a good argument against raising the age for gun ownership to 21

bearcreek said:

Are you saying you would be in favor of allowing 5 year olds to purchase firearms then?

Click to expand...

Argumentum ad Absurdum

bdickens said:

Argumentum ad Absurdum

Click to expand...

Ok. So what age would you consider appropriate to be the legal minimum? Just looking for an answer to my question. Personally, I think it should remain as is, until there's a cultural shift resulting in a maturation of the average kid.

Personally if you are an "adult" at 18, that means you should get it all....as in ALL.

I do not agree with anything being restricted.

Leftists are trying to say that the voting age should be dropped to 16, the age to get a long gun should be raised to 21 and that a person should be considered a child for insurance purposes until the age of 26.
No.
If you are an adult at 18 then you should get the rights and responsibilities of an adult at 18.

westernrover said:

You lost me there. What other Constitutional right requires a psych eval or formal training before one can exercise it? No speech unless you've been approved following a psych eval and been formally trained? No press? Excessive bail, un-fettered search, no due-process, delayed trials, cruel punishment and double-jeopardy, unless you've been "approved" and "trained"?

Click to expand...

Constitutional rights don't "require" anything, but you can pass laws to set standards and protect others. You have a right to free speech, but you may have to get a permit to legally be in a certain area before you make your speech. You may have a right to vote, but not to drive to the polls at 100 mph while drunk. You may have rights as a citizen, but you also have responsibilities. TANSTAAFL. You know what that means?

theotherwaldo said:

Leftists are trying to say that the voting age should be dropped to 16, the age to get a long gun should be raised to 21 and that a person should be considered a child for insurance purposes until the age of 26.
No.
If you are an adult at 18 then you should get the rights and responsibilities of an adult at 18.

Click to expand...

They want that voting age as 16yr olds are flat stupid. If you have had one you know just how stupid they are and how they would likely vote. They know sooner or later their "fixing" elections will be found out and they need the next plan to stay in power.....really simple.

HowieG said:

Constitutional rights don't "require" anything, but you can pass laws to set standards and protect others. You have a right to free speech, but you may have to get a permit to legally be in a certain area before you make your speech. You may have a right to vote, but not to drive to the polls at 100 mph while drunk. You may have rights as a citizen, but you also have responsibilities. TANSTAAFL. You know what that means?

Click to expand...

You can't require a civics class to vote or require a 200 tax stamp either....

HowieG said:

Constitutional rights don't "require" anything, but you can pass laws to set standards and protect others. You have a right to free speech, but you may have to get a permit to legally be in a certain area before you make your speech. You may have a right to vote, but not to drive to the polls at 100 mph while drunk. You may have rights as a citizen, but you also have responsibilities. TANSTAAFL. You know what that means?

Click to expand...

So many people get this stuff confused....also some people confuse this just to stir the pot as well. I generally go back to 1932 gun deal that most of us know. It was written to be a TAX, it is not restricting your access to anything, it is just a tax, and the .gov can tax.

AJC1 said:

You can't require a civics class to vote or require a 200 tax stamp either....

Click to expand...

Well no, the tax is just fine, you are taxed on a great many other things. This is when your keyboard lights up with a well other things are not a right spelled out in the 2nd. True, but tell me if you pay the tax can you get one? Yes, unless you are a felon. Oh wait, where does the second say felons get that right stripped from them....it does not....anywhere. But I am speaking for the majority saying that gang bangers should not have legal....LEGAL...access to a firearm. No law stops illegal.

As I said above, a tax is ok, and has found to be ok time and time again. And that was written in a way that it was just a tax.

Another interesting side effect is it is basically stuck at $200. Tell me is $200 "more money" in 1933, or now. You know the answer, that was a huge amount of money back then, and that is why it was chosen. But raising that cost is very difficult.

AJC1 said:

You can't require a civics class to vote or require a 200 tax stamp either....

Click to expand...

Sure you can. I remember when civics class was required just to graduate from highschool. And yes to the tax stamp too. The Constitution guards the rights in the Bill of Rights, but nothing is free. The 2nd says you have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say the government has to issue you a free gun. You have to BUY the gun. To buy the gun, you have to meet certain standards such as having enough money, not being a doper, etc.

If you want to be issued a free gun, join the military.......oh wait, there are standards to meet if you want to join the military huh?? TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch).

HowieG said:

Sure you can. I remember when civics class was required just to graduate from highschool. And yes to the tax stamp too. The Constitution guards the rights in the Bill of Rights, but nothing is free. The 2nd says you have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say the government has to issue you a free gun. You have to BUY the gun. To buy the gun, you have to meet certain standards such as having enough money, not being a doper, etc.

If you want to be issued a free gun, join the military.......oh wait, there are standards to meet if you want to join the military huh?? TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch).

Click to expand...

Court cases has and will prove your assertions incorrect. You don't even have to be able to read to vote.... the poll tax was also removed and deemed unconstitutional. You have to compare like things, and driving is not an annolog

Remington1911 said:

So many people get this stuff confused....also some people confuse this just to stir the pot as well. I generally go back to 1932 gun deal that most of us know. It was written to be a TAX, it is not restricting your access to anything, it is just a tax, and the .gov can tax.

