Will 18-20 year olds ever get pistol rights?

[Birch Knoll]

No, I think selfless service iin the Military s the highest aspiration and if qualified all Men should do it. What higher goal can you have than to defend your country and constitution?

Some people might consider serving God to be a higher calling. Others might think saving lives as a doctor or a firefighter is as high or higher than military service. Not you, though. Right?

Again I am not advocating an end to your rights, just an extention of the rights of Veterans under the age of 21.

And I am not advocating denying full adult firearm rights to 18-to-20-year-old vets; just extending them to everyone over the age of 18.

If you cannot read and understand this point, I have no way of making it more clear.

I know precisely how you feel, trust me.

Are you so jealous and envious that they have had the guts to serve and deserve some entitlements that go along with the maturity that this combat service deserves?

Um... what?

If so, wher were you when we need Soldiersa after 9-11?

Do you feel that's any of your business?

 

[Birch Knoll]

I have the life I made, if others are lessers, that is their roleof choice. I neither named them lessers or made their choices.

Oh, but you did. You named yourself superior, remember?

I would disagree with you, these who do enlist are our best and brightest and have offered their lives in the defense of our Country They ARE FAR superior than those who have not.

 

[Averageman]

Some people might consider serving God to be a higher calling. Others might think saving lives as a doctor or a firefighter is as high or higher than military service. Not you, though. Right?
Not at all, after my Step Father was a Corpsman at the Chosin in Korea he decided to become a Doctor, care to ask him which was more rewarding?
He also served his Church and donated time and money to the poor and disabled,yet Even as a successful Doctor he volunteered to go to Viet Nam

Are you so jealous and envious that they have had the guts to serve and deserve some entitlements that go along with the maturity that this combat service deserves?

Um... what?
What I am saying is that, just because you cannot or did not serve, why can't you recognise these Combat Veterans as more desreving than you?


Quote:
If so, wher were you when we need Soldiersa after 9-11?

Do you feel that's any of your business?
Then why can't you acknowledge they are better trained and more able than you to deserve this exception to the 21 and under rule?
It may not be any of my business, but after all it would seem to be a qualification.

Oh, but you did. You named yourself superior, remember?
No, I did not name myself as superior, I just did my job.
I had no idea at the time HOW superior I was. You see Congress did and so did the department of the Army. That why I have a funny little medal with a V on it and a nice retirement check. And BTW no problem getting my CC.

 

[Dmitri Popov]

Because the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say they are my equals.
And secondly, just because you are trained to clear rooms and setup ambushes, doesn't mean you are safer nor a better shot with a gun than a non-soldier.

 

[Averageman]

Because the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say they are my equals.
You may lay in bed at night and hope you are my equal, but that littlke voice in your head will reassure you that it isnt so. You know you wish you could have/wopuld have served; but you will always have a reason why you wont or can't
And secondly, just because you are trained to clear rooms and setup ambushes, doesn't mean you are safer nor a better shot with a gun than a non-soldier.
And again in your heart you know that, that simply cannot be true. I have done what in your paint ball dreams you wished you could have achieved, except I did it in real life with live ammo.
This is the jealousy and envy that keeps you from acknowledging the difference between you and a real combat Veteran.
And that is clearly why those in Military service are very different than you and should be able to purchase a sidearm and CC at the ages of under 21.
you have clearly made my point.

 

[Birch Knoll]

What I am saying is that, just because you cannot or did not serve, why can't you recognise these Combat Veterans as more desreving than you?

First off, you know nothing whatsoever of my service, or lack thereof, and I will thank you to stop making assumptions. Secondly, while I certainly credit these veteran's service, they deserve their guns rights to exactly the same extent as any other citizen, regardless of military service.

By the way, I'm really amused by your distinction between military veterans and combat veterans, and how you would only grant full firearms rights to combat veterans. Perhaps you could still winnow this down a bit to the really, really deserving folks; those that have served some minimum number of combat tours, or those that have been wounded. Or wounded twice. Or maybe three times. Whatever.

Then why can't you acknowledge they are better trained and more able than you to deserve this exception to the 21 and under rule?

I don't need an exception to the "21 and under rule"; when I was 21, Jimmy Carter was President. And what in the world does training have to do with civil rights?

It may not be any of my business, but after all it would seem to be a qualification.

