Anyone game to form a new national progressive gun organization?

[farmbo]

I'm from Ohio, and we all know what happened here: NRA, GOP and BC/04 all did glossy mailings to everyone who had an Ohio hunting license. According to all the pundits, their rural/ gun effort won the state for Bush.

Kerry did a single goose hunting photo op which the GOP spun into a late-nite punchline.

Sportsmen for Kerry never got our message out.

On the other hand, the NRA has gone so far to the corpro-crony right that they no longer have any credibility as a sportsmen/sports persons organization...they are mere shills for the GOP and the gun manufacturers.

Something's got to change.

I believe I can get some funding for a national gun owners association which promotes shooting, hunting and fishing, while emphasizing conservation of streams and habitat. We would also support the position of law enforcement organizations on sensible restrictions on hi capacity clips and cop-killer rounds.

I would need state coordinators in at least 25 states who would be willing to help establish an organization; each of whom would be required to organize at least one Turkey shoot or Clay competition in your state, and work with your state DNR to generate interest.

How does the "Firearms Owners of America" sound?

Please reply by state if your interested.

I'll try to keep this kicked for a couple of weeks.

On edit: give me your ideas for a name... FOA sounds lame.

[NVMojo]

1. this Dem is game ...

[kerrikins]

2. I'm in

[kerrikins]

3. Washington State

[bling bling]

4. I think a lot of good could come of this.

The only way we can save the Gun war from spinning out of control is to take control of it and own it. The Republicans have become a cult.

Lots and lots of Democrats are gun owners, hunters, and conservationists. There is no reason why Democrats shouldn't have our own gun organization.

We're not going to change the 2nd amendment. And at this point, amending our constitution to take away rights of any kind should be our last priority. So let's use the right given in the constitution to our advantage.

[farmbo]

5. Exactly....let's re-claim the Second Amendment...

...and have some fun getting together with friends and shooting in the process.

[GregD]

6. I'm in (California)

The first thing that brought me to political work was the environment. I'm a flyfisher, an outdoor type, and will never let go of my guns.

Don't want to be an NRA member, but we need to make the point that not all of the Left are gun haters.

[Columbia]

7. Good luck

Going to be tough being both a pro-gun rights and pro-gun control organization at the same time.

Probably should stick with one or the other.

[Lefty48197]

32. That's exactly the problem with the NRA

If you promote any sensible gun control law, such as banning grenade launchers, the NRA nuts will label you "anti-freedom" or some other dumb thing. Not swayed by your negativism.

[Columbia]

37. Grenade launchers have been regulated as destructive devices since 1934

By the National Firearms Act of 1934, which the NRA supports, by the way.

[Somawas]

74. If the Nra supports that,

they're a crowd of wusses. I really believe that the Second Amendment has crap to do with hunting. It was written by a crowd of radicals who had just recently been to war with the mightiest military power on earth and had beaten it. I think that the point of the second amendment was that the government needs to be kept very, very afraid.

[BayStateBoy]

8. I'm Interested, but how do we compete with the NRA $$$ for advertising?

[DonP]

25. The same way the NRA does

Get millions ( 3 to 5 million?) of people to pay $35 per year in membership dues, then send them fund raising letters every 6 weeks or so with pictures of Sarah Brady celebrating gun control legislation.

First you'll have to photshop out the pictures of Senators Schumer and Feinstein though, if your new organization is going to have any credibility with gun owners.

[alwynsw]

9. I would join one. n/t

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

10. FOA?

Too close to the GOA, Gun Owners of America.

[-..__...]

11. "restrictions on hi capacity clips"?

"cop-killer rounds"?

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Count me out. I'm not about to compromise on what firearms I can or can't own.

Do you even own any firearms?

Sorry, Bud, but you just "shot" your credibility (pun intended).

Edit to add: The conservation and environment aspect is all well and good (FWIW, I'm not a hunter), but I want nothing to do with anything that borders on more gun-control.

[slackmaster]

12. I don't believe in any kind of sensible restrictions or common sense laws

I guess I'm just not a sensible person.

