Response from Joe Donnelly

[IndyGunworks]

Red,

1. Gun control is a cancer. It never stays still. It is removed or it grows.

2. The gun culture has a miserable history with "compromise". Need I remind you of the NFA, GCA/SSA or FOPA? We only lose with "compromise" (insert cake analogy here).

3. We in Indiana have played their universal background check nonsense from 1974 to 1998. It was feckless. It prevented no crime. It prevent no prohibited persons from obtaining firearms.

4. A UBC is an unconstitutional expansion of federal power and a direct violation of the 10th Amendment a la Mack/Printz.

can you elaborate on number 4? If its unconstitutional how did we have one from 74-98?

 

[Scutter01]

We only lose with "compromise" (insert cake analogy here).

In this case, they've stolen another piece of our cake, licked all the frosting off, and now they want to trade it back to us in exchange for one that still has frosting on it. And then expect us to be happy that we got some of our cake back. You know, because they've "compromised" by giving back.

 

[Redhorse]

Well unlike in 1957, one can now by firearms over the internet and have no idea who they're buying from and/or the person selling has no idea who they're selling to. Furthermore, in order to carry in the vast majority of states, one must pass a background check in order to receive a carry permit. I think having a valid permit should be allowed to be used as a waver for any type of background check. I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but background checks are here to stay while the right to carry is still a patchwork mess across all the states. There'll never be enough support in the House or the Senate to get background checks or national reciprocity by themselves without something both sides can agree on. Let it be noted that mental help also needs to be addressed in this country because it's a mess as well.

 

[gstanley102]

So other than expanding NICS to gun shows, what exactly is INGO opposed to in that statement? How did some folks arrive at confiscation out of that?

"Joe Donnelly"

He votes to support Harry and not Indiana residents.

 

[Redhorse]

Red,

1. Gun control is a cancer. It never stays still. It is removed or it grows.

2. The gun culture has a miserable history with "compromise". Need I remind you of the NFA, GCA/SSA or FOPA? We only lose with "compromise" (insert cake analogy here).

3. We in Indiana have played their universal background check nonsense from 1974 to 1998. It was feckless. It prevented no crime. It prevent no prohibited persons from obtaining firearms.

4. A UBC is an unconstitutional expansion of federal power and a direct violation of the 10th Amendment a la Mack/Printz.

Well don't get me wrong, I don't support any of that background check bs (as noted earlier, you saw how I thought a carry permit should be a waver for said background checks). It just seems there should be some sort of middle ground we can all agree to. I don't understand or believe that everything (gun-related and non gun-related alike) has to be totally one way or totally another. There has to be a middle ground.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well don't get me wrong, I don't support any of that background check bs (as noted earlier, you saw how I thought a carry permit should be a waver for said background checks). It just seems there should be some sort of middle ground we can all agree to. I don't understand or believe that everything (gun-related and non gun-related alike) has to be totally one way or totally another. There has to be a middle ground.

I have a different idea. In a courtroom, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Why, then, when we go into a gun store, are we presumed guilty of being criminals and improper persons until we submit, like criminals, to either a fingerprinting and background check or just the background check to supposedly prove our innocence? (or both)
When one walks into a liquor store, s/he can show an ID to prove being of age, or can be visibly determined to be old enough to buy the product s/he wants. There is no right to drink, of course. I can mail-order or cash-purchase any knife I choose, no ID requirement. I can walk into a car dealership with cash in hand and exit with the car of my choice, no ID requirement, and as long as I have a trailer with which to get it where I want it and someone with a driver's license to transport it there, it need never be titled, licensed, or otherwise regulated.

Using the numb-nut in Isla Vista, CA as the example, the car and/or the knife are demonstrably more harmful. Did he have to go to a federally-licensed car dealer to transfer ownership of the car from Mommy to him? Did the fact that he had a license from the state and demonstrated both training and proficiency with the vehicle to obtain that license somehow protect anyone?

Let's stop considering any other states' permission slips that require training, or even the LTCH, to be any form of protection for the public. Let's recognize them for what they are, a means of generating revenue and at their origination, a means of keeping "the wrong people" (which could be any ethnic group) from lawfully going armed. The driver's license is the former as well.

I have a LTCH. I have a DL. Neither means I agree with the premise behind them... only that I'm working within the law to improve what I can.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SteveM4A1]

I have a different idea. In a courtroom, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Why, then, when we go into a gun store, are we presumed guilty of being criminals and improper persons until we submit, like criminals, to either a fingerprinting and background check or just the background check to supposedly prove our innocence? (or both)
When one walks into a liquor store, s/he can show an ID to prove being of age, or can be visibly determined to be old enough to buy the product s/he wants. There is no right to drink, of course. I can mail-order or cash-purchase any knife I choose, no ID requirement. I can walk into a car dealership with cash in hand and exit with the car of my choice, no ID requirement, and as long as I have a trailer with which to get it where I want it and someone with a driver's license to transport it there, it need never be titled, licensed, or otherwise regulated.

Using the numb-nut in Isla Vista, CA as the example, the car and/or the knife are demonstrably more harmful. Did he have to go to a federally-licensed car dealer to transfer ownership of the car from Mommy to him? Did the fact that he had a license from the state and demonstrated both training and proficiency with the vehicle to obtain that license somehow protect anyone?

Let's stop considering any other states' permission slips that require training, or even the LTCH, to be any form of protection for the public. Let's recognize them for what they are, a means of generating revenue and at their origination, a means of keeping "the wrong people" (which could be any ethnic group) from lawfully going armed. The driver's license is the former as well.

I have a LTCH. I have a DL. Neither means I agree with the premise behind them... only that I'm working within the law to improve what I can.

Blessings,
Bill

Well stated.

 

[Redhorse]

With all due respect criminals are in the market for guns everyday and I believe the NICS system does provide a deterrence against criminals although I still disagree with it somewhat.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Red,

1. Gun control is a cancer. It never stays still. It is removed or it grows.

2. The gun culture has a miserable history with "compromise". Need I remind you of the NFA, GCA/SSA or FOPA? We only lose with "compromise" (insert cake analogy here).

3. We in Indiana have played their universal background check nonsense from 1974 to 1998. It was feckless. It prevented no crime. It prevent no prohibited persons from obtaining firearms.

4. A UBC is an unconstitutional expansion of federal power and a direct violation of the 10th Amendment a la Mack/Printz.

I unintentionally violated that law and hate to think what kind of trouble i may have gotten into had I and the guy I was buying from got caught

 

[Bunnykid68]

With all due respect criminals are in the market for guns everyday and I believe the NICS system does provide a deterrence against criminals although I still disagree with it somewhat.

Well, let them walk into shops and buy them then. At least someone will make profit off of the sale, taxes will be collected and just maybe someone will not have a gun stolen by a criminal.

 

[cce1302]

Well unlike in 1957, one can now by firearms over the internet and have no idea who they're buying from and/or the person selling has no idea who they're selling to.

that's true, but irrelevant. After all, in 1957, one could buy firearms from a catalog and have no idea who they're buying from and/or the person selling has no idea who they're selling to.

Furthermore, in order to carry in the vast majority of states, one must pass a background check in order to receive a carry permit. I think having a valid permit should be allowed to be used as a waver for any type of background check. I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but background checks are here to stay while the right to carry is still a patchwork mess across all the states.

Only if we bend over and resign ourselves to defeat.

There'll be see be enough support in the House or the Senate to get it passed by itself without something both sides can agree on.

that doesn't make sense.

Let it be noted that mental help also needs to be addressed in this country because it's a mess as well.

Mental health should be addressed completely separately from firearms.

 

[Redhorse]

that's true, but irrelevant. After all, in 1957, one could buy firearms from a catalog and have no idea who they're buying from and/or the person selling has no idea who they're selling to. Only if we bend over and resign ourselves to defeat. that doesn't make sense.

Mental health should be addressed completely separately from firearms.

I fixed the errors. Gotta love autocorrect.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

Well, I am willing to play devil's advocate here....

Do any of you who think that ALL gun control is worthless in preventing ILLEGAL gun violence think that there should be any restrictions on who can own any type of weapon? I.e. do you think that any citizen, or even any person in the U.S. should be able to walk into a store and, given enough money, be able to purchase any type of weapon of any kind? That would include explosives, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, jets, drones, ordinance, artillery, tanks (fully capable), attack helicopters, etc.

