Posted on 03/12/2018 8:46:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
removing guns for life from people who are no actual danger to anyone-............................ Really? Not even to those who want to take them away because they don’t like the way you think? Remember the box cars to the resettlement area have no room for weapons. (Conspiracy thinking or remembering history?)
... that limiting gun purchases to 21 and up is a reasonable restriction ...
Is limiting free speech to those 21 and up reasonable?
Same difference.
At 18 a person is considered mature enough to defend themselves, but not mature enough to function with inhibited judgement.
The NRA lawsuit contends FL’s age-based restriction has no rational relationship to gun ownership and is based on a desire to punish young law-abiding gun owners for the act of a young mad man.
Its motivated by the desire to do something and young people can get still a gun legally from their parents, buy it legally from an older straw purchasern who buys it on their behalf or they can buy it on the black market.
As a means of keeping guns out of the wrong hands, its an execise in futility.
At the SCOTUS level, they’ve ruled that weapons deemed not particularly useful to military use can be taxed.
Beyond that, they mostly been avoiding the issue.
And even that one they got the description wrong.
And what 18 year olds do you know that haven’t already had a drink or smoke?
People under 21 can and do drink alcohol - and consume tobacco products. The fact they legally can’t do it is ineffective.
And age-based restrictions are in reality difficult to enforce.
When our nation was great, Gov’t nannies would never have dared to make ANY law usurping parent’s domain and authority to decide for themselves when their children could or could not do something adults may do.
Now we have to check with out Gov’t nanny to see at what age citizens are “allowed” to do whatever Gov’t decides they can do.
But Blue-State, don’t-even-own-a-gun FReepers LOVE the idea of disarming 18-to-21-year-olds.
Yet another Blue-State FReeper who is seeking to disarm us.
[[Not even to those who want to take them away because they don’t like the way you think?]]
That was the whole point of my post- the police will have the power to determine if you are a danger based on your answers to them- very subjective- they aren’t trained psychiatrists and have no business declaring someone unfit to own a gun unless the suspect is caught being an ACTUAL danger to others-
Why doesn’t anyone suggest this tack?
2nd Amendment hardcore support won’t budge on any restrictions on guns — triggers, types of ammo — nothing. We’re concerned about incrementalism, obviously.
Abortion hardcore support won’t budge on any restrictions on abortiuons — partial birth, age, parental consent — nothing. They’re concerned about incrementalism, obviously.
Now these two positions are almost exactly analogous (exception: we have an Amendment; they don’t).
So let’s find out who is really interested in “common-sense solutions”.
Let’s propose, “OK, we raise the gun-buying age to 19, in exchange for raising the age to obtain an abortion w/o parental consent to, oh, let’s say — 19.”
Which side would squawk the loudest? I’d predict it would be the all-abortion, all-the-time crowd.
I hope I don’t get over, oh, say a dozen excoriations over this post. Remember, it’s only hypothetical.
[[Now these two positions are almost exactly analogous (exception: we have an Amendment; they don’t).]]
Actually we have much more than an amendment- we have an inalienable right- supported by the constitution, to own weapons to protect ourselves and our families and our nation with- they don’t have an inalienable right to murder their offspring
Thanks for agreeing with me. We have the moral high ground (the Amendment, which implies inalienability not to be infringed); and by trying what I said, we would see who REALLY doesn’t want to see a “common sense solution”.
I am certain that the abortion people would scream bloody murder at the thought.
Unless of course, you are a gun-grabber, they attack from whichever side appears to have the best chance of working for them.
Restricting guns for some age limit has nothing to do with gun safety, it is all about the camel getting his nose in the tent.
You are right, we need to be vigilant on all fronts.
In addition to differing between each other, what have they got to do with my point/statement?
21 for pistols right?
21 for an AR is... obviously not out if the question then. Not that I agree, as my first pistol was a K frame 38. In WV the legal age was 16.
But...
if we’re going there then in addition:
21 to Drink
21 to Vote
21 to Draft
21 to Smoke
21 to Porn
21 for Pistols
21 for guns excluding muzzle loaders and break open single shot shotguns
under 21 - active duty military ID or DD-214
Want to shoot an adult weapon? Join the military.
Want to shoot an adult gun anyway, sanctioned NRA training only and a HS diploma plus meets the criteria.
Let’s see that get through congress.
(Snark... but not...)
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.