Fox News on the Indiana handgun permit database

I just wrapped up my 5 minutes on Fox News this morning, and I wanted to post the clip here so you could get a look at it.  The segment is about 5 minutes long, and it was a very fast five minutes.  The key points to remember is that the HTO’s database is exactly like a sex offender database in it’s intent, inasmuch as it’s profiling people as a public safety risk.  The difference is that sex offenders are a public safety risk, whereas law abiding citizens exercising their freedom of personal decision and right to keep and bear arms are clearly not. Here’s the video, with my comments on the other side.

Due to the format, I didn’t have the time I would have loved to really respond to some of Dennis’ assertions, namely his last point about how “500 gun owners in Indiana” have been identified as having “criminal backgrounds.” Two salient points to address that, 1) there are over 360,000 permit holders in Indiana – those “500 gun owners” account for 0.13% of that number. Secondly, those “criminal backgrounds” that Dennis is alluding to are in most cases things like minor intoxication tickets, traffic violations, and non violent crimes. Convicted felons, violent criminals, and people that are barred from owning handguns are not getting carry permits.

The bottom line is that this database, any database of carry permit holders is a massive invasion of privacy. It characterizes gun owners like sex offenders or criminals waiting to happen, and exposes people with a need for privacy to the risk of criminal activity, stalking, or other crimes.

85 thoughts on “Fox News on the Indiana handgun permit database”

  1. Like I said over on the other post, ‘ya did good’
    I just wish that the host had have tried to get Dennis to answer the questions asked and allowed you to rebutt

  2. I got up early and watched. Sheesh Fox & Friends, and really any of the 24 hour news programs, sucked serious ass. That said, I think you did a pretty good job of stating what you wanted to, the format and length really just doesn’t allow for the subject to get a fair shake.

    Everytime that nimrod spoke (the gun hater lobbyist in this case), my BP skyrocketed as he cherry picked stats and didn’t really get to the depth of why treating law abiding civilians as a whole as criminals is bad. I suppose those terrifying 500 permit holders that are “criminals” trumps our rights? As you pointed out, very few if any are violent felons, yet to Jane & Jon Doe, this bonehead (again, the lobbyist gun hating douchebag) appeared to present a reasonable argument for the newspaper to publish the database. No matter that they could do that WITHOUT publishing the database online.

    This whole thing just leaves me feeling sick that there are those that want to profit over violating someone’s right to privacy & safety.

  3. Thanks for representing ALL gun owners so well Caleb.

    Its hard to make solid points in short sound bites and with leading questions. Like Josh said, ‘ya did good’.

    Also, you looked damn good. The Brady guy looked like he got a mismatched suit from Goodwill and a tie from the dumpster.

  4. Caleb,

    I thought you did an excellent job, thanks.

    It was apparent to me that Dennis was not trying to justify the HTO putting the database on line but just maligning gun owners. That came across strongly and the host called him on it.

    Thanks again.

  5. Damn fine job dude. You can see how befuddled the garden variety gun banner gets when confronted with pesky facts and logic.

  6. You did fine. Like you said, a different format would have allowed you to refute the utter BS and data cherry-picking that Henigan stated.

    He was allowed to say things like “many”…when in fact it is almost infinitesimaly small number.

    Next time maybe.

  7. Great job Caleb, you did it right, no huffing and puffing, no interrupting etc. Regarding the .13% of permit holders as dangerous? I cry BS and the Brady doofus should have been called on that. Made to expand on the type of “Dangerous Criminal” he was mentioning. Chances are he himself could fall into that category very easily. Public records like this as you said only invite criminals into your town, neighborhood and home. Thanks for doing a great job representing us.

  8. Damn good job. Especially when you note that your opponent does this for a living, while you’re back at your desk today earing your bread.

    Too bad they didn’t give you more time to get him on the ropes.

    Still I must say the big thing I liked was your body language. Many of us (I suspect I can include myself) might find it hard to not laugh, sneer, or get a bit rattled when somebody attempts to play cheap parlor tricks in attempt to take away our rights.

    Very good work!

  9. Good Job. You stayed calm and represented gun owners well. Too bad you only got a short time to talk, but that’s 24/7 cable news.

    Notice how Dennis just spits out talking points, and you try to argue your case. They can’t make any progress if they actually tried to argue with you.