A qualification for what?

 

[Averageman]

What I am saying is that, just because you cannot or did not serve, why can't you recognise these Combat Veterans as more desreving than you?

First off, you know nothing whatsoever of my service, or lack thereof, and I will thank you to stop making assumptions. Secondly, while I certainly credit these veteran's service, they deserve their guns rights to exactly the same extent as any other citizen, regardless of military service.
Until you joined the conversation I had no idea you were here.
But here is my point in a hypothetical situation. A 19 year old Disabeled Veteran returns home and cannot CC or purchase a pistol because of his age. He has had all of the training and more experiance under fire than your local State Policeman.
Who is better trained and more deserving of the right to protect himself with a firearm, the fullu capable State Cop, or the Disabled Vet?
What difference does it make if the Vet is 20 and had 2 deployments under fire for 24 months constantly-vs- 12 years as a State Cop and no fire fights?
I again am not saying those over 21 should not have a pistol, what I am saying is our Veterans should be expempt from these State Laws.
Any Laws that preclude these Veterans under 21 from purchasing or CCing a sidearm should be abolished and in my opinion the greater your disability the quicker you should get this exception.

By the way, I'm really amused by your distinction between military veterans and combat veterans, and how you would only grant full firearms rights to combat veterans. Perhaps you could still winnow this down a bit to the really, really deserving folks; those that have served some minimum number of combat tours, or those that have been wounded. Or wounded twice. Or maybe three times. Whatever.
No, what I am saying is that if you were a trigger puller in combat, then you were trusted, by the US Military to carry at least a sidearm. If the US Governement says you are good to go at 18, then if you go home you should have an age excetion for unbder 21 to purchase and CC ar pistol.


Quote:
Then why can't you acknowledge they are better trained and more able than you to deserve this exception to the 21 and under rule?

I don't need an exception to the "21 and under rule"; when I was 21, Jimmy Carter was President. And what in the world does training have to do with civil rights?
It isnt Constitutional or civil rights it woulfd be an exception to State Law allowing under 21 Vets to purchase anbd CC a pistol
Quote:
It may not be any of my business, but after all it would seem to be a qualification.
I am a bit lost in that quote, If you explain it I will repy.

A qualification for what?
More than anything I want our Veterans to join the NRA and CC.
I want them to become trainers when they are certified and pass the experiance on to the general public.
And you may not want to know it, but there are a lot of guys under 21 that have been in more gunfights recently than you can imagine.
Lets keep ehm armed and get them in the mix.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Oh, but you did. You named yourself superior, remember?

No, I did not name myself as superior, I just did my job.

Nice job ignoring your own words, which I quoted.

I had no idea at the time HOW superior I was.

... And then you go right back to calling yourself superior. Whew!

You see Congress did and so did the department of the Army. That why I have a funny little medal with a V on it and a nice retirement check.

Excellent. I'm certainly glad to hear that your retirement checks are reaching you. I am much gratified to hear that the Army appreciated whatever it was which earned you that medal. Good for you. Really. Very, very commendable. You may be a legitimate hero, and that would deserve great respect.

And BTW no problem getting my CC.

Should there have been?

Listen, Averageman, I've read your posts in other topics, and you seem like a decent guy. Clearly, you are proud of your military service, and you probably have good reason to be. Clearly, you believe that young combat vets should be afforded their full gun rights. I believe this too, and more. So we can agree on that much.

Let's leave it at that, OK?

 

[mortablunt]

The obvious inequity of 18-year-olds being considered old enough and responsible enough to enlist, train, serve and fight in the military, but not being considered old enough or responsible enough to have the right to purchase handguns is not an argument to extend the right to purchase handguns to 18-, 19- and 20-year old soldiers. It is an argument to extend the right to all 18-, 19- and 20-year olds.

It is not their military service which makes them worthy of adult handgun rights. It is the fact that we consider them adult enough to to become soldiers, whether or not they decide to do so.

My country thinks it proper that I can go to a war and wield the most powerful weaponry ever devised, but my state won't trust me with a pocket pistol to protect myself. I can't puchase liquor either, or do online traffic schools, or get an FFL, or get a C&R.

We shouldn't be advocating militarism. Remember the great dictatorships and how all of them were brazenly militarist.