Rep. Steve King ( R- Iowa). If you have to be 21 for guns then make it 21 for voting!!

[Soggy in NOLA]

This is a good point and dems have no rebuttal. They want teens voting because teens are stupid drunks and vote dem. But they don't want them to have guns because they don't want anyone to have guns - except govt officials and celebs.

Rep. Steve King: If You're Not Responsible Enough to Own Gun Until 21, Don't Vote Until 21 Either

March 27 2018 Rep. Steve King (R-IA) observed that teenagers who believe people are not responsible enough to own guns until the age of 21 ought to be willing to wait until 21 before they vote.

The responses to King’s tweet varied, some of which were marked by vitriol and/or personal attacks too vulgar to print.

Here's a rebuttal. If it has to be 21 for voting then make it 21 for a drivers license, military service or for getting a job. If you can buy a gun at 18 then make drinking age 18. These are all ridiculous arguments used in a limited way to rationalize ones opinion on a certain matter. When Reagan demanded all states raise the drinking age to 21 or not get federal highway funds or Bush required all drivers to have auto insurance if they had a license I saw no one from the right complain. It's never about actual philosophy/morality. It's always about your "team."

Driving is a state issue and not a federal one. For instance in our state, 15 year olds can get temp permits to start learning how to drive. Younger people in the military are the most valuable asset for our armed forces. The younger you are, the more physical strength you have. I'm against a national drinking age and BAL.

Why would it take a constitutional amendment to raise the voting age and not your second amendment rights? They are both rights.

It took a constitutional amendment to lower the age so it will take one to raise the age for voting or to repeal the 26th Amendment.

As for changing the Second Amendment or repealing it, again Constitutional Amendment will be needed.

Now will there be enough votes in the Senate?

Nope, so why the hell are we even discussing raising the age of anything?

Because it's suggested by the libs that amendments can be subjected to age requirements simply by making a law. Like I said, if so, then I'm all for it. But if Democrats want that, then they have to give up something at the same time; something Democrats never do. After all, Democrats see negotiations as doing everything their way and you get nothing in return.

Well let be factual and admit that it was idiotic to lower the voting age in the first place.

Kids have no idea what they want or understand in life.

Most of these kids that wan to change the Second Amendment will most likely die from a opioid death, car crash or suicide before a mass shooting by some mental midget with a AR-15.

Also if they believe they can ban the Second Amendment without repealing it, well let them try but as it look the USSC will most likely strike them down, well hopefully.

In the end all this protesting and propaganda is all for nothing because the repeal of the Second Amendment will never happen so it is a dead subject to me...

That is correct. The left knows this however, so their goal is to restrict firearms as much as they can without crossing that Second Amendment line.

Now they conned these kids to perform their evil for them, and these kids are totally clueless how they are being used. They like the attention, they love all the people wanting to "friend" them on Facebook. They love seeing their names in the national media.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns. What Democrats hate is us being able to defend ourselves with guns. If they were ever able to take away our guns, then only the criminals and cops would have them.; Democrats know this. That would make all of us victims. Victims love Democrats and Democrats love victims. The more victims in this country, the more likely Democrat voters.

The more educated, the more likely to vote Dem.

Oh please... you fools have been parroting this nonsense for years.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why would it take a constitutional amendment to raise the voting age and not your second amendment rights? They are both rights.

It took a constitutional amendment to lower the age so it will take one to raise the age for voting or to repeal the 26th Amendment.

As for changing the Second Amendment or repealing it, again Constitutional Amendment will be needed.

Now will there be enough votes in the Senate?

Nope, so why the hell are we even discussing raising the age of anything?

Because it's suggested by the libs that amendments can be subjected to age requirements simply by making a law. Like I said, if so, then I'm all for it. But if Democrats want that, then they have to give up something at the same time; something Democrats never do. After all, Democrats see negotiations as doing everything their way and you get nothing in return.

Well let be factual and admit that it was idiotic to lower the voting age in the first place.

Kids have no idea what they want or understand in life.

Most of these kids that wan to change the Second Amendment will most likely die from a opioid death, car crash or suicide before a mass shooting by some mental midget with a AR-15.

Also if they believe they can ban the Second Amendment without repealing it, well let them try but as it look the USSC will most likely strike them down, well hopefully.

In the end all this protesting and propaganda is all for nothing because the repeal of the Second Amendment will never happen so it is a dead subject to me...

It is not outdated, just fools like you are outdated.
That is correct. The left knows this however, so their goal is to restrict firearms as much as they can without crossing that Second Amendment line.

Now they conned these kids to perform their evil for them, and these kids are totally clueless how they are being used. They like the attention, they love all the people wanting to "friend" them on Facebook. They love seeing their names in the national media.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns. What Democrats hate is us being able to defend ourselves with guns. If they were ever able to take away our guns, then only the criminals and cops would have them.; Democrats know this. That would make all of us victims. Victims love Democrats and Democrats love victims. The more victims in this country, the more likely Democrat voters.