:dunce:

[goju]

13. I dont think I understand

how you can combine "sensible restriction" and "shall not be infringed" in any logical or coherent gun policy. I guess I get one too... :dunce:

[alwynsw]

17. Same here

Actually, I get two - one is for not reading the origination post closely enough. :dunce: :dunce:

[slackmaster]

20. It's all in the language

Using terms like "sensible" and "common sense" on gun control gets us into trouble every time.

If I say my position is common sense then spell out the details, and you have a different view; then I've essentially said you aren't a sensible person.

[Lefty48197]

33. He was talking about forming a gun owners group among Democrats

I'm sure you don't have any problem with that.

[alwynsw]

14. Thanks to D_S, I just reread your post. Count me out.

We just got out from under the millstone of the AWB. I'll not be involved in any organization that wants to bring back any part of that, re: your reference to magazine capacity restrictions.

I also must question your use of the Brady bunch buzz phrase "cop killer bullets".

Sorry. Can't go with that.

[-..__...]

15. I wish I was able to sway the anti-gun folks here just as easily.

B-)

[alwynsw]

16. Ain't it the truth!

All they have to do is do as I did. Read the posts, then check or recheck the facts. I evidently skimmed the origination post too quickly. Your post saved me from seemingly backtracking on my gun reg position.

Thanks again

[iverglas]

18. well, that went over well

Got any more lead balloons to send this way?

Musta been that "progressive" bit in the header. Sounds like everybody here is pretty much happy with the NRA way of thinking; who needs you and your silly ideas of social responsibility??

... on edit: minimalist as they were, I must add, lest *I* be thought to be backtracking on any of my own ideas -- not that I say yay or nay to any proposals applicable to the US that don't affect me or mine, anyhow.

[Retired AF Dem]

19. Progressive good

"We would also support the position of law enforcement organizations on sensible restrictions on hi capacity clips and cop-killer rounds." Bad.

[Columbia]

21. Something interesting

I wonder if people would be so supportive of law enforcement whims if it was the following:

"We would also support the position of law enforcement organizations on sensible restrictions on free speech and assembly, due process and greater powers of search and seizure."

[RegexReader]

22. What about

Sportsmen of America?

I always like duck hunting with my uncle and he was really big in the pipe fitter's union. One of the few in north Louisiana with the balls to put a Kerry sticker on his truck.

One of the problems is that Senator Kerry proposed a law that would have outlawed the shotguns that we use. We're going to have to get a consistent message from the Democratic National Committee or else we'll be constantly explaining away the NRA propaganda.


RegexReader
$USA =~ s/Republican/Democrat/ig;

[adwam]

23. Nope, not a good idea

I am a gun owner, and I voted for Democrats on the local level. I voted against Kerry because of his votes on 'reasonable' restrictions of our civil right to keep and bear arms.

Our party needs to lose a few times to learn that every part of the Bill of Rights is important.

[Romulus]

24. would work, but with changes

as far the "cop killer" rounds go (sorry).

Keep it simple:

- Mag restriction
- background checks on all purchases, private or otherwise, with a Swiss-style system where the seller must keep a receipt for the secondary sale

*important*
- public opposition to crackpot gun control laws (like most anything Lautenberg proposes)
- public support for sensible fair-issue CCW systems with strict training reqs, like TX and OH

And if we're feeling ambitious:
- mandatory training or proof of military service before you can purchase; I just took the MD hunter safety class an there was a guy next to me who said he bought a Rem 870 but has never fired a shotgun or knew anything about "gauges" :eyes: ; at least he was taking SOME class, but a guy like that should at least take the NRA basic shotgun class.

- state-level passive handgun registration like PA, or maybe even MD's semi-active system (wait, training, and sale registration form); handguns are the problem, and we can either deal with it now or "be dealt with" later (like UK, CAN and AUS folks were "dealt with") . . .

[politicat]

26. We'll join.

We only own a single firearm at the moment, but we own it.

Open it up to bow hunters and trappers - who tend to be very environmentally active - and you'll have a force to be reckoned with.

Pcat

[northernsoul]

27. I'm halfway with you

My constitutional position on RTKBA is that it is an issue for state and local governments so long as they can demonstrate a compelling interest in public safety to justify whatever regulations they enact. Therefore I'm opposed to federal legislation regulating gun ownership (except for regulations enacted purely under the interstate commerce clause).

