The fact that you must resort to profanity and yelling just reinforces my point. You, and many others, are in a closed feedback loop. Sorry, I can't help you with that.
-
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/
I know Im probably gonna get some heat for this
- Thread starter Patriot3
- Start date
-
- Tags
- compromise control gun legislation
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:
Nation Fire Arms Act 1934
Gun Control Act 1968
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 1968
Undetectable Firearms 1988
Gun Free Zone Act 1990
Handgun Violence Prevention Act 1993 (Brady Bill)
Federal Assault Weapons Ban 1994-2004
Just the Federal Law.
State Laws would take too long.
Yup. Looks like we're stuck in a closed feedback loop.
Silly us for not listening more, and giving up more.
I'm sure if we just gave up more, they'd have their way, and stop.
Worked for Chamberlain in the 1930s.
The fact that you curiously ignore any proof that your position is patently misguided reinforces our point. Did you read any of the links posted? Did you think about the counter points made to your position? No? So.. Who is "in a closed feedback loop" again?
Who will argue? I will. Seat belts save lives. They cost lives too. None of that matters. I am an adult. I make my own decisions. Seat belt laws are nothing more than another tax on the people and to let us all know what and where our "place" is. People with children should put them in seat belts or get a ticket. Kids do not know better. Adult on the other hand are able to make these decisions without big brother.
Sorry for going off topic. I am just tired of this government trying to tell us how to live.
Sorry for going off topic. I am just tired of this government trying to tell us how to live.
Prime Minister Chamberlain sought a compromise with Adolph Hitler back in the 30's, the famous picture of him getting off a plane waving some papers attesting to the fact that Britain now had nothing to worry about, and they were all safe. How did that work out for the British people?
Points have been shown to you repeatedly, disproving your contention that the 2A is "poorly worded". The phrasing worked just fine for a lot of years; it was only when people who didn't like everyone having the rights of free people that restrictive laws started being passed. Much like marriage licenses were originally conceived of to prevent "the wrong people" from marrying (whether cousins or mixed races or whatever,) "gun licenses" were originally conceived of to prevent the "wrong people" from being armed... that is, it's a restrictive law aimed at disarming a group that had few who at the time would argue they should be armed as everyone else.
In short, by your decision, you are supporting the anti-gunners, which position is most frustrating to those who see what's happening...It's like when a small child continues to ask "Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?" over and over again, and eventually, you, as an adult, answer, "becauseISaidSO!", which is not an answer, but it stops the incessant repetition of the beginning of a child's exploration and curiosity of the world around him... or an equal possibility, the child simply challenging for the sake of seeing how deep that particular rabbit hole goes.
Protesting "Well, *I* wasn't the one who raised a voice and resorted to profanity..." at that point looks a whole lot (to me, at least) like passive-aggressive baiting.
I say this not as a mod, but as a fellow member and participant in the conversation.
Blessings,
Bill
In short, by your decision, you are supporting the anti-gunners, which position is most frustrating to those who see what's happening...It's like when a small child continues to ask "Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?" over and over again, and eventually, you, as an adult, answer, "becauseISaidSO!", which is not an answer, but it stops the incessant repetition of the beginning of a child's exploration and curiosity of the world around him... or an equal possibility, the child simply challenging for the sake of seeing how deep that particular rabbit hole goes.
Protesting "Well, *I* wasn't the one who raised a voice and resorted to profanity..." at that point looks a whole lot (to me, at least) like passive-aggressive baiting.
I say this not as a mod, but as a fellow member and participant in the conversation.
Blessings,
Bill
It doesn't matter how clear the 2A is worded. As long as unelected people in black robes get to tell us what the constitution says, it says what they say it says.
And as far as "compromise" goes, every state has laws against murder, assault, extortion, or most any other harm people might do against each other using firearms. What else would compromise do but to make criminals of people who do no harm?
And as far as "compromise" goes, every state has laws against murder, assault, extortion, or most any other harm people might do against each other using firearms. What else would compromise do but to make criminals of people who do no harm?
I do not know who was the first in this thread to use the worst cuss word in the English language. COM*****SE.
This is the most disingenuous request of progressives. It is pure mental reservation (intellectual mendacity). Their wilful ignorance of the meaning of the word is Immoral.
NEVER COMPROMISE NEVER QIUT.
This is the most disingenuous request of progressives. It is pure mental reservation (intellectual mendacity). Their wilful ignorance of the meaning of the word is Immoral.
NEVER COMPROMISE NEVER QIUT.
Late to the thread, but ^^^^This^^^^
So what exactly have we gained from all these here compromises since the 1930's?
Guns aren't any cheaper...
