Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard Takes Aim at Second Amendment

[Lex Concord]

Well, I finally got a "prompt" reply (2 weeks...it is government) from Mayor Ballard regarding my E-mail about his veto promise...

A form response, to be sure:

Dear Mr. Concord:

Thank you for taking the time to share your comments regarding firearms in city parks.

I firmly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, but I will not be seeking a modification to the law that has been on the books for over 30 years.

I have committed to the citizens of Indianapolis that public safety is and will continue to be job one. There is no separating the impact public safety has on the betterment of our city.
However, I am comfortable with the gun laws as they are now and do not desire to expand or contract their current use.
Best regards,



Gregory A. Ballard
Mayor
City of Indianapolis

Interesting...while the font differences weren't visible in my E-mail client, upon pasting here they were picked up...thus outlining the core of the mail merge.

 

[kludge]

^^^ BWAHAHAHA ^^^

Got the same letter. The font difference was there in my e-mail client.

My new reply...

Dear Mayor Ballard,

Support requires actions, not words. So I ask you to reconsider your position and support the proposition that would remove the gun ban that prevents people with handgun licenses to carry in city parks.

The Constitution, which you claim to support, which you took an oath to defend as a Marine has been "on the books" far longer than the city ordinance. Just because a law has been on the books for 30 years does not make it a good one. Perhaps you recall the doctrine of "separate but equal"?

When you speak of public safety, it is MY safety that you speak of, and MY civil rights, and denying the natural right of self defense to the citizens of your community does far more damage to actual safety that any number of laws that pretend to provide safety, but that feel good.

It appears that you have fallen victim to the flawed notion that "more guns equals more crime". If that were true, police headquarters would be a very dangerous place to be.

"Well it's not the guns, it's the people who abuse them." And that is true. The people, ordinary citizens like you and me, are not the problem. We've had background checks, we've been fingerprinted, we are not felons, drunks or drug abusers, unstable or prone to violence, or wife beaters.

Creating a "gun-free" zone only creates a place where the law-abiding do not bring guns, a place where criminals can prey on defenseless victims, perhaps me - a middle aged man who no longer has the speed or stamina run away. But I guarantee you that I can run faster than my wife. And my five young children. Should I run away if we are attacked? Or defend them? With what?

I hope you are not, as you say... comfortable with that.

Sincerely,
Kludge

 

[kludge]

Oh, but Ballard's not anti-gun! Look here at the letter I got from him about two years ago...

Thank you for sharing your comments regarding my recent statement on addressing illegal possession of firearms as part of our city’s comprehensive public safety strategy.

Where does this "illegal possession" crap come from? Mr Mayor, these are LAWFULLY OWNED AND CARRIED GUNS!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Where does this "illegal possession" crap come from? Mr Mayor, these are LAWFULLY OWNED AND CARRIED GUNS!

That was something two years ago that he was on about... I'll see if I can find the letter I wrote him that that answered.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[drillsgt]

^^^ BWAHAHAHA ^^^

Got the same letter. The font difference was there in my e-mail client.

My new reply...

Dear Mayor Ballard,

Support requires actions, not words. So I ask you to reconsider your position and support the proposition that would remove the gun ban that prevents people with handgun licenses to carry in city parks.

The Constitution, which you claim to support, which you took an oath to defend as a Marine has been "on the books" far longer than the city ordinance. Just because a law has been on the books for 30 years does not make it a good one. Perhaps you recall the doctrine of "separate but equal"?

When you speak of public safety, it is MY safety that you speak of, and MY civil rights, and denying the natural right of self defense to the citizens of your community does far more damage to actual safety that any number of laws that pretend to provide safety, but that feel good.

It appears that you have fallen victim to the flawed notion that "more guns equals more crime". If that were true, police headquarters would be a very dangerous place to be.

"Well it's not the guns, it's the people who abuse them." And that is true. The people, ordinary citizens like you and me, are not the problem. We've had background checks, we've been fingerprinted, we are not felons, drunks or drug abusers, unstable or prone to violence, or wife beaters.

Creating a "gun-free" zone only creates a place where the law-abiding do not bring guns, a place where criminals can prey on defenseless victims, perhaps me - a middle aged man who no longer has the speed or stamina run away. But I guarantee you that I can run faster than my wife. And my five young children. Should I run away if we are attacked? Or defend them? With what?

I hope you are not, as you say... comfortable with that.

Sincerely,
Kludge

Nice response Kludge, well written.