  10. Good job, Caleb! You did us proud.

    Henigan’s point about “500 names with criminal or violent backgrounds” has to be carefully parsed. In Tennessee, the newspaper submitted over 500 names to the DPS of CHP-holders whose names matched those of convicted felons. All but a dozen of those names were false matches: two different people with the same first and last names. And his use of the word “backgrounds” instead of “convictions” allows him to include people found “not guilty” in court!

    The Violence Policy Center issued a press release last month in which they claimed that in 2007-2009, eighty-five murders and suicides were committed by CHP-holders. That’s an average of 28 deaths annually. By contrast, the National Weather Service says that, on average, 62 people are killed every year in the U.S. by lightning strikes. So the raw odds indicate that the average American is twice as likely to be struck by lightning than shot by a CHP-holder.

  11. Caleb, I was very impressed with your composure.

    About the assertion that publishing a database of CCW permit holders is like publishing the sex offender list, I don’t think I agree with that. It does have similarities, I admit, and that’s probably because some people think you gun owners are dangerous. Whether they’re right or wrong, if that’s what they think, then it makes sense to share the information. And if they’re right about the danger, then violating the privacy might be a small price to pay.

  12. About the assertion that publishing a database of Jews is like publishing the sex offender list, I don’t think I agree with that. It does have similarities, I admit, and that’s probably because some people think you Jews are dangerous. Whether they’re right or wrong, if that’s what they think, then it makes sense to share the information. And if they’re right about the danger, then violating the privacy might be a small price to pay.

    Thanks for making my point for me, Mike.

  13. You done good Caleb. You stuck to the topic and made your points, while your opponent ranted, raved, and generally avoided the topic at hand.

    A quick question though, who did your makeup?

  14. Choosing to exercise a civil right cannot be viewed as a danger. Constitutional rights are beyond the reach of government or the media.

    What if the H-T published a list of women who had had an abortion? Oh, how the self-appointed guardians of civil liberties at ICLU would whine and cry.

    However, when the H-T threatens the lives of gun owners by pointing out where they are, the self-appointed guardians of “civil liberties” and holy “privacy” simply shrug their shoulders. The Media must be held accountable for the harm they have caused gun owners (why is no one talking about the string of Burglaries in Bloomington since this database was published?).

    The law must be changed! We must protect our privacy and hold the Media responsible for their assault on us via all legal means.

  15. My favorite part was when both you and the host were smirking at one of the Brady Bunch guy’s stupid comments.

    You did a fine job. You addressed the issue at hand. The Brady dude was all over the map and might as well have simply said, “Guns are bad, m’kay?”

  16. Caleb,
    Great job and thanks for sticking up for our rights. Calm cool and collected. What else could we ask for someone to talk in our behalf.
    Why isn’t there a published data base of Gang members?

  17. To bad you did not get a chance to counter the six permit holders committing crimes bit. Six out off how many Million permit holders?

  18. Caleb, Good job on the straight face… I live in California… and the gun rights here are barely existent, but I appreciate the calm attitude, and straight face you had for this interview. You put a young educated face on gun owners across america… For that, I thank you.

  19. This is a first for me, seeing Caleb’s lips and voice in sync! I agree with the crowd, good job! As for Dennis, I’d like to stamp [citation needed] on his forehead.

    Also, well-done on the troll there.

    Jim (Jim-R on BTR)

  20. Great Job Caleb! I didn’t know who that great spokesman for all of us was this morning until I read Breda’s blog. There is just not enough time for rebuttal in interviews like these. One of the many problems with the public database is that an employer can search through the database and a CCW holder could be tossed under the bus…for doing something perfectly legal.
    I had the pleasure of being listed in the Plain Dealer’s CCW list, and I did not like it. At least it didn’t have addresses. Carry on.

  21. The Brady types have been pushing this “CHL holders are dangerous” angle a lot lately, offering a “study” of news stories as evidence. But actual statistical evidence (rather than mass media anecdotes) is available regarding total numbers of CHLs, crimes committed by CHL holders, and crimes committed by the general population in the state of Texas. This data is available for multiple years and is free at the Department of Public Safety’s website. Wouldn’t this information be much more useful for study than mining news stories over an arbitrarily-defined time period? It’s been available for some time, yet I never hear gun ban advocates mention it.

    I wonder why some gun ban advocate doesn’t use that freely-available data to prove once and for all how dangerous carry-permit holders are? Shouldn’t the statistical data reflect the same conclusion as their media study?

