. I found someone who could point and click. Suddenly I'm now a taxpayer and liable for my income tax.

So, you want entertained? How can ANY of this be true?

Watch America: Freedom To Fascism Online Free

Its funny how, with the tax code we look up a couple sections and, poof! We're Taxpayers. But when the law says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It gets all complicated. It has to be "incorporated" to be valid. Blah blah blah. Selective enforcement and recognition is nothing but tyranny disguised in the letter of the law.

I'll revisit this late after I polish my ammo.

 

[dross]

I think states are within their rights to add restrictions beyond our constitutional rights. The founders wanted limited government as close to the people as possible to set the laws governing those people.

States don't have rights, they have powers. The 14th Amendment through due process extends the Bill of Rights to the people regardless of their State powers.

So you believe the States should be able to do away with our natural rights if they choose?

 

[dross]

OK. I was potty trained with a snub nosed 38. I've been around guns since I was born. In fact, I heard gun blasts BEFORE I was born. Guns aren't my problem. Here is my problem:

I've read the 2nd Amendment maybe 500 times. Can some one tell me why I feel like I am betraying it if I go to the sheriff's dept. and ask permission to excercise it? I wan to CC but I just can't get myself to be treated like a criminal (fingerprinted) and ask permission to do what God has already given me the right to do.

Can I just print out the 2nd Amendment and laminate it? Sheesh!

Advice please.

I would agree you are morally right, and if I were on the jury you would walk. The question is, do you want to accept the consequences, even though the consequences are illigetimate?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Cain't speak as to why you "feel like" you are "betraying" anything. The way I read the 2nd, and the way I read Indiana law....

You have every right to keep - at your home - and bear - on your property - any type of firearm you so desire. Now how it goes once you leave the homestead...I don't rightly know that I would call it 'infringed' to be told the State wants me to pay them for a piece of paper to keep my handgun on my person when I leave my property.

This is just MY opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. E. Burke

No, no, no. According to the 9A, we, the people, have rights, at least some of which are not enumerated. As such, you have a right to keep and bear a pocketknife. Similarly, you have a right to walk down the street with a sword on your hip or a glass bottle full of gasoline in your back pocket. You do not need to pay the state of Indiana for their permission slip to do these things. You have a right to speak freely or to publish information as you see fit. Indeed, a friend of mine published a newspaper (herself, at her home) for quite a few years, with the support of advertisers. She needed no permission slip to do so, nor did I need that permission when I went to speak to my legislators to right a wrong in the law. It's known as the right to petition government for redress of grievance, and is one of the forgotten rights in the First Amendment.

I recognize that you have posted and have specifically stated that that post contains your opinion. I respect your right to your opinion, and will add that opinions can be respected as such while still being factually erroneous, as yours is, IMHO.

Perhaps a better question, according to the 10A, is, "Where in the US Constitution is the Federal government given the power to require a permit for anything?" Additionally, the corollary: "Where, in the Indiana Constitution, is the State Government given the power to infringe upon Art. I Sec. 32: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."?

If I have a right to defend myself, does that right stop at my own property? If I am to defend the state, am I only permitted to do so from my own homestead?

My point in this is not to point the finger and just prove you wrong; that would be petty and pointless. Rather, my goal is to point out how I see your posted thoughts to be in error, that you might rethink them and come to a different conclusion. Alternatively, I am not opposed to changing my own opinion, should you show by some means that the error is mine, if error exists at all. In short, (too late! ) my goal is the exchanging of ideas.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Lost Californian]

...{snip}...
My point in this is not to point the finger and just prove you wrong; that would be petty and pointless. Rather, my goal is to point out how I see your posted thoughts to be in error, that you might rethink them and come to a different conclusion. Alternatively, I am not opposed to changing my own opinion, should you show by some means that the error is mine, if error exists at all. In short, (too late! ) my goal is the exchanging of ideas.

Blessings,
Bill

Hey, cool. I like exchanging ideas with out getting yelled at. I been thinking about what I posted, since I posted it, and a few replies started coming back about what I said.

When I get a better grasp of these vague concepts that are scattered in my head right now, I will be putting the words here again.

 

[ntrngr]

Not chicken anymore...

