While reading the two posts above yours, I was planning my post, but then I read yours, and it's nearly thought for thought what I was thinking. I'm out of rep points at the moment, anyone else care to hit this guy up for me?
-
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/
The NEW Should Gun Owners Have to Pass a Background Check to Purchase a Gun Poll!
- Thread starter Wabatuckian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun control poll
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:
While reading the two posts above yours, I was planning my post, but then I read yours, and it's nearly thought for thought what I was thinking. I'm out of rep points at the moment, anyone else care to hit this guy up for me?
E5RANGER375
Shooter
NO. period. (if you believe in and support the constitution as its written and not some pansy tree huggers, or govt thugs interpretation of it.)
if you want to have control over your own life and liberty then be armed (armed means more than strapping on the gun alone, it has to do with knowledge too)
If you wanna let others control your liberty then .......... MOVE TO ****ING ENGLAND YOU PANSY!
if you want to have control over your own life and liberty then be armed (armed means more than strapping on the gun alone, it has to do with knowledge too)
If you wanna let others control your liberty then .......... MOVE TO ****ING ENGLAND YOU PANSY!
I voted no. As owning a gun is a right. Now while a criminal is incarcerated they do loose certain rights. But when they are released from prison they are deemed no longer a threat and should be afforded their rights back, because once their prison sentence is complete they have "paid their debt to society". If it's a stipulation of their parole to not own a gun, if they still buy one and get caught with one then back to the big house they go.
I'm not sure we could sit here and say were pro gun rights and think any other way. I mean guns are a right afforded to us not by the government, but endowed by our creator. Seriously we can sit here and say background checks are great, because it makes it harder for a ex-con to buy a gun. But then in the same breath a x-con could go out and buy a car and get a license to drive, even though driving is considered a privilege (which I'm nit so sure about, but that's a different topic).
I'm not sure we could sit here and say were pro gun rights and think any other way. I mean guns are a right afforded to us not by the government, but endowed by our creator. Seriously we can sit here and say background checks are great, because it makes it harder for a ex-con to buy a gun. But then in the same breath a x-con could go out and buy a car and get a license to drive, even though driving is considered a privilege (which I'm nit so sure about, but that's a different topic).
mik1202002
Marksman
I voted no...I think there better ways to go about this. Such as tougher sentences capital punishment or just longer sentences period. Either way you see it...on the news all the time anymore somebody kills another human being. Their sentence is 5 to 10 years and then they get out in half that time for good behavior.
It is a tough question. I agree that shall not be infringed is pretty clear. It seems like we need some method of keeping a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic from buying a firearm though. We had that convicted rapist get out of prison last week by mistake, he raped another poor girl the next day. There should probably be a way to keep a guy like that from buying one as well. I don't know what method we could use though other than some kind of background check.
because of two guys,,,we need to destroy the constitution,,,enact a massive government bureau,,,and make life hard on millions???
The Bubba Effect
Grandmaster
I know that this will sound like I'm joking, but in all seriousness we could use a six foot rope and a fifteen foot tree.
I personally would have no problem with that. Unfortunately our society seems to think that scum like this should be kept alive. I do not find all life all that precious. Killing off murderers, rapists and molesters would certainly solve this issue.
That still leaves the dangerously insane. I don't know if we want to kill all of them or even keep them locked away forever if their meds keep them under control. Unfortunately many of these people do not stay on their meds and they become dangerous again.
The Bubba Effect
Grandmaster
The death penalty does have its dangers and legitimate objectors. I'll settle for life in prison for violent criminals.
Regarding the mentally unstable...that is a tough one. Some people really do believe that citizens who hold my political/historical beliefs are mentally unstable. Some of them are in our own government and have said so in public. The appellation of "mentally unstable" has been used by various groups to discredit and marginalize their opponents. That concerns me regarding mental soundness and the fundamental right of the individual to maintain his ability to resist coercion.
Even though I am concerned with the government abuse of "mental fitness", I agree that there are people out there who I feel are not capable of being safe and responsible firearm owners due to their mental capacity. I am not sure what kind of objective test would prove sufficient and resist the abuse that would eventually press against it. I am not absolutely opposed to drawing a distinction between people who are stark raving mad and people who can own firearms, but I do not know how one could draw the line.
