Please read what was in the Indy Star today

[96harley]

Mine was sent back. It didn't even make it. I tried a second time and got it back.

Nate......Good letter.

 

[NateIU10]

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.

I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong Bill, but Bill has testified before the Indiana Senate having to pertain to our firearms rights. Again, I could be totally mis-remembering.

Mine was sent back. It didn't even make it. I tried a second time and got it back.

Nate......Good letter.

thanks

 

[USMC_0311]

I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong Bill, but Bill has testified before the Indiana Senate having to pertain to our firearms rights. Again, I could be totally mis-remembering.



thanks

Thats cool. But I know he has more to say and do. He is very talented it would be nice to work with him on this grass roots effort. He can't do it all by him self.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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?

First, I'd like to apologize for any sarcasm in my last post. It was written before I saw that you were really trying to see a different point of view. Mea culpa.

What can we achieve politically? As David said, insofar as background checks (BGCs), probably nothing at present. That's federal, and it's been said many times, "all politics is local". To that end, though, we address the state level, and here, we can shine. How? I've told the story several times on here of the last legislative session, in which Sen. Johnny Nugent introduced a bill that would have removed any state-level "gun-free zone" except for penal facilities and duplicating the federal restriction on sterile areas at airports. That bill was culled down a little and reintroduced a couple of times. The latter one still permitted private schools to make GFSZs and also was amended in committee to cover courthouses, too, but it came within a single vote of passing the Senate and moving to the House.
We can push for full pre-emption. We can push for making the publishing of our LTCH info, either from the LTCH or the application, a criminal act. We can push for unlicensed OC. All of these things exist in some places, and at least the first two will come before the legislature again this term, one in the House and the other in the Senate. It is up to us to make sure our legislators know that there are at least 1500 people who want to see restrictions removed, not increased. Personally, I'd love to see Indiana get a Brady grade of 0 next time. (we erroneously got an 8 last time, which should have been a 6- 2 for a state license to sell guns, 2 for workplaces not being forced to allow guns in the parking lot, 2 for not having Castle doctrine, which they call a "shoot first law"-and yes, we have one) and I forget what the other 2 were for.)
What it's going to come down to is for all of us to make our voices heard. Some will write letters, some will call, some will email... If I know when it will be, I'll go down and testify for one of those bills again like I did before, in person. Some of us will do all of these things, but all of us must do some of these things or we may end up with "encoded ammunition" bills and state level AWBs that will do nothing but increase crime. One does not protect innocent people by disarming them. You know this. Our legislators need to know this. It's up to us to make that happen.

Blessings,
B

 

[Bill of Rights]

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

You're right. That's what I get for typing more slowly than I think and for trying to multi-task. Sorry for the sarcasm.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[USMC_0311]

No apology needed I enjoyed your post!!!
I would love to go down to and support your testimony. I am not a great speaker but a large presence couldn't hurt. How do you find out when these things happen? Is there a schedule or website to follow?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong Bill, but Bill has testified before the Indiana Senate having to pertain to our firearms rights. Again, I could be totally mis-remembering.



thanks

I did. I'll be honored if I have the chance to go do it again, too.

Thats cool. But I know he has more to say and do. He is very talanted it would be nice to work with him on this grass roots effort. He can't do it all by him self.

Shucks, USMC... you're gonna give me a swelled head.

Thank you. I appreciate the kind words. I want to our state to essentially tell the Obamanation that our rights come first and their powers come from us, not the other way around. I want them to get their AWB and use it to "go pound sand". My country is still spelled with a C, not a K, and I aim to keep it that way. I'd be happy to work with you, and indeed, with anyone, toward these goals.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

No apology needed I enjoyed your post!!!
I would love to go down to and support your testimony. I am not a great speaker but a large presence couldn't hurt. How do you find out when these things happen? Is there a schedule or website to follow?

I got my info as to the "when" from Jim and Margie Tomes, of 2nd Amendment Patriots, the group primarily responsible for spearheading the Lifetime LTCH. They have regular contact with Sen. Nugent and Rep. Walorski, among others, and Sen. Nugent told them the day it was to be heard in committee. There is a schedule, yes, but at the moment, I don't recall where I found it on the in.gov/legislative site. When I get more info (the bills aren't even posted yet) I'll pass it on here.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SavageEagle]

Glock 23 fully automatic pistols, Uzi nine millimeters, Colt 44 magnum Anacondas. Some cost less than $100...

HOLY SHEET!!!! I'm making BANK that the Gun Show!!! I got $600, I think I could make my money back, whatta you think?

 

[Joe Williams]

Three words.

Ignorant dumb ass.

He is neither ignorant, nor dumb. The manner in which he uses Goebbel's like tactics and language to describe the gun show, his use of language, the facts he did choose to portray accurately show that he is not ignorant. He knows what he is talking about. That he then goes on to talk about $100 fully automatic Glock 23s shows that he is willing to deliberately depart from the truth to smear guns, gun ownership, and the exercise of Constitutional rights in as ugly a light as possible. Those whom he seeks to convince are ignorant, and perhaps dumb. He is neither. He is a smart, conniving enemy, a man who plays fast and loose with the facts, judging by this article, but to dismiss him and other enemies of Constitutional rights as ignorant or dumb is a mistake.