I enjoy trap shooting, would love to go upland game birding sometime (I'm a city kid - never had a chance to go), and I don't begrudge those who feel a need to provide for their home defense. I own a .22 rifle and I'm looking for a shotgun.
I consider myself a strong conservationist / environmentalist.

Think there's room for me in this organization?

[LinuxUser]

28. You need to learn more about firearms before you start a firearms group

"Cop killer rounds"? That's an urban legend. When you base your politics on urban legends, you end up with some foolish laws.

There have been a few different kinds of rounds which have been called "cop killers" at various times. I'll address them one by one.

First, Winchester's Black Talons were called "cop killers" and were promptly removed from the market. Why were they "cop killers"? Simply because of the name. The name was just too nasty. They now sell very similar bullets called SXT or something, which do the same thing. Basically, there is a whole category of high-performance hollowpoints, including SXTs, Remington Golden Sabers, and a whole bunch of others, and they all do the same thing: they expand reliably and effectively. These aren't cop-killers; they're just high-quality handgun ammo. Handguns are all underpowered and ineffective which is why such ammo exists. High-performance hollowpoints have been around for about 20 years now, and I've never heard any evidence that these are more or less widely used for "killing cops" than anything else. Oh, by the way, the important point is that these days almost all "street cops" are wearing body armor, and body armor stops all these kinds of bullets with almost 100% effectiveness. Body armor + Black Talon = cop has a nasty bruise and takes a few days off work.

Second in the "cop killer" category were "teflon tipped bullets". These were sold in very very small numbers to law enforcement only. The teflon tip helps it go through car windshields. These have never been available to civilians, and there has never been an incident of one of these bullets killing a cop. These are rare things; I don't know if they still even make them. Btw, when I say "teflon tip" here, I mean that there is a small piece of solid Teflon (CF2 polymer) on the tip of the bullet itself. Taking a regular bullet, and spraying it with a can of "teflon spray" just gives you a bullet that's very slippery and will not in any way enhance its armor penetration or anything else. Any gangsta who thinks he's getting an edge by spraying "teflon spray" on his bullets is welcome to do so; it won't do him any good.

Third, "armor penetrating handgun bullets". These are distinct from "armor penetrating rifle bullets"; ALL rifle bullets go through soft armor of the type that cops normally wear (see below). Yes, it is possible to make handgun bullets which are "armor penetrating". These are made of materials such as tungsten or depleted uranium. If you get a 9mm bullet made out of DU or tungsten, it will definitely go through body armor. None of these bullets have ever been available to civilians. I've never heard of criminals using such things. The technology exists, but it's not available on the market. Probably there are some special forces military units that have them, but no civilians have access. If some gangsta really really wants a handgun round that will go through armor, his best bit is to buy a lathe and some tungsten rod and learn how to machine tungsten (good luck, it's incredibly difficult). In short: yes, in theory, there could be "cop killer" bullets but in reality, it's a fantasy.

Any other nominations for "cop killers"? I would be happy to get the fact for you. Btw, ALL rifle ammo goes through ALL soft body armor. Old hunting rifles, new M16s, whatever, ALL of it will go through soft body armor every single time. There is no soft body armor that can stop any rifle rounds with any degree of certainty. If you want to ban bullets that go through armor, ban rifles, all of them, including 100 year old hunting rifles, etc. Arrows also go through body armor I believe so you would have to ban bows and arrows, too. Conversely, modern soft body armor is extremely effective at stopping handgun rounds. You basically can't buy handguns or handgun ammo that could go through a vest. These vests have saved a lot of cops and are primarily resonsible for the decrease in on-the-job deaths for cops over the past twenty years.

So please... get some gun facts from somewhere other than Hollywood before you go off and start your progressive gun organization. I would join... if it's well-informed and can distinguish Hollywood guns from real guns.

[arkie dem]

29. Count me in

BTW new here, my first post.

[Peak_Oil]

39. I'm with you.

I'd be 100% behind a progressive gun owner's group. I just wouldn't want to join one that intends to restrict gun ownership any further. The group would have to support increased personal freedom with regards to firearm ownership.

Maybe one possible idea would be to start gun safety classes and just build from there. Instruct newbies on how to break down and clean their guns, what the different options are as far as storage in the home, how to shoot properly, how to be safe. Safety is so important!