  22. Way to go and I’m glad you took my advice about not wearing that gun nuts radio tie. Much less anger and finger poking than I expected from Fox.

  23. This is a first for me, seeing Caleb’s lips and voice in sync!

    Me, too! And I know him in real life. Those FOX engineers are pretty good. 😀

  24. Nice job, Caleb! And thanks for answering the same questions I had while watching the segment. It’s a shame that viewers have to research everything Mr. Henigan says because he gives an unqualified statistic and a half-truth. I don’t understand why he has to argue this way.

  25. “Good job, Caleb. Next time wear a tie (I hate them too, but you’ll look more professional)”

    Actually, in this context, I think looking like a well-put-together average joe rather than a “professional” is a good thing. The public weighs the opinions of average citizens and regular people more heavily than they do the opinions of professional lobbyists, and anyone perceived as the latter takes an automatic credibility hit. I think Caleb looked like he represented *this* generation, and Henigan looked like a holdover from Henry Kissinger’s generation.

  26. If you watch carefully, you can see my hands in a couple of the shots. I was in fact gesturing, just not gesticulating wildly.

  27. Mikeb notes:
    “…because some people think you gun owners are dangerous. Whether they’re right or wrong, if that’s what they think, then it makes sense to share the information. And if they’re right about the danger, then violating the privacy might be a small price to pay…”

    So, a random person’s unfounded belief is sufficient to trump privacy rights? I suppose if I fear homosexuals or Jews, whether or not there is a reason to, then it makes sense to “share the information.” And if a homosexual or Jew then does commit a crime, it justifies (in your narrow mind) the invasion of privacy on us all.

  28. Defens, First of all, it’s not “a random person’s unfounded belief.” It’s not just a random person and the belief is not unfounded.

    First Caleb substituted “Jews” for “gun owners” in my quote, now Defens is popping in “Jews and homosexuals.” I never understood the desire to play this word substitution game. Selecting the words you want, you can show anything. I don’t find it convincing at all.

    We’re talking about guns and gun owners. Why do you have to substitute those words for anything? Maybe it started with Caleb on TV comparing the publishing of gun owners’ information to that famous thing they sometimes do with child molesters. I thought that was a bit dramatic and not a very good comparison.

    Whether you guys like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not, many, perhaps most non gun owners don’t trust you guys. It may be the true that the main stream media gives you guys a bad name by printing stories of gun violence and perhaps the percentages are as minimal as you say, but a lot of us don’t think so and we believe these concerns are justified.

    No one is saying all gun owners are dangerous. What I’m saying is some of you are and it’s hard to tell who’s who by looking. The non gun owners may have a right to know this information about their neighbors.

  29. Wow, the fact that MikeB wrote that rambling manfesto of contradiction, fear, and stupidity, and thought it might be a good idea to hit the “submit” button shows the depth of his mental illness, and gives great credence to Caleb’s post about the bigots living a life of fear.

    Thanks Mike.

    BTW who do you think is the more dangerous: a law abiding gun owner, or a rambling nut-job and admitted criminal such as yourself?

    Maybe you should have yourself commtted!

  30. MikeB302000,

    It seems to have hit a nerve with you, this sex offender bit. Here and at your own blog.

    No one is saying all gun owners are dangerous. What I’m saying is some of you are and it’s hard to tell who’s who by looking.

    Just like it is hard to tell which Americans living overseas are into horrendous crimes like child pron, eh? It is hard to tell who’s who just by reading their words.

    The non gun owners may have a right to know this information about their neighbors.

    Following your own logic, then we have the right to know just about everything about you, right?

    Enough of that, let’s move on to some of your other idiotic statements

    Whether you guys like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not, many, perhaps most non gun owners don’t trust you guys.

    Is it too much (I know, I know Weer’d/Linoge stop laughing) to ask for any evidence? Any statistics supporting this outrageous statement?

  31. There are lots of bigots out there mike. But they are not the majority by any stretch.

    Conflating anti-self-defense bigots with “most non gun owners” is wishful thinking on your part.

    Thank you for maintaining your composure in the interview, Caleb. You looked good.

  32. Weerd, bob s:

    Mike’s positions are actually rational. No felon likes dealing with armed victims.

    Too fucking bad for him.

  33. Mike, I’m going to try and explain something to you, and I’m going to be gentle about it, okay? Everyone, regardless of whether or not you support their personal decisions (provided those decisions are not illegal) has a right to privacy.

