Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by SharpsDressedMan, Jan 12, 2013.
Even if one is willing to admitt this, but throw persons under 21 under the bus anyway, We are talking about the persons who are of age to serve in our military.
In other words, if they are old enough to fight and die for this country, I will be the last one to agree to restrict their rights based on age.
We want gun rights restored. They want them more strict. The best compromise is for nothing to happen, other than remove federal gun-free laws on school grounds, etc.
There are alot of shooting sports that call for semi-automatic firearms, and I'd hate to tell young adults that they're not welcome. As a young gun owner myself not too long ago, I can think of no reason why LAW ABIDING young people can't own firearms of any type.
Also, I'm assuming that you're joking when you say that this will keep guns out of gang-bangers hands... Children under the age of 18 already obtain these weapons, what makes you think that raising the age higher is going to stop them more than the current laws?
I bought my first handgun at 19 from a private sale.
The 21 crap is only from FFL's.
A compromise implies that both parties get what they want. What do pro gun people get in return? Nothing? How is that a compromise?
If ANY legislation is seriously considered I want to see:
Reopening of the MG registry aka, repeal Hughes
Making a supressor a Title I firearm instead of Title II or removing the classification of 'firearm' completely
Removal of 922r from the books
FOPA's poison pill was Hughes, and it should have been scrapped, but we needed FOPA so bad that the NRA made a cost-benefit analysis on it.
I'm glad you 'can live with it' but you dont boil a frog by throwing him into the pot, you slowly turn up the heat. Thousand papercuts, chipping away, etc. Don't give up anything.
Looks a lot more like capitulation than compromise to me.
HOW THE HELL IS THIS A COMPROMISE?.....
what are we getting out of this deal?...
and why the hell are we so willing to please these anti-gun hack politicians.
in the USA, you are legally an adult at the age of 18.....you shouldnt have to wait until you are 21 to be able to exercise your god given, and constitutionally protected rights.
I think there's a gun-related metaphor there, but not sure how much you'd have to stretch it. (I'm pretty sick right now and running a fever -- so draw your own conclusions.)
It seems to be becoming more debatable as time goes on whether they have the ability to land that blow at all, however. They still want to, obviously, and continued vigilance and pressure on Congress are definitely called for, but it's looking more like a fizzled attempt every day.
If they do manage to make a move, I think one "compromise" that Congress members need to be hammered on hard is making sure any legislation they do push through has a sunset clause like the last AWB, rather than some perpetual piece of legislation. That way, at least there is potential correction from both the SCOTUS and Congress of whatever ineffective hoplophobic drivel they can get on the books.
Why are we so willing to treat the 2nd Amendment so differently than any other right? Compromising on the 2nd Amendment more than any other right protected by the Bill of Rights is how we ended up in this mess to begin with.
^ This. That is a concession, not a compromise.
I got out of the Army early because of a medical reason, so I was still under 21 at the time. I remember not being able to handle handguns at the local store because I was under 21, when just a month before that I had been lying in the mud and almost freezing water assembling anti-tank mines with seven other soldiers next to me. A mistake there could have blown us all to hell in a frothy pink mist. That was real responsibility, and the destructive power I had in my hands was many times that of any handgun. And I was 19.
A responsible 18 year old who passes the background check is part of the unorganized militia and needs access to the same weapons as the rest of us, and has the same right to self defense with modern weapons.
I'd go with background checks on every sale before I would support raising the age. I support background checks anyhow and they may actually stop some criminals from getting guns and put some straw buyers or disreputable dealers out of business instead of putting the blame on an innocent scapegoat.
But my compromise thinking has been more along the lines of something like:
We give up: Close the so-called gun-show loophole and also we are now required to report any guns we sell, lose, or are stolen. Additionally you are now required to lock up your guns if they are not in your direct control/in the same room as you are or something like that. (And I know many won't like that too, but I guess I personally am a believer that locks/safes do sometimes deter or at least slow down crime, even though they are of course not fool-proof.)
We get: Nation-wide shall-issue ccw, along with the removal of the vast majority (or all?) of the "gun free zones."
Obviously there is slim to no chance for this to actually happen, but as an academic exercise, would anyone go for that? Right now I think I'd lean toward yes for myself.
Exactly how would background checks "put some buyers or disreputable dealers out of business"? It's already illegal to make a straw purchase, and dealers are already required to do background checks on every buyer except in a few states where there is a CCW permit exception. So exactly how would requiring background checks on private sales affect either group?
I'd be up for lowering the drinking age before upping any gun ages.
A sensible solution would be to have the state mandate that you take a safety course and present a certification card prior to purchase. Fl has a requirement that younger individuals do so before purchasing a huting license. I DO NOT advocate a gun owners ID card or permit!
Separate names with a comma.