Run for an assault weapons ban in Indy...

[billybob44]

This guy’s a politician, so I expect him to try and **** me. Michael Hilton is a gunstore “owner”, and **** him for trying to **** me! BTW, when de PopGuns change names and that Jackass get ownership back?

Same thought here.. Indy Gun Bunker's is just a re-hash of Pop Guns, although this "Michael" may?? be the Son of the "Orginal" Jacka**?? Bill.

 

[Vigilant]

One more thing that makes a difference is, since they ended the draft many years ago, there's now millions of grown men who've never shot a gun before.
Before that, there were millions more young men who had serve a hitch in the Army and at least were familiarized with shooting.

For the last 17 years, there have been millions of men and women who had never shot a gun before, shooting guns everyday.

 

[Vigilant]

Same thought here.. Indy Gun Bunker's is just a re-hash of Pop Guns, although this "Michael" may?? be the Son of the "Orginal" Jacka**?? Bill.

I believe Denny347 when he says this is the son, doesn’t change my opinion of his opinion.

 

[Sling10mm]

My concern isn't just if Republicans can hold the house and senate, but what happens even if they do hold them. I saw a video today of Trey Gowdy and Tim Scott talking like they are for magazine limits and universal background checks. I know Gowdy is out, but how many other "conservatives" are caving?

 

[Cameramonkey]

So? Any word? I assume since the news outlets are not covering it that it either didnt get brought up, or failed to pass.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

When are these asshats up for election again? Scott Kreider, Perry Township GOP president and city councilman District 23 said this: ""I'm respectful of the spirit of it and in it's current form no I can't support it, because like I said it's based on incorrect terminology. I do not think it will actually enable a dialogue. I think it will actually continue to have both sides be entrenched, on the one hand the we want an assault weapons ban on the other side is the from my cold dead hands. I think if you start having an honest conversation with correct terminology I think there's a lot of things, a lot of common ground people could agree on,"


Indianapolis councilor asks state lawmakers to support a ban on ?assault weapons and high-capacity magazines? | FOX59

 

[Scout]

"Do you own a firearm?"
"I'd rather not say"

"No, I don't own *a* firearm"

 

[Bigtanker]

"No, I don't own *a* firearm"

I've used that one a few times.

 

[GIJEW]

I really don't see this having much chance of passing anytime in the near future. However, I do agree that the anti's will continue to push their agenda until they have enough people in place to make it hapen...at least in some form.

I think one aspect of the fight we need to improve is getting our message out in a wide spread manner. The MSM constantly bombards the masses with antigun stories, crime reports with interviews with someone calling for "we need to get these guns off the street ", talk about how easy it is to get a gun etc. The pro gun stories are few and far between.

I know we have some great ambassadors for responsible gun owners. But, it seems that we gun owners are treated as some kind of fringe group by MSM and aren't given the same main stream resources to show people that we are not the problem.
I really feel like it is a method the anti's use to silence our views and opinions..or at least minimize it. I mean you can turn on the tv just about any day and find a sporting event to watch on any main stream channel. When was the last time a shooting sports/ pro gun tv show was on any channel that wasn't part of some sports package?

Also, it doesn't help that we as a gun culture are scattered on the issues.

The 'hardware' part of the problem is that the leftists control most of televised media--and they'll slander FOX all day long to keep it that way. on the bright side, the right has control of 'talk radio' which has the leftwing hypocrites whining about needing "equal-time/fairness" regulations.

Getting a platform for our message might be the easiest part to solve though. It doesn't matter how good the message is if people won't listen. Society seems to be too polarized to have a dialogue.

 

[brotherbill3]

I support the 2nd Amendment, but . . . it's not strong enough. It should actually protect our UNALIENABLE right to self-defense across the board without nonsense restrictions on adults who have not demonstrated that they are a threat to anyone else. NFA is stupid, 4473s are stupid, licensing of dealers is stupid, licensing of individuals is stupid, restrictions on what we can and can't own and where we can and can't possess it are stupid.

FIFY:

Alienable = can be taken away by others
INalienable = can't be taken, but can be surrendered
UNalienable = can't be surrendered - they are yours. period.

