Raising age to 21 wont work

[spurraider21]

But we don't tell them they need to be 21 back home to do it. That's the point, Philo.

The concept of "21" is age of understanding and responsibility. That's ok for alcohol, since young folks go crazy with the drinking and die before they get a chance to learn to chill. With guns, many of us grew up hunting and though we didn't personally own one, we had one we thought belonged to us. We never thought about shooting anyone with it because it's basically a tool. It sat in a closet until it was time to hunt. No one ever had to remind anyone that it wasn't a toy. Everyone I knew just took it for granted that guns were normal household items. , in HS half of us had rifles in the rear windows of our trucks on racks, at school.

So when we hear how you should have to be 21 to own a gun, it seems strange. I get it that some people are just ing crazy, but we know these people are crazy most of the time and we do nothing about it in fear of offending someone. Instead, when someone we know is crazy as does something to validate our belief, we as a society impose restrictions on everyone to avoid singling anyone out. It's chicken . Whatever though, we have to live together, gotta make it work somehow.

bright line rules are always going to feel odd, because personal situations are different. some people are trained marksmen at 14 and can handle a gun much more safely than some 23 year old shmuck who's never fired a weapon before but thinks it would be cool to go buy some.

there are certainly 19 year olds that will be more responsible with alcohol than 22 year olds (though research has shown that rational parts of the brain keep developing until 25, so there are medical purposes to curb alcohol consumption before that time), etc.

but there has to be a bright line rule because it would be incredibly inefficient to have a case-by-case determination for buying a gun. it would essentially be a prescription. go get a note showing you are mature enough to handle a gun before buying one? nah.

not sure if it was this thread or another, but i said i dont really have any problem carving an exception to those who have served... i just dont think its that massive an issue to get all worked up over. "OMG you're not allowing soldiers to own guns at home"... i dont see it as such a crisis. i dont see why its so necessary to give people a right to do at home what they do as part of their work/duty. but if people are going to take a hard-line stance on this issue, then sure, give it to them.

[DMC]

bright line rules are always going to feel odd, because personal situations are different. some people are trained marksmen at 14 and can handle a gun much more safely than some 23 year old shmuck who's never fired a weapon before but thinks it would be cool to go buy some.

there are certainly 19 year olds that will be more responsible with alcohol than 22 year olds (though research has shown that rational parts of the brain keep developing until 25, so there are medical purposes to curb alcohol consumption before that time), etc.

but there has to be a bright line rule because it would be incredibly inefficient to have a case-by-case determination for buying a gun. it would essentially be a prescription. go get a note showing you are mature enough to handle a gun before buying one? nah.

not sure if it was this thread or another, but i said i dont really have any problem carving an exception to those who have served... i just dont think its that massive an issue to get all worked up over. "OMG you're not allowing soldiers to own guns at home"... i dont see it as such a crisis. i dont see why its so necessary to give people a right to do at home what they do as part of their work/duty. but if people are going to take a hard-line stance on this issue, then sure, give it to them.

As far as firearm ownership, the 2nd Amendment gives them that right. If you're saying an 18 year old doesn't have a developed rationality, why are you putting a rifle in their hands at age 18 and sending them to die? Surely they cannot rationalize well enough to know that joining the military as a "way out" is really just agreeing to die for a rich white man.

[spurraider21]

As far as firearm ownership, the 2nd Amendment gives them that right. If you're saying an 18 year old doesn't have a developed rationality, why are you putting a rifle in their hands at age 18 and sending them to die? Surely they cannot rationalize well enough to know that joining the military as a "way out" is really just agreeing to die for a rich white man.

cons utional rights are all subject to regulation. we have freedom of speech, but there are laws that place certain limitations. there's nothing that says they can't put a reasonable age requirement on gun ownership. whether you think that should be 12, 18, 21 is a matter of opinion.

if you think its absolutely necessary to carve out an exception for the small minority of 18-20 year olds that serve, so be it, i'm not going to fight tooth and nail over that.

