NRA opposes Fla move to raise age for rifles to 21, the same age for other firearms.

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nice. Rick Scott may veto even that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.427311f7f858

I think it is a good idea that those under the age of 18 should have some sort of parent undersign their purchase and maybe even parental supervision, but tell me, if no one under 21 can legally buy a gun, how will kids 17.5 years of age enlist into the Army where they will have guns up to the teeth?

Apparently, you have never been in the military. If the military requires you to carry a gun as part of your duties, you will be trained in the proper use and cleaning of the weapon in question, as well as will have it ISSUED TO YOU. No purchase required.

And, you can enlist in the Delayed Entry Program at age 17, but you cannot ship off to boot camp until AFTER your 18th birthday.

Wrong.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nice. Rick Scott may veto even that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.427311f7f858

I think it is a good idea that those under the age of 18 should have some sort of parent undersign their purchase and maybe even parental supervision, but tell me, if no one under 21 can legally buy a gun, how will kids 17.5 years of age enlist into the Army where they will have guns up to the teeth?

Apparently, you have never been in the military. If the military requires you to carry a gun as part of your duties, you will be trained in the proper use and cleaning of the weapon in question, as well as will have it ISSUED TO YOU. No purchase required.

And, you can enlist in the Delayed Entry Program at age 17, but you cannot ship off to boot camp until AFTER your 18th birthday.

I guess you don't read or comprehend too well. Please try harder. HOW OR WHERE did I ever say otherwise or that a kid had to buy his own gun for in the service? And the age to sign up with parental consent is 17.5 years regardless of whenever you enter.

Wrong. It is 17.

You and BikerSailor are both trying very hard to be more wrong than the other.

 

[whitehall]

The NRA never said it and Rick Scott never said it. The post is based on a intentionally biased fake news editorial by somebody named Robert Costa designed to inflame the left wing hatred.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nice. Rick Scott may veto even that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.427311f7f858

This is a bad decision by the NRA. Why would any 18-20-year-old young person need to own a rifle? I can see why people that age, especially young women, might want to own a handgun, but I see no need for them to own a rifle. Most young people's brains aren't even fully developed until they're 21.

Hunting?

Target practice?

Additional practice for military weapons qualification?

What business is of yours anyway?

They might slip a condom over it and use it for immoral purposes.

 

[toobfreak]

Nice. Rick Scott may veto even that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.427311f7f858

I think it is a good idea that those under the age of 18 should have some sort of parent undersign their purchase and maybe even parental supervision, but tell me, if no one under 21 can legally buy a gun, how will kids 17.5 years of age enlist into the Army where they will have guns up to the teeth?

That is the stupidest argument that I have ever heard. They will be trained properly. Also they will use guns on a limited basis. For the most part, they are kept locked up.

Its not an argument. Its a legal dilemma, moron. How can you have a soldier in the Army using guns when he is three years under the legal age to use them? What, will the Congress make a special exemption for soldiers? That's the problem with asking Congress to write laws, they never think through 80% of the permutations and so then become stupid laws we get stuck with. Hell, even at that, they are lucky to get any law to the table to vote on and when they finally DO, they are just damned glad to pass it (like Obamacare) then move on fast to the next clusterfuck.

 

[ThisIsMe]

How are you conservatives going to feel about Trump when he raises the age for buying a gun to 21, and bans the sales of bump stocks?

And, if he does, the NRA is going to go against him. They gave him 300,000,000 for his presidential campaign.

Trump endorses raising minimum age for more weapons

Trump said on Twitter, "I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks!" The president did not immediately offer more details.


Trump's focus on gun violence came as leaders of the National Rifle Association offered a vigorous defense of gun rights during the Conservative Political Action Conference, urging enhanced — and armed — security at schools. An armed Broward County sheriff's deputy, the regular school resource officer, was on the campus of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, at the time of the shooting.

They gave him 300 million? His whole campaign was only 398 million, are you saying they financed his entire campaign?

My bad, I heard it on the news (not sure which channel), and I should have verified it for myself.

The actual figure is $11,438,118. Still, that is a lot of money for political contributions, and that also means the NRA has their hooks into him.

Who are the top 10 recipients of NRA money?

Yeah, that is a lot of money, but then are you really surprised? What politician isn't getting their palms greased by some corporation somewhere? I mean, Hillary spent over 700 million on her campaign. Who has their hooks in her?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nice. Rick Scott may veto even that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.427311f7f858

I think it is a good idea that those under the age of 18 should have some sort of parent undersign their purchase and maybe even parental supervision, but tell me, if no one under 21 can legally buy a gun, how will kids 17.5 years of age enlist into the Army where they will have guns up to the teeth?