I'd take a class like that. Even though I've been trained by military professionals for years, shoot with an NRA certified instructor every couple of months, own multiple handguns and long guns, I still feel like a newbie. Any way to increase my awareness of safety is a good idea.

I don't get the ban on hicap magazines. If you can't hit with the first ten, why would you think another three shots would help? It seems like a red herring to me.

A website might be a good start, too. I'd like to see one that had accurate information on it with a slant toward debunking myths. It seems difficult to find a source of unbiased gun data. Many times I run across information out there that's slanted.

As an example, I was looking for information on landmines and landmine casualties. The site had a lot of data, but while reading it I realized that they were taking the data from war in general, and then saying that "much" of the damage was caused by landmines without any factual evidence. In my opinion, landmines are horrible devices and should be completely banned. So many innocent people get maimed, and there doesn't seem to be a way to decommission them safely. Anyway, because the information was innaccurate, it was useless to me.

I'd like to see information for its own sake rather than information slanted to support an agenda. Why not let the data speak for itself? Reasonable people can make up their own minds, I think.

[rebelskypirate]

58. You are right about Land Mines

You are dead on about land mines, here why:

Mines are the worlds cheapest warrior, in some ways. Once made and placed, you never have to pay, feed, or pension them. But unlike living warriors, they cannot tell friend from foe, or military from civilian, and never get the word the war is over.....

Also, mines have evolved over the years to become designed to WOUND, not kill. Modern AP mines are all plastic(undetectable), contain antidisturbance devices(cannot be disarmed) never go bad, and generally contain JUST enough Comp B or TNT to main the foot/leg of the unlucky person to step on it, taking them out of the fight but placing a burden on their society....YES, they are vicious, cruel weapons that are designed to main....

Sadly, the main producers of mines DID not sign the recent treaty as we did not, nor were likley to honor it even if they did

Good post!

[rebelskypirate]

57. GREAT post!

Great post, very, very well done!

[aikoaiko]

30. All guns for all noncriminal, noncrazy adult citizens

Now thats progress.

[EstimatedProphet]

31. Georgia-sounds good to me

How about Progressive Gun Owners of America (PGOA)?

On edit-I do like the idea but I don't like the restrictions listed. I would be much more in favor of the idea without them.

[Lefty48197]

34. I'm all for it farmbo

amazing how all the usual suspects don't think it's a good idea for Democrats to form a gun ownership group. Why would they object to that? Is it a threat to their "non-political" NRA?
Don't let their silly words demoralize you farmbo. Keep up the fight. There are sensible people who have an open mind like you. Don't let yourself get buried in the bullsh*t of the others.

[Columbia]

35. BS

Name one post where the poster indicated s/he was against this organization because they "don't think it's a good idea for Democrats to form a gun ownership group."

Just one.

[Lefty48197]

43. Obviously Farmbo has touched a nerve with the NRA with this post

He has struck fear into the hearts of the NRA/Republican party, because his idea attacks their directly. The NRA/Republican party wants people to believe that all gun owners/hunters should be Republicans. They don't want anybody to know the truth (i.e. 5% of legal American gun owners belong to the NRA, and that 95% do NOT). Any voice that reminds Americans that the NRA is way out of touch with the average gun owners is a major threat to the NRA/Republican party.

[Columbia]

46. Thanks

Obviously, you could not fulfill the request and back up your false allegations. Instead, you make more. I'm quite disappointed.

[LinuxUser]

52. Join both

Hey, I think it's a good idea for gun owners who are serious about keeping their rights to belong to more than one gun rights group. I would be a member of the group proposed in this thread, and the NRA, and maybe some other groups, too. They're all working for the same thing: protect gun rights. The more groups working on this, the better. Whether it's the NRA, the Pink Pistols, the GOA, or this proposed group, join one of them! Join two of them! Join all of them!

[Abelman]

36. Sounds good at first

But after reading many posts, I see any sort of 'gun control' would almost be a shot in the foot.

I like the environmental aspect. Keep it.

As for "Gun control," nix it and work towards a promotion of "gun safety" where in citizens need to demonstrate they know how to safely operate a firearm before they can use it. Guns by themselves are fine, its the people who operate them that are the problem. We are getting nowhere trying to regulate the guns.