[TDMVPDPOY]

I'll keep my right to a militia against a corrupt government.

this is bs

so what happens when ur militia against the govt loses the war? do you think the govt will let you off free without charges?

what happens if you win against the govt? do you think the new govt will let you off free also? they pull a commie and kill off everyone who helped win

2nd amendment is outdated man if ur arming urself to go up against the govt one day...

as for semi automatic rifles, why do civilians need such guns? ..... jailing or executing the person wont do anything, u must pull a commie sentence, kill 3 linage of the family line to set an example

[Spurtacular]

this is bs

so what happens when ur militia against the govt loses the war? do you think the govt will let you off free without charges?

what happens if you win against the govt? do you think the new govt will let you off free also? they pull a commie and kill off everyone who helped win

2nd amendment is outdated man if ur arming urself to go up against the govt one day...

as for semi automatic rifles, why do civilians need such guns? ..... jailing or executing the person wont do anything, u must pull a commie sentence, kill 3 linage of the family line to set an example

That's just a bunch of hypotheticals. The people have the power to keep their government in check for a reason. Aside from that, nothing's guaranteed.

[DMC]

cons utional rights are all subject to regulation. we have freedom of speech, but there are laws that place certain limitations. there's nothing that says they can't put a reasonable age requirement on gun ownership. whether you think that should be 12, 18, 21 is a matter of opinion.

if you think its absolutely necessary to carve out an exception for the small minority of 18-20 year olds that serve, so be it, i'm not going to fight tooth and nail over that.

You said "I don't see why it's necessary to give people the right..."

The right was protected long long ago, and has been for over 200 years. You're not giving them anything. Same with freedom of speech. It can be taken away with a twist of the interpretation of the BoR but it cannot be given to anyone, since they already have it.

[DMC]

this is bs

so what happens when ur militia against the govt loses the war? do you think the govt will let you off free without charges?

what happens if you win against the govt? do you think the new govt will let you off free also? they pull a commie and kill off everyone who helped win

2nd amendment is outdated man if ur arming urself to go up against the govt one day...

as for semi automatic rifles, why do civilians need such guns? ..... jailing or executing the person wont do anything, u must pull a commie sentence, kill 3 linage of the family line to set an example

You seem to think the 2nd Amendment jumped from inception to now. It's come before our greatest court time and again and hasn't been deemed "out of date". Every time it gets reaffirmed, it has been decided (again) that it is still relevant.

[spurraider21]

You said "I don't see why it's necessary to give people the right..."

The right was protected long long ago, and has been for over 200 years. You're not giving them anything. Same with freedom of speech. It can be taken away with a twist of the interpretation of the BoR but it cannot be given to anyone, since they already have it.

i meant that in the context of if we changed the law of gun ownership to 21, to carve an exception for those in the 18-20 range (who have served)

the semantics of "giving" a right is not a particularly interesting path of dicussion

[SnakeBoy]

You seem to think the 2nd Amendment jumped from inception to now. It's come before our greatest court time and again and hasn't been deemed "out of date". Every time it gets reaffirmed, it has been decided (again) that it is still relevant.

It's not the court's place to decide if part of the cons ution is outdated. The founding fathers gave us a process to update the cons ution. This is the point I was getting at with pavlov. I may not agree but I think a rational argument can be made that the 2nd amendment is no longer needed in the modern world. They should make that argument and try to win support for it instead of pretending the 2nd amendment doesn't really mean what it says.

[Xevious]

That's just a bunch of hypotheticals. The people have the power to keep their government in check for a reason. Aside from that, nothing's guaranteed.

I'm not suggesting that we abolish the 2A, but the idea of "keeping the government in check" with a few guns in today's world is ridiculous. The US military will roll right over your AR-15, Glock 19, and grandpappy's pump action. Most Americans are too fat and happy to do anything anyway. As long as they can get the latest iPhone, most will overlook our liberties being stripped away a piece at a time.

[Chris]

I'm not suggesting that we abolish the 2A, but the idea of "keeping the government in check" with a few guns in today's world is ridiculous. The US military will roll right over your AR-15, Glock 19, and grandpappy's pump action. Most Americans are too fat and happy to do anything anyway. As long as they can get the latest iPhone, most will overlook our liberties being stripped away a piece at a time.

A group of local tribes in caves with AK47's defeated the Soviet Union. You underestimate the power of the people.

[Xevious]

A group of local tribes in caves with AK47's defeated the Soviet Union. You underestimate the power of the people.

