Live Feed, Patriots at the Capitol

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!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    ditcherman

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Dec 18, 2018
    7,607
    113
    In the country, hopefully.
    Some are still focusing on Trump eh? You gotta hand it to the media, they've advanced their craft to the point they are near a bigger political enemy than the democrats themselves.

    Trump, Trump, Trump, all about Trump. Trump didn't "turn" the Republican party into anything, the Republican party never welcomed him, he was resisted at every turn. I could see why some people might think that an indication that something was wrong with Trump as a candidate but that would require the belief that the Republican party was still something worth listening to, something willing to fight for Americans, something which puts America first. Yeah, that hasn't happened in a couple of decades. They were all ___________ their pants because Trump wasn't beholden to the system. He didn't have to listen to what the party leaders said or wanted. He garnered more support for a political candidate than anyone I can recall in my 48 years on this planet.

    I wholeheartedly agree that the prospect of Trump draining the swamp, getting rid of as many of the long established as corrupt politicians would leave a lot of uncertainty as to what to expect for the future. I'd have taken that uncertainty over four more years of guaranteed selling out of the American people for personal gain and in furtherance of worldwide equity.

    Both parties were terrified of Trump because he was not willing to go along with the corrupt way things had been for years. I'm not ok with DC as it currently exists. DC is about as interested in looking out for my welfare as they are in cutting their own salaries and subjecting themselves to the same rules the rest of the country has to live by.

    Is/was Trump perfect? Not by a long shot but I'm not one to put a higher priority on how someone makes me feel over what they'll actually do in office. I'm not happy about the bump stock BS. I'd like to think it was allowed to happen due to ignorance and Trump being too worried about more important things than products people create to work around the existing laws but maybe not.

    I've seen a nice list of the things Trump accomplished while in office. Can anyone produce anything similar concerning what the hair sniffer has accomplished in his near 5 decades of leeching off the taxpayers? Anyone want to place bets as to anything the scumbag will accomplish if he survives long enough?

    A vote for anyone other than Trump was a vote for the corrupt political machine in this country to continue ****ing the American people at every opportunity. I'll be thanking people for that probably for the remainder of my days. The likelihood of another human being outpacing the political machine like he did and getting in to office is now zero. The Republicans don't want it, the democrats damned sure don't want it and the media will be doing everything in their power to ensure the American people come in last.
    Very well stated as usual, and I agree with everything til I get to the last paragraph. You rail against the Republican party and then go on to state that we should have voted for Trump. (I said upthread I voted L ) Indiana's electors were going to go for Trump, no question. If the "corrupt political machine" needs to be brought to it's knees, what better way to do it than to destroy one of the parties - hopefully the D's first but it didn't turn out that way just yet - by giving a third party the traction needed to make a difference? How else can it happen?

    In other words, its kind of the opposite, a vote to break the 2 party system (as long as your electors are going to go to Trump) is a vote to dis-continue the system.

    I'm optimistic that someone will outpace the political machine. Look at us, we're worked up, and we will get together. When Trump was elected, there was a huge sigh of relief, the feeling was palpable when you walked into a gun store, and we relaxed. We shouldn't have, and now we won't.
     

    ditcherman

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Dec 18, 2018
    7,607
    113
    In the country, hopefully.

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    It is actually funny when people use the bumpfire ban as any kind of so-called evidence that Trump is anti-2A. The bumpfire ban was so minor. There was a huge portion of the general population that didn't give a squat about the bumpfire stock. There were many gun owners that didn't give a squat about the bumpfire stock. There were many INGO members that didn't give a squat about the bumpfire stock. Certainly not a hill I was willing to die on. In fact I sold mine just before the ban was put in place.

    An M16 is fairly easy to fire effectively in full auto while the bumpfire stock was ridiculously inaccurate to the point where it was very difficult to put 10 rounds into a door size target at 10 yards.

    Given the climate at the time there was not much else to do except ban it. Sure it can be construed as an infringement but it is tiny and trivial compared to many, many other infringements in place already and in no conceivable way is there any comparison to the massive infringements in the dumocrap platform.
    How do you define anti-2A?
     

    nonobaddog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2015
    11,794
    113
    Tropical Minnesota
    How do you define anti-2A?

    The Second Amendment says - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    I define anti-2A as being against the people of the US having the right listed in the amendment.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    The Second Amendment says - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    I define anti-2A as being against the people of the US having the right listed in the amendment.
    I want to make sure i understand you then. Banning a bump stock is not an infringement of the 2A?
     

    Slapstick

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 29, 2010
    4,221
    149
    Does no one remember the argument that it was best to have the ATF ban bump stocks through regulation than let Congress pass a new control law that would have included far more than just the ban? There was enough outrage over the Los Vargas shooting that something was going to be done.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Soldiers in capital 25k and climbing. I guess if you are an illegitimate leader, and stole an election, and live in the United States of Freedom you might feel you need extra protection.
    People keep saying that, but haven’t provided any proof. Trump has created an entire legion of people who will believe what he says without even needing to see proof.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Does no one remember the argument that it was best to have the ATF ban bump stocks through regulation than let Congress pass a new control law that would have included far more than just the ban? There was enough outrage over the Los Vargas shooting that something was going to be done.
    Ya. I remember the idea. It’s retarded. Why set a precedent of letting the ATF just redefine things to make them illegal when you have a POTUS who says he is for gun rights right there to veto it?
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    People keep saying that, but haven’t provided any proof. Trump has created an entire legion of people who will believe what he says without even needing to see proof.
    Apparently his magical powers extend to Democrats too. He caused them to believe the fictitious Steele dossier and the Russia election collusion hoax for years. I had coworkers telling me any day now. They’ll have trump behind bars. Yep. Any day. We’re getting closer. Okay. Probably tomorrow. :rolleyes: No? Next week then? Wait. Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon promised. There must be some mistake. Where are the handcuffs? I was told there would be handcuffs.
     

    JTScribe

    Chicago Typewriter
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 24, 2012
    3,738
    113
    Bartholomew County
    Soldiers in capital 25k and climbing. I guess if you are an illegitimate leader, and stole an election, and live in the United States of Freedom you might feel you need extra protection.

    It seems like they sent a lot of the peeps that failed PT tests, though ... it's weird.

     
    Last edited:

    DadSmith

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 21, 2018
    22,181
    113
    Ripley County
    People keep saying that, but haven’t provided any proof. Trump has created an entire legion of people who will believe what he says without even needing to see proof.
    Not going by Trump I'm going by what Democrats have done for years. And 20+ million new voters in one year i doubt it. I'm not a mindless monkey like your trying to spout. The real fascist took over and are now setting up shop in DC. Maybe they need 25k plus soldiers to protect them when they start making totalitarian laws.
     
    Last edited:

    Slapstick

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 29, 2010
    4,221
    149
    Ya. I remember the idea. It’s retarded. Why set a precedent of letting the ATF just redefine things to make them illegal when you have a POTUS who says he is for gun rights right there to veto it?
    Something was going to be done, you'd rather have Congress pass a new law that would have included more than just a bump stock ban? Too much political capital would have had to be spent to veto such a bill.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom