Gun Buying Age 21??

[BSA1]

WOW!

After young adults graduate from High School many move away from home. Common reasons being going to college, starting a job and wanting to be independent or getting married.

So the core belief is people under the age of 21 should be denied the right of self-protection

How about a woman under 21 that is married or in a relationship with a abusive spouse / boyfriend and said man is making threats to kill her? What if their are young children involved? What are her options?

1. Call the Police and make a report. Police will not protect her but the report makes for good evidence at the murder trial.

2. Move. Move where? Moving costs money. Deposits, rent, moving furniture. Maybe friends will help.

What good is moving when he finds out her new address? She can't just keep moving.

3. Go live with family. If she has family support and they live close enough.

4. Put better locks on the doors and hope they hold.

5. Get right with God so their will be a place in heaven for her and the children.

SO by banning adults in the 18 -21 year group you are ok with them and their children with being killed.

All I say is I hope my heart never turns to stone.

 

[Hokkmike]

The problem with 18 years olds is that white their bodies may be optimally formed their brains are still catching up. Read the studies. And, of course, we all know people at all ages that are exceptions to the rule.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Full rights at 18 along with service requirements most importantly;
1. Breaks the entitlement mentality of teenagers.
2. Releases the lock colleges have on our kids. They will get first hand life experiences before they might choose to plunk down tens of thousands of dollars.
3. Release the lock Dem Party has on most youth. Working and paying their own way for two years in service will open their eyes to dead beat lazy moocher drags on society, the core Dem constituency.
4. Releases the lock professional and college sports has on our kids as a viable immediate life choice to make them millionaires.

We need 38 conservative states to lead the charge for Amendment addition. Let's change the game.

Imagine those same parkland kids pounding on the lecturn at ralley now crawling under barb wire in training because they are constitutionally bound. Warms my heart!

I can see a lot of benefit to this also.

The main benefit, as you point out, is that teenagers learn from an early age that living in this country requires some responsibility to your fellow citizens. By service I don't mean everyone has to go into the military. The service could be working in a hospital, a school, or elderly care facility. Heck, you could work in any public works organization as a laborer if you wanted. The fact that one is being paid the minimum wage for their time will send a very important message to teenagers that many will never hear or understand.

The mentality of teenagers these days is what's in it for me. Probably the same mentality their parents have.

Of course some won't comply but no college or vocational school admission should be enough of an incentive for most to realize it isn't a joke like registering for selective service.

Otherwise, we're just going to keep taking away rights and not giving people an opportunity to understand that with those rights comes some responsibility. Most people would rather just take someones rights away and never give them an opportunity to demonstrate that they are responsible enough to have them to begin with.

I just contacted my congressman about this. I don't expect he will see any benefit, he's a Democrat after all.

I'll post his reply when I get it.

 

[glove]

You are not responsible to buy a gun at 18 have to be 21,Buy cigarettes at 18 you have to be 21 in most states, Buy a beer at 18 you have to be 21. But you can vote at 18, You can go to war at 18, You can also get a drivers license at 16. What is wrong with that logic? I can see the vote at 18 the kids are not wise enough to know what they are voting for must be a liberal thing how else do they get the votes they do.

 

[femoralis]

The problem with 18 years olds is that white their bodies may be optimally formed their brains are still catching up. Read the studies. And, of course, we all know people at all ages that are exceptions to the rule.

Read the studies that banning guns from young adults has no effect crime, why don't you?

Gary Kleck studied the ban on buying a gun from a dealer for those under 21 this and found there was no effect; read his study here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1843526

In 1994, Congress banned people under 18 from owning a handgun. Thomas Marvell studied it, and found it had no effect. Read the study here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1843526

What other constitutional rights would some of you like to see stripped away from young adults?

 

[Hokkmike]

Read the studies that banning guns from young adults has no effect crime, why don't you?

Gary Kleck studied the ban on buying a gun from a dealer for those under 21 this and found there was no effect; read his study here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1843526

In 1994, Congress banned people under 18 from owning a handgun. Thomas Marvell studied it, and found it had no effect. Read the study here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1843526

What other constitutional rights would some of you like to see stripped away from young adults?

Yeah, I mostly agree with what you say. My statement is accurate not withstanding. Remember that 18 is an age that was arbitrarily chosen for a lot of thresholds. The only right that I would truly like to see stripped away from these young people is the right to die in wars fomented by sleazy politicians. I must admit that YOUR studies clearly counter mine - and so, I concede the point.

 

[gulogulo1970]

If 21 to own a gun, I'll agree when it is 21 for all adult civil activities. Voting, serving, drinking, smoking, entering into contracts, when it is all the same, 21 for guns will make sense to me.

But then again, it is already 21 for handguns so we are already partly there.

It is just a knee-jerk gotta do something reaction, which is how many laws come to be. It is just that this law may not be constitutional.

 

[CapnMac]

Whether or not children are, on average, mentally sufficient at this age or another is a pointless (for THR) argument. A distraction.

First off, Federal law, by way of the Militia Act defines the class of the unorganized militia as all free citizens aged 18-45.

This is going to be a hard rock for the various new state laws to possibly founder upon It's going to be hard to argue that 18-20 y/o can be part of a militia if they do not have access to arms. If they cannot purchase them, they would have to be provided. I'm mor e than passing certain that the anti crowd would be drawers-knotted over issuing America's teenagers, male, female, and yet to be decided M4s.

Ok, so, maybe the antis go after the 1902 Militia Act. Problem there is that would disband all of the State-raised National Guard units. So, that's not likely to fly.

Because the wheels of jurisprudence grind slow (if sure), we don't even have a measure of the various State-related age discrimination lawsuits currently pending.

So, these are very rocky legislative roads.

 

[hdwhit]

Shanghai McCoy wrote:
Well, then let's have the age to vote be 25 then ...?

Why not?

The at which children are accorded full civil rights is determined by legislation passed by Congress; it's not as if the age of 18 or 21 or some other number was whispered to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

 

[AlexanderA]

The 26th Amendment sets the voting age at 18.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

I don't agree with manditory service in this day and age. The way these kids are being conditioned we wouldn't have crap for a military. No thanks.

THE elephant in the room is the MSM but what can we do about that, 1A and all.

I'm only a lowly 35 but I feel like the country is rapidly headed down the toilet.

 

[hso]

Maryland has felt 16 year old aren't mature enough to drive, but they now let them to vote in local elections.

That's not as clear as it seems. MD state law allows voter registration at 16, but not to vote until 18.

VOTER REGISTRATION QUALIFICATIONS.
Age: You may register to vote if you are at least 16 years old but cannot vote unless you will be at least 18 years old by the next general election.

A few city councils have decided to let 16 and 17 year olds to vote in local elections as opposed to the state itself.

 

[TJ AK-74]

There should be NO age restriction on firearms, or any of the other rights listed in the bill of rights. All the other rights apply to minors, why not the 2nd?
And why do half the people here seem to be ok with not only raising the arguably un-Constitutional age requirements that already exists, but also FORCING some type of civil service to basically "earn" a God-given right? Seriously, ***?!?!?
I have 2 young kids, and I will not be able to be with them 24/7/365 to provide armed security. Why should they be deprived of their right, just because they are not 18 or 21 or 25?
It's no wonder that Millenials (I iz 1) are so immature, their parents failed to raise them to be responsible. I know people my age that are still living with parents or driving cars their parents paid for, etc. It's not fair to responsible people to restrict access to arms just because many in their age group are irresponsible. And as pointed out earlier, those that want guns will get them, regardless of age limits or any other legislation.

 

[danez71]

There should be NO age restriction on firearms, or any of the other rights listed in the bill of rights. All the other rights apply to minors, why not the 2nd?

Because the pen is mightier than the sword. (a touch of ironic humor in that)

And why do half the people here seem to be ok with not onlyraising the arguably un-Constitutional age requirementsthat already exists, but also FORCING some type of civil service to basically "earn" a God-given right? Seriously, ***?!?!?

Because 1) it won't affect them and 2) they fail to see that they are being elitists by wanting to pick and choose who they think are worthy of the BOR.

It's the same tactics as the anti 2A side uses and when speaking of 'R' politicians, the term RINO would apply.

 

[GAF]

Remember this. There are plenty of 18 to 20 somethings the are Democrats who like to hunt, shoot and currently own guns that will be disenfranchised by any new laws that make the legal age to buy and own a gun 21. Just pointing that out.

 

[Terry Chadron]

Why would any age limitation make a difference? Criminals don't care to begin with and will get their firearms through channels that don't care about laws either. It again is acting to show that "they are doing something" no matter how little sense it makes. From my perspective, if somebody is allowed to serve in the army, die for our country, kill in war zones - there is no doubt in my mind that these people are old enough to own any firearm, or to drink or vote for that matter.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I don't agree with manditory service in this day and age. The way these kids are being conditioned we wouldn't have crap for a military. No thanks.

I agree with that. I was in the military when we had a draft. Some of those people wouldn't have been there without a draft and shouldn't have been there with one.

