-
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/
No Background Checks
- Thread starter 2A_Tom
- 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:
At the end of the day, it still comes down to this;
"The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the assertion that people have a personal right to firearms for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both."
Driving a car is a privilege.
Owning, bearing, buying, carrying, etc. is a constitutional right.
What part of "right" is so hard to understand ?
....and with this right comes risk. Without this right comes slavery, more than we already endure.
"The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the assertion that people have a personal right to firearms for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both."
Driving a car is a privilege.
Owning, bearing, buying, carrying, etc. is a constitutional right.
What part of "right" is so hard to understand ?
....and with this right comes risk. Without this right comes slavery, more than we already endure.
The Constitution says "shall not be infringed." And it doesn't say "guns" it says "arms".
Extremist gun control advocates think there should be no guns in the hands of private citizens.
They want me to "be reasonable" and "compromise" since the founders could not have envisioned modern weapons.
Fine. I propose we start the debate with the Death Star.
If they can get 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify it then I will accept that.
But it stops then they fail to get 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to go along with them.
That's the right way... the ONLY way to change the Contitution without tyranny and by protecting the minority from the majority.
Extremist gun control advocates think there should be no guns in the hands of private citizens.
They want me to "be reasonable" and "compromise" since the founders could not have envisioned modern weapons.
Fine. I propose we start the debate with the Death Star.
If they can get 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify it then I will accept that.
But it stops then they fail to get 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to go along with them.
That's the right way... the ONLY way to change the Contitution without tyranny and by protecting the minority from the majority.
GeneralCarver
Marksman
I would be for no regulation or background checks if the following conditions in our criminal justice system could be meet..
1. If your convicted of murder you get mandatory capital punishment.
2. STRICT prison sentences. None of this getting out after 4 years from murder or rape. You know, get ride of this nonsense 'catch and release" system we got going.
3. If your released.. you are a 100% citizen again.. ALL rights restored.
4. Legalize drugs. (personally I believe we would stop about 50% of all violent crime if we did this, not to mention eliminate all the drug convictions). Please don't start a drug debate here. Its not my intention, but this is one of the conditions I would want.. so I listed it.
1. If your convicted of murder you get mandatory capital punishment.
2. STRICT prison sentences. None of this getting out after 4 years from murder or rape. You know, get ride of this nonsense 'catch and release" system we got going.
3. If your released.. you are a 100% citizen again.. ALL rights restored.
4. Legalize drugs. (personally I believe we would stop about 50% of all violent crime if we did this, not to mention eliminate all the drug convictions). Please don't start a drug debate here. Its not my intention, but this is one of the conditions I would want.. so I listed it.
I have a serious problem with #1. There have been quite a few cases where innocent people have been convicted of murder (or other capital crimes) and have later been found innocent. Capital punishment removes the chance of innocent people regaining their freedom. Prosecutors are not to be trusted, justice is not what they're seeking.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Ok if you are video taped it is mandatory.
From my understanding the term "blue falcon" is not a compliment. It was understood as "buddy f----r."
blue falcon, I'm not insulting you personally, or insinuating that you are what that term implies to many.
I couldn't disagree with you more on only allowing "proper" people to own and/or carry. You can find this type of system in "may issue" states. It's highly conducive to cronyism, and "pay to play."
blue falcon, I'm not insulting you personally, or insinuating that you are what that term implies to many.
I couldn't disagree with you more on only allowing "proper" people to own and/or carry. You can find this type of system in "may issue" states. It's highly conducive to cronyism, and "pay to play."
So does the public. Someone in the complex here is giving or selling alcohol to my 15 yo. knowing it's wrong. They must know better. I would say no checks. They obviously don't believe in them. It makes it even money.
My dream world of firearm ownership 
:
You have full rights to own and use any firearm (and various accessories, including the deadly barrel shroud) as you will except when incarcerated. Upon release, you are immediately able to purchase and use a firearm as you were able to previously regardless of the reason for imprisonment.
I'm with General Carver regarding the stricter prison sentences...though I would also improve laws pertaining to when I can defend myself from threats in addition to making sure that those threats remain behind bars.
Any person or business who wishes to sell firearms is permitted to without any firearm specific licensing needed. There would be no legal age limit put upon the sale, transfer or trade of any weapon; people are expected to show common sense regarding their sales.
Any business or residence that wishes to may post a sign or other notification barring firearms and other weapons from their property: however, these signs are not legally enforceable beyond the property owner's own demand to remove the offending item or leave.
And, finally...
It is most firmly established (preferably by an additional amendment) that under no circumstances can the government forbid the possession of weapons on any property it owns. This includes public schools and universities, courthouses, public parks, campgrounds and forests in addition to state rallies, parades, voting establishments etc. Again, any private citizen or business can forbid weapons at their residence/building/land/event, but that only permits them to deny service and/or entry to the offending person(s) and a possible charge of trespassing if the offender refuses to leave.
In short, my "firearm dream version of America" would merely be a reversion back to the era when a man could bear a weapon with pride instead of being treated like a criminal for daring to think he could keep himself and his family safe
.
:You have full rights to own and use any firearm (and various accessories, including the deadly barrel shroud) as you will except when incarcerated. Upon release, you are immediately able to purchase and use a firearm as you were able to previously regardless of the reason for imprisonment.
I'm with General Carver regarding the stricter prison sentences...though I would also improve laws pertaining to when I can defend myself from threats in addition to making sure that those threats remain behind bars.
Any person or business who wishes to sell firearms is permitted to without any firearm specific licensing needed. There would be no legal age limit put upon the sale, transfer or trade of any weapon; people are expected to show common sense regarding their sales.
Any business or residence that wishes to may post a sign or other notification barring firearms and other weapons from their property: however, these signs are not legally enforceable beyond the property owner's own demand to remove the offending item or leave.
And, finally...
It is most firmly established (preferably by an additional amendment) that under no circumstances can the government forbid the possession of weapons on any property it owns. This includes public schools and universities, courthouses, public parks, campgrounds and forests in addition to state rallies, parades, voting establishments etc. Again, any private citizen or business can forbid weapons at their residence/building/land/event, but that only permits them to deny service and/or entry to the offending person(s) and a possible charge of trespassing if the offender refuses to leave.
In short, my "firearm dream version of America" would merely be a reversion back to the era when a man could bear a weapon with pride instead of being treated like a criminal for daring to think he could keep himself and his family safe
.GeneralCarver
Marksman
Sad thing about background checks is that that whole system is always a predictor to confiscation. Its end objective is to create a central database of firearms which will precede confiscation.
Last edited:
Indeed. There is no need to know if a law-abiding citizen owns a firearm, or indeed a whole room full of them; they are his property.
[FONT=Arial, serif]I was told to do my homework when I said that when I said that gun crime goes up when guns are outlawed. I was not trying to be controversial, just stating facts that I had read from pretty reliable sources. It took me a while to find the references which I had read.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]I was not saying that people will not pick up a knife or use a bat, to commit a crime. Those types of crimes exist in all areas already, even where gun ownership is lawful and well represented. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Point that I was trying to make is that whereas LIBERALS believe that outlawing guns will stop gun violence but, gun violence actually rises. Why?[/FONT]
ENGLAND
This excerpt from Guy Smith www.gunfacts.comGUN FACTS V5.0,p 10, also linked at JPFO.org
“Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including the 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries.”
“Handguns were used in 3,685 offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%.It is interesting tonote:
• Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of “gun crime.”
• Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.”
AUSTRALIA
A quote from Paul Harvey I received this in an e mail so I don’t have a web link this is a much longer article about gun registration and confiscation. I have excerpted two sentences here.
“[FONT=Arial, serif]In [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Australia’s state of Victoria[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif], [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]homicides with firearms are up 300%[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]! Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” have been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." [/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, serif]It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives, protect children and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.”
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]CHICAGO[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]All you have to do is look at this one in the prospective that it has nearly no residents with the ability to legally carry or even protect their own homes with firearms, but remains the murder capital of the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]After Loughner shot up the town hall meeting in Arizona, I looked up the statistics for gun crimes in Arizona and Chicago and not surprisingly found that year for year gun crimes in the city of Chicago ( no concealed carry permits issued unless you are connected) and in the state of Arizona (no need for a concealed carry permit) run just about even. If my memory serves me correctly there actually were a few more in the state of Arizona than in the city of Chicago. In 2009 the last year that complete statistics were available. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Please believe me that I am not trying to put anyone in their place. If your feelings are hurt, I apologize in advance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]I was not saying that people will not pick up a knife or use a bat, to commit a crime. Those types of crimes exist in all areas already, even where gun ownership is lawful and well represented. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Point that I was trying to make is that whereas LIBERALS believe that outlawing guns will stop gun violence but, gun violence actually rises. Why?[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, serif]First, criminals are more apt to commit crimes where victims do not have the means to resist. [/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, serif]Second, by definition, only [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]criminals have guns[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif], and, will continue to, or begin to use guns in the commission of their crimes.[/FONT]
ENGLAND
This excerpt from Guy Smith www.gunfacts.comGUN FACTS V5.0,p 10, also linked at JPFO.org
“Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including the 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries.”