The people have been bought off by gadgets and gizmos.

[Chris]

The people have been bought off by gadgets and gizmos.

Not all of us are using our gadgets to play Candy Crush. The Information Age is just getting started.

[DMC]

It's not the court's place to decide if part of the cons ution is outdated. The founding fathers gave us a process to update the cons ution. This is the point I was getting at with pavlov. I may not agree but I think a rational argument can be made that the 2nd amendment is no longer needed in the modern world. They should make that argument and try to win support for it instead of pretending the 2nd amendment doesn't really mean what it says.

"and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Cons ution of the United States.”

Easier said than done.

[DMC]

i meant that in the context of if we changed the law of gun ownership to 21, to carve an exception for those in the 18-20 range (who have served)

the semantics of "giving" a right is not a particularly interesting path of dicussion

Then change the laws for enlistment into the military to 21 as well.

Otherwise it's a double standard.

[Spurtacular]

I'm not suggesting that we abolish the 2A, but the idea of "keeping the government in check" with a few guns in today's world is ridiculous. The US military will roll right over your AR-15, Glock 19, and grandpappy's pump action. Most Americans are too fat and happy to do anything anyway. As long as they can get the latest iPhone, most will overlook our liberties being stripped away a piece at a time.

This is how brainwashed you've become. Of course, we keep the govt. in check. It's our govt. You argue that we should accept being subjected.

Last I checked, the US military are citizens to (in most cases); they can stand up to tyranny as well.

[Xevious]

This is how brainwashed you've become. Of course, we keep the govt. in check. It's our govt. You argue that we should accept being subjected.

I argued nothing of the sort. I'm saying hoarding weapons in your closet is an ineffective method of checks and balances, not that there shouldn't be any. I also said most people don't care. Case in point... some people here believe that the US government masterminded the 9/11 attacks and murdered thousands of its own citizens. I bet you not a single one marched on Washington with AR-15 in hand. No, they just whine on the internet.

[Pavlov]

I argued nothing of the sort. I'm saying hoarding weapons in your closet is an ineffective method of checks and balances, not that there shouldn't be any. I also said most people don't care. Case in point... some people here believe that the US government masterminded the 9/11 attacks and murdered thousands of its own citizens. I bet you not a single one marched on Washington with AR-15 in hand. No, they just whine on the internet.

The brave ones liberate child sex slaves from pizza pedo dungeons.

[Isitjustme?]

Lmao

[Spurtacular]

I argued nothing of the sort. I'm saying hoarding weapons in your closet is an ineffective method of checks and balances, not that there shouldn't be any. I also said most people don't care. Case in point... some people here believe that the US government masterminded the 9/11 attacks and murdered thousands of its own citizens. I bet you not a single one marched on Washington with AR-15 in hand. No, they just whine on the internet.

Making a case for the govt. being implicated in 911 does not warrant war-like maneuvers, necessarily. There is such a thing as prudence. Though the more the govt. becomes inbred and entrenched in corruption the more likely I'd say such an event would happen. And I have nothing against "hoarding" weapons. It's our right to do so.

[Pavlov]

Making a case for the govt. being implicated in 911 does not warrant war-like maneuvers, necessarily.

What does it warrant if you believe the government was implicated in 9/11?

[Xevious]

Making a case for the govt. being implicated in 911 does not warrant war-like maneuvers, necessarily. There is such a thing as prudence. Though the more the govt. becomes inbred and entrenched in corruption the more likely I'd say such an event would happen. And I have nothing against "hoarding" weapons. It's our right to do so.

Nor do I. I have a number of firearms myself. I just view them differently.

[pgardn]

The biggest problem isn't the guns, it's a society filled with bat crazy sociopaths like you. There's 360 million of us here and, proportionately, too many loons like you walking around filled with hate and anger because of their perverted perceptions of reality.

Nahhh.
There are bat lunatics in every country.


You put that with that together with easy access to killing large numbers of people with a press to report on it, you got US.

[Chris]

pgardn is an expert on bat crazy

[pgardn]

This is how brainwashed you've become. Of course, we keep the govt. in check. It's our govt. You argue that we should accept being subjected.

Last I checked, the US military are citizens to (in most cases); they can stand up to tyranny as well.

You are ripe for a good Bundification moment.