-
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/
EXPLAIN to your legislator HOW to do 'background check' WITHOUT a Gun Registry
- Thread starter AJMD429
- 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:
worddoer said:
In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 2019 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Bump Stock Ban. A ban that was not voted on by congress or in any legislation, but arbitrarily "written" into law by an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat, while offering no grandfathering option breaking the ex-post-facto laws. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done."
EXCELLENT points and thanks for posting...!
Please bear in mind that I am NOT suggesting that we "give them background checks if they promise not to register"....
I AM suggesting that they are going to TAKE 'background checks' most likely whatever we do, and yes I hope each legislator and the white house gets at least 10,000 letters, calls, and faxes demanding NO more gun laws, even 'background checks'.
My point is that in those letters and calls and faxes we must emphasize the "no registry" portion, and why that is so vital. At least if we lose, and I'm betting we will, because only a tiny fraction of gun owners understand why 'background checks' are useless, perhaps we will stop a registry.
Remember, even if 1 out of 100 gun owners knows factual reasons to oppose background checks, for every one of us there are a few hundred SnowFlakes whining to their legislator to pass more laws, and dozens of gun owners who don't care because they don't get it. Even worse there are gun owners who will actively SUPPORT more gun control, and the legislators will NOT analyze the facts or the depth of reasoning, all they will do is "tally" yeas and nays, and go by that. THAT is why I think we will lose on background checks; no matter how well we articulate resins to oppose them, we will be outnumbered; too many of the 80 million gun owners are apathetic.
'Voting them out' is not an adequate response, first of all because it won't happen since the alternative will be to vote for Democrats, and secondly because the background check will have already passed - complete with a registration database. At that point it is too late. There are some politicians who are pro-gun enough to not vote for a background check, but good luck finding any politician who has enough Integrity to actively repeal a background check...!
But MAYBE we can at least keep a registry from happening, IF we all demand that.
In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.
In 2019 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Bump Stock Ban. A ban that was not voted on by congress or in any legislation, but arbitrarily "written" into law by an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat, while offering no grandfathering option breaking the ex-post-facto laws. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done."
EXCELLENT points and thanks for posting...!
Please bear in mind that I am NOT suggesting that we "give them background checks if they promise not to register"....
I AM suggesting that they are going to TAKE 'background checks' most likely whatever we do, and yes I hope each legislator and the white house gets at least 10,000 letters, calls, and faxes demanding NO more gun laws, even 'background checks'.
My point is that in those letters and calls and faxes we must emphasize the "no registry" portion, and why that is so vital. At least if we lose, and I'm betting we will, because only a tiny fraction of gun owners understand why 'background checks' are useless, perhaps we will stop a registry.
Remember, even if 1 out of 100 gun owners knows factual reasons to oppose background checks, for every one of us there are a few hundred SnowFlakes whining to their legislator to pass more laws, and dozens of gun owners who don't care because they don't get it. Even worse there are gun owners who will actively SUPPORT more gun control, and the legislators will NOT analyze the facts or the depth of reasoning, all they will do is "tally" yeas and nays, and go by that. THAT is why I think we will lose on background checks; no matter how well we articulate resins to oppose them, we will be outnumbered; too many of the 80 million gun owners are apathetic.
'Voting them out' is not an adequate response, first of all because it won't happen since the alternative will be to vote for Democrats, and secondly because the background check will have already passed - complete with a registration database. At that point it is too late. There are some politicians who are pro-gun enough to not vote for a background check, but good luck finding any politician who has enough Integrity to actively repeal a background check...!
But MAYBE we can at least keep a registry from happening, IF we all demand that.
Last edited:
This is an annoying 'click-bait' format, but it makes the point that the Republican/RINO legislators are so far NOT being particularly swayed by the 'gun lobby' deluging them with letters against 'background checks' and so on.
https://americanactionnews.com/articles/republicans-supporting-gun-bills-with-new-restrictions
They are in "do something" mode, and they simply see going with these asinine laws as probably-harmless laws that give them political cover.
Evidently we are not convincing them such laws actually ARE harmful.
Perhaps the best thing is to just let them pass the laws over our objections, then by gosh NEXT TIME, we will not vote for them...................well, unless they run for office against a Democrat, in which case we will vote for the 'lesser evil' like we always do, and grumble about it, promising to 'hold their feet to the fire' next time.
So far this hasn't been a real winning strategy....
Taking a step back and looking at the 'big picture', isn't it creepy how the same government that fails to enforce existing laws, almost like they want something bad to happen, is there to the 'rescue' with bold new laws that THIS time will somehow make us safe. How many times have we gone through this cycle...? A look at the balance of power between citizen and government shows that this pattern of ruling-through-fear existed long before the invention of gunpowder, yet the citizens mostly still fall for the same treachery.