    Being a gun owner is voluntary. No one is forcing me to do that. So is being a follower of Islam. No one (in America) is forcing people to be Muslims. If someone were to publish a database of how many Muslims live in my neighborhood, I would be just as opposed to that as I would a database of gun owners. Even though some Muslims are terrorists, and some people don’t trust Muslims, it is objectively wrong to invade the privacy of innocent men and women who have done nothing other than exercise a personal choice.

    I really hope that your tiny little pea-brain can wrap itself around that.

  34. “Whether you guys like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not, many, perhaps most non gun owners don’t trust you guys.”

    Which explains why gun control organizations have such large memberships in comparison to pro-firearm groups.

    Right MikeB?

    Feel free to make up some more ‘hard numbers’ to support your claim.

  35. It’s not just a random person and the belief is not unfounded.

    Alright, MikeB302000, please explain to the class, using facts, logic, and reasonable, thought-out explanations, how the fear of an entire cross-section of the American populace is “unfounded” when it is based solely on the actions of 0.13% of that cross-section? Furthermore, explain why 99.87% of that cross-section should have their rights to privacy, as protected by the Ninth and Fourth Amendments, abridged simply because of the actions of that 0.13%, especially when that 99.87% have not committed a crime yet?

    Why do you have to substitute those words for anything?

    Because that simple word-substitution does not actually change the message of the comment, but it does, quite adequately, in fact, illustrate just how bigoted anti-rights advocates like you really are. The things you say about firearm owners and other people who dare to exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights simply would never be tolerated if you were saying those things about blacks, or Jews, or Muslims, or whatever other cross-section of society you might like to pick, and yet you consider those things perfectly acceptable to say about us. That you do not see the correlation does not surprise me at all.

    Whether you guys like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not, many, perhaps most non gun owners don’t trust you guys.

    Whether you anti-rights guys like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not, IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT YOU DO NOT TRUST US. Let me say that again, a little slower, so MikeB302000 can keep up: It. Does. Not. Matter. That. You. Do. Not. Trust. Us. Our rights are not predicated on your trust, or anyone else’s. I have the right to defend myself regardless of whether or not you trust me to do whatever it is you would trust me to do. Granted, this degree of Orwellian, totalitarianistic, thought-crime like reasoning from you does not terribly surprise me, but it simply does not matter. I do not trust you not to use your computer to spread child pornography – should that mean your every click on the internet should be recorded and made public knowledge for anyone interested in knowing?

    The non gun owners may have a right to know this information about their neighbors.

    No. They do not, any more than they have a “right” to know if their neighbor is a practicing Muslim.

  36. One thing that I have noticed is if a thug knows that he has a chance to die going into an armed home, or go scott-free in an unarmed home, he picks unarmed. publishing lists such as these says to thugs ” here’s your targets “. It seems that no one ever mentions that.

  37. ATG,

    I agree to a point, but it also provides a list for the thugs to watch for times when folks aren’t home.

    Many thugs are looking for firearms to steal because they can trade them for drugs or sell them easily.

    The idea that a CHL database equals all gun owners is a little off. Many more people have firearms at home but don’t carry. Unfortunately Concealed Carry License holders are still a minority.

  38. “Whether you guys like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not, many, perhaps most non gun owners don’t trust you guys.”

    Evidence?

    Do you base your opinion regarding a person’s integrity on what sort of (legal) items they choose to own?

    “The non gun owners may have a right to know this information about their neighbors.”

    There are certainly things that, for safety reasons, it would be good to know about your neighbors (drug house etc.) But what exactly would you do if you suddenly knew your neighbors owned firearms? Report them to the police for noncrimes? How exactly does knowing if your neighbors own firearms increase your safety?

    Disseminating the locations of items valuable to criminals may potentiate thefts. I agree with John Farnam, who writes that the contents of your gun safe should be a secret that is revealed on a need to know basis.

  39. “Do you base your opinion regarding a person’s integrity on what sort of (legal) items they choose to own?”

    Dunno how long you’ve known of MikeB, Eep. But all of his assertions are pulled directly out of his ass….and you can tell them by the smell.

    He does do a very good job at pointing out what a bunch of crude, stupid, fearful, mentally unbalanced, vindictive, hypocritical, and criminal the anti-gun crowd is.