“Handguns were used in 3,685 offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%.It is interesting tonote:
• Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of “gun crime.”
• Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.”
AUSTRALIA
A quote from Paul Harvey I received this in an e mail so I don’t have a web link this is a much longer article about gun registration and confiscation. I have excerpted two sentences here.
“[FONT=Arial, serif]In [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Australia’s state of Victoria[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif], [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]homicides with firearms are up 300%[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]! Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” have been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." [/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, serif]It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives, protect children and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.”
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]CHICAGO[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]All you have to do is look at this one in the prospective that it has nearly no residents with the ability to legally carry or even protect their own homes with firearms, but remains the murder capital of the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]After Loughner shot up the town hall meeting in Arizona, I looked up the statistics for gun crimes in Arizona and Chicago and not surprisingly found that year for year gun crimes in the city of Chicago ( no concealed carry permits issued unless you are connected) and in the state of Arizona (no need for a concealed carry permit) run just about even. If my memory serves me correctly there actually were a few more in the state of Arizona than in the city of Chicago. In 2009 the last year that complete statistics were available. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Please believe me that I am not trying to put anyone in their place. If your feelings are hurt, I apologize in advance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]
[/FONT]
Last edited:
jmiller676
Master
[FONT=Arial, serif]I was told to do my homework when I said that when I said that gun crime goes up when guns are outlawed. I was not trying to be controversial, just stating facts that I had read from pretty reliable sources. It took me a while to find the references which I had read.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]I was not saying that people will not pick up a knife or use a bat, to commit a crime. Those types of crimes exist in all areas already, even where gun ownership is lawful and well represented. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Point that I was trying to make is that whereas LIBERALS believe that outlawing guns will stop gun violence but, gun violence actually rises. Why?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]I believe I mentioned England, Australia and Chicago as examples. The following are short excerpts quoted with reference to and full acknowledgement of the authors. [/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, serif]First, criminals are more apt to commit crimes where victims do not have the means to resist. [/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, serif]Second, by definition, only [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]criminals have guns[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif], and, will continue to, or begin to use guns in the commission of their crimes.[/FONT]
ENGLAND
This excerpt from Guy Smith www.gunfacts.comGUN FACTS V5.0,p 10, also linked at JPFO.org
“Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including the 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries.”
“Handguns were used in 3,685 offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%.It is interesting tonote:
• Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of “gun crime.”
• Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.”
AUSTRALIA
A quote from Paul Harvey I received this in an e mail so I don’t have a web link this is a much longer article about gun registration and confiscation. I have excerpted two sentences here.
“[FONT=Arial, serif]In [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Australia’s state of Victoria[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif], [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]homicides with firearms are up 300%[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]! Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” have been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." [/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, serif]It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives, protect children and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]CHICAGO[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]All you have to do is look at this one in the prospective that it has nearly no residents with the ability to legally carry or even protect their own homes with firearms, but remains the murder capital of the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]After Loughner shot up the town hall meeting in Arizona, I looked up the statistics for gun crimes in Arizona and Chicago and not surprisingly found that year for year gun crimes in the city of Chicago ( no concealed carry permits issued unless you are connected) and in the state of Arizona (no need for a concealed carry permit) run just about even. If my memory serves me correctly there actually were a few more in the state of Arizona than in the city of Chicago. In 2009 the last year that complete statistics were available. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Please believe me that I am not trying to put anyone in their place. If your feelings are hurt, I apologize in advance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]
How many of those crimes in Arizona were gang related? As in Chicago?
Awful Waffle
Shooter
Whats the point of a background check? The criminals are armed, with or without background checks, with or without "permits," why make it any harder for honest citizens to buy guns?
Site Supporter
Members online
- mike8170
- torque_and_recoil
- ZachJ03
- FredMcIntire
- snapping turtle
- Creedmoor
- tv1217
- ftbstrd
- Aggar
- tca1352
- squeals99
- thunderchicken
- cedarhillfarms11
- Dirtebiker
- BR8818
- dw.watts
- jdadkins87
- rdbs505
- abraham743
- duff
- singlesix
- 15kiserc
- morve80
- tmschuller
- Sc1873
- jsharmon7
- steif
- Leo
- Twade94
- erasure
- Demoderb1989
- Sdiersing
- bwframe
- ChooterMcGavin1973
- cbhausen
- wildcatfan
- Jay40
- indyblue