If we were able to somehow set a standard for mental fitness for gun ownership that satisfies concerns for fairness, accuracy and abuse, then I insist that it is reasonable to apply the same set of standards to dictate who can vote and who has the ability to engage in binding contracts. If you are not fit to own a firearm, you are not fit to vote. If you are not fit to own a firearm, you are not fit to engage in binding contracts. As the right to bear arms is at least as dear to me as the right to self determination and the right to consent to contract, I believe that if a person would not be fit for one, they would not be fit for the others.
Considering this, I am reminded of the obstacles to vote that were set in the path of black citizens in the reconstruction south (the reading requirement pops to mind). I believe that this requirement was introduced with the claim that the election should be only participated in by those people mentally fit to participate. The practice has since been vilified as being defacto racial disenfranchisement. This is the kind of thing that we would have to avoid with any tests of mental fitness, a hard task but surely not impossible.
Yikes, I'd better get back to work..
Good civil discourse,
Later,
TBE
1911Shooter
Sharpshooter
I agree with Fireaxes. It doesnt matter what law is in place to keep guns out of criminals hands. They are criminals and laws dont matter to them, they will get a gun period. Even if it means they have to steel it.
If laws, background checks and permits actually worked, there wouldn't be any crime with guns would there?
By the same logic, a one gun a month limit would keep guns out of the wrong hands. How about no private sales without a background check, a guy could have lost his permit but still have a copy right?
The phrase "reasonable restrictions" makes me ill.
By the same logic, a one gun a month limit would keep guns out of the wrong hands. How about no private sales without a background check, a guy could have lost his permit but still have a copy right?
The phrase "reasonable restrictions" makes me ill.
I think what it boils down to with me as that we keep trying to craft a "one size fits all" rule that punishes everyone for the acts of a few criminals and mentally ill people. Instead we need to treat any restrictions on a person's rights as a very serious matter that should be dealt with on a case by case basis and that any restriction should result from actions that the individual has taken and not be based on what somebody might do or on what somebody else did.
Let people arm themselves as they see fit. Those that as individuals show us by their actions that they cannot safely be allowed to arm themselves can be dealt with as is merited by each individual situation. Leave the rest of us alone.
Let people arm themselves as they see fit. Those that as individuals show us by their actions that they cannot safely be allowed to arm themselves can be dealt with as is merited by each individual situation. Leave the rest of us alone.
I am sick of "reasonable restrictions." The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...the right of the people of high moral character to keep and bear those arms subjectively determined by Congress to be appropriate primarily for sporting purposes, with a minimum number of American made parts, shall not be infringed except where, when and how Congress deems appropriate."
The proper solution to schizos and felons getting guns? Arm yourself and be prepared to deal with them. Stop trying to limit my ability, and your own, to fight back. Only an idiot intentionally limits his own ability to survive.
As far as I'm concerned, all people have the right to keep and bear arms. ALL people.
Except those currently incarcerated.
The proper solution to schizos and felons getting guns? Arm yourself and be prepared to deal with them. Stop trying to limit my ability, and your own, to fight back. Only an idiot intentionally limits his own ability to survive.
As far as I'm concerned, all people have the right to keep and bear arms. ALL people.
Except those currently incarcerated.
Last edited:
Once someone commits a heinous crime or a felony, they forfeit their rights.
They have demonstrated that they cannot stay within the boundaries of society.
I believe that the founding fathers saw it that way.
But how do we know if they have committed a crime without a check.
For that reason I voted yes.
Now... when they start checking how many guns you own or what part of town you live in or what your income is or what church you belong to...
THEN your rights are being violated.
So, I voted yes, but it needs to be very specific and restricted as to what exactly is being checked.
They have demonstrated that they cannot stay within the boundaries of society.
I believe that the founding fathers saw it that way.
But how do we know if they have committed a crime without a check.
For that reason I voted yes.
Now... when they start checking how many guns you own or what part of town you live in or what your income is or what church you belong to...
THEN your rights are being violated.
So, I voted yes, but it needs to be very specific and restricted as to what exactly is being checked.
So, to all those who voted "yes":
Please define "mental illness".