Click to expand...

Yep. There is a title for people who don't want laws. Anarchist. There is a title for people who don't want responsibility. Freeloader.

old lady new shooter said:

Yep, really sticks in my craw that an 18-year old who joins the military not only is trusted with weapons but is putting his life on the line for the rest of us, dreadful to forbid him to own a gun to defend his life.

Click to expand...

My son joined the army infantry when he graduated at 17....became proficient with his m4 and ALL sorts of weapons and currently targets "stuff" in a Bradley... Loads it as well... It's ironic that when he went to purchase a firearm... In Texas... At 19 they denied him on a technicality... He sent me a pic of a bunch of ordnance he was responsible for and also one of the denial....funny... But not at all haha funny...

uuolf said:

My son joined when he graduated at 17....became proficient with his m4 and ALL sorts of weapons and currently targets "stuff" in a Bradley... Loads it as well... It's was ironic that when he went to purchase a firearm... In Texas... At 19 they denied him on a technicality... He sent me a pic of a bunch of ordnance he's was responsible for and also one of the denial....funny... But not at all haha funny...

Click to expand...

I had guys in the PRP guarding NUKES at 19 with automatic weapons. Tell me a more vetted person by the government for a gun.

AJC1 said:

Court cases has and will prove your assertions incorrect. You don't even have to be able to read to vote.... the poll tax was also removed and deemed unconstitutional. You have to compare like things, and driving is not an annolog

Click to expand...

Tell you what, why don't you list all of the applicable cases for me. Here is the deal, I made suggestions based on education, common sense, and my readings of the Constitution. I am exercising my right to free speech. You are perfectly within your rights to disagree with me and I welcome the discussion. As far as what is ultimately unconstitutional, that is for SCOTUS to decide. That being said, the Constitution does state certain things in plain black and white lanquage. Those are the things I pay attention to, but even those CAN be changed by the admendment process. Thankfully, amending the Constitution is real hard.

So...maybe we should do like several other nations... Two years mandatory in the armed services after graduation.... Even the reserve for that matter...that would probably solve a whole lotta problems we're having... And having 50+ million trained reservest to call upon wouldn't hurt if needed.

uuolf said:

My son joined the army infantry when he graduated at 17....became proficient with his m4 and ALL sorts of weapons and currently targets "stuff" in a Bradley... Loads it as well... It's ironic that when he went to purchase a firearm... In Texas... At 19 they denied him on a technicality... He sent me a pic of a bunch of ordnance he was responsible for and also one of the denial....funny... But not at all haha funny...

Click to expand...

I recall. I joined before I was 21 and they gave me a tank. I couldn't buy a beer, but they gave me a tank. I bought the beer in Germany.

uuolf said:

So...maybe we should do like several other nations... Two years mandatory in the armed servives after graduation.... Even the reserve for that matter...that would probably solve a whole lotta problems we're having...

Click to expand...

I agree. Make it more than two though. Two isn't enough to make a good soldier today. Too much tech. Three minimum, with more depending on the specialty. Three years would get the kid to age 21. Frankly, I was still an idiot at 21, but I was less of one and more skilled.

uuolf said:

So...maybe we should do like several other nations... Two years mandatory in the armed servives after graduation.... Even the reserve for that matter...that would probably solve a whole lotta problems we're having...

Click to expand...

I have always enjoyed that idea, and it's a great way to assess a population. You will screen everyone for mental health, and force them into a physical condition that is not such a huge burden on the system. With our current rates of recruitment, this may be the impending answer.

HowieG said:

I agree. Make it more than two though. Two isn't enough to make a good soldier today. Too much tech. Three minimum, with more depending on the specialty. Three years would get the kid to age 21.

Click to expand...

That decision should be up to the member and like joining now you obligate more service for more education and training. People would make different choices than just two years if everyone had to do it. I'm definitely not saying we would be flush with nuke workers but the skills afterwards are far more lucrative.

I think we need to abolish this middle ground between 18 and 21. Settle on an age for legal adulthood, I really don't care which age, and once that age is reached a person is allowed all privileges of being an adult.

Any Heinlein fans may remember a requirement in his book, Starship Troopers, that everyone who wants to be a voting citizen must serve a full enlistment in order to do so.

HowieG said:

Any Heinlein fans may remember a requirement in his book, Starship Troopers, that everyone who wants to be a voting citizen must serve a full enlistment in order to do so.

Click to expand...

I liked that also. No free rides.

AJC1 said:

That decision should be up to the member and like joining now you obligate more service for more education and training. People would make different choices than just two years if everyone had to do it. I'm definitely not saying we would be flush with nuke workers but the skills afterwards are far more lucrative.

Click to expand...

Sure. The desires of the draftee and the requirements of the service of course. They might not have any openings for left handed bug smashers when you go in. Also, your tests might show you aren't qualified to be a left handed bug smasher to begin with.

AJC1 said:

I liked that also. No free rides.

Click to expand...

The acronym I used before, TANSTAAFL, came from another of his books, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.