Jeff Landry

[AustinBR]

My friend, do you not know how the state works? (Rhetorical question)
Today, what is classified as common sense behavior, 10 years from now is a felony. Refuse to call the tranny by their preferred pronoun? Felony for you. Refuse to ignore certain racial data? Felony. Refuse to give up your seat to accommodate the 450lb minority that well deserves that seat? Hmm, felony.
I completely understand that these examples may be far fetched, I agree, but you cannot sit here and tell me that they are out of the realm of possibility. And, with that being the case, it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that other, minor offenses would be classified as a felony.
This world would run much better if it relied more on individual choice and the responsibility of the individual, rather than relying on the false security that the state provides, especially when that false security involves certain rights that should never, ever be possible for them to take away. The constitution was written the way that it was written for a reason. The amendments are in the order they are in, for a reason. And the verbage in those amendments means exactly what it says, for a reason.

Now, I wonder how many of the statistics in this chart, were contributed by,...take a guess?







No, the answer I was looking for was felons...

No seriously, how does legally restricting possession of firearms to criminals who were convicted as felons give the state more power?

I'm all about easing restrictions on firearm ownership, but I couldn't care less if felons are permanently barred from firearm ownership.

 

[GunRelated]

No seriously, how does legally restricting possession of firearms to criminals who were convicted as felons give the state more power?

I'm all about easing restrictions on firearm ownership, but I couldn't care less if felons are permanently barred from firearm ownership.

As you may have noticed, the state does not give up it's power over the people willingly. This thread exists because the right of the people to "keep and bear arms" has been eroded away to the point that we are at now, where we are having to rely on Louisiana's corrupt ass government to give us permission to do what we already have the right to do.
I understand that you follow the laws so much that you don't have to worry about being labeled as a criminal, or a felon, in today's world. Maybe that world will exist for the rest of your days. However, if history has taught us anything at all, then how are we to actually expect that it will not continue to spiral down the drain, as the state continues to pressure it's citizens more and more, to the point of no return? How does the state exact it's authority? Laws...
I'm not saying that we should be lawless. I'm saying that we should heed the warnings of history, and how laws are used against the people, via the power of the state.
Some rights, as outlined in the Constitution, should not be infringed, for any reason. Purpose. Purpose from experience, written by people who underood history, and how the state works.

 

[AustinBR]

As you may have noticed, the state does not give up it's power over the people willingly. This thread exists because the right of the people to "keep and bear arms" has been eroded away to the point that we are at now, where we are having to rely on Louisiana's corrupt ass government to give us permission to do what we already have the right to do.
I understand that you follow the laws so much that you don't have to worry about being labeled as a criminal, or a felon, in today's world. Maybe that world will exist for the rest of your days. However, if history has taught us anything at all, then how are we to actually expect that it will not continue to spiral down the drain, as the state continues to pressure it's citizens more and more, to the point of no return? How does the state exact it's authority? Laws...
I'm not saying that we should be lawless. I'm saying that we should heed the warnings of history, and how laws are used against the people, via the power of the state.
Some rights, as outlined in the Constitution, should not be infringed, for any reason. Purpose. Purpose from experience, written by people who underood history, and how the state works.

How does this answer my question?

Laws aren't always negative. Most laws benefit the public's interest at large.

While I wish I could speed over 100mph on the interstates, I understand that restricting the general populace from driving that fast is indeed a net positive.

 

[Magdump]

I am 100% against this.
Retired military and I would venture to say 75% of military members are firearm illiterate so the general public is probably 90% firearm illiterate. Even the current CCW us a joke, it mainly points out the legalities of CCW.
We are asking for trouble with this legislation and I'll bet many of innocents will pay the ultimate price.

So, what about all the other states that have already passed this? Any statistics available? Surely by now there are stats to back up your fears.

 

[GunRelated]

How does this answer my question?

Laws aren't always negative. Most laws benefit the public's interest at large.

