I recommend every Indiana Citizen obtain the CCW permit now that it is free. It does not matter if you do not OWN a gun, this still allows you to carry (or have in your car) without violating gun laws. The correct reason for the permit is self defense.
I encourage you to get the permit even if you do not plan to carry a gun. I encourage you to get the permit even if you feel you will be denied because of race or economic status.
For instance, if a relative leaves his gun in your vehicle even without your knowledge or consent, and you get stopped but have a carry permit then you are not breaking the law because you have the permit. If you do not have the permit it can be jail time even through you did not know there was a gun in your car. We do not yet have Constitutional Carry recognizing the US Constitution as Supreme Law in Indiana. Yet.
Also, with the present political environment there is a major push to totally disarm all citizens so they can be intimidated and controlled by threat of deadly force. Having a fully armed State (as demonstrated by the number of CCW permits) will reduce our chances of being the first place corrupt politicos send their minions to conquer.
As of today the Indiana lifetime gun permit fee is $0.00.
Here is how to apply:
1. Start your application at the Indiana State Police web page here: https://www.in.gov/ISP/2829.htm
2. Schedule appointment to submit your fingerprints electronically.
3. Visit your local police agency.
Patrick Henry Before the Virginia House of Burgesses, Peter F. Rothermel (1817–1895). This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1926. This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.
How long are we supposed to put up with these socialist saboteurs? It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the Socialist democrats for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House?
I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Have these Democrats any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of massive corruption, voter fraud, masses of illegal aliens, antifa attacks, false flag mass shooting by Democrat operatives, Trump impersonators to sway and control the Congress that it may neglect its Constitutional duty to validate the very votes the Democrats desperately needed to pass with blind eye that they might seize power completely and unilaterally impose their executive orders to disarm us? No, sir, they have none. Their malice is meant for us; it can be meant for no other. They are purposed to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the Democrats have been so long forging.
And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted?
Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt.
In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges of Individual Liberty and God given Constitutional Rights for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a Socialist guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Washington D.C.! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
“Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!”, Patrick Henry to the Second Virginia Convention on March 20, 1775 at Richmond, VA.
We have used software conforming to fully disclosed public international standards for over a decade: at first Open Office, and then after some corporate re-arranging LibreOffice. It is easy to use, works (mostly) with all established Microsoft formats, and unencumbered by dangerous licensing legalities and legal overhead, tracking licenses, number of permitted installs from volume licensing contracts, and so forth. It is especially important for global commerce as the spreadsheets and document files it saves are universally recognized and will work with any computer in any organization or country, even if they cannot buy the latest Microsoft Office product. LibreOffice also can save documents in the standard .PDF format for mass distribution and archival purposes without additional “plugins” or cost — it is built in from the start.
There is great value in having a totally open standard to allow all people everywhere to use, regardless of ethnicity, national origin, economic status, or any other of a host of parameters beyond the control of individuals all over this planet. We are no longer a disconnected bundle of trivial kingdoms, walled off from each other and silent: we are a global community of living, thinking, humankind, interacting for good or evil: isolationism is an obsolete model for nations, and for software.
Document Freedom Day
Yesterday, March 26, 2014 was “Document Freedom Day“: a day for celebrating information accessibility for all people everywhere and for raising awareness of open standards. There is a struggle of sorts raging since Linus Torvalds inadvertently started the Open Source movement. It essentially comes down to the economic models of Protectionism, where all standards are determined by a single ruler and may not even be known in their entirety by his subjects as he may be making up some of the rules as he goes along, entirely for his own personal gain. and Capitalism, where a open public interaction determines all the rules, openly and responsive to public intent and personal gain of the people at large.
To understand the impact on humanity of having a known international standard for communication and information exchange that is available to all people, consider what would have happened if, instead of being initiated and controlled by open standards, the Internet Web, HTML, CSS, and other critical infrastructure was controlled by one corporation only and licenses issued to maximize the wealth of corporate shareholders regardless of the harm or loss to humanity? Would there be a World Wide Web today? Would most people be able to use it? Would business and humanity have profited nearly as much if all things were decided on a software patent, protectionism, controlling, “just me and my rich friends” basis?
Examples of Open Standards in Action
But the concept of Word Wide Web was a collaborative effort, open to public scrutiny, and available to all. And because of this openness, a far greater development team — global and trans-cultural in nature — built an incredible system that allows communication for everything from buying a pair of hiking shoes to streaming video of news as it happens. I remember when the Great Wall fell in Berlin — I was chatting, in text, with a friend, and she relayed that another friend has just told her “Oh look, they are taking down Stalin’s Statue”. In text. Can you measure the difference now, when, instead of reading text about something important that is happening we can watch it as it occurs, free from the bias and controls of corporate news media?
Availability to all can be just as important for sharing information. Imagine how much simpler hereditary research would be right now if all records from the past were stored in a standard, electronic format available to everyone! How could medicine advance if all past records were likewise standardized and published? Or science? Would history that we know be different today if for the last two millennium records were written by anyone — not just the elite — and available to anyone today so that we could read accounts of what happened from more than one perspective? As it is, history is usually written by the victor, and truth becomes a murky and evasive fugitive.
A Vision of a Future Without Open Standards
Flipping time and looking to the future, can you imagine what could happen if only one corporation could totally control all information software for the personal profit and wealth of only their shareholders? Businesses would be subject to absolute control of this corporation, as their business could simply be turned off at the corporation’s whim: prices could be set to anything the corporation wished, at any time: only those the corporation wishes to have access would have access.
A future more reminiscent of a Fallout series game than today? Don’t be so sure. If Microsoft Windows XP was not “activated” in time, what happened? Windows 7 does let the computer continue to run simply with nag boxes reminding us that the software has not yet be “activated”, but couldn’t they just as easily turn it off? Could Microsoft, or any other for profit corporation likewise simply deny access to anyone? How would these corporations respond to a a secret letter from a secret court to secretly turn off some organization’s computers?
Do you really think that is so far fetched? What has been going on for the last few years already — secret letters from secret courts demanding Internet Service Providers turn over private records belonging to their customers, or “take down” web sites? If one for profit corporation rose to the point it could control all computers, or even most computers, could government order them to collect and forward all the private information in those computers? Could dissidents be silenced by merely invalidating a code in a database somewhere so their computers, phones, tablets would no longer start? What happened with Twitter in the London riots last year? Yes, it was “turned off” for London. And in Egypt.
It’s All About Control
The open software movement and the corporate desire for it to end is very much like the American Second Amendment “Gun Control” movement — Software Patents are not about software and Gun Control is not about guns, but both are about CONTROL. And it behooves us as a global community to promote freedom and oppose protectionism in whatever form it may appear.