For example, it could be argued that anyone who goes to church is mentally ill. If one were observed speaking in tongues and/or praying by State psychologists, without taking into account the belief of a higher power, that person could very well be listed as delusional schizophrenia, atypical schizophrenia, etc.
Those who smoke cigarettes could very well be classified as having a maladaptive personality disorder.
Don't like liberals? Intolerant of things you don't agree with, and refuse to associate with those who do those things? Well hell, you must be antisocial. There are all sorts of diagnoses associated with that one!
Though medical science advances, the system is slowly going broke. The push, now, is to get barely functioning people out on the street instead of into institutions.
In many (most) of these cases, complete rehab or treatment is not possible.
One hundred years ago, some of these people would have killed themselves or eventually been killed in the commission of a crime. The rest would would be OK with firearms.
In fact, I guarantee that was the state of things back then. The diagnoses just didn't exist and the people learned to adapt. Most didn't eat bullets.
Where do you draw the line?
Have any of you, or you kids, been diagnosed with ADD or ADHD? I can see that very easily, in the next few years, preventing gun ownership.
How about you veterans and police? Any PTSD? You know, the character "Rambo" had PTSD. Where does the public at large get most of their education these days? Yep, returning vets, no more guns for you! I can see it going so far as to make using a firearm in self-defense a one-time proposition, as it's not natural to shoot a person and yes, your brain will change its chemistry to adapt. You will not be the same person after as you were before.
In other words, you shoot someone, you most likely have a greater or lesser form of PTSD, and no more guns for you!
Remember the law passed years back keeping folks who had been found guilty of domestic violence from owning guns? Hell, many, maybe most, of those people plead guilty or nolo contesto to the charge instead of fighting it during divorce proceedings, regardless of any truth behind it!
Now, many good cops don't have jobs.
When does this extend to, say, inciting a riot? Whether you meant to, or not? In a public place, if you speak your mind, there will be people siding with you and people against you. RIOT TIME! (if there are enough people, that is... and how many people does it take to riot, anyway? Can there be a Riot of One?)
How about storing too much food? Heck, you must be paranoid.
No, there is psychiatry and then there is what the government uses. The differences are nothing more than those between mentally ill and suffering from insanity. Most people know that one is medical and the other is purely legal.
Darwin is getting pissed. We try to legislate Darwin, and he doesn't like that. It'll all come to a head one day, then blow up in our faces.
This is just one of the tactics I see as being in its infancy, that will grow.
The others have to do with the passing of more laws, which in turn make more criminals -- all of us here are guilty of something, whether we realize it or not -- and we have enough laws on the books, right now, that if a police state were to exist, we could all be charged with something enough to prevent ownership of firearms.
I'm for the government giving everyone 17 and up five shot .38spl revolvers with the option to upgrade on our own.
This would probably cure a lot of mental illness and the rude would miraculously become polite, as if it were a miracle from Heaven.
I might delve further into the legal area later. The guise of "mental illness" seems to be an area more easily exploited, and it's been brought up several times here.
Right now, I want another cup of coffee (I must be addicted to caffeine! I'm an addict! I shouldn't own guns!)
Josh
Please define "mental illness".
For example, it could be argued that anyone who goes to church is mentally ill. If one were observed speaking in tongues and/or praying by State psychologists, without taking into account the belief of a higher power, that person could very well be listed as delusional schizophrenia, atypical schizophrenia, etc.
Those who smoke cigarettes could very well be classified as having a maladaptive personality disorder.
Don't like liberals? Intolerant of things you don't agree with, and refuse to associate with those who do those things? Well hell, you must be antisocial. There are all sorts of diagnoses associated with that one!
Though medical science advances, the system is slowly going broke. The push, now, is to get barely functioning people out on the street instead of into institutions.
In many (most) of these cases, complete rehab or treatment is not possible.
One hundred years ago, some of these people would have killed themselves or eventually been killed in the commission of a crime. The rest would would be OK with firearms.
In fact, I guarantee that was the state of things back then. The diagnoses just didn't exist and the people learned to adapt. Most didn't eat bullets.
Where do you draw the line?
Have any of you, or you kids, been diagnosed with ADD or ADHD? I can see that very easily, in the next few years, preventing gun ownership.
