- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LA Constitutional Carry Bill is Back (HB68)
Posted on 4/20/17 at 5:39 pm to bapple
Posted on 4/20/17 at 5:39 pm to bapple
quote:
What a fear-mongering pile of bullshite.
Debate with logic, not with feelings.
So, where's all the outrage over Hunter Safety classes?
Gun education is either good, or bad.
5
Posted on 4/20/17 at 5:51 pm to chinese58
quote:
“There's a list of many reasons that you wouldn't get a permit, so if you take away the permitting system, you not only are taking away the training requirement, which is important, but also giving people access to conceal carrying weapons on them that shouldn't,” said Moms Demand Action spokesperson, Lori Maraist.
This retard obviously hasn't gone through a CCL class. The minimum requirements are laughable.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 6:02 pm to dawg23
quote:
dawg23
We've engaged in argument over this topic before and you made your position abundantly clear. You were incapable of factually defending your position, which is fine, but leaves me no desire to debate it further.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 6:28 pm to bapple
quote:Translation: You're unable to "factually debate" Hunter Safety requirements/benefits, anymore than you were willing to "debate with logic, not with feelings" when it came to other topics.
You were incapable of factually defending your position, which is fine, but leaves me no desire to debate it further.
Factual gun education is either good, or it's bad.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 6:45 pm to dawg23
quote:
So, where's all the outrage over Hunter Safety classes?
Gun education is either good, or bad.
Gun education is good. Hunting isn't a constitutionally protected right so the hunting safety v. CC permitting class process argument doesn't work. For now we have to live with the LDWF's rules on obtaining a license. In the past few years the amount of ACCIDENTAL, bc thats lack of education, gun deaths has been under 150 for the past few years and probably longer (Numbers from the CDC are always lower so going by media numbers to be conservative). Accidental deaths in the US count for around 140,000. That means accidental gun deaths account for less than .001% of accidental deaths. Of course no one is for death, but statistically...I'd say that is reasonable. We know you're for big government and infrindgement you don't need to prove it again.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 6:56 pm to bapple
How much money would the state lose if this passed? You know they don't like to take away taxes in the form of permits or licenses.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 7:04 pm to Propagandalf
You're correct - hunting and CCW are different. But both involve "keeping and bearing arms."
I'm not a historian but I'd guess that hunting was one of the first and most common uses of firearms by early European settlers on this continent. But I could surely be wrong.
My point is that I don't see how somebody can logically be against CCW training and be in favor of Hunter Safety requirements. I ran into this argument while talking with a legislator, and I didn't have an answer.
Maybe both need to be tossed out. But if your best answer is "you're for big government and infrindgement (sic) you don't need to prove it again," I don't think I'll try to pass that one along.
As another member stated, I'm not looking for a long-winded debate. If someone has a logical, objective reason for Hunter safety requirements being OK (along with hunter orange, hunting licenses, etc.) while CCW requirements aren't, I'd be interested in reading it.
Otherwise, best wishes.
I'm not a historian but I'd guess that hunting was one of the first and most common uses of firearms by early European settlers on this continent. But I could surely be wrong.
My point is that I don't see how somebody can logically be against CCW training and be in favor of Hunter Safety requirements. I ran into this argument while talking with a legislator, and I didn't have an answer.
Maybe both need to be tossed out. But if your best answer is "you're for big government and infrindgement (sic) you don't need to prove it again," I don't think I'll try to pass that one along.
As another member stated, I'm not looking for a long-winded debate. If someone has a logical, objective reason for Hunter safety requirements being OK (along with hunter orange, hunting licenses, etc.) while CCW requirements aren't, I'd be interested in reading it.
Otherwise, best wishes.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 7:22 pm to dawg23
quote:
But both involve "keeping and bearing arms."
One is killing a managed species of animals. Tools used to do this DO include firearms but also include spears, arrows, knives, traps, etc. It is reguulated by a state authority and requires a licsense. It is not a constitutioanally proteected activity.
The other is a constituitionally protactud righte to possessesesses something.
I can't not wrap my head arund how someone cannot re-cognize how the requorements to obtane a license to kill animals draws any parallel with someone needing to fulfill requirements to xercise a right. One is a RIGHT...the other is a prevldge.
Where do I sign up for the rest of the Bill of Rights classes?
sic
Posted on 4/20/17 at 7:25 pm to Aristo
quote:
How much money would the state lose if this passed? You know they don't like to take away taxes in the form of permits or licenses.
I was thinking the same thing. I sure hope this passes one day soon.
I don't have a CC permit because I don't like the idea of having to waste the time and money to take another class to renew every so many years. I have no intention of carrying all the time, but I do drop a little pistol in my back pocket if I find myself in a sketchy area of town pumping gas or getting ice or whatever.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 7:58 pm to dawg23
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:55 pm to Propagandalf
quote:Well, you could start with the Louisiana Supreme Court. They've explained that keeping and bearing arms is a right, but it's not an absolute right. Quite a few rulings have been handed down on this in response to appeals based on "strict scrutiny."
One is a RIGHT...the other is a prevldge.
Where do I sign up for the rest of the Bill of Rights classes?