Do you think that any kind of restriction on any type of weapon has stopped anyone from doing something, at any time, that they otherwise would have if that restriction had not been in place? If so, then why is it different from guns (beyond the 2A concept of "shall not infringe"... we all know, accept, and even demand that there are many, many restrictions on 1A "free speech" such as false advertising, libel/slander/defamation, inciting a riot, etc.)... ?

If you think that there should be NO RESTRICTIONS on firearms or their usage, do you think that anyone should be able to walk around and point a loaded weapon at anything or anyone they want at any time? Do you think that people should be able to throw loaded weapons, which are known not to be drop safe, and use them as horseshoes in a public park full of people? Do you think that anyone should be able to target practice at any time of day, with any type of ammo, with bullets whizzing by your house or your yard where you and your family are living as long as the bullets do not damage anything? Do you think that all forms of celebratory gunfire should be legal, provided no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain bullet which has done harm to something came from a specific person and their firearm? Do you think that children of any age should be able to bring loaded firearms to school and shoot them during recess on a playground?

In other words, if you CLAIM to think that there should be absolutely no restrictions on firearms, then you CANNOT turn around and then claim, at the same time, that any of the hypothesized situations I presented should be illegal. OTOH, if you do think some of the hypothesized situations should be illegal, then what EXACTLY is your reasoning? What are the premises upon which you base your beliefs that those things should be restricted and what is the logical framework that is used to test SOMETHING ELSE to determine if it also would fall within your realm of reasonable restrictions? You cannot have your cake and eat it too folks.

This is very similar to the (logical) argument that I give to people who claim to me that they think that ALL external safeties on a carry firearm are bad/worthless/dangerous/etc. I simply ask them this... Do you carry a firearm? If yes, then do you also carry that firearm in a holster? If yes, then do you only use holsters which cover the trigger? If yes, then ask them, "What is the difference?"

... Some food for thought.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Well, I am willing to play devil's advocate here....

Do any of you who think that ALL gun control is worthless in preventing ILLEGAL gun violence think that there should be any restrictions on who can own any type of weapon? I.e. do you think that any citizen, or even any person in the U.S. should be able to walk into a store and, given enough money, be able to purchase any type of weapon of any kind? That would include explosives, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, jets, drones, ordinance, artillery, tanks (fully capable), attack helicopters, etc.
.

I would be fine with that and if you dont think there are rich people out there that own they are not allowed to you are fooling yourself

 

[Redhorse]

Well, I am willing to play devil's advocate here....

Do any of you who think that ALL gun control is worthless in preventing ILLEGAL gun violence think that there should be any restrictions on who can own any type of weapon? I.e. do you think that any citizen, or even any person in the U.S. should be able to walk into a store and, given enough money, be able to purchase any type of weapon of any kind? That would include explosives, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, jets, drones, ordinance, artillery, tanks (fully capable), attack helicopters, etc.

Do you think that any kind of restriction on any type of weapon has stopped anyone from doing something, at any time, that they otherwise would have if that restriction had not been in place? If so, then why is it different from guns (beyond the 2A concept of "shall not infringe"... we all know, accept, and even demand that there are many, many restrictions on 1A "free speech" such as false advertising, libel/slander/defamation, inciting a riot, etc.)... ?

If you think that there should be NO RESTRICTIONS on firearms or their usage, do you think that anyone should be able to walk around and point a loaded weapon at anything or anyone they want at any time? Do you think that people should be able to throw loaded weapons, which are known not to be drop safe, and use them as horseshoes in a public park full of people? Do you think that anyone should be able to target practice at any time of day, with any type of ammo, with bullets whizzing by your house or your yard where you and your family are living as long as the bullets do not damage anything? Do you think that all forms of celebratory gunfire should be legal, provided no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain bullet which has done harm to something came from a specific person and their firearm? Do you think that children of any age should be able to bring loaded firearms to school and shoot them during recess on a playground?

In other words, if you CLAIM to think that there should be absolutely no restrictions on firearms, then you CANNOT turn around and then claim, at the same time, that any of the hypothesized situations I presented should be illegal. OTOH, if you do think some of the hypothesized situations should be illegal, then what EXACTLY is your reasoning? What are the premises upon which you base your beliefs that those things should be restricted and what is the logical framework that is used to test SOMETHING ELSE to determine if it also would fall within your realm of reasonable restrictions? You cannot have your cake and eat it too folks.