If a person enlists at 18 and passes the tests and requirements, then that should count to satisfy the mandatory service. If they don't want to enlist there is plenty of work that needs to be done outside of the military. Many public service oriented organizations could use the help, especially from people working at a minimum wage. All they would have to do is put them on the payroll and document their hours which they would be required to do anyway as employees.

The benefits have already been discussed. If no action is taken in this direction 18-20 YO civilians are going to lose the rest of their firearms rights, guaranteed.

I'm just proposing an alternative before that happens. There really needs to be a better approach to this than just making all firearms unavailable to the 18-20 group.

 

[WilliamMacDougal]

That should work.

No college admission until you complete your 2 year civic responsibilities.

Bring back the 2 year military draft for everyone over 18.

.

Theoretically Approving the draft could force not only issues of draft fairness to the table, but would force the average citizen into a greater interest in the leadership issues concerning the wars we get from neocons.

The military is far more divorced from the civilian world now. In the draft days many more served and returned to the community. There wasn't so much ignorance about the military and what they do as there is now.Right now, the average citizen has no worry about having to serve. That also means not much interest in questioning our political failures in Iraq Astan.

HOWEVER You must look at the history of the draft first . More directly, you must look at the NG enlistment "names" in order to form a conclusion to enact the draft. Back in the days of RVN , most of the high-class sons and family joined the guard in order to avoid direct conflict. So, a draft made perfect sense. It was a pretty cut and dry situation. A draft would pull from the general population rather than the NG (where many of the high-society family was serving). It just made sense if you were the one pulling the strings.But, today, the sons and daughters of politicians (for the most part) do not join the NG or any branch of military. It is much more convenient to rely on nepotism, have high profile positions and eventually be a part of our government. So, enacting a draft would put the lives of the high-society in danger if they were to actually be unbiased about their choice of draftees.

I was In from 1968 – 1992 Draftees at the start From 75 on, those that could not hack it were "volunteers" and quite a few got booted.I think the draft-era military has an image that isn't exactly true. There was definitely a lot more complaining (at least based on today's military) and a lot fewer people reenlisting but, by and large, it was a professional organization. I don't you'll see one anytime soon. An entire new Selective Service Infrastructure would have to be built and I don't think politicians that give us the wars will favor the possibility their family and relations going off on their foreign entanglements.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Theoretically Approving the draft could force not only issues of draft fairness to the table, but would force the average citizen into a greater interest in the leadership issues concerning the wars we get from neocons.

The military is far more divorced from the civilian world now. In the draft days many more served and returned to the community. There wasn't so much ignorance about the military and what they do as there is now.Right now, the average citizen has no worry about having to serve. That also means not much interest in questioning our political failures in Iraq Astan.

HOWEVER You must look at the history of the draft first . More directly, you must look at the NG enlistment "names" in order to form a conclusion to enact the draft. Back in the days of RVN , most of the high-class sons and family joined the guard in order to avoid direct conflict. So, a draft made perfect sense. It was a pretty cut and dry situation. A draft would pull from the general population rather than the NG (where many of the high-society family was serving). It just made sense if you were the one pulling the strings.But, today, the sons and daughters of politicians (for the most part) do not join the NG or any branch of military. It is much more convenient to rely on nepotism, have high profile positions and eventually be a part of our government. So, enacting a draft would put the lives of the high-society in danger if they were to actually be unbiased about their choice of draftees.

I was In from 1968 – 1992 Draftees at the start From 75 on, those that could not hack it were "volunteers" and quite a few got booted.I think the draft-era military has an image that isn't exactly true. There was definitely a lot more complaining (at least based on today's military) and a lot fewer people reenlisting but, by and large, it was a professional organization. I don't you'll see one anytime soon. An entire new Selective Service Infrastructure would have to be built and I don't think politicians that give us the wars will favor the possibility their family and relations going off on their foreign entanglements.

I don't think the draft is coming back, but the concept of 2 years of mandatory public service could replace it. Especially if one couldn't start college until their public service was complete at 20.

When I enlisted in 67 a 1A person had a few options. They could enlist for 4 active (2 inactive reserve), enlist for 6 (2 active, 4 active reserve) get drafted for 2 active (Vietnam) or go to Canada which a lot of people did. At least that's how I remember it.

There is no need for another military draft but those willing to provide some public service (18-20) could keep their rights. Those that don't, well they probably don't care about them enough to keep them anyway.

 

[Dudedog]

If I was 18, I'd be irate that I'm old enough to vote, enter legal contracts and die for my country but I can't buy a beer or if this passes buy a gun to defend myself.

