So you're proposing that these are not our rights at all? Otherwise, how by this logic do you explain IL, CA, and Washington DC?If there is a risk of them being taken from you by the masses without you doing anything illegal to prohibit yourself, then they are not rights that you even currently possess.
And if you don't possess them now, how could you ever lose them in the future?
If you can't lose them in the future, what is there to worry about now?
-
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/
This is going to pi$$ off a lot of people, but
- Thread starter mrortega
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
You'll shoot your eye out
Master
- Jan 21, 2011
- 1,781
- 48
OH MY GOD! you have me SO PI$$ED OFF!!! (just kidding) I think that in our relatively peaceful society carrying a long gun for protection is completely unnecessary. A rifle is unwieldy and over powered for everyday protection. If a guy is beyond pistol range then you probably shouldn't be shooting at him yet. I know that there could be a circumstance where a person might wish that he had a rifle, but that would be fairly rare. If we lived in Israel for instance, things could be different.
I agree that dragging a rifle around "Just 'cause I can!" is counterproductive. I also believe in the "slippery slope" theory. We have already lost the right to carry freely (must have ltch), and to own and/or carry full auto. (without tax stamp) and to have a suppressor (without tax stamp). There are others too. These things were lost because public pressure allowed these violations of 2A rights. WE are already on the slippery side.
No, people shouldn't pack rifles on a daily basis. No, carrying rifles should not be legislated. Yes, common sense should be practiced at all (at least most) times. Unfortunately it's impossible to legislate common sense being demonstrated while carrying a firearm without walking all over ALL of us.
We discuss oc/cc here until we are sick of it for the very reason. People are struggling with what it means to carry with common sense. Carrying a rifle should be the same. Discuss it ad nauseam until you feel confident in a position and then practice your decisions. If you are ridiculous then somebody just can't wait to tell you so.
I agree that dragging a rifle around "Just 'cause I can!" is counterproductive. I also believe in the "slippery slope" theory. We have already lost the right to carry freely (must have ltch), and to own and/or carry full auto. (without tax stamp) and to have a suppressor (without tax stamp). There are others too. These things were lost because public pressure allowed these violations of 2A rights. WE are already on the slippery side.
No, people shouldn't pack rifles on a daily basis. No, carrying rifles should not be legislated. Yes, common sense should be practiced at all (at least most) times. Unfortunately it's impossible to legislate common sense being demonstrated while carrying a firearm without walking all over ALL of us.
We discuss oc/cc here until we are sick of it for the very reason. People are struggling with what it means to carry with common sense. Carrying a rifle should be the same. Discuss it ad nauseam until you feel confident in a position and then practice your decisions. If you are ridiculous then somebody just can't wait to tell you so.
No, I believe they are my right and I will exercise and possess that right as I wish without fear of what the masses wish to do or even think they can do to strip it from me.
If I feared the masses, I would only in practice be exercising a privilege and should certainly beware not to upset their irrational feelings.
Just picking on your wording and playing out the logic that could follow.
I Agree with this. Over the years rights and common sense seem to buck heads. Rights should always win out, but at what cost? I think many times a mixture of rights and common sense needs to be used with common sense winning the battle and rights winning the war.
I understand, but do you not believe it to be not only feasible but possible or likely? I mean, look at all the "we need more gun control" crap that came out of the CO incident. Do you not think that if enough people in a certain area carrying long guns and causing a stir could potentially if not likely cause an attempt at further restrictive legislation? I think so, enough to not push the boundaries too much.No, I believe they are my right and I will exercise and possess that right as I wish without fear of what the masses wish to do or even think they can do to strip it from me.
If I feared the masses, I would only in practice be exercising a privilege and should certainly beware not to upset their irrational feelings.
Just picking on your wording and playing out the logic that could follow.
The "public opinion" is enough to cripple huge businesses, much less affect our rights. ie IL, CA, and DC
I don't necessarily "fear" the masses/public, but I understand the potential ramifications of my actions while in the public eye and choose to not give those opposed to my rights any more "ammunition" for their cause.
When a person carries a pistol, its holstered which is some factor of safety as in at least the trigger is covered and it is somewhat difficult for an antagonist to gain control of the weapon.
When people talk about carrying a rifle, how are they carrying it? Just slung over the shoulder?
When people talk about carrying a rifle, how are they carrying it? Just slung over the shoulder?
I think a much better question is, "How does the general public become educated on the real concepts of freedom"?
Concept 1) A certain subset of free people may do actions which harm no one, but the majority of people don't like. Tough.
Concept 2) The small minority that abuse freedom does not mean that the rest of us must give up our freedoms.
Concept 1) A certain subset of free people may do actions which harm no one, but the majority of people don't like. Tough.
Concept 2) The small minority that abuse freedom does not mean that the rest of us must give up our freedoms.