This is very similar to the (logical) argument that I give to people who claim to me that they think that ALL external safeties on a carry firearm are bad/worthless/dangerous/etc. I simply ask them this... Do you carry a firearm? If yes, then do you also carry that firearm in a holster? If yes, then do you only use holsters which cover the trigger? If yes, then ask them, "What is the difference?"

... Some food for thought.

You mean having some reasonable restrictions on the amendments? Yes, it's completely logical to have some restrictions. Just like you can't scream "there's a bomb!" on a plane (thus implying some restrictions on the first amendment), there's going to be some restrictions on the right to bear arms. Are there too many? Yes there are, but it's not unreasonable to have some. And when I say some, I mean just some.

 

[aaron580]

joe is an *********

 

[SteveM4A1]

Well, I am willing to play devil's advocate here....

Do any of you who think that ALL gun control is worthless in preventing ILLEGAL gun violence think that there should be any restrictions on who can own any type of weapon? I.e. do you think that any citizen, or even any person in the U.S. should be able to walk into a store and, given enough money, be able to purchase any type of weapon of any kind? That would include explosives, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, jets, drones, ordinance, artillery, tanks (fully capable), attack helicopters, etc.

Do you think that any kind of restriction on any type of weapon has stopped anyone from doing something, at any time, that they otherwise would have if that restriction had not been in place? If so, then why is it different from guns (beyond the 2A concept of "shall not infringe"... we all know, accept, and even demand that there are many, many restrictions on 1A "free speech" such as false advertising, libel/slander/defamation, inciting a riot, etc.)... ?

If you think that there should be NO RESTRICTIONS on firearms or their usage, do you think that anyone should be able to walk around and point a loaded weapon at anything or anyone they want at any time? Do you think that people should be able to throw loaded weapons, which are known not to be drop safe, and use them as horseshoes in a public park full of people? Do you think that anyone should be able to target practice at any time of day, with any type of ammo, with bullets whizzing by your house or your yard where you and your family are living as long as the bullets do not damage anything? Do you think that all forms of celebratory gunfire should be legal, provided no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain bullet which has done harm to something came from a specific person and their firearm? Do you think that children of any age should be able to bring loaded firearms to school and shoot them during recess on a playground?

In other words, if you CLAIM to think that there should be absolutely no restrictions on firearms, then you CANNOT turn around and then claim, at the same time, that any of the hypothesized situations I presented should be illegal. OTOH, if you do think some of the hypothesized situations should be illegal, then what EXACTLY is your reasoning? What are the premises upon which you base your beliefs that those things should be restricted and what is the logical framework that is used to test SOMETHING ELSE to determine if it also would fall within your realm of reasonable restrictions? You cannot have your cake and eat it too folks.

This is very similar to the (logical) argument that I give to people who claim to me that they think that ALL external safeties on a carry firearm are bad/worthless/dangerous/etc. I simply ask them this... Do you carry a firearm? If yes, then do you also carry that firearm in a holster? If yes, then do you only use holsters which cover the trigger? If yes, then ask them, "What is the difference?"

... Some food for thought.

My answer to that is extremely simple. Every right is limited to the point that you overstep on another's rights. Up to that point, no restrictions

 

[cce1302]

You mean having some reasonable restrictions on the amendments? Yes, it's completely logical to have some restrictions. Just like you can't scream "there's a bomb!" on a plane (thus implying some restrictions on the first amendment), there's going to be some restrictions on the right to bear arms. Are there too many? Yes there are, but it's not unreasonable to have some. And when I say some, I mean just some.

Yes, you can scream "there's a bomb!" on a plane.

 

[wakproductions]

My concern has never been with those who follow the law, but with those who do not.

Their strategy is to make the law so encompassing that no one in possession of a gun could possibly follow the law. Kind of like New York City.

 

[Vigilant]

I am not interested in compromising. Gun owners have been giving in for decades and I'm not having it anymore. Why should I give up more Rights to get back some other Rights?

Dont tell me you're "gonna start ah-killin" people too?