Its not a big breach of the 2nd Amendment. After all, its only $120 and its for life so its not ongoing "rent" for your rights. So, I did it. I paid the king his ransom for the rights granted to me by God. After all, doesn't God work for the state of Indiana?

Like all potential criminals, I was fingerprinted and paid the fine. I will now slip quietly into the background, ceasing all musings about taxes and amendments knowing full well that I no longer need to pay Federal Income Tax. (Thats in process too...) ...and the piece of paper that "allows" me to carry a handgun is nothing more than a get out of jail free card for excersizing my 2nd Amendment rights.

The law is the law, and, then the government just does what it wants anyway. Veiled Tyranny. There is no other term for it.

Where do we assemble?

 

[CulpeperMM]

...
Infringe - to encroach, trespass, break, interfere with (as in a law or right).

The definition of infringe hasn't changed since 1787. Are all rights absolute? No. Where does the line end then? Your ability to exercise your right ends where it begins to "infringe" upon mine. Rights are not granted by government and are not subject to government limitations,...

Thank you

 

[dross]

Rights - I have no right to anything that requires force to be initiated against another, and no one has the right to anything of mine that requires force to be initiated against me to take it. I have the right to do any kind of behavior that does not initiate force against someone else.

I will enslave no man, nor will I allow another man to enslave me.

 

[CulpeperMM]

there are a lot of posts in this thread that make me proud to be associated with you all by this sight (our membership would be a loose association, i would think). Several reps have been handed out.

Many of us, from time to time quote Locke, Jefferson, Madison or even Bastiat, but none of us, to the best of my knowledge, can actually himself be a free man.

We must, without exception, be given a number at birth, file all income with the government and hope to keep half of it to support our families. The penalty for not paying your federal income taxes is ultimately death. We are subject to various laws and ordinances that obviously "infringe" upon our natural rights. Our property can be seized by the government at any time given compensation that the government sees fit to pay (see Kelo v. City of New London). Our homes raided and searched or our mail read, or our phones tapped upon the whim of suspicion of some bureaucrat, without a warrant. All infringements of our Bill of Rights.

If John Locke were alive today, he would say we are enslaved.

 

[mospeada]

Where do we assemble?

Where do we assemble? Let's see, you're too chicken to not pay taxes you say you don't have to pay by law and cave in to get a permit you say you shouldn't need, but you're gonna call us all up for the big ol' revolution?? Have I got that right?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Where do we assemble? Let's see, you're too chicken to not pay taxes you say you don't have to pay by law and cave in to get a permit you say you shouldn't need, but you're gonna call us all up for the big ol' revolution?? Have I got that right?

None of us wants to be the one of whom an example is made. None of us alone wants to begin an assembly. Truth be told, I'm not sure 100 or even 1000 of us would want to do that.

At Appleseed events, the story is told of how our Founders gathered 14,000 people to muster against the British Regulars, and if I recall correctly, that happened over something less than 24 hrs. (Any of you Appleseed IITs or instructors want to correct me, please do so.)

Could any of us gather 140 men willing to die for something overnight? That's right at 1% of what they did, and we have the advantage of telephones, email, text messaging... They had word-of-mouth and the speed of the fastest horse available at the time. Given the proper motivation, yes, I think we could do this and more. Given the proper circumstances, I think that some of our politicians would go to the wall for treason or would have a nice "necktie party". I'm not sure what would trigger that level of response, but I really don't think they want to find out, because to do so would mean for them an appointment with a rope or a bullet.

With all due respect, mospeada, I understand the incredulous tone of your response, but I don't think you're volunteering to lead that fight either, at least not today.

I am reminded of a quote: "When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are stiffened." -- Billy Graham

I do not fault ntrngr for being, to use his own term, a "chicken". In some ways, he is, you are, I am, indeed, we all are. Of those members here who speak up and make themselves heard, though, I have few reservations as to who I would trust to cover my "six", and some with whom I would be honored to share a foxhole in the defense of liberty.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[public servant]

I'll trust anyone else to have and carry a firearm until they prove themselves to be inadequate or devious.

Unfortunately, by the time they prove themselves inadequate or devious it's often too late. They have already shot you in the back. Seriously, how can you be so trusting?

 

[FordMan08]

If it (LTCH) were free would you still be this angry?