LINK
quote:
Quote from link: "Finally, the Louisiana Supreme Court also held in 2014 that the legislature retained the ability to pass laws regarding the carrying of concealed weapons, despite the 2012 amendment to the state’s constitution. In ruling that the challenged statutes regulating concealed carry and prohibiting juvenile handgun possession except under certain circumstances passed review under strict scrutiny, the court held that “[t]he right to keep and bear arms, like other rights guaranteed by [the] state constitution, is not absolute.
The court concluded that “the drafters and ratifiers [of the 2012 constitutional amendment] did not intend to invalidate the existing law restricting the carrying of concealed weapons, or to restrict the legislature’s authority to pass laws on that subject".
Bottom line: Keeping and bearing arms is a right. Concealing guns in public is a privilege.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:24 pm to dawg23
I think you just went full retard. Do you remember what point you're trying to make?
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:32 pm to dawg23
quote:
Gun education is either good, or bad.
The distinction you aren't quite grasping here is that gun education is good, gov't mandated gun educated is not good.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 10:00 am to Propagandalf
quote:
I think you just went full retard. Do you remember what point you're trying to make?
Thanks - that's one of the nicer things I've been called today (although I've only spoken to my wife, so far).
Yeah, I remember the point I was making --- the overarching point is that if gun education and regulation is bad, then the "constitutional carry" proponents should be marching in the streets against government-mandated Hunter Safety classes (and all the other hunting regulations -- like having to pay for a hunting license just to shoot hogs and armadillos).
My specific point that you so eloquently refer to as "full retard" was nothing more than an attempt to help you. You asked for assistance in finding a source to help you understand gun rights vs. privileges, and I directed you to the La. Supreme Court.
If people don't like the Supreme Court rulings, I suppose they could try to have the justices impeached. Maybe they're the ones that went "full retard" (not sure if that's an impeachable offense).
I don't claim to be an expert on gun right issues. But I'm a Life Member of the NRA (I'm betting there aren't many on this board), and have probably done more to support the election of pro-gun candidates than anyone else on this board. (Google "Clay Higgins" as one example.)
Back to my overarching point -- gun education is either good, or it's bad. Personally, I think it's good. Too many people get killed every year in Louisiana through stupid/unsafe gun handling (hunting weapons and gun bought for self-defense).
If you have any other questions or comments, please give me a call at 225-766-4422 and I'll try to provide a clearer explanation.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 2:59 pm to bapple
quote:
1. The mere covering of a firearm with a piece of clothing does not raise the violent crime rate.
I never understood how someone can open carry with no issues but somehow if you have your shirt covering the gun it becomes a huge problem. Blows my mind.
This post was edited on 4/21/17 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 4/21/17 at 3:03 pm to dawg23
quote:
government-mandated Hunter Safety classes (and all the other hunting regulations -- like having to pay for a hunting license just to shoot hogs and armadillos).
Also a dumb law. To me it's just another way for the state to take your money.
Posted on 4/21/17 at 3:04 pm to dawg23
quote:
Back to my overarching point -- gun education is either good, or it's bad. Personally, I think it's good. Too many people get killed every year in Louisiana through stupid/unsafe gun handling (hunting weapons and gun bought for self-defense).
But I thought we had all these laws and training to stop all of this?
This post was edited on 4/21/17 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 4/21/17 at 3:04 pm to dawg23
quote:
If someone has a logical, objective reason for Hunter safety requirements being OK (along with hunter orange, hunting licenses, etc.) while CCW requirements aren't, I'd be interested in reading it.
Because hunting is a recreational firearm activity in which you go out in the world, in a shared wildlife space, and if all goes well, you will discharge the firearm (often multiple times) from a stealthy, concealed position, often to the surprise of folks not hunting with you.
CCW is an extension of self-defense. Yes, you're in a shared space (public), but if all goes well, you WON'T discharge the firearm. And, if the situation deteriorates to the point where the weapon IS discharged in this situation, then folks in the immediate area are highly likely to be alerted to the fact that shite's going down.
That's my humble, logical justification for hunter safety rules/hunter orange/hunter education and no requirement for CCW.
ETA: Just FTR, I think education is good and everyone intending to carry a weapon for defense should be proficient (or better) with the weapon, as well as be well aware of the rules and regulations involved in lethal force in self-defense situations. However, the libertarian in me has a hard time saying it should be mandatory - because at that point, who decides what should be taught, who should teach it, how much it should cost always ends up with the government and it becomes a licensed privilege, not a true right.
This post was edited on 4/21/17 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 4/21/17 at 3:06 pm to Ace Midnight
I like that explanation
Posted on 4/21/17 at 3:13 pm to dawg23
quote:
The court concluded that “the drafters and ratifiers [of the 2012 constitutional amendment] did not intend to invalidate the existing law restricting the carrying of concealed weapons, or to restrict the legislature’s authority to pass laws on that subject".
This is where we should all be focusing the attention - that's literally the only change in that amendment - removing the concealed weapons clause. But, the LASC said that it didn't mean what it meant. That's impossible to overcome with a court that has that power.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News