Funny they don't talk about raising the driving age to 21.
Far more people are killed by teen drivers than teen gun owners. If you are not considered responsible enough to own a gun I would say you are not responsible enough to be driving, and not responsible enough to vote.
I agree that some 18 year olds maybe are not mature enough to own a firearm, but Government needs to pick and age and apply it uniformly.

When I started working at 16 there was no problem with the State and Federal government collecting income tax out of my paycheck, but I was not able to vote, not able to buy a beer, saying I couldn't own a gun till I was 21 would have been adding insult to injury.

After young adults graduate from High School many move away from home. Common reasons being going to college, starting a job and wanting to be independent or getting married.
So the core belief is people under the age of 21 should be denied the right of self-protection

This is a perfect example of the problem with raising the age to 21.
The courts have decided that the police have no obligation to protect an individual citizen (and in fairness that is the correct decision, there is honestly no way they can, so therefore they should not be held responsible to do so)
So to deny a 18-20 year old person the right to own a firearm to protect themselves is just wrong.
Of course government does not have the best track record for doing what is "right"

This is just more of the anti gun "how do you eat an elephant" plan. Answer: One bite at a time until it's gone.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Far more people are killed by teen drivers than teen gun owners.

Their insurance rates keeps a lot of them off the road.

The annual average insurance rate for an 18 year old driver is 3K.

I don't think I would be using that to argue for someone who is 18 to be able to buy a firearm. They're exceptionally bad drivers because of poor judgement mostly. High speed crashes, DUI's, speeding citations, that kind of thing.

 

[Dudedog]

Some teen drivers are responsible some are not. The ones who are not responsible won't care if they have insurance. No insurance and no citizenship is sadly common in my state for adults as well as teens.
Some drivers are responsible some are not. Some gun owners are responsible some are not.
Some parents are responsible and don't have children they can't pay for, some are not and have kids and expect society to pay for them.
The issue is infringing on the rights of those who are responsible to make up for something that might be done by those who are not.

There is no age where people magically become responsible adults.
But if the age to be drafted and die for your country is 18 then you should be old enough to own a firearm at 18.

I had relatives who fought in WWII who lets say might possibly have been a little less than 18 when they enlisted.
The country was happy to let them have a firearm then.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Some teen drivers are responsible some are not. The ones who are not responsible won't care if they have insurance. No insurance and no citizenship is sadly common in my state for adults as well as teens.
Some drivers are responsible some are not. Some gun owners are responsible some are not.
Some parents are responsible and don't have children they can't pay for, some are not and have kids and expect society to pay for them.
The issue is infringing on the rights of those who are responsible to make up for something that might be done by those who are not.

There is no age where people magically become responsible adults.
But if the age to be drafted and die for your country is 18 then you should be old enough to own a firearm at 18.

I had relatives who fought in WWII who lets say might possibly have been a little less than 18 when they enlisted.
The country was happy to let them have a firearm then.

As I pointed out, nobody gets drafted anymore. The military has, and will have, enough enlistment to satisfy their needs into the future. There are 110 million more people ( 33% more) in the US then there were during Vietnam (the end of the draft). That argument just doesn't work anymore because the last person to be drafted was 45 years ago. If anything congress could just raise the age to register for selective service to 21 and that would kill that argument altogether. They will never use selective service again anyway so what does it matter?

I really wish people would stop equating drivers to gun owners and cars to guns. Nobody is listening to that because just about everyone drives, not everyone is a rec shooter or a hunter. The logic is I *need* transportation, nobody *needs* a gun. States control drivers with tests, age limits, licenses and insurance requirements. Actually, it's a pretty short trip for states to equate the two because so far the courts have said that states can regulate firearm owners just like drivers for reasons of public safety.

If people insist on beating that drum gun owners will soon have the same restrictions that drivers have. That would be a test, a license, a registered firearm and insurance to own it.

The state really doesn't give a hoot about how your parents raised you. That question isn't on the forms I fill out to purchase a pistol in this state. http://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/652001.pdf Notice that they want my firearm SN and my license # (CPL). You'll demonstrate your responsibility after you meet their initial requirements. If you don't then good bye firearms.

I also have known people who enlisted during WW2 that were 17. I think that was pretty common because not many people could easily lay their hands on documents to prove their age. If you signed anything that said you were 18 how is anyone going to prove you weren't or better yet, why would they want to? You were after all, volunteering your service. There's a huge difference in enlisting and being drafted, which seems to be lost on a lot of people here mostly because they personally haven't dealt with the issue and never will.