That is the stupidest argument that I have ever heard. They will be trained properly. Also they will use guns on a limited basis. For the most part, they are kept locked up.

Its not an argument. Its a legal dilemma, moron. How can you have a soldier in the Army using guns when he is three years under the legal age to use them? What, will the Congress make a special exemption for soldiers? That's the problem with asking Congress to write laws, they never think through 80% of the permutations and so then become stupid laws we get stuck with. Hell, even at that, they are lucky to get any law to the table to vote on and when they finally DO, they are just damned glad to pass it (like Obamacare) then move on fast to the next clusterfuck.

You are confusing "use" versus "own". Try recognizing the distinction between the two.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm an NRA member and have been for DECADES .. I own more guns than most people have IQ points - I dont own an assault rifle and several 40 round clips because I DONT NEED ONE - and theres not an 18 year old kid on the planet that "NEEDS" one for anything other than slaughtering people .. anyone thats 18 and wants an assault rifle to carry around and look bad ass then go join the Marines and BE BAD ASS. They can hook you up with as many rags as you can handle.

The End

Not true... No 18 yr old wants to see the spring calves EATEN by varmints.. semi auto with fair size clip is the right tool for that job.. ALSO handy for long wilderness hike..

Please tell me that you didn't just use the term "clip"!

Because a clip is the part I use to hold my score card dummy.. First rifle with a "clip" was a Ruger with a square 10 round flush magazine. Didn't LOOK like a clip.. I went from there.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think the NRA is misjudging the mood of the country. I heard an NRA guy on the radio this morning arguing against banning any guns for 18-year-olds.

I don't LIKE it. But in this case it makes sense and I'll tell you why. Folks who REALLY CARE about Civil Liberties don't trust the Feds to be able handle MORE complication. They've adequately demonstrated their failure to handle the simple stuff. So stuffing the faulty "terrorist watch list" into the database or judging what crazy is --- is just a clusterfuck of colossal proportions. And LARGELY the ACLU agrees with all that.

So a clean simple fix is BETTER than watching the neglect and abuse of other "tweaks" to NIC system. Which BTW was argued for by the NRA in the 1st place when all the Left was offering was "waiting periods" and stupid fucking stuff like post "No Gun Zone" signs..

Whenever I've been an NRA member (not currently) is BECAUSE of Civil Liberty concerns. Not because I'm a dogmatic "gun nut"...

 

[Desperado]

It's a useless change in the law that will accomplish nothing. It's security theater and nothing more.

You're right there, Bro!
What we need is Federal laws that bring some sanity to the scene, as Australia has done.

So you came out of the closet and are no longer pretending to want stronger gun control you are now advocating for gun confiscation and a total ban on guns.

 

[Darkwind]

I think the NRA is misjudging the mood of the country. I heard an NRA guy on the radio this morning arguing against banning any guns for 18-year-olds.

He's right. It won't accomplish anything to do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a useless change in the law that will accomplish nothing. It's security theater and nothing more.

You're right there, Bro!
What we need is Federal laws that bring some sanity to the scene, as Australia has done.

Since when do criminals and monster murderers pay attention to laws? And what does a penal colony have to do with the united states?

People drive over the speed limits every day. That's not a good argument for abolishing all speed limit laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny how the gun nuts want laws that apply to everything else, but mention a similar law that would apply to guns, and they go...well...nuts.

 

[miketx]

It's a useless change in the law that will accomplish nothing. It's security theater and nothing more.

You're right there, Bro!
What we need is Federal laws that bring some sanity to the scene, as Australia has done.

Since when do criminals and monster murderers pay attention to laws? And what does a penal colony have to do with the united states?

People drive over the speed limits every day. That's not a good argument for abolishing all speed limit laws.

aha liar, no one is talking about abolishing all a laws, one is talking about no more new laws that won't be obeyed of enforced! You cannot be honest can you? Huh?

 

[gipper]

It's funny how the gun nuts want laws that apply to everything else, but mention a similar law that would apply to guns, and they go...well...nuts.

The Big Government you love, continues to screw up resulting in dead Americans. Yet, you want the NRA's scalp. The NRA is not the problem. The problem is the big government you love...Dumb Deer.

 

[miketx]

It's funny how the gun nuts want laws that apply to everything else, but mention a similar law that would apply to guns, and they go...well...nuts.