 

[jboritzki]

Until Last week in family court, I did not think someone could be a Republican and NOT support the Second Amendment or Article 1 Section 32 of the Indiana State Constitution. Sadly, I was mistaken.

 

[CulpeperMM]

Until Last week in family court, I did not think someone could be a Republican and NOT support the Second Amendment or Article 1 Section 32 of the Indiana State Constitution. Sadly, I was mistaken.

Have you ever heard of Dan Coats? or Paul Helmke? Many, many Republicans are for citizen disarmament. Even Bloomberg was a "Republican".

 

[smoking357]

Have you ever heard of Dan Coats? or Paul Helmke? Many, many Republicans are for citizen disarmament. Even Bloomberg was a "Republican".

AF1CY, or however he spells his name, was presently offended with me for noting substantially the same.

"Guns are an abomination." - Richard Nixon

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]NEWSMAX.COM - [/FONT]Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.


http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm
​

 

[MattCFII]

Have you ever heard of Dan Coats? or Paul Helmke? Many, many Republicans are for citizen disarmament. Even Bloomberg was a "Republican".

AF1CY, or however he spells his name, was presently offended with me for noting substantially the same.

"Guns are an abomination." - Richard Nixon

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]NEWSMAX.COM - [/FONT]Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.


http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm
​

Exactly guys, Rep inbound! Anybody here that voted for Coats in the primary should be ashamed of themselves. Don't forget Michael Steele is weak on the 2nd Amendment too.

 

[88GT]

Garrison has had a mixed record. He's personally pro-gun, but I think he hangs out with some less than savory types on the show.

"Hangs out?" Todd is a respectable individual AFAIC. Or were you equating GUESTS with solid social relationships? And are you intimating that he should only invite those who agree completely with whatever platform you decide is acceptable? As a resident of the 7th Congressional District, I would just LOVE Carson to accept the invite of Garrison to be a guest on the show.

I agree he's soft on Ballard regarding the city park carry (and a few others), but don't mistake respect in discourse for a "mixed record." I've listened to Garrison for almost 10 years now and I cannot recall a time when I thought to myself, "Well, gee, that's funny, because last week you said something completely different."

 

[CarmelHP]

I agree he's soft on Ballard regarding the city park carry (and a few others), but don't mistake respect in discourse for a "mixed record." I've listened to Garrison for almost 10 years now and I cannot recall a time when I thought to myself, "Well, gee, that's funny, because last week you said something completely different."

Unlike you, I do not think it OK to give scum like Ballard and Dan Coats an uncritical (some would say "fawning") soapbox to campaign from. It's not "respect in discourse," it papering over the huge glaring flaws in the character of these individuals with respect to guns, an issue I hold important. I DO think their anti-gun platforms are unacceptable. If Garrison was what you claim him to be, he would too, instead of laying open like a starstruck schoolgirl for the captain of the football team.

 

[88GT]

Unlike you, I do not think it OK to give scum like Ballard and Dan Coats an uncritical (some would say "fawning") soapbox to campaign from. It's not "respect in discourse," it papering over the huge glaring flaws in the character of these individuals with respect to guns, an issue I hold important. I DO think their anti-gun platforms are unacceptable. If Garrison was what you claim him to be, he would too, instead of laying open like a starstruck schoolgirl for the captain of the football team.

Sounds a lot like your personal version of the fairness doctrine to me. "I don't like what the opposition has to say, so I don't want them to be able to say it."

I'm sorry you see the only acceptable behavior for disagreeing with someone else's opinion is to pillory them. I happen to disagree.

 

[E5RANGER375]

when the opposition is talking about something un-constitutional like taking away guns or even limiting them then NO they shouldnt be allowed to talk. Politicians shouldnt spew their own false theories of what they'd like to see, they need to only speak within the law and by what the people want. elected office isnt a pulpit to preach personal agendas from, or at least it shouldnt be.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! pretty damn clear for me to understand and i never was a big community organizer or mayor.

 

[CarmelHP]

Sounds a lot like your personal version of the fairness doctrine to me. "I don't like what the opposition has to say, so I don't want them to be able to say it."

I'm sorry you see the only acceptable behavior for disagreeing with someone else's opinion is to pillory them. I happen to disagree.

And your idea of correcting Ballard's and Coats' anti-gun statements and actions is to ignore them, rather than confront them, and try to get them re-elected. That'll show 'em. With that strategy, we should be gun-free in four years without Obama's involvement at all. And I didn't say, "I don't want them to say it," but I'm not going to pretend they didn't say it or that people who carry their water, like you or Garrison, are gun owners friends. Got it?