It is so convenient too that the very types of firearms they are most interested in removing from citizens are the ones MOST useful for a 'militia' function...not the ones most often used in crime. Hmmmm.........one would almost think there was an ulterior motive somewhere.....who'da thunk....?
Removing my tinfoil hat, I realize that 90% of 'gun control supporters' are simply apathetic people who aren't interested enough in safe streets or a stable society to become informed, but are very interested in their own image - willing to do whatever looks good and signals how virtuous they are, either to their constituents, or their fellow snowflakes or academics or others who live in Disneyland or virtual reality.
Anyway, you guys who are confident that we can stop 'background checks' by writing our legislators are way more optimistic than I am....the legislators don't judge issues by the facts and logic constituents bring to the table - they don't view citizens as having enough brains to pay attention to - all we know how to do is vote, so the legislators just pay their aides to 'tally up yays and nays" and then they send out noncommittal "I'll keep your views in mind as we debate this complex issue..." letters. They don't even pay much attention to the tallies unless they run 90% counter to the direction they were headed. Then they have to dream up excuses for their vote, or < gasp > think about changing their vote, and shaking up all the back-room deals they cut with fellow legislators.
There are nowhere near enough real Republicans to stand firm against 'background checks', nor will there be after the next election, or any after that. Without the ability to vote for more than one candidate for legislature, just like we often can for county council and other offices, the choice will always boil down to a socialist/democrat, and someone just slightly less bad. RINO's rule the Republican party.
https://americanactionnews.com/articles/republicans-supporting-gun-bills-with-new-restrictions
They are in "do something" mode, and they simply see going with these asinine laws as probably-harmless laws that give them political cover.
Evidently we are not convincing them such laws actually ARE harmful.
Perhaps the best thing is to just let them pass the laws over our objections, then by gosh NEXT TIME, we will not vote for them...................well, unless they run for office against a Democrat, in which case we will vote for the 'lesser evil' like we always do, and grumble about it, promising to 'hold their feet to the fire' next time.
So far this hasn't been a real winning strategy....
Taking a step back and looking at the 'big picture', isn't it creepy how the same government that fails to enforce existing laws, almost like they want something bad to happen, is there to the 'rescue' with bold new laws that THIS time will somehow make us safe. How many times have we gone through this cycle...? A look at the balance of power between citizen and government shows that this pattern of ruling-through-fear existed long before the invention of gunpowder, yet the citizens mostly still fall for the same treachery.
It is so convenient too that the very types of firearms they are most interested in removing from citizens are the ones MOST useful for a 'militia' function...not the ones most often used in crime. Hmmmm.........one would almost think there was an ulterior motive somewhere.....who'da thunk....?
Removing my tinfoil hat, I realize that 90% of 'gun control supporters' are simply apathetic people who aren't interested enough in safe streets or a stable society to become informed, but are very interested in their own image - willing to do whatever looks good and signals how virtuous they are, either to their constituents, or their fellow snowflakes or academics or others who live in Disneyland or virtual reality.
Anyway, you guys who are confident that we can stop 'background checks' by writing our legislators are way more optimistic than I am....the legislators don't judge issues by the facts and logic constituents bring to the table - they don't view citizens as having enough brains to pay attention to - all we know how to do is vote, so the legislators just pay their aides to 'tally up yays and nays" and then they send out noncommittal "I'll keep your views in mind as we debate this complex issue..." letters. They don't even pay much attention to the tallies unless they run 90% counter to the direction they were headed. Then they have to dream up excuses for their vote, or < gasp > think about changing their vote, and shaking up all the back-room deals they cut with fellow legislators.
There are nowhere near enough real Republicans to stand firm against 'background checks', nor will there be after the next election, or any after that. Without the ability to vote for more than one candidate for legislature, just like we often can for county council and other offices, the choice will always boil down to a socialist/democrat, and someone just slightly less bad. RINO's rule the Republican party.
Last edited:
And I am so not surprised. Not in the least. The longer we let these fat cat career politicians bask in the glory that is Washington the more we will loose.
Probably because
1) they "think" they will pick up swing voters.
2) they "think" their voters will vote for them anyway, because they won't vote for someone else.
1) they "think" they will pick up swing voters.
2) they "think" their voters will vote for them anyway, because they won't vote for someone else.
eldirector
Grandmaster
Back to my "vote in the primaries, against the incumbent" stance.
Doesn't really work for the executive, but works pretty well for the legislature.
Doesn't really work for the executive, but works pretty well for the legislature.