Would anyone really be opposed to encouraging states to require a hunter's safety course before one is allowed to go hunting? Oh wait... many already do.

I've got no problems with someone owning a handgun. Personally, I think its worthless and going to cause more problems than it will fix. However, I would feel more comfortable knowing that person has the proper education necessary to safely operate that firearm.

I honestly think there's no reason for an average American to own anything other than a hunting rifle and a shotgun, but many people find enjoyment shooting various firearms and I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to. But if they are going to take that firearm out of their house, they need to be amazingly safe with it.

Gun Safety. Not Control.

I would definitely join some sort of Progressive Gun Group, so long as they were interested in protecting citizens rights to bear arms while at the same time promoting education on how to use said arms, and promoting an environmental agenda.

[Lefty48197]

44. We have to be VERY careful as to whom we allow to teach gun safety

For instance, if we let DANGEROUS people like this NRA member do insane things such a point guns with your finger on the trigger, without knowing where the gun is pointing, then we're going to have everybody acting so irresponsibly. Every gun owner knows that it is wrong to handle a gun in such a manner. Let's hope this "NRA Patriot" isn't one of their "Eddie Eagle safety instructors"...

[slackmaster]

49. You're right - A lot of people are incompetent to teach gun safety

I think it should be offered in public schools, by qualified instructors.

[Abelman]

50. Yeah, that's a good point

I don't see why they don't. They still hold onto that dead horse "DARE."

[Lefty48197]

69. Aren't the "Patriots" the NRA leaders?

I mean, don't they train the "eddie eagle safety instructors" that so many NRA members claim are so safety conscious?

[Spiffarino]

38. North Carolina here

And yes, I'm game.

As for a name, I say call it the SAAA: Second Amendment Association of America. Pronounced "Ess Triple-A."

As for the beginnings of a charter, "We believe in our right to the responsible use of firearms for any legitimate purpose including those handed down by our Founding Fathers."

I guess that would make the "sensible" part of your organization less sensible. I'm not for such restrictions as limiting rounds and clips. They don't make sense in a world where such things are easy to find on the black market.

I am for fully funding police departments so they have the best body armor and weaponry to protect themselves from the bad guys. Oh yeah, and a big fat pay raise, too, followed by stronger checks on their power to beat the crap out of dissenters. Fair is fair.

[Van23]

40. Sounds good to me!

Count me in.

[arkie dem]

41. Any leaders here?

I'm not much on leading, but willing to help anyway I can.
This needs to make the mainstream media. Let the pukes know we are through rolling over.

FOA might run afoul with GOA

[OnionPatch]

42. My husband would join in a minute

if it did not support any more restriction of guns than there are already. He does love his guns. We talked about this issue and agree that the Dems need to make a visual stand to show our support for gun ownership.

[Lefty48197]

45. You've got them on the run Farmbo

you've struck fear into the hearts of the NRA! They know that if there is a gun ownership group that isn't an unabashed branch of the Republican party, then their group will lose membership, funding, and political clout. Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay hate this idea as much as the rest of the NRA members do.

[Van23]

55. Absolutely!

That's why I'm all for this idea. Unfortunately, I'm a long way from Ohio.

[Wickerman]

47. Gee, I thought this was going to be a good thread

worthy of a bookmark. Guess none of the folks who eagerly denounce highly placed Dems weren't interested in a progressive movement.

:shrug:

[mosin]

48. Sounds good if you drop the demands for gun control.

I believe I can get some funding for a national gun owners association which promotes shooting, hunting and fishing, while emphasizing conservation of streams and habitat. We would also support the position of law enforcement organizations on sensible restrictions on hi capacity clips and cop-killer rounds.

As long as you support meaningless restrictions on magazine capacity and non-existent "cop-killer" bullets, you are a gun control organization, not a gun rights organization.

I guess I don't see the need for duplicating the NRA. The NRA is already a moderate single-issue gun rights organization. They support pro-gun Democrats as readily as pro-gun Republicans. Beyond the gun issue, the NRA is not conservative or liberal.

The solution to getting the NRA out of national partisan politics is to get the national Democratic party out of the gun control business. Period.

