Please read what was in the Indy Star today

[38special]

I believe if we didnt have back ground checks many more criminal who would fail a background check would just walk into a gun store and buy a weapon instead of buying on the black market where they are most likely paying more because someone has to make some profit along the way.

And? So he kills a guy for $300 instead of $400. Either way, he got the gun and killed a guy. Background checks won't stop him or even barely stifle him.

That said, I don't agree with the premise. A large number of guns on the street are stolen so the seller can sell CHEAPER as they have virtually no investment.

If we make it easier for them, then yes we can assume it will have an effect.

Nope...you don't assume it will make crime rise. You look at hard evidence and there is no evidence showing that easier access to guns makes crime rise. The evidence just isn't there. Making assumptions won't get us anywhere.

 

[dburkhead]

BTW, background checks are fairly low on my list of priorities for removing "gun control." A much higher priority (right after resisting further encroachments on RKBA) is Indiana's guns on schools/school property/day care/child care ministries/anyplace having a school function/etc. Next is complete State preemption. Next is the GOPA '86 provision used to prevent registration of new Automatic weapons. Then maybe go after NFA '34.

Smaller goals along the way include such things as the Indyparks restrictions.

 

[slow1911s]

Here's the author's response to my email to him, save one sentence where he apologized for offending me:

I stand by the column's depiction of the dangerous weaponry
sold and the dangerously racist statements and symbols I
witnessed there. I don't doubt that you and other attendees
at these shows are law-abiding and nonviolent, so perhaps
you can prevail upon the organizers to police the forum so
as to remove the hateful and reckless elements present
there.

Kind regards,

Fran Quigley

 

[USMC_0311]

I agree with you when you say. Hell I agree with everthing you say.

"The root philosophy and what I believe are politically achievable are two different things."

I am interested in what is politcally acheivable, sorry I did not make that clear. I like your perfect world much better. I can handle protection for my family and myself so if a criminal wants to try to bring it on. Thats why I said I don't care about crime rates.

How about my idea of a list or a database of who can't have a gun. I know any system is prone to human error and corruption. Any thoughts?

 

[USMC_0311]

A much higher priority (right after resisting further encroachments on RKBA) is Indiana's guns on schools/school property/day care/child care ministries/anyplace having a school function/etc.

I bet we agree on this one.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Good for you for writing and getting a response. I didn't bother because it was apparent to me that he didn't care about facts, logic, or rights. He wants two things done. First, removal of the dangerous weapons present. I wonder if he wants the guns removed from the gun show, the knives, or the thermonuclear weapons sold by the candied nut people. Second he wants the racist statements and symbols removed. It seems odd that a liberal ACLU person would have such low value for the first amendment right of freedom of speech and association.

Really we should stop trying to change the minds of people like Fran. It won't happen, one of us is too stupid to make the change happen. We're better off dispelling such stupidity and working to get balanced press on the topic that shows a true light of what is going on at shows like this.

Here's the author's response to my email to him, save one sentence where he apologized for offending me:

 

[dburkhead]

I agree with you when you say. Hell I agree with everthing you say.

"The root philosophy and what I believe are politically achievable are two different things."

I am interested in what is politcally acheivable, sorry I did not make that clear. I like your perfect world much better. I can handle protection for my family and myself so if a criminal wants to try to bring it on. Thats why I said I don't care about crime rates.

How about my idea of a list or a database of who can't have a gun. I know any system is prone to human error and corruption. Any thoughts?

Okay, on that respect, I don't think eliminating, or even modifying (in a good way) background checks falls into the politically achievable at this time. While I agree with the end goals of some of the "all or nothing" folk, I think picking around the edges to make some cracks to work on will be more effective. It won't be a short fight and it won't be without setbacks (we just had a big one). And, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure we'll "win" in the long run. I think we can, but it's far from a sure thing. History is full of cases of the "good guys" losing and tyrants and empires settling in for nice long reigns. Truth is, tyranny and oppression seem to be the natural state of mankind.

But, win or lose, freedom is worth working for and worth fighting for. And even if the end result is "lose" perhaps the effort itself can serve as inspiration for a future generation throwing off their bands of tyranny.

 

[USMC_0311]

But, win or lose, freedom is worth working for and worth fighting for. And even if the end result is "lose" perhaps the effort itself can serve as inspiration for a future generation throwing off their bands of tyranny.

I like that may use it as a signature line. When I grow tired of the one I am using.

 

[NateIU10]

Finally broke down and emailed the man, wanted to give me some time to cool off first .

I made it poignantly clear that people are free to purchase memorabilia as they please, as collectors or modern day Nazi's, and they have that right, and that as a Jewish male, I have no problem with that.

