-
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/
Gun control
- Thread starter Bowman78
- 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:
my personal opinion about gun control is there should be one law and one law only and it should say something like "there is no gun control". radical sure but gun control laws have never done anything for crime, does not keep anyone safer except the elites maybe. criminals never follow gun laws, and law abiding citizens arent going to do anything with whatever the arm is, regardless of fire arm, rocket launcher, machine gun etc.
the bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is about keeping an even playing field between the government and the population. a part of the checks and balance system if you will. if the government takes that away then we no longer are on a level playing field.
i am afraid that a 2nd term by obama will result in a full frontal assault on the 2nd amendment and many other liberties we take for granted
jake
the bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is about keeping an even playing field between the government and the population. a part of the checks and balance system if you will. if the government takes that away then we no longer are on a level playing field.
i am afraid that a 2nd term by obama will result in a full frontal assault on the 2nd amendment and many other liberties we take for granted
jake
i agree with violent felons really but my thought is those types dont care about the law so i just dont know what good it does to make the law more complicated by even bringing it up. the felony thing isnt a one size fits all for sure. i have a good friend who is 46 i think. when he was 18 or so he got drunk and took a friends parents car or something like that. he got caught and did a couple of months in the county. he has never been in trouble since but because stealing a car is a felony he still cant legal buy a gun. this makes no sense! there are lots of non violent felonies that happen that shouldnt keep people from legally baring arms.
jake
IN_Sheepdog
Expert
Guess I am clueless also ...
I didn't understand the "Tree" comment either. Would not have even noticed it had it not been pointed out... Somebody (mod?) send me a PM with what it means, so I don't accidentally screw up in the future with a similar post... I don't get it... and see no connection at all...
Violent felons should not be circulating in a free society - but they are - so there's that.
If a "rehabilitated" ex con is released into the free society, there better be no question of that person's ability to play nice. And they should have every right they had before.
That's all wishful thinking, anyway.
You see, to the authoritarians, we are all criminals. We are all a threat to them in their eyes. Armed or unarmed, a free person is a detriment to their power. A free person that isn't under their control is of no use to their goals and psychotic dreams of being the ultimate nanny.
If a "rehabilitated" ex con is released into the free society, there better be no question of that person's ability to play nice. And they should have every right they had before.
That's all wishful thinking, anyway.
You see, to the authoritarians, we are all criminals. We are all a threat to them in their eyes. Armed or unarmed, a free person is a detriment to their power. A free person that isn't under their control is of no use to their goals and psychotic dreams of being the ultimate nanny.
i agree! if someone is not rehabilitated and cant be trusted they shouldnt be out! your right wishful thinking tho thats kind of a downer
and yep we are all criminals in their eyes! and i'll leave that there cause the authoritarians here wont like what else i have to say
jake
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
We are winning. The 1994 AWB was Stalingrad for the antis. We have been having victory after victory on the state and federal level since the election of 2000 where the Democrats finally seemingly learned their lesson that the cultural shift is too much for them.
Look at the distinction between Columbine and Virginia Tech. It shows the influence that we have obtained.
Obama is an ideologue. Banning guns is a sacrament to his ideology. He will do whatever he can to attack us. It is best to unelect him.
Look at the victories that we have had on the state level--lifetime carry, state park ban repeal, reform of unlicensed carry, real preemption, inter alia. We have the initiative. Remember what did they teach you to do when you gain ground? Right, attack again.
Well, you should join the (political) fight. We don't want others to carry our pack.
Join the fight, join the NRA, then join up at ISRPA*. We need your help and you WILL make a difference.
ISRPA Home
1. Join up and support who you can.
2. Have your fellow shooting buddies join up.
3. Stay informed by reading here at INGO.
4. Vote, and vote with friends.
*Disclaimer: I am a Director in the ISRPA.
Not the only post, but yes, that was the specific one I meant when I posted that, as the full quote is "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Former President Jefferson was saying that when tyrants appear and take power that is not correctly theirs, they must be stopped by patriots, and that when that happens, the tyrants don't give it up willingly, so blood is shed on both sides. Put more simply, he was saying that armed insurrection is inevitable and necessary for liberty to thrive, much as a more conventional tree must be fertilized with manure to make it thrive.
While there may come a day when this does happen and while some members of INGO may choose to be a part of this act of treason against our government, if they do so, it will not be organized here and this website will not be party to such an act. As such, if we see posts that seem to indicate a member attempting to garner support for that type of action, we will remove the member from this board and probably remove the posts as well. Further, we will comply with lawful court orders and subpoenas for any information requested about people involved in such violations of the law.