[turnkey]

51. Maybe you could get Ted Kennedy...

for your first President...I'll pass. :eyes:

[Nicky Scarfo]

54. Ditto. nt

[Bullseye10]

64. Mosin hit it in the 10 ring!

Mosin is right. If you want the NRA out of your political race. Do not put a pro gun control candidate in the race to begin with!

[Billy Ruffian]

66. mosin is spot on

that's not a 10-ring, that's an 'X' ring !

Here in NC, the NRA gave an endorsement to Governor Easley. Lots of repubs think it made a big difference, since both Easley and his challenger, Ballentine, had NRA 'A' ratings.

Some gun owners think that Easley's A rating was undeserved, based upon his actions as Attorney General, but he has signed gun bills that the NRA wanted, so he got the A.

[Lefty48197]

70. ahem

The NRA IS a non partisan group and it's members often vote for Democratic candidates
(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist the sarcasm)

[mosin]

75. You should be sarcastic more often. (n/t)

[Nicky Scarfo]

53. Self-delete.

[lcordero]

56. I will support an organization that

recognizes a completely unrestricted right to keep and bear arms. We got this stupid useless government forced upon us in the first place because we had stupid people from our ranks take away our means to defend ourselves.

[CarinKaryn]

59. I'll support this.

One of my goals for the next year is to see California's ban on Bunker Busting .50 cals go nationwide.

I'm sure this is a goal that conservationists and clay shooters could get behind.

[NEDem]

60. Conservationist Clay Shooter here...

I don't and would never support a ban on ANYTHING. I don't care what they are doing in California, I'd never get behind anything like that. If I want a .50 cal, I'll buy one, but taking away my right to own it is against the Bill of Rights.

A lot of us Liberals jump up and down when the RW tries to silence our 1st Ammendment right, yet a few misguided Liberals seem to think its OK to waterdown or silence the right granted to us by the 2nd. Its fuzzy logic, and its going to keep hurting us.

As far as I'm concerned if someone can pass an instant background check they should be able to park an Abrahms tank in their driveway.

[CarinKaryn]

61. This kind of insanity

Is why the country is the way it is.
Thanks for nothing.

[NEDem]

62. you're welcome

[Lefty48197]

71. ?

"As far as I'm concerned if someone can pass an instant background check they should be able to park an Abrahms tank in their driveway"

Welcome to the gun nut club.

[aikoaiko]

63. Maybe not since shotgun slugs are greater than .50 cal.

A lot of people are worried that the .50 cal ban will be applied to shotguns. The slope is getting slippery.

[Lefty48197]

72. Perhaps they should educate themselves and learn the difference

between a slug and a bullet?

[mosin]

76. That's an advanced concept.

Let's start with the difference between a bullet and a cartridge and go from there.

[Bullseye10]

65. Another Slippery Slope

Maybe we could just ban free speech on Wednesdays?

[mosin]

67. After all...

isn't six days a week enough for anyone?

[Lefty48197]

73. This is the "nuclear weapons" argument again

talk about a 'slippery slope'.

[mosin]

77. Fortunately...

U2 has released a documentary on "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb," so we don't have to worry about nuclear (or nuk-ya-lar) proliferation.

[Lefty48197]

78. Probably better than those NRA books and videos

that show people how to build home made bombs, or convert their "hunting" rifles to fully automatic military weapons.

[mosin]

80. I missed those...

in my NRA indoctrination class. I should call and get those.

In the meantime, you might try this book, Expedient Homemade Firearms : The 9mm Submachine Gun, but it doesn't come from the NRA.

[Billy Ruffian]

81. I call BS

Go to the NRA web site, and find any literature on home made bombs, or converting any rifle to full auto.

You're making it up. Prove me wrong.

[mosin]

68. "Bunker Busting .50 cals"

Bunker Busting .50 cals

Thanks for the laugh. That's the first time I've heard that "terminology."

The .50BMG ban is so absurd that it would be laughed out of any sensible legislature. Good luck with your quest. The phrase "tilting at windmills" comes to mind.

[vinnievin777]

79. If any of you are near Fairfield County

I am no gun fan but I have a Gun owner focus group that pays 75 dollars for a two hour group ---
email me at [e-mail]


Vinnie Vin
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1932852344/qid=1086103239/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-2438201-2251026?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


http://www.vinnievin.com