 

[skydelta34]

Here's the author's response to my email to him, save one sentence where he apologized for offending me:

I stand by the column's depiction of the dangerous weaponry
sold and the dangerously racist statements and symbols I
witnessed there. I don't doubt that you and other attendees
at these shows are law-abiding and nonviolent, so perhaps
you can prevail upon the organizers to police the forum so
as to remove the hateful and reckless elements present
there.

Kind regards,

Fran Quigley

Wow, it is amazing that this guys solution is protect your second amendment rights by stomping all over someone else's first amendment rights. I am not going to remove the gentleman that Quigley references just because of what he said, if you dont like what the guy said, dont buy from him. If you ask me, Quigley and his ilk are far worse than anybody they encountered at the gun show, their solution is to rid individuals of their rights.

 

[NateIU10]

Well, looks like this ass hat is just sending out the same form email to everyone that emails him:

My first email:

Mr. Quigley,

As a firearms enthusiast, a student and a Jewish male, I have serious problems with the
way you portray the Indianapolis 1500. First of all, you feel the need to sensationalize
the types of weapons sold there and the prices (which there is no way you saw for those
three weapons.) Why? Was it out of ignorance of firearms or in order to scare your
reader? Either way, you have the duty as a journalist, and a lawyer, to fact check, and
you sir, failed miserably at that. Why would you sensationalize the Nazi memorabilia?
People seem to forget that remembering our history is important, and no matter what, we
fought the Nazi's. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. If someone wants
Nazi memorabilia as a way to remember history, or as a way to decorate their house
because they hate Jews, I don't have a problem with that. They have those rights. I
have been to the 1500 multiple times. Do you have any firearm owning friends? They are
honestly some of the nicest, most down to earth people you will ever meet, and to
classify us as just old, white racists is completely asinine sir. You like to point out
the tragic instances of people dying by firearm, but you leave out all mention of any of
the 1-2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year. Your sensationalism is not only
wrong, but it is downright malicious. The 1500 is in no way "a forum for the fringes of
hate and the merchants of violent death."

Thank You

His response (form letter):

I stand by the column's depiction of the dangerous weaponry
sold and the dangerously racist statements and symbols I
witnessed there. I don't doubt that you and other attendees
at these shows are law-abiding and nonviolent, so perhaps
you can prevail upon the organizers to police the forum so
as to remove the hateful and reckless elements present
there.

Kind regards,

Fran Quigley

My response to that:

Sir,
Did you even read the response I sent you, or did you just reply with the same form
letter because you cannot respond to the points I addressed?

Nathan

 

[38special]

How about my idea of a list or a database of who can't have a gun. I know any system is prone to human error and corruption. Any thoughts?

I like that a lot better, and I do believe it's logistically possible through the very highspeed internet we have these days (as far as updating the list, etc)

 

[smokingman]

I am going to send a letter(yes snail mail) to his editor.Then I am going to cancel my star morning paper. Idiots who let the ignorant spew half truths and propaganda get none of my money. It is people like this who know nothing and have probably never handled much less owned a fire arm in there life,who would still have me bowing to the queen.Sheeple...baaaahhh baaahhhh. I am a free man,in a free county. Won with,defended with,firearms and the blood of free men. When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour. George Washington

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. -- Daniel Webster, in a speech on 3 June, 1834

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,deserve neither liberty or safety. Benjamin Franklin

Freedom is not free.

I have decided that we should do more.Is there any way we can get an online petition sent to them with membership signing it? Guess we need an IT guy...I would defiantly sign it.I did send my letter,but one letter has much less meaning than 1600 people signing something.

 

[Tommy2Tone]

He sent me that same message too. Probable has 100's of emails. Hope our point was made.

 

[NateIU10]

He sent me that same message too. Probable has 100's of emails. Hope our point was made.

If he read them, it's still unlikely. He'll just write us off as right-winged gun nuts

 

[Bill of Rights]

Let me make this clear. I do not like having a background check ran on me every time I want to buy a gun. That said and I am only asking, how we stop convicted felons from buying guns if we have no back ground check. Maybe this is another topic for a different thread (mods feel free). I know everyone hear knows one person that has no business owning a gun. I have asked this question before and I don't get good answers. What I get is responses like these.



And this one



While these are great post with valid points they don’t answer the simple question. How do we prevent the people who have no business owning a gun from buying one if a background check is not legal? You know there out there. This has got to be answered before we can really justify no checks.