While I wish I could speed over 100mph on the interstates, I understand that restricting the general populace from driving that fast is indeed a net positive.

Directly, a law prohibiting certain people from owning / possessing firearms, could be used against any other person at some point in the future via modification of the verbage in said law in what qualifies as a felony. As such, this can be used by the state to exercise the gaining of power over it's citizens by further increasing the size of the population that is prohibited from owning / possessing firearms.

This is exactly what I said in the previous post(s), put into the most simple, understandable form possible.

 

[Magdump]

I don't really have concrete facts on the concern I have.... I'm going on complete conjecture. It's just my second nature to question or even be suspicious of freedoms that are all of a sudden, attainable. It seems, constitutional carry could level the playing field against illegal possession and carry of criminals that have been doing so for years.
I only question the aptitude of "new" legal and law abiding citizens that now possess a firearm without any kind of education and training. Who's going to monitor that? Do you think everyone is going to want to take a basic firearms class.... probably not. There's going to be allot of new "Rambos" out there and I pray they have the foresight to educate themselves and train properly with their carried firearms.

Well that certainly is a turn from “opening the borders and letting the criminals reside in my hometown…”
Like I said, the real deal is, violent thugs are already packing bro. Passing a law to allow law abiding citizens carry without a permit will likely have the opposite effect from what you’re touting. Tantamount to what? Did you say giving violent criminals something to think about? A new reason to think twice? Every time I see someone attempt to argue against constitutional carry I just see holes in their logic and lack of common sense. Looking at it on the most simple terms, folks can be armed in their home and have a way to defend against anyone trying to do them harm. Many of those people likely also keep a gun in their car to defend against a carjacking or what have you. On top of that, there’s also open carry. You may or may not want to factor that in, but it does indeed exist. (I just saw an everyday guy in Ponchatoula Walmart the other day with what appeared to be a Glock pistol on his hip and nobody batting an eye.) Those same good people, who ALREADY HAVE A GUN FOR PROTECTION, would then have the legal clearance to carry the gun on their person in public, concealed from public view.
Lastly, how many of these “thugs” do you think have gone and received any training or education whatsoever for carrying a concealed firearm? I’m guessing not very many.

 

[323MAR]

Yeah, the 26 states that passed this have the streets flooded with rivers of blood! It makes the opening sequence of "Predator 2" look like a kindergarten field trip! City Hunter Predators will sneak in and take the skulls of any man carrying as trophies.

 

[GunRelated]

Yeah, the 26 states that passed this have the streets flooded with rivers of blood! It makes the opening sequence of "Predator 2" look like a kindergarten field trip! City Hunter Predators will sneak in and take the skulls of any man carrying as trophies.

I wouldn't be surprised if I googled this quote, and found out you stole it from a politician that was trying to defend their position against it.

 

[Jstudz220]

Looking at this logically I don’t see how anyone except a career criminal or ccw instructor would be against constitutional carry. I think this is about as “no brainer” as it gets.

 

[thperez1972]

I don't really have concrete facts on the concern I have.... I'm going on complete conjecture. It's just my second nature to question or even be suspicious of freedoms that are all of a sudden, attainable. It seems, constitutional carry could level the playing field against illegal possession and carry of criminals that have been doing so for years.
I only question the aptitude of "new" legal and law abiding citizens that now possess a firearm without any kind of education and training. Who's going to monitor that? Do you think everyone is going to want to take a basic firearms class.... probably not. There's going to be allot of new "Rambos" out there and I pray they have the foresight to educate themselves and train properly with their carried firearms.

What rights should have a training requirement?

 

[Fordfella]

Refuse to call the tranny by their preferred pronoun? Felony for you. Refuse to ignore certain racial data? Felony. Refuse to give up your seat to accommodate the 450lb minority that well deserves that seat? Hmm, felony.
I completely understand that these examples may be far fetched,

Not so far fetched and may be heading for the Supreme Court.