Make no mistake: The Declaration of Independence that we revere so highly was an act of treason against the British Crown, and every man who signed it understood the full import of his signature on the bottom of it. We Americans view that document as an act of bravery... it goes far beyond that. Re-read it sometime. The final words of it are, "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
The Fate of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence
Does this mean that the administrative and moderation staff of this website wholly support the actions of the country's government? It means no such thing. It means that if there is to be a "revolution" against our current government that happens or is organized here, it will be completely peaceful in nature. This country was founded by men who wanted to give us another course of action outside of death or subjugation.... they succeeded; they gave us the vote. They gave us a Constitution that protects, among other things, our right of free speech from oppression by our government. They spoke of the right, even the duty, to replace a government that turned tyrannical... but they never said that such action was protected.
This website is not a government. This website is the private property of Fenway, who makes it available to us to use. He's chosen a mod team to help him run it, to play "janitor", cleaning up the messes that result when 20,000 people use a place, and to occasionally play "bouncer" and remove those people who just can't seem to follow the few rules he's laid down. He's not willing to have someone take all he envisioned and all that's been built here and have it taken away from him without any regard for that work and without regard for the fact that his own opinions may or may not be sympathetic to that person's words. We do know that this website is read (often) by people at various "alphabet agencies". You may take that as a big hint that such talk is not taken lightly at all.
If you want a website where you can talk about revolution and armed insurrection and the like, you go off and start it yourself. We won't be involved in it. We won't be members there. You can allow and ban whoever you want... and when your servers are seized and your members and you are arrested and jailed, we might hear about you as a blip on the six-o'clock news. We might hear about you again when you're sentenced and headed off to federal PMITA prison.... but I doubt we'll hear about you again. Some of us will be sad for you, but we'll all recognize that you brought that result on yourself.
Meanwhile, we'll be talking here about issues relevant to Indiana gun owners, including how to peacefully address political matters. It's not flashy and showy and it doesn't make fascinating stories to be told to our children or grandchildren, but it is slow and effective when used properly.
Of note, quotes from the Founders and their contemporaries and similar-type posts are likely to be read in the context of the post in which they're written as well as the general context of your posts as a group. If it looks to the staff like you're trying to violate the spirit of this rule, even without violating the letter of it, you are not immune from being banned from this website. We do NOT want to ban anyone, but we prefer that to having the site just up and disappear one day, leaving everyone wondering WTF happened to it.
I hope this helps explain my post and our reasoning behind this thread: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...n/12952-posting_about_inciting_civil_war.html
Blessings,
Bill
Interesting.
thank you for the response. i had heard that line before but didnt put it together. i fully understand Fenway and the mods position and reasoning. and as its Fenways house his rules.
i got a neg rep from a mod once for "inciting revolution" and for the life of me i couldnt figure out why i got it. in that post if i remember right i said something about that i believed revolution was coming eventually if things did not change but that i was not advocating anyone starting it or some kind of disclaimer trying to basically say "i think its gonna happen but i aint gonna start and i'm not encouraging you to" but it was taken wrong or else i wasnt clear. i got the neg rep, its past the 6 months, and its over but sometimes the policy here is vague and hard to know whats exceptable.
thanks
jake
Yes, thanks.
I know there have been abuses that crossed the line of the rule here and there is a heightened sensitivity to some words and phrases, but words like revolution, war, even blood are symbolic of far more than insurrection or attempts to incite such.
I hope that the warnings I see in threads denote the fact that such terms or symbolic discussions of eternal principle have not fallen into an actual zero tolerance catagory.
The American Revolution was never supposed to end. In my attempts to rekindle that spirit in Americans, I have no intent to suggest that actual violent conflict (or promoting such) would be anything short of abject societal failure.
I don't think I tread too closely to this line, certainly not in spirit, but when I look at the nature of some posts that have received warnings or bans, I wonder if the line is becoming obscured.
The word "treason" is defined as making war against one's country or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. If people do that, that's the definition of the crime they will have committed. Even if the government is in the wrong, making war against it is still treason.
I think I remember something about that being mentioned once as something having been said to you, but I don't recall there being a mention of a neg rep. Did you PM the mod who gave it to ask? We tend to react fairly well to someone asking (as you did in this thread), "Hey, I don't understand. Would you please explain what's up here?" (We react to that far better than the string of invective that some people lash out with when something doesn't go their way, anyway!) I've seen mod neg-reps and even infractions removed (and asked for a couple that I've given to be removed also) when, on reflection, they were given in error.
I'm sorry the policies and their enforcement is unclear. Much of it is the spirit of what's said. I'm hesitant to give examples, in part because there are some people who look for any rule and immediately start looking to see just how far they can push it without actually breaking it, kinda like the two kids in the back seat of the car, "I'm not touching yoooooouuuuuu". With that said, using the "tree of liberty" quote (for example) in a post is not, by itself, a problem. When it's combined with the general tone of your posts and leans that direction, you start, for lack of a better term, showing up on our radar. Mod attention isn't always a bad thing, but in that context, it's probably not something you want.