Here's your answer: When they have no business buying a gun, keep them locked up. If they're not locked up, they can buy whatever they have money to pay for.
Simply put, even a former felon does not "have no business owning a gun", because IF that person has honestly decided to go straight, it is very likely when he gets out, he may not live in the best of neighborhoods. Why should he be denied the use of an effective tool of self-defense, so long as he is not using it in a crime? In short, "preventative law enforcement" pretends to predict the future based on the past. With all things identical, this is not difficult to do, but not all things are identical. Maybe our former armed robber got a good look down the barrel of a .44. Maybe he fathered a child and decided that he should clean up his act and be a good example to his kid. Maybe any number of things, but the point is that he's not necessarily the same guy. Further, not every felon is a hardened criminal. Were we safer when Ollie North was listed as a felon and couldn't be armed? Are we safer because G. Gordon Liddy can't own guns? Are we at less risk with Martha Stewart or Ivan Boesky helpless? Ths system as it is now is designed to force the former criminal back into crime. He can't get a job, he can't defend himself, he can't vote... In short, he's a sub-citizen, with no hope of improvement.

I'm no apologist for them. I think that if they're a risk, keep them locked up or just execute them, but when they get out, it's not like they're really disarmed. They'll get the guns they want anyway. If not, they'll get a knife, an iron pipe, a candlestick, or a wrench. Barring all else, they could just pick up a rock. Control the criminals. Everything else is just window dressing... or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Blessings,
B

 

[USMC_0311]

Here's your answer: When they have no business buying a gun, keep them locked up. If they're not locked up, they can buy whatever they have money to pay for.
Simply put, even a former felon does not "have no business owning a gun", because IF that person has honestly decided to go straight, it is very likely when he gets out, he may not live in the best of neighborhoods. Why should he be denied the use of an effective tool of self-defense, so long as he is not using it in a crime? In short, "preventative law enforcement" pretends to predict the future based on the past. With all things identical, this is not difficult to do, but not all things are identical. Maybe our former armed robber got a good look down the barrel of a .44. Maybe he fathered a child and decided that he should clean up his act and be a good example to his kid. Maybe any number of things, but the point is that he's not necessarily the same guy. Further, not every felon is a hardened criminal. Were we safer when Ollie North was listed as a felon and couldn't be armed? Are we safer because G. Gordon Liddy can't own guns? Are we at less risk with Martha Stewart or Ivan Boesky helpless? Ths system as it is now is designed to force the former criminal back into crime. He can't get a job, he can't defend himself, he can't vote... In short, he's a sub-citizen, with no hope of improvement.

I'm no apologist for them. I think that if they're a risk, keep them locked up or just execute them, but when they get out, it's not like they're really disarmed. They'll get the guns they want anyway. If not, they'll get a knife, an iron pipe, a candlestick, or a wrench. Barring all else, they could just pick up a rock. Control the criminals. Everything else is just window dressing... or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Blessings,
B

I have often thought about that too (those that are rehabilitated). You bring up good points; I am beginning to get a better understanding of your position. Now what can we acheive politcally, any thoughts?

 

[Bill of Rights]

We all ready know criminal and felons will get there gun illegally. With no background check that just makes it easier for them to get them. We might as well issue them a gun. They do work, I have seen many felons be turned down, and it happens everyday. Yes they may be able to go somewhere else but they did get stopped once. Really, without background checks you are proposing something like the early days of the Wild West. While that sounds cool if we make it easier for them we are really putty our society in greater jeopardy. As much as I love my right to bear arms I all so respect those who choose not too as long as they don't infringe on my right.

I don’t have the great answer but I do know if we stop background checks a lot more felons and criminals will have more guns. That is not a good thing.

"Wild West"? C'mon, USMC, you can do better than that. See, the Wild West wasn't nearly the lawless anarchy Hollywood has made it out to be. The crimes were caused, in large part, by the young guys coming into town to drink and spend cattle-driving money. Impulse control at those young ages wasn't any more developed then than it is now, it seems. Adding alcohol into the mix only worsened the problem, of course, but in spite of that, the "shootouts in the street" were very rare. The criminals may buy more guns, true, but why would they go to a FFL dealer to do so when buying it from someone who stole it from someone's house or car is much cheaper? In addition, prior to the GCA '68, guns could be bought in a hardware store or mail order. Crime was lower, not higher. If "gun control" was the cure, that would not be true. Argue it all you like, "gun control" in any form only restricts the freedoms of those who obey the law.

Blessings,
B

 

[USMC_0311]

Man you need to catch up Bill....I already conceded to your way of thinking.

 

[USMC_0311]

Now if we can get you to put as much time and effort in to our grass roots effort here https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...uture_awb_then_get_your_butt_in_here_now.html as you do in your post.
We might really accomplish something.