DK Firearms - Ad

Search results

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!

    • Register Log in
    1. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      Is it sufficient to be allowed to exercise a freedom in a government-sanctioned manner? Should Obergefell have only been allowed to marry who Ohio said was okay to marry? Even if the people of Ohio had absolutely no compelling interest in who he married? Saying that you can marry from a...
    2. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      I'm not saying that the Big Gulp law relies on equal protection. I'm saying that same-sex marriage does, and that applying equal protection elsewhere, but not to marriage, is cherry-picking.
    3. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      I'm against the Big Gulp law, and I'm definitely against banning alcohol. You're mistaking agreeing with the liberals on this one thing, with agreeing with them on everything. Smoking in public, I'm in favor of banning, because it violates a conservative principle of mine: that people are...
    4. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      It shouldn't. I've been vocal in my support of eliminating marriage as a legal concept and replacing it with civil unions for all. But until then, there's no reason to enforce existing law unequally. And yes, saying that only marriages meeting the religious definition are valid is...
    5. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      The 14th: equal protection of the law. If a legal definition of marriage discriminates against a subset of couples, then it's not applied equally.
    6. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      Except that, as I've already pointed out, the Constitution was on the side of Obergefell (as the most recent of the "judicial activism" cases, let's use that for a moment). Going back to a Constitution that doesn't support the equal application of marriage law would require ignoring the 14th...
    7. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      Please. As I've already pointed out, the kind of laws I like are already supported by a Constitutional Amendment. Going back to the day the ink dried is just cherry-picking. If amendments carry the Founders' imprimatur, then so do modern laws and decisions based on those amendments.
    8. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      Whose intent must those amendments reflect? If it's not the Founders, then the Constitution would no longer mean precisely what it did the day the ink dried, and would therefore not meet the standard I'm arguing against.
    9. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      That one side wants to extend inequal protection doesn't mean the other does not fall far short of extending equal protection.
    10. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      If the Constitution must continue to mean what it meant the day its ink dried, then how does one resolve the conflict when an Amendment changes what the Constitution means? Rather than simply asking rhetorically, I'll propose an answer: that's what we have Congress and the courts for.
    11. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      The Constitution already was amended to allow the kind of laws I'd like (14th, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). However, applying the law equally isn't very popular among today's conservatives, in favor of a nostalgic view of the past that...
    12. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      Again, he specifically said "the day the ink dried." Not later. If it wasn't done by the Founders, then it's not expressly within their intent.
    13. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      The United States Constitution, or the constitutions of the individual states? It was left to the states at the time, and the states didn't grant women the right to vote. So, if the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution (incl. the 10th Amendment) as the Founders did at the time, and the...
    14. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      You said "the day its ink dried."
    15. L

      Guys... I Just Don't Get It....

      Because they think it'll work - that it'll reduce gun violence, violent fatalities, etc.. I think they're wrong, but they disagree. I mean, surely some of you have spoken to a liberal, right? Just ask them. There's no need to attribute malicious intent when they're happy to explain what...
    16. L

      Judge Scalia RIP

      So, no more votes for women?
    17. L

      An Open Letter to Donald Trump...

      Yes and no. I learned to shoot around 94-95, but I didn't own them. However, of the firearms in my safe, a whole whopping one of them (an AR-15) would be covered under the AWB. I'm certainly not in favor of a ban (I think it'll be ineffective and difficult to enforce) but I'm not afraid that...
    18. L

      An Open Letter to Donald Trump...

      And if I thought they could actually pull it off, I'd be concerned.
    19. L

      An Open Letter to Donald Trump...

      Wait a sec... so thinking that the government is going to round up people is media-induced paranoia, but thinking that the government is going to round up guns is not? Can I get a little consistency here?
    20. L

      An Open Letter to Donald Trump...

      Because either Trump or Cruz, really. When the Rs find a candidate with a true laser-like focus on jobs, instead of social issues, then I'll be extremely interested in what they have to say. But, the Rs don't need or want my vote, so it's not gonna happen.
    Top Bottom