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.
No New Gun Control Bills Will Pass This Congress
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
- Status
DustyGmt
Member
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.....
Eta: I only have recently shifted my perspective on this and am not "for" any new restrictions and believe there should be better follow through on the laws that already exist before excluding an entire demographic of people from gun ownership, 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 and it occurs to me that I was pretty irresponsible between the ages of 18-21 and only after being out of high school for a few years did I really develop a sense of responsibility and civic duty, regard for my fellow man, etc....
I realize the flaws in this logic, you don't even have to tell me..... but if I were to think out of pure one sided logic, that's kind of where I land. Maybe there should be a 2-3 year buffer period between high school and legal purchase age. I would rather that than pushing for better mental health screening, that is asking for trouble.
Last edited:
Liz Cheney is trying to but that’s not going very well for her.
AlexanderA
Member
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.
theotherwaldo
Member
I say, just keep saying NO.
Eventually the legal system will actually follow the law of the land and agree... .
Eventually the legal system will actually follow the law of the land and agree... .
They want us disarmed. What do you want to give up so they can achieve that?
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.
Ignition Override
Member
But Biden just made a press statement about nags and guns !
The sky is falling!!
The sky is falling!!
General Geoff
Member
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.
Easiest way to poison pill an anti-gun bill? Add a clause to remove silencers or SBRs/SBSs from the NFA. Bill will be DOA.
I think people miss the point here. It’s not that people can join the military and have access to different weapons. The issue is at 18 one can be forced to use them on a target not of one’s choosing or be imprisoned.
One question I’ve not seen addressed is the increase of age to buy various weapons to 21, but the age to drive is still just 16. Car accidents and gun deaths are generally comparable year to year. Why the disparity between things that are virtually equally dangerous?
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
Not important. The point is that someone can make a choice to risk their life for the nation at that age, which many would argue qualifies them to enjoy their 2A rights as well.
AlexanderA
Member
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.
Already done for alcohol and tobacco.. We seriously need to define one single age as being a full fledged adult with all that entails.
Ignition Override
Member
taroseN : You funny man ! 
Me laugh !
my eyes dont always cee wherher its a Nag or a mag.
Or a potat-toe dead in the WH.
Me laugh ! my eyes dont always cee wherher its a Nag or a mag.
Or a potat-toe dead in the WH.
DustyGmt
Member
I don't know if I'd go that far, lol.
but yes, responsible and sane enough not to act on homicidal revenge fantasies. These kids are losers to begin with, weak and unwilling to put in the tough work of becoming a man worthy of others respect. They seriously think that if they couldn't get it right in high school, it's never going to work out for them. Pathetic. It's too bad they don't just eliminate themselves from the gene pool in a stoic, singular fashion instead of making others pay for being complete and total societal rejects.AlexanderA
Member
Why? Different ages for different functions, depending on the circumstances, seem to make more sense. Examples:
1. The age for entering into valid contracts.
2. The age for making medical decisions over one's own body.
3. The age for consuming potential harmful substances such as alcohol and tobacco.
4. The age for driving.
5. The age for voting.
6. The age for serving in the military.
7. The age for owning guns (broken down into the particular types of guns).
Now, some of these actions affect only the individual involved, while others have broader social implications. Of those that have broader social implications, the amount of potential damage varies. If a 16-year-old votes, that's not going to have much effect in the aggregate. (On the other hand, it might be good to encourage a lifetime habit of political participation.) But if a 16-year-old climbs to a rooftop and guns down innocent bystanders, yeah, that's going to be noticed.
General Geoff
Member
All actions have consequences. Treating everyone under 25 like children who are incapable of responsibility is not the answer. 18 year olds should have access to all legal arms, and I would argue they should have access before that age if there is parental consent and if younger than 16, supervision.
In my experience, chronological age is a poor indicator of ability or inclination to make rational decisions. It's a sad substitute for personal testing and evaluation in a society that has lost much of its contact with young people. In essence, an age threshold says "we believe you will be a rational and caring human being on or before this birthday". Some are there well ahead of others, while some never quite exhibit that ability. So it is that we punish those who learn and comprehend, while giving a pass to folks that can't be bothered with cause and effect or empathy with others.
I don't know about others but for me the analogy is this; If they can be drafted at 18 then they should be able to own firearms at 18 too.
I think we all agree that is it wrong to blame the tool used, but it always happens.
What needs to be fixed is social/cultural issues. Again many of us had access to firearms when we were kids and never did anything stupid. It is the cultural changes that has causes this type of behavior. I know that some have pointed out that my statement have no relevance the it comes to kids that grew up in the 90's or earlier. But there is relevance there. We were taught right from wrong and were also taught to respect others. We weren't the "it's all about me" generation. Nor were we babysat by video games and phones/tablets.
Jim Watson
Member
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.
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.
theotherwaldo
Member
-Pretty much true - and he's the senator for my district.
Of course, Mayra Flores is our new Representative... .
AlexanderA
Member
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.
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.
General Geoff
Member
A tiny unhinged minority can hijack airplanes with sharpened spoons.
A tiny unhinged minority can rent trucks and drive them into crowds.
A tiny unhinged minority can murder people with ice picks.
Tiny, unhinged minorities should not dictate policy on constitutionally protected rights. And make no mistake, mass shooters are still a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of gun owners.
Tomorrow is promised to no one. Thousands of people die every year between the ages of 18 and 21. Why should they be denied a right they might otherwise enjoy during their brief time on this earth?
You're right. Time does go by fast. And for some it goes too fast.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked