Let people, under 21, possess guns using the same requirements as the military

[ElmerMudd]

Let people, under 21, possess guns using the same requirements as the military. Every recruit has a minimum of 92 hours of training with firearms.
Regardless of the branch, a recruit can’t graduate from military basic combat training/boot camp without proving that they can handle a military weapon without shooting themselves, their classmates, or the instructors.
If a recruit shows they do not have the mental or physical abilities to possess a firearm, they are washed out of the military and sent on their way WITHOUT A GUN.

 

[Death-Ninja]

"Shall Not Be Infringed" means exactly what it says, there is no historical analog for your infringing intentions, or desires! I suggest you read Thomas's superb majority opinion in Bruen, it is meticulously researched and written, you, the state, and the fed have no authority to infringe beyond the very obvious, violent/mentally ill, ballot box, and governmental offices!

I have some very very bad news for you fascist democrats, the scotus Bruen decision did not expand gun rights, it merely restored them to where they belong, by ending virtually all state & federal gun control, you have no idea what is coming down upon you, and you are not gonna have to wait long to find out, the odds are extremely good, if not likely, that the NFA, GCA68, and Hughes amendment are vacated by some federal court this fall, for real!

 

[Natural Citizen]

Let?

 

[Rogue AI]

Another liberal loser gun grabber who wants to bypass the amendment process with silly dictates. Sad.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Let people, under 21, possess guns using the same requirements as the military. Every recruit has a minimum of 92 hours of training with firearms.
Regardless of the branch, a recruit can’t graduate from military basic combat training/boot camp without proving that they can handle a military weapon without shooting themselves, their classmates, or the instructors.
If a recruit shows they do not have the mental or physical abilities to possess a firearm, they are washed out of the military and sent on their way WITHOUT A GUN.

I take it you've never been in the military?

My first possession of an assault rifle, which is a real thing, unlike an "assault weapon," I was nineteen, in the Army for three days, and it was thrown to/at me by a private who, I learned later, was a former sergeant, busted down for incidents of drunk and disorderly. He was the armorer, in charge of all of the company's rifles, pistols, ammo, grenades, and launchers.

I don't remember any particular gun safety rules they taught us, except specifically for the range. No running on the range, but speed walking mandatory, weapons pointed up and down range, pass on cease fire signals and commands, and obey the range officer.

In particular, we were not taught the first rule of gun safety, which is to treat every firearm as if it were loaded and ready to fire. We were allowed, and often commanded to break that rule. Other rules they missed: be sure of your backstop, don't point at anything you don't intend to shoot and destroy, keep finger off trigger until they moment you intend to shoot.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I take it you've never been in the military?

My first possession of an assault rifle, which is a real thing, unlike an "assault weapon," I was nineteen, in the Army for three days, and it was thrown to/at me by a private who, I learned later, was a former sergeant, busted down for incidents of drunk and disorderly. He was the armorer, in charge of all of the company's rifles, pistols, ammo, grenades, and launchers.

I don't remember any particular gun safety rules they taught us, except specifically for the range. No running on the range, but speed walking mandatory, weapons pointed up and down range, pass on cease fire signals and commands, and obey the range officer.

In particular, we were not taught the first rule of gun safety, which is to treat every firearm as if it were loaded and ready to fire. We were allowed, and often commanded to break that rule. Other rules they missed: be sure of your backstop, don't point at anything you don't intend to shoot and destroy, keep finger off trigger until they moment you intend to shoot.

When and where were you in the military? What makes our military superior is our skilled and well trained military personnel.
Are you sure you were not in the Russian military?

 

[Seymour Flops]

When and where were you in the military? What makes our military superior is our skilled and well trained military personnel.
Are you sure you were not in the Russian military?

1982 - 1993. United States Army regular.

Yourself?

 

[ElmerMudd]

"Shall Not Be Infringed" means exactly what it says, there is no historical analog for your infringing intentions, or desires! I suggest you read Thomas's superb majority opinion in Bruen, it is meticulously researched and written, you, the state, and the fed have no authority to infringe beyond the very obvious, violent/mentally ill, ballot box, and governmental offices!

I have some very very bad news for you fascist democrats, the scotus Bruen decision did not expand gun rights, it merely restored them to where they belong, by ending virtually all state & federal gun control, you have no idea what is coming down upon you, and you are not gonna have to wait long to find out, the odds are extremely good, if not likely, that the NFA, GCA68, and Hughes amendment are vacated by some federal court this fall, for real!

I find Thomas's opinion as setting a precedence that could take away the rights of gay marriage and mixed marriages. (Ironic to say the least)

I find chief justice Burger's opinion on the second amendment relevant to the 20th and 21st centuries. The "right to be bear arms" has been restricted substantially since the 2nd amendment was written. Try buying a tank or even a machine gun. You cannot bear those arms in 2022 in the US

Burger summary

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood apart from the purpose, the setting, and the objectives of the draftsmen. At the time of the Bill of Rights, people were apprehensive about the new national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. It guarantees, "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." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago. Americans have a right to defend their homes, and nothing should undermine this right; nor does anyone question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting anymore than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing. Neither does anyone question the right of citizens to keep and own an automobile. Yet there is no strong interest by the citizenry in questioning the power of the State to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. It is even more desirable for the State to have reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage.

 

[ElmerMudd]

1982 - 1993. United States Army regular.

Yourself?

I did not serve so I thank you for your service. But I have friends who have told me of their experience from recent times to many years back. They told me of a very different experience than yours. They told me to check out the military training if you want to look at what it takes to be proficient with firearms. Same with police. They challenged me.
So I did my own research finding 92 hours of training and cannot get out of basic without proficiency.
It sounds like it was just a matter of luck to be proficient from your experience in the military. That does not sound fair to those who serve.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I did not serve so I thank you for your service.

I thank you for the tax dollars that allowed me to serve. I mean that sincerely.

But I have friends who have told me of their experience from recent times to many years back. They told me of a very different experience than yours. They told me to check out the military training if you want to look at what it takes to be proficient with firearms. Same with police. They challenged me.
So I did my own research finding 92 hours of training and cannot get out of basic without proficiency.
It sounds like it was just a matter of luck to be proficient from your experience in the military. That does not sound fair to those who serve.

I'm sure the military is much more safety conscious about firearms now than they were then.

Still, the lion's share of that 92 hours will be spent on how to shoot people, rather than how to avoid shooting people, it's the nature of the military.

Your proposal would definitely boost the revenue of the NRA, the premier gun safety trainers in the world. Honestly, they are the only organization capable of qualifying and certifying the number of instructors that would be needed for that.

 

[Death-Ninja]

I find Thomas's opinion as setting a precedence that could take away the rights of gay marriage and mixed marriages. (Ironic to say the least)

I find chief justice Burger's opinion on the second amendment relevant to the 20th and 21st centuries. The "right to be bear arms" has been restricted substantially since the 2nd amendment was written. Try buying a tank or even a machine gun. You cannot bear those arms in 2022 in the US

Burger summary

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood apart from the purpose, the setting, and the objectives of the draftsmen. At the time of the Bill of Rights, people were apprehensive about the new national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. It guarantees, "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." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago. Americans have a right to defend their homes, and nothing should undermine this right; nor does anyone question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting anymore than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing. Neither does anyone question the right of citizens to keep and own an automobile. Yet there is no strong interest by the citizenry in questioning the power of the State to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. It is even more desirable for the State to have reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage.

You are totally erroneous in your belief, there are well over 1-million machine guns and sub-machine guns in private hands, and thus in common lawful use(anything over 200,000 is established by high court as being in widespread/common use), they are very easy to purchase, though spendy, and many Americans own tanks, armored cars, fighter jets, flame throwers(saw one at the local gun shop just last month), ect ect ect! I told you, you need to read Thomas's superb Bruen majority opinion, there is only one test acceptable to the high court and every state, local, or federal 2nd amendment infringements must pass it, or they are unconstitutional...

That test is this, Text, History, Tradition, and The Unqualified Command(shall not be infringed), you can pass any gun laws you wish to just as long as you can demonstrate that there is a crystal clear historical analog to ratification(1791)demonstrating a conclusive similar effort by the founders! None such exist, indeed the only historical analog regarding gun control and the founders response to such a notion resulted in the founding itself, that was the shot heard round the world, they declared total war against England and king George for even attempting to enforce such a law, you did know that didn't you, what it was that kicked off the revolutionary war??? It was the crowns attempt upon colonists guns at Concord!

 

[ElmerMudd]

You are totally erroneous in your belief, there are well over 1-million machine guns and sub-machine guns in private hands, and thus in common lawful use(anything over 200,000 is established by high court as being in widespread/common use), they are very easy to purchase, though spendy, and many Americans own tanks, armored cars, fighter jets, flame throwers(saw one at the local gun shop just last month), ect ect ect! I told you, you need to read Thomas's superb Bruen majority opinion, there is only one test acceptable to the high court and every state, local, or federal 2nd amendment infringements must pass it, or they are unconstitutional...

That test is this, Text, History, Tradition, and The Unqualified Command(shall not be infringed), you can pass any gun laws you wish to just as long as you can demonstrate that there is a crystal clear historical analog to ratification(1791)demonstrating a conclusive similar effort by the founders! None such exist, indeed the only historical analog regarding gun control and the founders response to such a notion resulted in the founding itself, that was the shot heard round the world, they declared total war against England and king George for even attempting to enforce such a law, you did know that didn't you, what it was that kicked off the revolutionary war??? It was the crowns attempt upon colonists guns at Concord!