Indiana parents warn nation after child is removed from home for improper pronoun usage: ‘Can happen anywhere’

A religous couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for removing their child from their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

www.foxnews.com

Removing trans-identified child from Catholic parents' home sets 'dangerous precedent': attorney

An Indiana Catholic couple whose child was removed from their home following disagreements over their son expressing a desire to identify as the opposite sex are asking the U S Supreme Court to hear ...

www.christianpost.com

Citing religious, parental rights, Hoosier couple asks SCOTUS for relief after trans child was removed - The Indiana Lawyer

An Indiana Catholic couple is asking U.S. Supreme Court to take their case after their transgender child was taken from their home because the parents would not use the child’s preferred pronouns.

www.theindianalawyer.com

Couple appeals to Supreme Court after child is removed from home over gender identity squabble

A Catholic couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for keeping their child out of their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

nypost.com

 

[GunRelated]

Not so far fetched and may be heading for the Supreme Court.

Indiana parents warn nation after child is removed from home for improper pronoun usage: ‘Can happen anywhere’

A religous couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for removing their child from their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

www.foxnews.com

Removing trans-identified child from Catholic parents' home sets 'dangerous precedent': attorney

An Indiana Catholic couple whose child was removed from their home following disagreements over their son expressing a desire to identify as the opposite sex are asking the U S Supreme Court to hear ...

www.christianpost.com

Citing religious, parental rights, Hoosier couple asks SCOTUS for relief after trans child was removed - The Indiana Lawyer

An Indiana Catholic couple is asking U.S. Supreme Court to take their case after their transgender child was taken from their home because the parents would not use the child’s preferred pronouns.

www.theindianalawyer.com

Couple appeals to Supreme Court after child is removed from home over gender identity squabble

A Catholic couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for keeping their child out of their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

nypost.com

Lord help me. Help me refrain from using the language that finds its way to my mind when I am in the presence of such stupidity.

 

[GunRelated]

Lord help me. Help me refrain from using the language that finds its way to my mind when I am in the presence of such stupidity.

Nah, I kid. F**k those fa***ts.

 

[GunRelated]

Nah, I kid. F**k those fa***ts.

Y'all have a naughty vocabulary. Bet you didn't know that I actually said "funk those fanjets"

Yep, fanjets is a word, look it up. Now, stop labeling me as a homophobe.


Told ya I was gonna completely derail this thread. But, nooo, just had to ask me to clarify.

 

[Magdump]

Yeah, the 26 states that passed this have the streets flooded with rivers of blood! It makes the opening sequence of "Predator 2" look like a kindergarten field trip! City Hunter Predators will sneak in and take the skulls of any man carrying as trophies.

IDK dude, I was a kindergartner in the late 60’s….. we had some rough field trips… just sayin’

 

[Gator 45/70]

I like paying a fee to enjoy my god given rights.
Now a criminal doesn't pay a fee to enjoy his god given rights?
Is America the only country where you pay a fee or pay for a permit to enjoy you're god given rights?

 

[CUJOHUNTER]

What rights should have a training

 

[CUJOHUNTER]

Ya'll do what you want to do.
I'm gonna keep renewing my permit every 5 years and continue to train. Since I travel allot, my permit will allow me to carry in states that my La. CCP has reciprocity with.
Carry on....

 

[thperez1972]

Ya'll do what you want to do.
I'm gonna keep renewing my permit every 5 years and continue to train. Since I travel allot, my permit will allow me to carry in states that my La. CCP has reciprocity with.
Carry on....

Reciprocity is a good reason to get a permit. But getting a permit and getting training are not mutually exclusive. And most everyone I know agrees that training is a good idea. But there's a difference between being a good idea and being mandatory. It's a good idea to become educated on the issues and the stances of candidates before you vote. But not everyone does that. Should we make it mandatory for someone to have proper knowledge before voting? I'll ask again because you quoted most of my question but failed to answer it, what rights should have a training requirement?

 

[charlie12]

If it passes and a 18 year old shoots someone will the other person file suit against mama for buy ammo for Jr.