- 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: "Constitutional carry” passes in the committee and will now move on to the House.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 2:41 pm to Rabby
Posted on 5/17/23 at 2:41 pm to Rabby
quote:
I am reluctant to open the flood gates for people who have zero training to carry concealed firearms.
Dude I’ll go to the class to learn and submit to a background check but the LSP application reads like I’m applying for a top secret clearance. It’s such a pain in the arse and the fact that I have to pay $150 for then to grant me my constitutional rights is bullshite. It’s a money grab for those clowns with the goofy arse hats.
1
Posted on 5/17/23 at 2:43 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:This is going to blow his mind. You are probably going to have to explain ....
Driving isn't a God given Constitutional Rightquote:
Neither is voting.
This post was edited on 5/17/23 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 5/17/23 at 2:45 pm to Bard
quote:True. Perhaps even a relevant distinction. Kudos.quote:Only for driving on public roads. There is no requirement to possess a driver's license to purchase a vehicle nor to drive it on private property.
Well, we do require them to get training (Driver Ed) and a license.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 2:53 pm to ProbyOne
quote:
They already forfeited the right when they committed a violent felony.
Even a violent felon has the right to protect themselves and family, even to hunt or just shoot for enjoyment.
It is the responsibility to gooooooooooooooooooooooberment to "help" protect society from violence. If a person is violent, the person must be removed from society either by a citizen protecting oneself or gooooooooooooooooooooooooooberment.
Why does gooooooooooooooooooooooooooberment let violent people run free? Could it be to create societal fear so arguments can be made to remove more liberty?
Why hell yes!!
It’s a money grab for those clowns with the goofy arse hats.
And the fancy lights!!
This post was edited on 5/17/23 at 7:31 pm
Posted on 5/17/23 at 3:16 pm to King George
quote:Names please.
This. Three republican legislators and one democratic legislator who all let it be know that they supported the bill didn't show up to work on the day it was voted on.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 3:21 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Unpermitted concealed firearms just legalizes the gang bangers
If they're truly members of a street gang, I'm going to take a stab at it and suspect the vast majority of them are criminals who couldn't legally possess one, anyway.
But why should we even believe those opposed to this are doing so in the name of fighting criminals- because they told us so?
If they were really the caped crusaders they claim to be, wouldn't they be hell-bent on being tougher on criminals instead of raising bail money and supporting reduced sentences?
Posted on 5/17/23 at 3:28 pm to TBoy
quote:
Unpermitted concealed firearms just legalizes the gang bangers who carry unpermitted concealed weapons everywhere. I'd rather the police be able to confiscate guns from the drug dealers on the corner.
Maybe it's time to arm the citizenry and just bypass the revolving door of the law. Remember the term criminal justice and know that you aren't part of that scheme. Criminals are big business for the police force. They want permitless carry to go away not because they want to house more criminals, but because the citizens would kill or deter their repeat criminal customers from commiting crimes. Can't have a dwindling criminal population.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 3:31 pm to Kino74
quote:
Louisiana carry license is quite expensive compared to other southern states and well as most states.
Greasy Palms Tax
Posted on 5/17/23 at 3:42 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Names please.
quote:LINK
During its initial passage in June, the House voted for it 73-28 and the Senate voted for it 27-9 — above the required two-thirds. Republicans and a handful of Democrats in both chambers supported the legislation, but some of those Senators changed their positions on Tuesday. Those included Sen. Gary Smith (D-Norco), Sen. Patrick Connick (R-Marrero), Sen. Louie Bernard (R-Natchitoches), Sen. Franklin Foil (R-Baton Rouge) and Sen. Greg Tarver (D-Shreveport).
Posted on 5/17/23 at 3:47 pm to TBoy
quote:
I'd rather the police be able to confiscate guns from the drug dealers on the corner.
Riiiight. I’m sure you would. Because that actually happens in the real world.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 3:55 pm to Dingdong Stabbins
super majority can override the veto
Posted on 5/17/23 at 4:26 pm to Dingdong Stabbins
I wish congress would pass national reciprocity. I have a CCL and travel to several states besides Alabama visiting grandkids to states that honor Alabama's CCL. All of these states have constitutional carry including Alabama but I have to purchase a CCL to be legal in those states. I am flying to Reagan National for a wedding next week and will be staying in DC and can not carry there. If I do and get caught I would instantly be a felon.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 5:35 pm to Rabby
quote:
As a longtime firearms instructor and range officer, I support the 2nd Amendment. But
You either have total security or total freedom. You can’t have both, bucko.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 5:53 pm to KAGTASTIC
quote:Nothing was said about barring ownership. My whole discussion was in the context of permitting concealed carry.
I guess we should put laws in place to prevent people from owning cars and driving based on this same assessment.
Do try to keep up.
As to driving, this is a highly regulated activity so your argument is pretty weak.
My goal is that we produce well trained citizens who can responsibly manage arms.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 5:58 pm to senshado
quote:
Interesting take. I have a question then. Would you still stand by this if the classes and permits were free? Because about 100% of the "range officers and firearms instructors" that I argue this topic with have a monetary benefit in REQUIRING the classes they teach. Now, would you still be in favor of this if you had to provide these classes without getting paid for them?
Great point.
My training was part of my previous employment and I am retired.
I am also a long time volunteer and have never charged a dime for training people. I encourage others to do the same, but I understand that not everyone can give their time freely.
The laborer is worth his wage, so I must not donate the services of other people.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 6:16 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:I placed no IQ requirement, but Justice Scalia did mention mental deficiency as a specific barrier in his Heller decision (with 5 other justices joining him.) so you are clearly wrong here.
None of what you posted means shite. A person with a 60 IQ has the same rights as someone with a 160 IQ. You don't have to be smart, you don't have to be responsible, you don't have to be anything but a non-felonious citizen. And "well regulated" has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
Why is it you liberals can't seem to understand, "shall not be infringed"? It's not hard.
I did suggest that training, qualifications and background be in place for concealed carry. Currently, Louisiana law agrees with me - as does the SCOTUS.
As to responsible, we just disagree here. I have seen the results of irresponsible people for many years. Join them - if you please. I prefer to remain on the responsible side of issues and behavior.
As to my being a liberal, I am not. And I have no trouble with owning my political philosophy. But all rights come with a degree of responsibility. Show me where complete freedom exists without responsibility and I will show you anarchy. I am not an anarchist.
The world is not a simple as you seem to be.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 6:20 pm to jcaz
quote:
Dude I’ll go to the class to learn and submit to a background check but the LSP application reads like I’m applying for a top secret clearance. It’s such a pain in the arse and the fact that I have to pay $150 for then to grant me my constitutional rights is bull shite. It’s a money grab for those clowns with the goofy arse hats.
I agree with you here.
My point involves the concept of training, qualification and background.
Excess fees and needless hurdles are as annoying to me as they are to you.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 6:26 pm to TBoy
quote:
hope it stays that way. Unpermitted concealed firearms just legalizes the gang bangers who carry unpermitted concealed weapons everywhere. I'd rather the police be able to confiscate guns from the drug dealers on the corner.
The only problem is...they do this anyway. And it's illegal to have a firearm if you're a felon....so there is a good chance they are in violation by carrying. Doesn't matter of it's concealed or open.
Posted on 5/17/23 at 6:26 pm to Junky
quote:Really?
You either have total security or total freedom. You can’t have both, bucko.
Please point out a single freedom which carries zero responsibility.
Seriously, most rights are balanced against some form of limit.
Would you permit a convicted armed robber to have a firearm while in prison?
Hopefully, not.
So now we are seeking the balance point between what is reasonable and what is an infringement.
Welcome to a meaningful discussion, Bucko
Posted on 5/17/23 at 6:32 pm to Rabby
quote:
My whole discussion was in the context of permitting concealed carry.
Restrictions on carry are simply barriers to entry for law abiding citizens. There are far more people filming TikTok videos while driving than there are people open carrying in the paint aisle at Lowes (you can't see me concealed carry, obv). Payments and training hour requirements for concealed carry permits are designed to keep poor people, hence minorities and old people on fixed incomes, from being able to carry legally.
Here's the rule: don't shoot anybody that doesn't need shooting. If you're stealing a Tickle-Me-Elmo, I can't shoot you. You're trying to grab someone's kid, I can shoot you. If I'm in fear of my safety, I can shoot you.
Training complete.
Every thing we do is a regulated activity, thanks for that. What you need to put into perspective is that "May issue," where a Sheriff or other LEO was required to approve your access to a permit was *expressly* to keep blacks from carrying. Think of a Sheriff in Lincoln Parish in the 1960s. Why, exactly, does an old black lady in the 9th ward need to pass an accuracy test to blast someone that is trying to steal her social security check when she leaves the bank from three feet away? What about the lady with a crazy ex that doesn't want to get hit again, needs 8 hours of "training," in order to carry a gun.
Define responsible. Define "well trained." I'll wait, and then I'll watch "common sense" politicians expand what you think is OK to prevent all kinds of ownership/carry. This has been going on for decades. Do you need to be an Eagle Scout? What if you got a DUI ten years ago?
Those are rhetorical questions, of course, because the word "reasonable" is the solace of cowards in the terms of rights.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News