If you like the way our laws handle machine guns, lets do the same for all semi-automatic weapons. What about tanks. They are arms, you know.

Federal law prohibits the possession of newly manufactured machine guns, but permits the transfer of machine guns lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986, if the transfer is approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. As a result, a substantial number of machine guns are still in circulation.

 

[Death-Ninja]

If you like the way our laws handle machine guns, lets do the same for all semi-automatic weapons. What about tanks. They are arms, you know.

Federal law prohibits the possession of newly manufactured machine guns, but permits the transfer of machine guns lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986, if the transfer is approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. As a result, a substantial number of machine guns are still in circulation.

Hey sport, this isn't a debate, your screwy ideas are just that, screwy America hating ideas, you have nothing from whence to proceed upon short of a constitutional convention, Bruen is the law of the land, and that law is impossible to circumvent even by the most corrupt government in human history, we outgun them 1,000's to one, even more importantly we are the armed forces, and we will turn upon them and kill them if they so much as whisper in our ears to kill even stupid schmucks like yourself. NFA is gonna be vacated because it is totally illegal and was always totally illegal, it was created to specifically prevent black Americans from obtaining machine guns, and arguing in favor of such, as you clearly are, makes you a racist!

 

[ElmerMudd]

You are totally erroneous in your belief, there are well over 1-million machine guns and sub-machine guns in private hands, and thus in common lawful use(anything over 200,000 is established by high court as being in widespread/common use), they are very easy to purchase, though spendy, and many Americans own tanks, armored cars, fighter jets, flame throwers(saw one at the local gun shop just last month), ect ect ect! I told you, you need to read Thomas's superb Bruen majority opinion, there is only one test acceptable to the high court and every state, local, or federal 2nd amendment infringements must pass it, or they are unconstitutional...

That test is this, Text, History, Tradition, and The Unqualified Command(shall not be infringed), you can pass any gun laws you wish to just as long as you can demonstrate that there is a crystal clear historical analog to ratification(1791)demonstrating a conclusive similar effort by the founders! None such exist, indeed the only historical analog regarding gun control and the founders response to such a notion resulted in the founding itself, that was the shot heard round the world, they declared total war against England and king George for even attempting to enforce such a law, you did know that didn't you, what it was that kicked off the revolutionary war??? It was the crowns attempt upon colonists guns at Concord!

I Read the interpretation, of Thomas's, as putting an argument against mixed marriages.
In 1796 the biggest gun was a muzzle loader. Nobody thought about mixed marriage.

You are totally erroneous in your belief, there are well over 1-million machine guns and sub-machine guns in private hands, and thus in common lawful use(anything over 200,000 is established by high court as being in widespread/common use), they are very easy to purchase, though spendy, and many Americans own tanks, armored cars, fighter jets, flame throwers(saw one at the local gun shop just last month), ect ect ect! I told you, you need to read Thomas's superb Bruen majority opinion, there is only one test acceptable to the high court and every state, local, or federal 2nd amendment infringements must pass it, or they are unconstitutional...

That test is this, Text, History, Tradition, and The Unqualified Command(shall not be infringed), you can pass any gun laws you wish to just as long as you can demonstrate that there is a crystal clear historical analog to ratification(1791)demonstrating a conclusive similar effort by the founders! None such exist, indeed the only historical analog regarding gun control and the founders response to such a notion resulted in the founding itself, that was the shot heard round the world, they declared total war against England and king George for even attempting to enforce such a law, you did know that didn't you, what it was that kicked off the revolutionary war??? It was the crowns attempt upon colonists guns at Concord!

Did you read Burgers opinion on the 2nd amendment? He said "The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago."
This statement along with a look at ", Text, History, Tradition, and The Unqualified Command of the drafters of our Constitution. Do you know the history and intent of the 2nd amendment. It was a check on a rogue Federal government and the need to have an armed citizenry in case the need another war like the Revolution. Militias and armed individuals won the Revolution not a federal army.
As Burger says, that need was fulfilled by a strong US defense structure. That is why most arms have been banned. If you take Thomas's argument how can any arms be banned or restricted.
NRA was formed to train the citizenry to be competent marksmen. The concern was too many citizens did not own weapons or knew how to use them.

Get the government and the NRA to focus on responsible capable gun owners not put guns out without restrictions. There many individuals and groups on both the far left and the far right who would like to take our government down. They are buying the weapons to do so without many restrictions.
Too many gun owners think owning guns, many guns, powerful guns make them a man. They did not think that way in the 1700's. The government wanted people to have weapons more than most people wanted weapons except for hunting.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I thank you for the tax dollars that allowed me to serve. I mean that sincerely.