 

[Joe Williams]

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.

I am getting the impression that you think background checks somehow prevent felons from getting guns. How, then, do you explain the cold hard fact that felons keep getting guns, even in states where one cannot conduct even private handgun transfers without a background check? Pennsylvania, where I just came from, requires a trip to the FFL if one wishes to sell guns to other someone else. Yet, folks in Philthydelphia are still killing each other at the rate of more than one a day. One cop got blown away at a donut shop (the stereotype would be amusing, except the man did get killed trying to stop an armed robbery), and calls for more background checks and gun control predictably followed. Not mentioned by supporters of background checks was that they wouldn't have stopped the crime. The gun the bad guy used was stolen. From his mother. A cop.

There are simply no statistics that support the theory that background checks stop crime. Criminals continue to get guns the way they always have. They steal them, or get them on the black market. Much like laws requiring gun registration (which the courts have held do not apply to felons because it violate 5th Amendment rights), background checks are a placebo for people hoping bad guys and crime can be made to go away with a gesture.

The cold hard facts are that you cannot stop bad guys from getting guns. Ever. No way, no how. Ban all guns, confiscate them, and bad guys will still have them. You cannot stop criminals from committing crimes, it's that simple. The solution is to punish them for possessing guns. Federal law provides for 5 years no parole federal time for possessing a gun during a crime, yet local prosecutors REFUSE to refer the cases. Answer why that is, make them punish criminals, and stop punishing the law abiding with laws that prevent no crimes.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
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.

Real world facts simply don't back up that claim.

Perhaps you can support it, with actual facts and numbers?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

Would a list or database of felons that a dealer could cross reference before selling a gun work better. There would be no background check on us law abiding citizens then. If we are not on the list then no problem.

Well.... I've never actually thought of that, and it's an excellent idea, IMHO! It goes after folks who have been determined to have lost their rights, it does not give the govnerment information they should not be getting, and it would likely actually have some hope of being effective.

Better yet, it could be made available to the public at large, so we could make sure the private transaction we are engaged in won't put a gun in the hands of a bad guy.

 

[USMC_0311]

I am getting the impression that you think background checks somehow prevent felons from getting guns.

Not really my thinking at all. I know background checks don't stop felons from buying guns allthough it would stop them from buying from a FFL dealer. In todays political climate its a tough sale to the left that background checks don't work. If we want to get rid of the background checks we are going to have to give them (the left) something. I agree with everyhting else in your post.

 

[USMC_0311]

Real world facts simply don't back up that claim.

Perhaps you can support it, with actual facts and numbers?

Can you provide actual facts and numbers to prove otherwise?
I don't base my statement on any stats, I don't know of any. My statement is from my own version of common sense. It is really that simple. If the door is wide open then no need to bust it down. If no checks required then yes it is easier for felons to get them. Would stats eventually back that up? Who knows, I put little value in polls and stats because they can be weighted and biased.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

Real world facts simply don't back up that claim.

Perhaps you can support it, with actual facts and numbers?

Basic common sense says that if background checks stopped altogether in this country.. more felons would obtain firearms illegally.

No need to check facts or statistics on that one.

 

[Joe Williams]

Basic common sense says that if background checks stopped altogether in this country.. more felons would obtain firearms illegally.

No need to check facts or statistics on that one.

Actually, we have stats available from both before, and after, background checks became law. Those figures tend to indicate that the number of felons stopped by background checks is statistically insignificant.

But, no need to actually check facts and dig out the truth, I reckon.

 

[ATM]

Are there felons out there who want guns that can't get them? Are there any that are waiting to buy them (just as illegally) from an FFL? Why would more felons get more guns than they currently do?

 

[USMC_0311]

Are there felons out there who want guns that can't get them?

LOL HELL YES

Are there any that are waiting to buy them (just as illegally) from an FFL? Why would more felons get more guns than they currently do?

Don't read more into this then there is. I never said "more" or "there would be an increase" of them buying guns.

Ok, say tommarow you wake up and the background check is gone. Do you think any felons will try to go buy a gun from an FFL?

Thats what you have to overcome to have any chance of repealing the background check.

I don't like the background check either. I would much rather see a database of felons that could be crossed referenced. To think we could get them to drop the check without something else to give them is a fantasy. You can debate and throw around stats all you want the left does not deal in facts they are all about the preception.

 

[USMC_0311]

Actually, we have stats available from both before, and after, background checks became law. Those figures tend to indicate that the number of felons stopped by background checks is statistically insignificant.

But, no need to actually check facts and dig out the truth, I reckon.

He did not base his statement on facts. He simply stated "common sense" way of thinking. I know we all are on the same side on this, nobody hear likes the BC. You tell us about these facts and what they indicate. You say they are insignificant. I guess we take your word for it. Like I said its all in the interpetation.