I didn't get any sort of monetary compensation or discount when I purchased a gun and filled out the 4473...
I can't legally carry a handgun without paying for an LTCH....
I can't buy a Full-Auto/Suppressor/SBR/SBS/AOW without filling out a bunch of paperwork and waiting months on end, with money out of my pocket....
What exactly did we get again?
Guns aren't any cheaper...
I didn't get any sort of monetary compensation or discount when I purchased a gun and filled out the 4473...
I can't legally carry a handgun without paying for an LTCH....
I can't buy a Full-Auto/Suppressor/SBR/SBS/AOW without filling out a bunch of paperwork and waiting months on end, with money out of my pocket....
What exactly did we get again?
Compromise Hell!!!! We should be on the attack. One who only plays defense will lose the war.
I am not willing to compromise any further
femurphy77
Grandmaster
So why would OP exclude M1a's, tactical bolt guns, 10/22's etc just because they could be more easily considered a "sporting" rifle? Semantics, is semantics is semantics! They aren't after your "assault" weapons, they are after all weapons. New Jersey thought they had written a foolproof assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook and even the anti's there say it only accomplished cosmetic changes because their definition of "assault" weapons are purely cosmetic items; collapsible stocks, pistol grips and those pointy things on front that go up.
They are beginning to find out that they are just going to have to come out and say it, they want ALL guns out of the hands of the law abiding public. Tell you what, let's go ahead and "compromise". Lets get rid of the NFA, carry permits, magazine restrictions, etc. ALL restrictions of guns which go against the second amendment. Then in a hundred years or so we'll think about limiting magazine restrictions to nothing over a couple hundred rounds.
That's the way the antis do it, we give up something tangible and they "give" us rhetoric in return and then they ask us to give up something else as it spirals downward. If they really wanted to talk they would first learn fact about the subject matter and not always refer back to "It's for the children!"
They are beginning to find out that they are just going to have to come out and say it, they want ALL guns out of the hands of the law abiding public. Tell you what, let's go ahead and "compromise". Lets get rid of the NFA, carry permits, magazine restrictions, etc. ALL restrictions of guns which go against the second amendment. Then in a hundred years or so we'll think about limiting magazine restrictions to nothing over a couple hundred rounds.
That's the way the antis do it, we give up something tangible and they "give" us rhetoric in return and then they ask us to give up something else as it spirals downward. If they really wanted to talk they would first learn fact about the subject matter and not always refer back to "It's for the children!"
"reply with quote" is just clocking, so in reply to Roadie's comment "The fact that you curiously ignore any proof that your position is patently misguided reinforces our point. Did you read any of the links posted? Did you think about the counter points made to your position? No? So.. Who is "in a closed feedback loop" again?"...
What has been lost in all of the flaming is that I never mentioned agreeing with the original post. I do not, and never have, favored magazine limits, universal background checks, restrictions on scary rifles, etc. - there's no need to convince me on that. What I have objected to is the way that many of the posters think that jumping up and down, yelling, demonizing those who think differently, and/or backing unelectable candidates is going to be effective in making progress on those issues with our fellow citizens who interpret 2A differently. When 4 supreme court justices are hostile to 2A and a substantial portion of the general public feels that limitations will make them safer, we have a problem. Mutual respect and effective communication are needed, and that's not what I'm seeing. If the present forms of communication continue, don't be surprised when ground is lost rather than gained.
What has been lost in all of the flaming is that I never mentioned agreeing with the original post. I do not, and never have, favored magazine limits, universal background checks, restrictions on scary rifles, etc. - there's no need to convince me on that. What I have objected to is the way that many of the posters think that jumping up and down, yelling, demonizing those who think differently, and/or backing unelectable candidates is going to be effective in making progress on those issues with our fellow citizens who interpret 2A differently. When 4 supreme court justices are hostile to 2A and a substantial portion of the general public feels that limitations will make them safer, we have a problem. Mutual respect and effective communication are needed, and that's not what I'm seeing. If the present forms of communication continue, don't be surprised when ground is lost rather than gained.
Last edited:
Well, if you think it's BS regardless of how it's defined, then there's no point in explaining it to you.
searpinski
Expert
This. Universal background checks may seem innocent enough, but it will lead to confiscation. I mean no offense in any way, but I didn't believe this stuff either until I was out of school seeing the real world...
What do Libertarians have to do with this? We aren't into dialogue of any sort that inevitably leads to compromise with people who want us to relinquish our rights. We probably fight and argue for our rights more than anyone else. Including you.
And in another thread Kirk will soon be blasting Libertarians because our standards are just too high and nobody can meet our purity requirements.
Last edited:
