-
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/
Feinstein's AWB list
- Thread starter ghostpoint
- 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:
hoosierdoc
Freed prisoner
Also keep in mind, Republicans don't want the issue solved immediately either. It keeps us terrified and putting our undying support behind them so that they won't stop "fighting" for us. In reality I think both sides like the drama to keep us distracted from the fiscal disaster they have caused us.
What needs to happen is Boehner leaves his speaker position and we get someone who fights for our freaking positions. We have the majority in the House and we lose absolutely everything important. Pathetic leadership.
What needs to happen is Boehner leaves his speaker position and we get someone who fights for our freaking positions. We have the majority in the House and we lose absolutely everything important. Pathetic leadership.
Copied from Facebook but something to think about.
(a post from Gem State Armory LLC)
TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
Carl F. Worden
January 15, 2013
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.
Carl F. Worden
(a post from Gem State Armory LLC)
TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
Carl F. Worden
January 15, 2013
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.
Carl F. Worden
I Believe there is more to the ban than just the weapons listed. Any rifle with at least one assault rifle characteristic. Pistol grip, detachable mag, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, collapsible stock.
If this is the same bill i read before I think you will have one year to register all weapons with the above criteria.
Is this part of the bill also?
What about pistols capable of holding more than 10 rounds. are they on this ban also?
Are all mags capable of holding more than 10 rounds going to be illegal to possess if this passes? Or what?
If this is the same bill i read before I think you will have one year to register all weapons with the above criteria.
Is this part of the bill also?
What about pistols capable of holding more than 10 rounds. are they on this ban also?
Are all mags capable of holding more than 10 rounds going to be illegal to possess if this passes? Or what?
While reading her summary (Assault Weapons Ban summary - Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein), I noticed a new class of firearm that will be banned. The "assault pistol."
I guess that explains the proposed ban on all pistols that have a threaded barrel. Those are SO much more deadly!
I believe confidence in people in Washington doing what you want, is sadly not something you can have confidence in anymore.
Sadly, you are correct. The fact is, boys, we are going to go along with whatever the hell they tell us to, and they know that. We all have families to support and our own lives to live, and you lose sight of the big picture. (like the aforementioned Germans) There are two things that will bring us back to our senses, (IMO) The greatest depression, or the bloodiest revolution.
They need to be knocked out and put on a plane to Europe, if they love it so much. These are the kind of people who, instead of conforming to the laws of the land, decide everyone else is wrong, and the rules need changed. I only wish we had the balls today, to do what our forefathers would...
awb list
I am upset about the awb . It is a calculated "response " using tragic events to "justify " a preexisting anti-gun prejudice. It an assault on the 2nd amendment, and I believe it's a first step, (albeit a BIG one) to an all out private gun ownership ban.
However, if we are to influnce non-gun owners, gun owners who might be on the fence about the bannning of a certain type of weapon, the uninformed, or misinformed populace, we should not resort to name calling, denegrating rhetoric used by anti-gunners. We are being identifed as: hysterical; panic driven; irrational; uneducated; fear mongering; blood thirsty, or any or all of the above.
To counter act these false identifiers, let us respond in a sane, rational and intelligent manner. However we may feel about the individuals who are diseminating the lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations , these people and the media will use our statements amd magnify and exploit any references to violence and subtrafuge to thier gain. That may be the difference to the average citizen who doesn't believe they have a "dog in the fight" or indifference to the ban.
I am upset about the awb . It is a calculated "response " using tragic events to "justify " a preexisting anti-gun prejudice. It an assault on the 2nd amendment, and I believe it's a first step, (albeit a BIG one) to an all out private gun ownership ban.
However, if we are to influnce non-gun owners, gun owners who might be on the fence about the bannning of a certain type of weapon, the uninformed, or misinformed populace, we should not resort to name calling, denegrating rhetoric used by anti-gunners. We are being identifed as: hysterical; panic driven; irrational; uneducated; fear mongering; blood thirsty, or any or all of the above.
To counter act these false identifiers, let us respond in a sane, rational and intelligent manner. However we may feel about the individuals who are diseminating the lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations , these people and the media will use our statements amd magnify and exploit any references to violence and subtrafuge to thier gain. That may be the difference to the average citizen who doesn't believe they have a "dog in the fight" or indifference to the ban.
longbarrel
Expert
No Windham AR? No SKS?
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- Jay40
- krvincen
- fishguy2816
- Chalky
- Tripp11
- 10mm
- COOPADUP
- SubicWarrior1988
- Stengun
- two70
- Hoosier Carry
- bkflyer
- Bobby
- nbunga
- gregkl
- rhamersley
- rdbs505
- gottabeoutdoors
- BOLTGUN
- pokersamurai
- indyblue
- Angrysauce
- erasure
- Popeye Thee Sailor
- Simon6101
- yeahbaby
- Reverin0ats27
- Mark-DuCo
- c604
- MDpolo
- 22LRFan
- HoughMade
- rosejm
- DoggyDaddy
- sp3worker
- gpasp101
- Haven
- Gandalf
- bobzilla
- ZurokSlayer7X9
- Bollorollo
- ben142266
- Nevernoluck2
- Cameramonkey
- russc2542
- RangeJunkie
- rb288
- slims2002
- Kcustom45
- snapping turtle