Stop lying butcher. We already have thousands of laws. Any more laws on guns are useless much as you are. Criminals don't obey laws. But you know all this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nice. Rick Scott may veto even that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.427311f7f858

I am opposed to it as well unless you change the legal age of being an adult to 21, remove voting rights, military service rights, and everything else that comes when one turns 18 and move it all to 21.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nice. Rick Scott may veto even that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.427311f7f858

I think it is a good idea that those under the age of 18 should have some sort of parent undersign their purchase and maybe even parental supervision, but tell me, if no one under 21 can legally buy a gun, how will kids 17.5 years of age enlist into the Army where they will have guns up to the teeth?

Apparently, you have never been in the military. If the military requires you to carry a gun as part of your duties, you will be trained in the proper use and cleaning of the weapon in question, as well as will have it ISSUED TO YOU. No purchase required.

And, you can enlist in the Delayed Entry Program at age 17, but you cannot ship off to boot camp until AFTER your 18th birthday.

Wrong.

In 1965 when I first spoke with a recruiter, I could have enlisted in the Navy on what was called a Kiddie Cruise. Meaning four years active duty, followed by two years active reserves. My dad said no (BTW I graduate from high school in June of '65); later I enlisted in the Navy Reserve, two years AD, four years reserves (depending on the rate, either active or inactive reserves duty).

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nice. Rick Scott may veto even that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.427311f7f858

I think it is a good idea that those under the age of 18 should have some sort of parent undersign their purchase and maybe even parental supervision, but tell me, if no one under 21 can legally buy a gun, how will kids 17.5 years of age enlist into the Army where they will have guns up to the teeth?

Apparently, you have never been in the military. If the military requires you to carry a gun as part of your duties, you will be trained in the proper use and cleaning of the weapon in question, as well as will have it ISSUED TO YOU. No purchase required.

And, you can enlist in the Delayed Entry Program at age 17, but you cannot ship off to boot camp until AFTER your 18th birthday.

I guess you don't read or comprehend too well. Please try harder. HOW OR WHERE did I ever say otherwise or that a kid had to buy his own gun for in the service? And the age to sign up with parental consent is 17.5 years regardless of whenever you enter.

Wrong. It is 17.

You and BikerSailor are both trying very hard to be more wrong than the other.

The Admiral is correct. I was a recruiter for the Marine Corps and the MEPS Liaison for 2 years. You can ship to bootcamp at 17 with parental permission.

 

[rshermn]

Some idiot said the following:
I suggest they all sign a petition to deny long gun purchases to themselves..

Get busy... You leftists go give them medals of the Proletariat for their heroism...

I say the following:
Have you got the design finished yet for the new award. The one that you give to each other for making certain you keep those kid killing guns as available as possible to the nut cases??? You know, the ones that are used over and over by the various killers to execute as large a number of kids, and adults, in as short a time as possible. You need to keep supporting the ability of the nut cases to murder as many as they can, as fast as they can. Then you can give each other awards for making it possible to kill the kids that others value, and blather on about your rights to have a gun to allow you to pull off 20 or more shots as quick as possible. Because, as con trolls, you like the right to have a weapon capable of killing a hundred humans more than stopping the carnage in our schools. What the hell, a bunch of dead kids is a fair trade for you being able to have the weapon of your choice. Because you are stupid. Because you like to have the NRA telling you what to believe. Hell, how else do you know what talking points to substitute for rational thought.

You need someone to tell you what to believe. And you love being mad at thinking people. Call them names, and be sure to make it as easy as possible for the nut cases to execute mass killings.

After all, it also makes it easy for you to have a gun to cover your inability to hunt with a gun that holds a few rounds, and that you have to cock to shoot again. Capable hunters use bolt action or lever action guns. You need to have that military person killing assault design to make up for your inabilities.
Australian hunters are laughing at you. They have skills, use bolt action guns, and hunt successfully. You, on the other hand, get you AR and get your kicks breaking glass garbage in the local garbage dump. You are indeed pathetic, and you are perfectly willing to trade kids lives for your ignorant kicks. Pathetic as you are. So it is fine with you that the Australians are proud of no mass killings in the past 18 years. But you need your AR available to break garbage, and to hell with the fact that we can't match the zero mass shootings, since we have mass shootings all the time. Hell, we lead all the advanced nations of the world in mass killings. Kill more kids than any other nation. And in other locations, like churches, music events, theaters, dance halls, whatever. But dead people by the hundreds are a fair trade in your ignorant little mind for the ability to keep your assault weapon so you can shoot garbage and giggle. Dipshits that you all are.