Louisiana State Rep. Calls For Stricter Gun Control Laws After Theater Shooting

"We have to have a serious conversation."

Well, it did not take long! As many of us here at ATS knew immediately after the shooting occurred, the anti-gun folks are already attempting to blame firearms for this tragedy.

Louisiana state Rep. Terry Landry Sr. (D) called for more gun control at a press conference Friday after the shooting at a Lafayette, Louisiana movie theater.

A shooter identified by police as 59-year-old John Russel Houser opened fire in a movie theater Thursday night, killing two people and himself.

"It's our job as legislators to close the loopholes in these gun laws," Landry said.

Source

Of course it is going to be more laws less guns all the way.

a reply to: notmyrealname

Each and every chance anti-gun peeps get, they will take it. Completely ignoring the fact that criminals will always find a way to get a gun.

But I guess fewer guns in the hands of citizens will mean easier control. Control the masses, take their guns and leave them nothing to fight back with.

a reply to: notmyrealname

Color me utterly stunned! I'm speechless! It never once occurred to me that a Louisiana Democrat politician would pick up on this story and use it as an example of the need for more gun control. Gee Whiz, do you think maybe the rush to document and paint this nut job into the "Right Wing Domestic Terrorist" camp was maybe done to support a drive for more gun control legislation? Nah, I'm being too conspiratorial.

I'll say one thing that this story you linked up to does illustrate rather nicely, the extreme tolerance for others and their viewpoints demonstrated by the Leftist commenters on that story. Of course, its HuffPo....they're preaching to the choir. ""We have to have a serious conversation".....how do you have any thing remotely resembling a conversation with people like that. You can't which is why.......there's never a "serious" conversation.

a reply to: notmyrealname

I'm still trying to figure out what gun law would have prevented this.

a reply to: notmyrealname

All I hear is absolutism from gun fetishists and irrational ranting from statists. Maybe there is a serious conversation but it's drowned out by the shouting and nonsense.

There are some proposals that seem rational but no proposal I've heard would have prevented this incident. So the whole push for new laws after an event seems very incoherent and illogical. Similar to a single measles outbreak in a 99% vaccinated population triggering a tsunami of mandatory vaccines. It's incoherent and illogical.

The USG is aggressive and dangerous. It seems to be the larger problem and armed civilians are the best (possibly the only) mitigation for that.

a reply to: notmyrealname

Reports say that the man had been denied a concealed carry permit for having been adjudicated mentally ill...

Seems to me that gun control already failed.

a reply to: LunaticPandora

Reports say that the man had been denied a concealed carry permit for having been adjudicated mentally ill... Seems to me that gun control already failed.

you sir, mam, are correct,allow me to give you your first star.

a reply to: notmyrealname

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Those that ascribe to gun control/gun safety/gunsense(they keep on trying new monikers in the hopes one will stick) are voicing their pleas for more gun legislation.

www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...


There is one person who makes valid points in this discussion, from the same site:
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Before dismissing the article due to the source, please read it and take from it what you will.

Sure.

Add more laws to the failing legal system.

They sure are going balls out with the election fodder aren't they.

originally posted by: beezzer

I'm still trying to figure out what gun law would have prevented this.

The *ONLY* way is full confiscation and lockup of all suspected gun nuts.

a reply to: DrumStickNinja
The FACT is (and our illustrious Beezer makes it clear), no gun laws have ever prevented a gun grime.
Yes, I call them firearms personally however I am using media and anti-gun parlance.

a reply to: notmyrealname

I am Stunned!

And a Democrat nonetheless! Who would have have predicted that?

a reply to: Boscowashisnamo
Great article that seems to take a decent perspective on the issues. I will read more when I have time. Thanks for the post!

I read tonight that the NRA are calling for cinemas to be banned.

Although, it was a satirical web page. The frightening thing is that's how silly this all discussion is. Gun control protecting someone from committing untold carnage, if they have a mental illness is common sense. However, what level of mental illness this should relate to, is open for debate.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: notmyrealname

I am Stunned!

And a Democrat nonetheless! Who would have have predicted that?

Just waiting for the White House drivel to start.

a reply to: notmyrealname

Interesting, it didn't took long, Obamas common sense gun laws are the agenda of the day, so why not push for more laws, by this Louisiana representative.

He is just using rhetoric and is not going to do anything because the state citizens already voted for their gun rights.

By an overwhelming majority – 73 percent of – voters approved a proposition to change the state’s ‘Second Amendment’ provision so that it gives Louisianans the strongest pro-gun law in the country.

Prior to the passage of what was known as ‘Amendment 2,’ the Louisiana Constitution read:

“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.”

It now reads:

“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

There are two distinct changes. First, the clause about regulating or prohibiting concealed carry was removed. And second, the tough judicial standard of “strict scrutiny” was added, which means that if the state government wants to impose any restriction on a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms it has to demonstrate a “compelling government interest,” establish that the restriction is “narrowly defined” and prove that it is the “least restrictive means to achieve that interest” (for more on this click here).

In short, moving forward, it will be very difficult for the Louisiana government to meddle with the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

www.guns.com...

So what laws he is going to change again?

a reply to: marg6043
Which is why the federal government is looking to push their agenda. It is overwhelmingly apparent that a large portion of this country feel very strongly about keeping their 2nd amendment rights safe. Media and their lacking original thought, 'meat-puppets', try and push their agenda most likely for self preservation fears (just speculation there).

Just one more example showing that our elected officials are not concerned with what the public wants, they are concerned with what their sponsors want.

a reply to: notmyrealname

I agree, that is why some issues that belongs with the states are ignored in favor of having the federal government making the decisions for the states, taking away the rights of the state citizens to chose what they want.

But in this instance is nothing the good ole boy Terry Landry, can do at least for now.

a reply to: notmyrealname

So The Grand Theatre 16
Century 16
July 20, 2012,
July 23, 2015?

Houser
Holmes
House and Homes

lone white male”
lone white male

about 20 minutes into the film, he left the building through an emergency exit door, which he propped open with a plastic tablecloth holder
opened fire about 20 minutes into the film

The universe at work

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: DrumStickNinja
The FACT is (and our illustrious Beezer makes it clear), no gun laws have ever prevented a gun grime.

And just how would you prove that FACT? Please...I can hardly wait!