How about you veterans and police? Any PTSD? You know, the character "Rambo" had PTSD. Where does the public at large get most of their education these days? Yep, returning vets, no more guns for you! I can see it going so far as to make using a firearm in self-defense a one-time proposition, as it's not natural to shoot a person and yes, your brain will change its chemistry to adapt. You will not be the same person after as you were before.
In other words, you shoot someone, you most likely have a greater or lesser form of PTSD, and no more guns for you!
Remember the law passed years back keeping folks who had been found guilty of domestic violence from owning guns? Hell, many, maybe most, of those people plead guilty or nolo contesto to the charge instead of fighting it during divorce proceedings, regardless of any truth behind it!
Now, many good cops don't have jobs.
When does this extend to, say, inciting a riot? Whether you meant to, or not? In a public place, if you speak your mind, there will be people siding with you and people against you. RIOT TIME! (if there are enough people, that is... and how many people does it take to riot, anyway? Can there be a Riot of One?)
How about storing too much food? Heck, you must be paranoid.
No, there is psychiatry and then there is what the government uses. The differences are nothing more than those between mentally ill and suffering from insanity. Most people know that one is medical and the other is purely legal.
Darwin is getting pissed. We try to legislate Darwin, and he doesn't like that. It'll all come to a head one day, then blow up in our faces.
This is just one of the tactics I see as being in its infancy, that will grow.
The others have to do with the passing of more laws, which in turn make more criminals -- all of us here are guilty of something, whether we realize it or not -- and we have enough laws on the books, right now, that if a police state were to exist, we could all be charged with something enough to prevent ownership of firearms.
I'm for the government giving everyone 17 and up five shot .38spl revolvers with the option to upgrade on our own.
This would probably cure a lot of mental illness and the rude would miraculously become polite, as if it were a miracle from Heaven.
I might delve further into the legal area later. The guise of "mental illness" seems to be an area more easily exploited, and it's been brought up several times here.
Right now, I want another cup of coffee (I must be addicted to caffeine! I'm an addict! I shouldn't own guns!)
Josh
04DarkShadowGT
Master
So because I think someone who was paroled after serving time for murder shouldn't be able to go to Gander Mountain and buy a gun I am a pansy?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised a topic like this would result in name calling. Call me crazy if I think that maybe in some instances a document that was written over 200 years ago may not fully apply in a completely different time. You cannot expect a document written 200 years ago to fully govern a society with technology the fore fathers couldn't fathom in their wildest dreams.
Should a law abiding citizen be refused the purchase of a gun, of course not, but waiting 10 minutes to get a proceed isn't too much to ask to weed out the small percentage of those who shouldn't.
You arent hampered by your ability to buy a gun if you are a law abiding citizen. That is unless a maniac comes into a gun store and shoots up the place where 95% of the customers and employees are carrying. Something tells me you will be ok in that very short time.
I voted no, because, we, in In. already, go through a check, when we apply for a permit (LTCH), so I think, twice, is over kill...
You dont need a LTCH to buy a handgun. So in some instances you would not have been checked already. If you want to require a LTCH to purchase a handgun, then thats a whole different can of worms. I do not agree with that.
Of course laws, background checks, and permits don't work in all cases, but that doesnt mean it never works. Might as well get rid of drivers licenses too.
Last edited:
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
mom45Momerator -
d.kaufmanStill Here -
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator
Members online
- snowman
- Machinist68
- z0mb13_m0nk3y
- 700 LTR 223
- ssgjason
- knutty
- Cynical
- asevans
- Brandon
- gds
- mom45
- Gunmetalgray
- Flingarrows
- nobletucky
- Tryin'
- Jay40
- brchixwing
- hountzmj
- tmschuller
- Born2vette
- sixty8firebird1
- Seancass
- medavis428@
- Hillbilly
- danieldefense33
- WhitleyStu
- jamil
- xwing
- daddyusmaximus
- Hkindiana
- Dog1
- repeter1977
- Gabriel
- rwilky78
- Chance
- edwea
- Codyf44
- klausm
- d.kaufman
- dk598
- Basher
- l11
- GodFearinGunTotin
- dvd1955
- DragonGunner
- Doug
- littletommy
- M1 carbine dad
- chef1231
- snorko