No, I don't think it's likely. If they can't seem to even wring a bit of knee-jerk legislation out of the outrage of multiple murders, how on earth will they become successful just based on a mild stir against peaceful and lawful carry?
I don't know about the constitutions of those other states and I don't live there, but I doubt I would have tolerated such infringement if I did.
And those opposed to my rights are not capable of wielding any ammunition I could give them for any cause.
No worries here.
That's true. The media's attempted legislation push really just hit a brick wall this time around, LOL. Every poll out there showed AT LEAST 60%+ in against more gun laws.No, I don't think it's likely. If they can't seem to even wring a bit of knee-jerk legislation out of the outrage of multiple murders, how on earth will they become successful just based on a mild stir against peaceful and lawful carry?
I don't know about the constitutions of those other states and I don't live there, but I doubt I would have tolerated such infringement if I did.
And those opposed to my rights are not capable of wielding any ammunition I could give them for any cause.
No worries here.
A sign of winning at the moment.
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
I guess we'll talk about this again after my hearing before the ISP in one week (Aug. 30), where I'm supposed to show that I do not have a record that would give rise to a reasonable belief that I have a propensity for violence or emotionally unstable conduct, for standing up to two woefully miseducated THPD officers in my own back yard..Sure, that's feasible. However, that is rarely seen or the cause of carrying. I would tend to think that if they weren't able to receive their LTCH then they are probably not legal in owning a firearm at all (felon).
I've known of guys who had committed various, serious crimes but were not convicted of felonies and were able to obtain their LTCH within recent years. I also have known felon(s) who are not legally permitted to own a gun at all. So, based on my own experience I would have to assume that theory to be relatively accurate.
I'm not saying that there AREN'T those who cannot obtain a LTCH and may still have a gun, but I think they would be a small minority and very rare. In which case, it would indeed be acceptable IMO. It's not MY opinion we need to worry about though.
There is of course a line to be drawn between what's socially acceptable. That line however, is open to interpretation and it's not fellow gun owners we need to worry about. It's those who don't even find carrying a pistol acceptable we should concern ourselves with. If they cannot even get past a pistol on a citizens hip, what will their perception of strangers carrying around "assault rifles" result in?
I'm the LAST person to truly "care" about other's feelings, to be honest. That said, I'm not willing to risk my gun rights in the name of "activisim" and the ignorance of the masses.
A close friend of mine had to go through the appeal process, but his was approved after merely sending a letter in explaining the situation around his record. Which he was never convicted of anything, so I don't understand how it had any affect on his LTCH process.I guess we'll talk about this again after my hearing before the ISP in one week (Aug. 30), where I'm supposed to show that I do not have a record that would give rise to a reasonable belief that I have a propensity for violence or emotionally unstable conduct, for standing up to two woefully miseducated THPD officers in my own back yard..
Why dont we ban fat and ugly people from public too. They offend my sense of aesthetics. People with large tattoos are also "threatening" lets make them cover that up as well.
Hmm what other arbitrary things can we ban? Lets ban sagging in public and talking on your cell phone while walking too......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFk-PwWJkxc
Hmm what other arbitrary things can we ban? Lets ban sagging in public and talking on your cell phone while walking too......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFk-PwWJkxc
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
This is not an appeal. I had my LTCH. After I was arrested, it got suspended. Now, I have to jump through even more hoops than I already did to get it, in order to get it back.
I understand the premise and completely agree, however when talking about the "anti" community we're not necessarily dealing with people who have logic, common sense, etc. Additionally, tattoos, pants, and fat people don't pose a threat to their lives (speaking from their frame of mind).
AHHH....Have you sought advice from an attorney, or simply navigating the hoops yourself?
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
I have a criminal attorney for the arrest fol-der-ol, and am still waiting to hear back from Guy Relford for my civil suit. My criminal attorney is a little... busy. He's a single practitioner, not a partner. Not sure if he'll be able to accompany me or not, but being that I've got documentation of my reasonableness (read: sanity), and am intimately familiar with the case law surrounding my charges, I think I can afford (competency and financially) to fly solo if need be.
Site Supporter
Members online
- squeals99
- ftbstrd
- thunderchicken
- cedarhillfarms11
- Dirtebiker
- ZachJ03
- BR8818
- dw.watts
- jdadkins87
- abraham743
- rdbs505
- duff
- Aggar
- singlesix
- 15kiserc
- morve80
- tmschuller
- Sc1873
- tca1352
- jsharmon7
- steif
- Leo
- Twade94
- erasure
- mike8170
- Demoderb1989
- Sdiersing
- bwframe
- ChooterMcGavin1973
- cbhausen
- wildcatfan
- Jay40
- indyblue
- SolidDragon74
- vitamink
- 1775usmarine
- grillak
- Nickbau5
- jbombelli
- loudgroove
- maceace
- JoeSig
- ancjr
- markiemark