You don't, ATM. In part, that's because many if not all of us know you and recognize your intentions as well as the background you and I share with Appleseed. The intent of that program we both love being part of is that another war such as that our Founders fought will never be necessary; to head it off before it happens and make it unnecessary. You're completely correct that the American Revolution was never supposed to end, and as long as this country survives, it won't. The difference is that the Revolutionary War, that is, the fighting, did end, after eight long and deadly years.
You know as well my stand on zero tolerance; it's a codeword for "zero thinking". I'm not the only person who thinks of it in those terms, of course, and the fact that no one got banned and VUPDBlue even issued a second in-thread warning should clarify that it's far from a ZT issue. (For those who may not know, we sometimes tease VUPDBlue as being a little more eager than some of us to swing the banhammer. To be clear, though, none of us like doing that.) When threads (and sometimes members) start going that direction, we usually either see it ourselves or have someone report it to us as needing a look, and they get discussed at length, in-thread warnings get posted, and on some occasions, a member gets a PM (or an infraction) telling them that they're pushing that limit hard and need to cool it. If it's obvious the member knows and doesn't care and is basically trying to get himself banned, we oblige them. It's never something we want to do, but it goes along with the "janitor"/"bouncer" thing I mentioned.
Getting the sleeping American off the couch, rekindling his fire to be a part of (rather than apart from) the governance of his country, a participant rather than a sheep following the herd or worse, JAFO, those are good goals. If we can guide people to use the soapbox and/or the ballot box, hopefully, the ammo box will never see use other than at the target range.
Blessings,
Bill
Last edited:
I, for one, think that, while these restrictions are ridiculous to law-abiding citizens, there ARE people out there that should never be allowed to even look at a gun. Let alone handle or fire one. For example, when jaredjosh and I went to Popguns a couple weeks ago, we ran into this cab driver that wanted to buy a Judge to keep in his console for self defense. The guy struck me as being a little shifty, if you will, and one of those that struck me as a "we'll read about him one of these days" kind of people. I do think there are people that should not be allowed to have them, for the safety of the general public, but also think that these restrictions posted on the rest of us are ridiculous.
Remman,
Just remember there are people that feel the same way about you; that you shouldn't have a firearm. This is the thinking that got us the laws we have. As we have seen, those people that "should not be allowed to have them" do have them anyway.
This is why decent people need to carry to protect themselves from those who would do wrong with firearms. Even crazy people will think twice about shooting someone if their victim & surrounding others are likely to be armed.
Just remember there are people that feel the same way about you; that you shouldn't have a firearm. This is the thinking that got us the laws we have. As we have seen, those people that "should not be allowed to have them" do have them anyway.
This is why decent people need to carry to protect themselves from those who would do wrong with firearms. Even crazy people will think twice about shooting someone if their victim & surrounding others are likely to be armed.
IN_Sheepdog
Expert
Great explanation on the issue and I personally appreciate the time to fully explain the issue... it is not so easy for you Mods to keep an "eye" on all the forums to keep people from getting overly zealous in their posts. Its similar to my own personal peave about commentary regarding the "use" and people who are not there giving their expert testimony as to what THEY would have done blah blah blah.
It addition to the Gubment looking for the type of posting that may incite more scutiny, members need to always remember that if they ARE involved in a Self Defense shooting of some type, their past posts, even if unrelated are going to be fair game for a zealous prosecutor to blow up to 6 ft poster size in front of a jury with a previous post like, "Oh he deserved it" or "I would have shot them again" etc etc etc...
This is still in many ways a public board and it NEVER goes away...
It addition to the Gubment looking for the type of posting that may incite more scutiny, members need to always remember that if they ARE involved in a Self Defense shooting of some type, their past posts, even if unrelated are going to be fair game for a zealous prosecutor to blow up to 6 ft poster size in front of a jury with a previous post like, "Oh he deserved it" or "I would have shot them again" etc etc etc...
This is still in many ways a public board and it NEVER goes away...
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- Warrior1354
- HKFaninCarmel
- OneBadV8
- cstoltie
- loudgroove
- Meena
- Leadeye
- MAJB Retired
- Johnk
- Onebad06vtx
- dwain
- flint stonez
- eric001
- citizenkane
- Steel and wood
- GunLuver0223
- Living
- DoggyDaddy
- BeDome
- hoosierdaddy1976
- Shadow01
- bocefus78
- bigretic
- MadBomber
- Wolfhound
- Kirk Freeman
- INP8riot
- badmotorscooter
- Indy_Hunter68
- TheSpookyCat
- rbhargan
- pokersamurai
- BlackGun
- mcapo
- KLB
- brdhntr37
- dvd1955
- fireball168
- 00Buck
- Gingerbeardman
- ancjr
- Cameramonkey
- tcecil88
- Seedogg
- CheeseRat
- steelhead
- wildcatfan
- StoneMilker
- Jdubbs
- ibbob