Yep. I’ve come around to this line of thinking. I’ve generally been opposed to term limits, because people should get to elect whomever they want, other than felons. If the will of the people is to elect the same person over and over, let them.
Now I’ve kinda swung over to the pro-term limit side because the longer one is in office the more opportunities to succumb to corruption, and the longer corrupt politicians have to build corrupt systems around them. High turnover in public office is better than voting for the same *******s every time just because they they have the right party letter after their name.
eldirector
Grandmaster
We are actually in a pretty interesting spot with primaries, as illustrated by AOC in her ilk. Drop in ANY second candidate, and get only a FEW folks geared up to vote in the primary, and those folks have real power to fundamentally change the general election. NO ONE votes in their primaries. If JUST INGO got out in the next primary and voted non-incumbent, we would clean house (for Indiana Congress Critters, at least) in one election cycle. Talk about a powerful message to the remaining legislatures, and those that got the boot.
At this moment in time, we can count on exceptionally low voter turnout for primaries, making those that DO vote unusually powerful. We can also count on poor general election turn out, and enough uneducated voters that will pull/push a single letter (R or D) that whoever passed the primary will get the job. Find a REASONABLE candidate (at all) and you get the swing vote in the few states that even HAVE a swing population.
The far left has the first part figured out. They own their primaries. They also own the unopposed districts (D strongholds). Thankfully, they haven't figured out a reasonable candidate. They keep putting forth insanity.
The right can't figure ANY of this out, at all. Inept, don't care, or too busy rolling in their Scrooge McDuck money, I don't know.
In any case... get out there and impose the pre-existing term limits: when you are sick of 'em, vote in the PRIMARY for the other one.
At this moment in time, we can count on exceptionally low voter turnout for primaries, making those that DO vote unusually powerful. We can also count on poor general election turn out, and enough uneducated voters that will pull/push a single letter (R or D) that whoever passed the primary will get the job. Find a REASONABLE candidate (at all) and you get the swing vote in the few states that even HAVE a swing population.
The far left has the first part figured out. They own their primaries. They also own the unopposed districts (D strongholds). Thankfully, they haven't figured out a reasonable candidate. They keep putting forth insanity.
The right can't figure ANY of this out, at all. Inept, don't care, or too busy rolling in their Scrooge McDuck money, I don't know.
In any case... get out there and impose the pre-existing term limits: when you are sick of 'em, vote in the PRIMARY for the other one.
One difficulty is the intellectual inconsistency between opposing 'gun control' on the one hand, and supporting the 'war on drugs' on the other. There may be no Constitutional affirmation of the right to choose your own intoxicants (or even medications) like there is of the right to keep and bear arms, but creation of a police-state to enforce prohibition of anything with an inelastic demand is asking for the creation of a black market, which only serves to undermine - and endanger - law enforcement, as well as the public. So the candidates who are pro-gun still wind up with positions that worsen crime and make the citizenry want to escalate prohibition. You'd think we'd have learned from a couple generations ago with alcohol.
I totally agree, but you have to have someone to run and the signatures to get on the ballot.
Incumbents are really good at making laws to protect their incumbency.
Gotta start now.
And frankly, most people can’t quit their day job for a part time state legislature position.
I don't know if anything has changed, but a decade or so ago the FBI testified at a congressional hearing that they were keeping the information, acknowledged that it was a violation of the law, and said they didn't intend to change their behavior.
Did you ever notice how when the government writes gun laws, they fix it so that if the citizen disobey the law, there is a huge and often mandatory penalty, even if the violation was unintentional, or it was merely a 'paperwork' crime, but when the governmen violates the law there are no consequences whatsoever, even if lives are lost...
Last edited:
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator
Members online
- Leadeye
- bobjones223
- t-squared
- SouthernStar25
- gassprint1
- Frank_N_Stein
- Slow Hand
- Chip
- mr_camera_man
- WebSnyper
- Njorris
- opus1776
- Burnymac1
- onebadgman
- GodFearinGunTotin
- Bosshoss
- Frosty
- Milo
- Tryin'
- Jmtbug21
- bigretic
- barber613
- maxipum
- JRHawkins1118
- byggpoppa
- bocefus78
- CopperheadL
- tca1352
- Meatstick
- jcj54
- slims2002
- mcapo
- Born2vette
- mkgr22
- DoggyDaddy
- Doug
- rkwhyte2
- bulldog242
- Glock22
- Bugzilla
- natdscott
- Tradesylver
- spencer rifle
- Vanguard.45
- Geoman1
- joncon
- Colt556
- vzdude
- nucular
- HCRMPD1
