General Geoff
Member
There is no analogy here. Age of majority is 18. Civil rights do not depend on membership in heavily controlled, government-approved organizations.False analogy. The Army is a strictly circumscribed environment.
There is no analogy here. Age of majority is 18. Civil rights do not depend on membership in heavily controlled, government-approved organizations.False analogy. The Army is a strictly circumscribed environment.
I tend to agree. I understand the impulse to draw that parallel though. I'm kind of wishy washy on this, but if the anti-gunners were gonna have one big win on the gun control front the only one I could not only get on board with, but even sort of agree with is raising the minimum age. I would never vote for it and I would never express that feeling anywhere but here, but lately I've been waffling back and fourth on that one.....False analogy. The Army is a strictly circumscribed environment.
Is there no elected/appointed federal official willing to stand by their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution?
Surprise! There are already plenty of "compromises" regarding the 2nd Amendment, but so far they are all in the direction of infringement. The pro-gun tactic has been just to say "no," and that usually works, but when it fails, it fails spectacularly. (See: the NFA, the GCA '68, the Hughes Amendment, the '94 assault weapons ban, etc.) I'd like to see us sit down at the table and get something we want for each thing that they want. And time is not on our side. We are probably at maximum negotiating strength right now.So which part of "shall not be infringed" are you willing to give up?
There can be no compromise on this subject.
By taking an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment, we're letting lots of opportunities for incremental improvement slip through our fingers. I'd like to see true compromises, where we get something in exchange for giving up something.
They want us disarmed. What do you want to give up so they can achieve that?Surprise! There are already plenty of "compromises" regarding the 2nd Amendment, but so far they are all in the direction of infringement. The pro-gun tactic has been just to say "no," and that usually works, but when it fails, it fails spectacularly. (See: the NFA, the GCA '68, the Hughes Amendment, the '94 assault weapons ban, etc.) I'd like to see us sit down at the table and get something we want for each thing that they want. And time is not on our side. We are probably at maximum negotiating strength right now.
Even in my memory, there have been attempts at compromise on the pro-gun side. If memory serves (and I apologize if it doesn't), the Toomey-Manchin UBC proposal of about 2013 was one such attempt. That attempt at compromise was rejected by antigunners, because (again going solely off memory), it got rid of the requirement to list the gun & serial number on paperwork. If and when the antigunners are actually willing to give something up as part of the compromise, which would be a first, I'll listen. I make no promises that I'd agree to anything, though.Surprise! There are already plenty of "compromises" regarding the 2nd Amendment, but so far they are all in the direction of infringement. The pro-gun tactic has been just to say "no," and that usually works, but when it fails, it fails spectacularly. (See: the NFA, the GCA '68, the Hughes Amendment, the '94 assault weapons ban, etc.) I'd like to see us sit down at the table and get something we want for each thing that they want. And time is not on our side. We are probably at maximum negotiating strength right now.
And that's the real takeaway here. Antigunners do not want compromise. They just want more restrictions. They never agree to any loosening of existing restrictions.If and when the antigunners are actually willing to give something up as part of the compromise, which would be a first, I'll listen. I make no promises that I'd agree to anything, though.
False analogy. The Army is a strictly circumscribed environment.
False analogy. The Army is a strictly circumscribed environment.
This. The vast majority of those 18-21 are responsible, but the weirdos seem to be concentrated in that age group. If we (reluctantly) penalize all those 18-21 (collective responsibility -- a technique used in the army, etc.), then maybe the good ones will be motivated to pay attention to the weirdos. One of the factors leading the weirdos to become weird (besides dysfunctional families) is bullying and shunning by their peers. It's a vicious circle.but it is hard not to notice that the majority of these mass killing events seem to be carried out by angry males just barely out of high school
But Biden just made a press statement about nags and guns !
The sky is falling!!
One question I’ve not seen addressed is the increase of age to buy various weapons to 21,
This. The vast majority of those 18-21 are responsible
Why? Different ages for different functions, depending on the circumstances, seem to make more sense. Examples:We seriously need to define one single age as being a full fledged adult with all that entails.
Of those that have broader social implications, the amount of potential damage varies.
False analogy. The Army is a strictly circumscribed environment.
-Pretty much true - and he's the senator for my district.Not gonna happen.”
That’s what Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas) told The Reload on Wednesday about prospects for another gun bill.
Not gonna happen until after the next election when you will vote for me because there is no other choice but a Democrat.
Then I will sell you out again.
I agree that the majority of those 18-21 are responsible enough to own a gun. (Judging from myself at that age.) But the standard is not what the majority, or the average, would do. Considering the potential harm (the deadliness of certain guns), the standard has to be what the tiny unhinged minority could do. It's a shame that an entire age group has to suffer, but the safety of society is more important.
Some observations:
1. It's not by chance that most mass shooters are around that age.
2. The human brain doesn't fully mature until the mid-20's.
3. It's a small inconvenience being delayed for up to 3 years before owning an "assault weapon." Time goes by fast.