I'm sure the military is much more safety conscious about firearms now than they were then.

Still, the lion's share of that 92 hours will be spent on how to shoot people, rather than how to avoid shooting people, it's the nature of the military.

Your proposal would definitely boost the revenue of the NRA, the premier gun safety trainers in the world. Honestly, they are the only organization capable of qualifying and certifying the number of instructors that would be needed for that.

the NRA was formed to encourage people to have weapons and teach them how to use them in case they were needed to fight a war. Now I am all for them being the foremost trainer of gun owners.
400 million guns. I think there are plenty out there. Now let's make sure people know how to use the. And get them out of the hands of those who intend illegal actions.

 

[Flash]

Let people, under 21, possess guns using the same requirements as the military. Every recruit has a minimum of 92 hours of training with firearms.
Regardless of the branch, a recruit can’t graduate from military basic combat training/boot camp without proving that they can handle a military weapon without shooting themselves, their classmates, or the instructors.
If a recruit shows they do not have the mental or physical abilities to possess a firearm, they are washed out of the military and sent on their way WITHOUT A GUN.

Sorry Moon Bat but the Constitution of the US doesn't say a damn thing about there being any requirements to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. In fact it says that the right can't be infringed.

What else you got Moon Bat?

 

[Death-Ninja]

I Read the interpretation, of Thomas's, as putting an argument against mixed marriages.
In 1796 the biggest gun was a muzzle loader. Nobody thought about mixed marriage.

Did you read Burgers opinion on the 2nd amendment? He said "The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago."
This statement along with a look at ", Text, History, Tradition, and The Unqualified Command of the drafters of our Constitution. Do you know the history and intent of the 2nd amendment. It was a check on a rogue Federal government and the need to have an armed citizenry in case the need another war like the Revolution. Militias and armed individuals won the Revolution not a federal army.
As Burger says, that need was fulfilled by a strong US defense structure. That is why most arms have been banned. If you take Thomas's argument how can any arms be banned or restricted.
NRA was formed to train the citizenry to be competent marksmen. The concern was too many citizens did not own weapons or knew how to use them.

Get the government and the NRA to focus on responsible capable gun owners not put guns out without restrictions. There many individuals and groups on both the far left and the far right who would like to take our government down. They are buying the weapons to do so without many restrictions.
Too many gun owners think owning guns, many guns, powerful guns make them a man. They did not think that way in the 1700's. The government wanted people to have weapons more than most people wanted weapons except for hunting.

You are a total fucking retard, which is why you are to stupid to stop yourself from any further humiliation, literally a total fucking retard!

 

[Seymour Flops]

the NRA was formed to encourage people to have weapons and teach them how to use them in case they were needed to fight a war. Now I am all for them being the foremost trainer of gun owners.
400 million guns. I think there are plenty out there. Now let's make sure people know how to use the. And get them out of the hands of those who intend illegal actions.

I think your heart is in the right place. You seem to be making an implied analogy with driving a car. I could almost be persuaded to agree, if not for one thing: The push for red flag laws.

This kind of certification or license requirement would make red flag law enforcement easy, by having the flagged person's certification invalidated (they'll say "it's a privilege not a right!"), and having the law require them to take their guns to the police station, if notified of a red flag. No due process, just a letter in the mail. Turn in your gun or go to jail. No door-to-door collection, needed.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread your OP title. I was thinking that you meant only people over 21, and people under cannot own guns at all. My mistake. That might change my thinking on your idea.

*Pause to think*

Eh . . . I'm libertarian, but I believe that libertarianism is for adults. I also think that eighteen too young for full adult rights to be granted. Twenty would be my number, but twenty-one is the traditional age of full majority. I'll give it some thought.

 

[Seymour Flops]

In 1796 the biggest gun was a muzzle loader.

A muzzle loading cannon. Capable of inflicting just as many deaths as an AR15. Maybe more, with grapeshot.

They were fully legal for private citizens to own, for their militia's as called for by the 2nd and by the Constitution before amendments.

 

[themirrorthief]

Let people, under 21, possess guns using the same requirements as the military. Every recruit has a minimum of 92 hours of training with firearms.
Regardless of the branch, a recruit can’t graduate from military basic combat training/boot camp without proving that they can handle a military weapon without shooting themselves, their classmates, or the instructors.
If a recruit shows they do not have the mental or physical abilities to possess a firearm, they are washed out of the military and sent on their way WITHOUT A GUN.

I made marksman first time up....but the Msixteen isnt a real gun...more like a toy make from an old garbage can