(learned from a thing read around / near july 4 a couple of years ago) - D.o.I. uses UNalienable. but it mostly / often / frequently - Misquoted - even in the Jeff. Memorial.

 

[rhino]

FIFY:

Alienable = can be taken away by others
INalienable = can't be taken, but can be surrendered
UNalienable = can't be surrendered - they are yours. period.

(learned from a thing read around / near july 4 a couple of years ago) - D.o.I. uses UNalienable. but it mostly / often / frequently - Misquoted - even in the Jeff. Memorial.

Thank you for the correction and the education!

[h=3]In Congress, July 4, 1776.[/h] The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[BigRed]

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

 

[BFG]

https://www.theindychannel.com/news...little-to-no-effect-on-indianapolis-gun-crime

Huh, imagine that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

https://www.theindychannel.com/news...little-to-no-effect-on-indianapolis-gun-crime

Huh, imagine that.

It's one of the most popular plays in their playbook...so, they keep playing it.

 

[brotherbill3]

From my IMAGC post the other day (and from other sources for quotes that are verifiable):

.... There are many that would take these rights – and for those of you newer to the cause, even the left admitted this: From 1994 when the now expired AWB was passed the Washington Post Editorial Board wrote:


“”it's ridiculous that the banning should even be an issue, no one should have any illusions about what was accomplished. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."”


This along with Sen. Diane Feinstein's well known quotes:
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it.”
and:
“Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”


These quotes show just what the anti-rights folks intend. Be clear, they have and will continue to take any small gains they can “COMPROMISE” away from us. Why do we stand against them? Because we realize that this is not “the end” of the argument. That the next time “something happens” and we must “do something” - that more concessions will be demanded of our rights.

 

[churchmouse]

From my IMAGC post the other day (and from other sources for quotes that are verifiable):

.... There are many that would take these rights – and for those of you newer to the cause, even the left admitted this: From 1994 when the now expired AWB was passed the Washington Post Editorial Board wrote:


“”it's ridiculous that the banning should even be an issue, no one should have any illusions about what was accomplished. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."”


This along with Sen. Diane Feinstein's well known quotes:
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it.”
and:
“Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”


These quotes show just what the anti-rights folks intend. Be clear, they have and will continue to take any small gains they can “COMPROMISE” away from us. Why do we stand against them? Because we realize that this is not “the end” of the argument. That the next time “something happens” and we must “do something” - that more concessions will be demanded of our rights.

Chip chip chip chip chip away.

 

[BigRed]

Today's email to Mr. Oliver:

IMPD says 2 people arrested in connection with shooting death of 1-year-old Malaysia Robson | FOX59


Dear Mr. Oliver:

Perhaps instead of attempting to strip rights away from law abiding citizens, you should consider busying yourself with controlling murderous thugs who have no regard for the lives of others.

 

[BigRed]

BTW, here is his email address:

william.oliver@indy.gov

 

[jamil]

Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves

Tell that to all the people who are not dead today because they had a firearm.

The US has evoleved to be more centrally governed over the years, which was not the intent of the founders, so perhaps the need for true militias, as they were conceived at the time, aren’t as apparent as then. Then, there was much debate about standing armies for that reason. And as American governance has evolved, the gap between the military might of our armed forces, compared to ordinary citizens, has grown much larger than they could have foreseen. So a serious armed defense against a truly tyrannical government with a willing military is admittedly absurd.

So I’d say the protection against tyranny isn’t as practical as the self defense argument. But, the state argument is still there. An armed society has to be conquered. A disarmed society is already conquered. There is a strong political cost to the credibility of a state powere which turns its guns on its own citizens. Their was a large political cost to the handling of situations like David Koresh where the government goes in and wipes them all out.

Do that in large scale and that political cost is very high. So the militia part of the argument is still valid, though not as practical in how it was originally conceived. And of course the self defense paet is always valid. The police can’t always protect us.

 

[BigRed]

So a serious armed defense against a truly tyrannical government with a willing military is admittedly absurd.

Meh.

I am aware of a bunch of robe wearing sheepherders over in a place called Afghanistan that have been holding off the "world's most powerful military force" for well over 15 years.