Posted on 07/13/2013 7:49:16 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
Posted from phone so no excerpt.
(Excerpt) Read more at amgoa.org ...
So you can only own older guns? Are the newer ones more dangerous?
So you can only own older guns? Are the newer ones more dangerous?
Fine, as long as they no longer get the right to vote, either.
If you’re too immature to own a firearm, you’re too immature to make good decisions on how the country should be run.
‘‘(11) has not attained 25 years of age, and has
10 been adjudicated by any court as having committed
11 an offense that would have been a crime of violence
12 (as defined in section 16) if committed by an adult;
25 years of age AND having committed a violent crime.
Oh, yeah, like that’s going to prevent them from obtaining a firearm.
This is BS. If you can go to jail for life, or serve your country, you should be able to own a gun and drink beer.(beer and gun at the same time are bad though :) )
Than you should have to be at least 25 to join the military.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Understandable. People that young cannot be trusted not to kill another person. Unless they are having an abortion. Then we bave to “trust women” regardless of their age.
Gun-Control Advocate’s Victory in Illinois Is Also One for Bloomberg
She is an Anti-NRA B_
The bill will go nowhere. She is taking on the NRA?? hee hee hee
“So you can only own older guns? Are the newer ones more dangerous?”
Ok with me. My 1911’s are all older than 25 yrs as are my rifles and shotguns. Are the newer ones more dangerous? Functionally perhaps yes. The newer double/singles and double-only pistols are more difficult to operate and less accurate in my humble opinion. And, the newer pump shotguns commonly used for home defense can not be “pumped” rapid fire style while holding the trigger back. If two or three perps should break into ones home this would be a desirable feature doncha think?
But beer after gun is just fine.
Personally, I think that the sealing of juvenile records is a bad idea in today's society. It should rather be the case that they are accessible to the courts and law enforcement (and ONLY to them -- as far as colleges and employers are concerned, they are sealed) until the age of 25. If the person has maintained a clean record, THEN they get sealed. Any adult conviction, and the juvie records become part of your adult record.
This congresswoman took over Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s old seat.
She can write bills until the cows come home, and she will get nothing for it.
Basically, this is a ban on firearms by those 25 or under and have gotten dinged for something that would have been an adult crime as a juvi.
Damn, Boomers just love eliminating constitutional rights for non-boomers, don’t you?
Also come and take ‘em!
If you commit a violent crime aren’t you currently forbidden from buy a firearm? Not sure of the purpose of this.
Of course it will. Look how well midnight basketball worked to deter crime.
Does that include their military and law enforcement? Perhaps it could go along with removing their right to vote, borrow money for college, drink booze, murder their unborn, and drive. Seems like vehicles are more frequent killers by under 25 drivers than guns.
Than?
But are sex laws considered laws of violence?
Oh sure, we all no rape and sexual assault are violent.
My point is, 7 year olds showing themselves to each other, today can have consequences.
I have a distant cousin, who at 13 or 14 got to feely with a younger cousin. Today at 19, he still has to register as a sex offender, and according to state law, will for the rest of his life.
If you pee along the side of a road and are "caught" by a cop, you can be charged as a sex offender.
What guy in years past hasn't pee'd by the side of the road?
Point being, there are some things that are worthy of sex offender charges and others that are not. Some things done as a CHILD will stick with a person forever.
If all sex offenders are considered violent crimes, then there could be ALOT of people who would not be able to own a gun.
Secondly, as I was writing this, the thought occurred to me. What about young kids in playgrounds who play cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers, good guys bad guys or even pimps and ho's? They chase each other around with their fingers pointed "shooting" each other, and are hauled in before the principal and police for a 5 hour interrogation and suspended from school. Or the Jr high or HS kid who draws a picture, or has a picture of a gun on his laptop, and the schools zero tolerance policy, so the interrogate him and suspend or expel him. Are these also considered "violent" crimes.
To you or I, we would say no.
But to liberals, who knows what bounces around in their empty craniums? The very fact that 5 year olds get interrogated, without their parents, for simply pointing their finger and saying bang, raises enough concern over what the liberal "mind" might think of.
I highly doubt this would pass, much less be held constitutional.
I, on the other hand, believe that the voting age should be raised to 25. With a change that 26 year olds to remain on their parents insurance, continue a life of delayed adulthood and responsibility, it would behoove us that only those more mature and independent get the franchise.
So if you commit a crime under 25, you have to wait until you’re 25 to own a firearm?
Hey man, I have double/single action hand guns so I don’t pop off a toe when I retrieve one from my pocket. I just don’t feel comfortable carrying locked and cocked.
Just incredible. Some people have really lost the ability to think. Perhaps it’s time to round up our politicians and put them in re-education camps until they can think clearly and understand the U.S. Constitution.
‘‘(11) has not attained 25 years of age, and has
10 been adjudicated by any court as having committed
11 an offense that would have been a crime of violence
12 (as defined in section 16) if committed by an adult;
25 years of age AND having committed a violent crime.”
Yes. I too bothered to read the bill. But why 25? Why not use a number more consistent with the threshold for adulthood, say 21, which is the current threshold for legal handgun ownership? 25 doesn’t make any sense to me.
Well the honest law abiding ones anyway, because THOSE are the ones we need to worry about.
It’s worked so well in Chicago!
Well the honest law abiding ones anyway, because THOSE are the ones we need to worry about.
Why can’t we just be honest about it?
Ban blacks from owning guns.
gun crimes plummet by 75% overnight.
Of course. :)
Make sure they are well aged, like cheese or wine.
Plenty of people have been involved in fist fights at some point. If they can be on our streets, they should be allowed to own a gun. I know quite a few military people who have been arrested for fighting.(previous to enlistment) If you can die in Afghanistan, you should be able to own a gun in the country you risked your life for.
These anti-2nd Amendment morons know no limits. They have no shame. Fools...all of them. As the comedian George Wallace would say, “They need their asses kicked”.
You know what he meant. :)
“Then”
Agreed.
“Hey man, I have double/single action hand guns so I don’t pop off a toe when I retrieve one from my pocket. I just don’t feel comfortable carrying locked and cocked.”
LOL :). I forgot to include sarc/ at the end of my post. Actually, I own some double/singles, a couple are Beretta 92F and Walther PPK. For pocket carry I often drop a Colt Pocket Lite which is single action in a pocket. But, I don’t carry it locked and cocked either. As you, I don’t fee comfortable dong it. I do carry it with a round in the chamber and hammer down though. Concerning toes; once you’ve shot them off you don’t have to worry about them any more :) I used to know an old guy who had worked n the oil patch when he was a young buckaroo and lost a couple of fingers when throwing the chain. Said the good thing about it was that e didn’t have to worry about’em anymore. Same logic :)
LOVE that idea; excluding military, of course (can be killed to protect this Country, there are ‘benefits’)
Wow. I would be down to two firearms. The rest of my guns are younger than that.
How about following the Constitution instead?
The ONLY reason you should not be ‘allowed’ to own a firearm, since any OTHER weapon will do in a pinch, eh?, is to keep the offender in JAIL.
If they’ve done their time, they are Free Citizens again and afforded the Rights all others can utilize.
Scripter for President!
Truth- The 3rd Rail
Lets get the facts straight before we speak. The bill does NOT ban people under the age of 25 from owning a firearm. It does use the age of 25 as a starting point for the next condition.
That condition is being
"...has not attained 25 years of age, and has been adjudicated by any court as having committed an offense that would have been a crime of violence (as defined in section 16) if committed by an adult;"
As I stated in a prior post, Form 4473 already bars violent felons from owning guns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.