    I do thank him for that. People like Paul Helmke and Joe Rosenthal work hard to hide their evil intent and one must work hard to uncover it (but even that isn’t THAT hard)

    MikeB just let’s it all hang out. Yeah he’s a criminal who ignores gun laws when they come to himself, what of it? Yes he’s well aware gun control laws are ineffective and will likely result in innocent people getting killed, who cares? Yes he roots for anybody looking to persecute a lawful person for political reasons, but he has a bleeding heart for every gang member, drug addict, rapist, murderer, and creep that’s ever walked the line, it’s just the caring thing. Sure he possesses a brain so limited that every “Logical” argument he presents can be quickly dismantled by any toddler with enough phone books stacked so they can reach the keyboard.

    He’s fine with all of this, and THIS is why we’re winning.

  40. ***The non gun owners may have a right to know this information about their neighbors***

    Actually no.

    Just like it’s none of their business that I enjoy spanking my girlfriend till she sizzles, and she likes it too.

  41. Caleb, Your composure on camera must have been deceptive. In writing you say things like this. “I really hope that your tiny little pea-brain can wrap itself around that.”

    Of course, you’re not alone when resorting to personal attacks and name calling, from making totally superfluous nasty remarks. That’s common fare for most of your friends. Linoge is the best, I have to say.

    One interesting thing came up in the discussion. If it were public knowledge who had guns in the home and who did not, would the break-in artists choose the gun homes or the non gun homes?

    Some say thieves like to steal guns. Others say thieves like unarmed victims. Which way do you think it would go?

  42. Depends on the thief, Mike.

    Once in a while, gangs actually try to raid gunshops. Sometimes they win, sometimes they get shot to bits.

    I like keeping criminals in the dark.

    That way, they have to assume everyone is armed, and make a point of avoiding meeting any victim.

  43. MikeB why is it you, an admitted criminal are asking US questions about criminal activity. Wouldn’t you be the expert in that arena?
    http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/568583.html

    Also how is it not calm for Caleb to point out that you’re stupid? Am I being shrill saying that the sky is blue? Am I being shrill to say that Caleb is Short?

    They’re easily observed facts. If you don’t like being stupid you should work to remedy that.

  44. MikeB302000,

    I also notice how you fail to respond to my questions.

    Since I am concerned that you may be using your computer and or camera for nefarious reasons, are you going to share all your personal information?

    According to your logic, you should – right?

    Now after all it doesn’t matter if I’m right or wrong in my belief that there must be a reason why you moved overseas that you aren’t telling us about, eh?

    Don’t you see how ridiculous your statements are when applied to any other tool?
    If the statement is ridiculous for everything else, why should it apply to firearms?

  45. I have to wonder how pointing out MikeB302000‘s past words for people who are unfamiliar with him to see can be construed as “nasty” – he said all of those things, of his own free will and volition, that I quoted in the links I provided above. You would think that he would take responsibility for those words and be proud of them… that he does not is a very poor reflection upon him.

    You will also note that MikeB302000 refrained from answering any of the questions posed to him by previous posters, specifically, in my case, why/how the fear of 99.87% of a cross-section based on the actions of 0.13% of that cross-section is not unfounded (I swear there was a “not” in my above post when I wrote it), why that 99.87% should be treated like criminals when they have broken no laws, and should he post his own information online since he uses a computer and digital camera.

    Actually, his lack of response to the last question (posed by multiple people, no less) speaks volumes as to his position – after all, what does it say about a person’s stance if he or she is unwilling or unable to defend it?

    As for his continued line of questioning, it simply does not matter to the conversation at hand – criminals should not be able to find out from a publicly-accessible online database if certain individuals own firearms, any more than they should be able to find if certain individuals own big-screen TVs, super-expensive computers, rare antiquities, or anything else from an online database. Likewise, fearmongering bigots like MikeB302000 should not have access to a list of people to demonize, any more than another set of bigots should have access to a list of practicing Taoists.

  46. MikeB, you’ve pretty much had a chance to respond to any number of posts, and have failed in every aspect.

    You’re not just a troll, you’re a boring troll. Being a troll isn’t so bad (to me, anyway) but being boring is pretty much unforgivable. Go away now, grownups are talking.

  47. Caleb, In spite of what Linoge says, I have answered these and many other questions repeatedly. What he and some of the others have done is either ignore what I say, or debunk it, according to them, of course. What Linoge, Bob S. and Weer’d do, I was hoping you were different, is they get frustrated in not winning the argument. They’re like kids in the school yard who have to win or else. Then they resort to personal attacks and name calling. They’ve dedicated numerous posts to just that, Linoge keeps linking to them, which is pretty shabby blogging etiquette I might add.

    Please don’t you do it too. Rise up, man. You can do it. You can be better than that.

  48. Mike, you’re a troll, and as I said you’re a boring troll.

    However, in the spirit of Christmas, I’m going to give you a chance. Answer the following question: would you support a newspaper printing a database exactly the same as the one printed by the Herald Times, except instead if gun owners the subject is Muslims? It’s a simple “yes” or “no” question. I’m already pretty bored with you, so try to exceed my expectations.

  49. Hehehhe Yeah the admitted criminal, who makes up numbers and figures and often cites “Because I feel so” as justification.

    Also somebody who can’t make an argument without contradicting himself several times…..and all the while uses comment moderation on his own blog to remove comments that don’t fit his narrow narrative, how is that “winning”

    FYI for those who aren’t readers of my Blog or Linoge or BobS, I’m pushing a boycott of MikeB’s blog, as it is essentially feeding a troll and he moderates his discussion to distort arguments, and hide his hypocrisy.

    http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/589812.html

    Don’t feed the troll kiddies!

  50. The trust issue is very easy to solve: one side should refrain from trying to convince the public that the other is untrustworthy, because the other side has done nothing in particular to deserve the reputation that they are broadly untrustworthy.

  51. TJP, I STRONGLY disagree. The Anti-Gun side from Pros like Helmke, Henigan, Rosenthal, and Sugarmann, to Politicians like Obama, Schumer, McCarthy, and Gillibrand. To Lowly trolls like MikeB or JadeGold or Kelli, have all proven themselves to be dishonest, liars, and hypocrites.

    It’s universally consistent, and should be taken at face value.

  52. Caleb,

    I suggest a minor edit to the Troll’s comments.

    Remove the link back to his web site.

    If he cares about the subject, he will continue to post. If he’s just trolling – as he obviously is– his commenting will drop off sharply.

    Linoge at Walls of the City started that and found it helpful in keeping pests from commenting.

    I’m starting to do the same at my place.

  53. I had a simple response to tiresome twits in my old blog:

    I’d edit their comments in order to embarrass them as much as humanly possible, and put “edited for clarity by blog owner” at the bottom.

    Tiresome idiots generally posted exactly once on my blog. None of them were stupid enough to post twice.

  54. No more feeding the troll, guys.

    Aww, but he was just getting started with his bald-faced lies, misdirections, hypocrisies, insinuations, redefining of words, and “wounded martyr” act… I will let the obnoxious and fallacious accusations slide, though, per your request.

    His answer to your question, however, speaks volumes as to the logical and ethical inconsistency of his position.

  55. “Some say thieves like to steal guns. Others say thieves like unarmed victims. Which way do you think it would go?”

    Both ways.

    If Joe burglar knows there are weapons in house #1, he’ll probably take the path of least resistance and try his luck when he thinks the residence is unoccupied (the majority of burglaries do occur during the day.) If all he’s interested in is property, it makes sense to strike when no one is around and avoid conflict.

    A good reason to securely store weapons, incidentally.

    Robbers, muggers, rapists, and other predatory offenders admit that they prefer to attack unarmed people. Once again, path of least resistance. Don’t take my word for it, ask Rossi and Wright.

  56. Not bad… You were very succinct and clear headed. Actually you didn’t need to speak that much anyway in that the opposition fumbled all over himself. Steve D. picked up on it fast and stayed on him. Truth of it is.. they advertise that we have guns…. What right do they have to do that??????????

  57. So, we finally got to see your face from the front, not obscured by a hat, shadow, shoulder, etc.

    I thought you did quite well, though I might have shaken my head “no” slightly on some of his points. I definitely would have interrupted at least once, when he mentioned the 6 shootings by licensees and asked, “out of how many million?”

    Incidentally, how much information about licensees is available to the public under Indiana law? New York law just says that the license, “shall be a public record,” but doesn’t specify how much information may be disclosed. I’d hate to think people could get a copy of the thumb print on the back of my license.

  58. After seeing the video, I went to the Indiana Herald Times website and was very surprised to see a Cabela’s banner advert there! How dissapointing 🙁

Comments are closed.