That's the problem. Nobody agrees on what "The line" is. The amendment is written to reflect a time in America when autonomy was still threatened and I'm sure the founders never intended that the US become the wild west. Also, it reflects a time when arms themselves were basic and when it couldn't be imagined what kind of arms would be available in the future. Those that take an absolute position on the right to bear arms understand that it is ludicrous to include arms such as Nuclear weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, and any number of other "arms." But we've already crossed the line of reason with semi auto and automatic weapons or kits to convert. Is the next step a 50 Cal mounted in the bed of your pick up truck? I mean, there is no clear line. So, the amendment already shows its out datedness. It needs to be repealed in order that a new standard based on modern capabilities be established.

It is not outdated. You don't like guns, don't get one.

 

[Care4all]

and make it 21 for driving!!!

 

[Dschrute3]

Let's not give in to fear. Let's not panic and overreact. In spite of the Democrats' shameful exploitation of dead children in Florida, we should all just remain calm and go about our daily lives.

Folks have a Constitutional right to possess firearms. That's the way it is. Folks who don't like that, can always relocate to another nation of their choosing. Americans just need to stop giving in to fear.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's not give in to fear. Let's not panic and overreact. In spite of the Democrats' shameful exploitation of dead children in Florida, we should all just remain calm and go about our daily lives.

Folks have a Constitutional right to possess firearms. That's the way it is. Folks who don't like that, can always relocate to another nation of their choosing. Americans just need to stop giving in to fear.

Nobody is really afraid of what Democrats have to say. I think the OP was to point out the hypocrisy of the left in age restrictions on firearms.

The left would never dream of trading voting rights for gun rights if it meant greatly weakening their power. It's a dog and pony show. They love to play dress up by saying they want age restrictions to save the children. But if it means giving up something in return, screw the children. Let them die.

 

[Dschrute3]

Let's not give in to fear. Let's not panic and overreact. In spite of the Democrats' shameful exploitation of dead children in Florida, we should all just remain calm and go about our daily lives.

Folks have a Constitutional right to possess firearms. That's the way it is. Folks who don't like that, can always relocate to another nation of their choosing. Americans just need to stop giving in to fear.

Nobody is really afraid of what Democrats have to say. I think the OP was to point out the hypocrisy of the left in age restrictions on firearms.

The left would never dream of trading voting rights for gun rights if it meant greatly weakening their power. It's a dog and pony show. They love to play dress up by saying they want age restrictions to save the children. But if it means giving up something in return, screw the children. Let them die.

I hear ya. But let's do nothing instead. And that goes for the voting age too. Just stay calm and move on with life. The Democrats shamefully milked the Florida shooting for all it was worth. They wanna scare folks into supporting their Agenda. And we know what that Agenda is.

The Democrats fully expect folks to give into fear and overreact. But I advise we don't give them what they want. We should just stay calm and continue defending our Constitution. That's what all Americans should do.

 

[sedwin]

This is a good point and dems have no rebuttal. They want teens voting because teens are stupid drunks and vote dem. But they don't want them to have guns because they don't want anyone to have guns - except govt officials and celebs.

Rep. Steve King: If You're Not Responsible Enough to Own Gun Until 21, Don't Vote Until 21 Either

March 27 2018 Rep. Steve King (R-IA) observed that teenagers who believe people are not responsible enough to own guns until the age of 21 ought to be willing to wait until 21 before they vote.

The responses to King’s tweet varied, some of which were marked by vitriol and/or personal attacks too vulgar to print.

Here's a rebuttal. If it has to be 21 for voting then make it 21 for a drivers license, military service or for getting a job. If you can buy a gun at 18 then make drinking age 18. These are all ridiculous arguments used in a limited way to rationalize ones opinion on a certain matter. When Reagan demanded all states raise the drinking age to 21 or not get federal highway funds or Bush required all drivers to have auto insurance if they had a license I saw no one from the right complain. It's never about actual philosophy/morality. It's always about your "team."

Driving is a state issue and not a federal one. For instance in our state, 15 year olds can get temp permits to start learning how to drive. Younger people in the military are the most valuable asset for our armed forces. The younger you are, the more physical strength you have. I'm against a national drinking age and BAL.

It took a constitutional amendment to lower the age so it will take one to raise the age for voting or to repeal the 26th Amendment.

As for changing the Second Amendment or repealing it, again Constitutional Amendment will be needed.

Now will there be enough votes in the Senate?

Nope, so why the hell are we even discussing raising the age of anything?

Because it's suggested by the libs that amendments can be subjected to age requirements simply by making a law. Like I said, if so, then I'm all for it. But if Democrats want that, then they have to give up something at the same time; something Democrats never do. After all, Democrats see negotiations as doing everything their way and you get nothing in return.

Well let be factual and admit that it was idiotic to lower the voting age in the first place.

Kids have no idea what they want or understand in life.

Most of these kids that wan to change the Second Amendment will most likely die from a opioid death, car crash or suicide before a mass shooting by some mental midget with a AR-15.

Also if they believe they can ban the Second Amendment without repealing it, well let them try but as it look the USSC will most likely strike them down, well hopefully.

In the end all this protesting and propaganda is all for nothing because the repeal of the Second Amendment will never happen so it is a dead subject to me...

That is correct. The left knows this however, so their goal is to restrict firearms as much as they can without crossing that Second Amendment line.

Now they conned these kids to perform their evil for them, and these kids are totally clueless how they are being used. They like the attention, they love all the people wanting to "friend" them on Facebook. They love seeing their names in the national media.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns. What Democrats hate is us being able to defend ourselves with guns. If they were ever able to take away our guns, then only the criminals and cops would have them.; Democrats know this. That would make all of us victims. Victims love Democrats and Democrats love victims. The more victims in this country, the more likely Democrat voters.

The more educated, the more likely to vote Dem.

Oh please... you fools have been parroting this nonsense for years.

Oh please this coming from the parts who not only claimed but then elected those who believe Obama was born in Kenya because...."he's, he's, he's, a black man!" Hypocrisy, falsehood and corruption define the modern conservative movement and their prime allies in Russia and Saudi Arabia. lol

 

[Wickerthing]

Every time a Democrat has an opinion to discus on this forum he can expect a childish round of insults. Does debate scare you folks so much? No thought about an issue, just kneejerk insults both political and mostly personal. That's the way a little 10 year old behaves, not a mature adult. You will never learn anything if you think you've got it all figured out already. It's sad and aggravating.

 

[Wickerthing]

It took a constitutional amendment to lower the age so it will take one to raise the age for voting or to repeal the 26th Amendment.

As for changing the Second Amendment or repealing it, again Constitutional Amendment will be needed.

Now will there be enough votes in the Senate?

Nope, so why the hell are we even discussing raising the age of anything?

Because it's suggested by the libs that amendments can be subjected to age requirements simply by making a law. Like I said, if so, then I'm all for it. But if Democrats want that, then they have to give up something at the same time; something Democrats never do. After all, Democrats see negotiations as doing everything their way and you get nothing in return.

Well let be factual and admit that it was idiotic to lower the voting age in the first place.

Kids have no idea what they want or understand in life.

Most of these kids that wan to change the Second Amendment will most likely die from a opioid death, car crash or suicide before a mass shooting by some mental midget with a AR-15.

Also if they believe they can ban the Second Amendment without repealing it, well let them try but as it look the USSC will most likely strike them down, well hopefully.

In the end all this protesting and propaganda is all for nothing because the repeal of the Second Amendment will never happen so it is a dead subject to me...

That is correct. The left knows this however, so their goal is to restrict firearms as much as they can without crossing that Second Amendment line.

Now they conned these kids to perform their evil for them, and these kids are totally clueless how they are being used. They like the attention, they love all the people wanting to "friend" them on Facebook. They love seeing their names in the national media.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns. What Democrats hate is us being able to defend ourselves with guns. If they were ever able to take away our guns, then only the criminals and cops would have them.; Democrats know this. That would make all of us victims. Victims love Democrats and Democrats love victims. The more victims in this country, the more likely Democrat voters.

That's the problem. Nobody agrees on what "The line" is. The amendment is written to reflect a time in America when autonomy was still threatened and I'm sure the founders never intended that the US become the wild west. Also, it reflects a time when arms themselves were basic and when it couldn't be imagined what kind of arms would be available in the future. Those that take an absolute position on the right to bear arms understand that it is ludicrous to include arms such as Nuclear weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, and any number of other "arms." But we've already crossed the line of reason with semi auto and automatic weapons or kits to convert. Is the next step a 50 Cal mounted in the bed of your pick up truck? I mean, there is no clear line. So, the amendment already shows its out datedness. It needs to be repealed in order that a new standard based on modern capabilities be established.

Sure there is a line; arms means firearms. It doesn't mean bombs. If you are caught making a pipe bomb in your garage, they will haul you off to jail. Nobody needs a pipe bomb for self-defense.

The founders knew weaponry would advance just like anything else. That's one of the reasons they included an amendment process for our constitution. But most everybody would have to agree with such a change which is why you can't do it with a small majority of people.

Let me explain what the real problem here is: Democrats can't be trusted. That's it in a nutshell.

Let's say ten years ago we outlawed high capacity magazines like so many on the left demand. This school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. So would you have been satisfied with the results of that school shooting if we had such a law in place? Of course not. The left would be insisting on more restrictions. And if we did that, the next mass shooting they would be crying about even more restrictions.

Your Democrat leaders know quite well the problem is not firearms, the problem is the people. But......as long as they can blame the guns instead of the people, they think they can drum up support for their political agenda which is to disarm society.

Okay. I should have said an m-60 machine gun or uzi or tech 9 or mac 10. That's splitting hairs. These are arms that wern't around when the amendment was produced and I'm sure the founders didn't foresee a time when there were 300 million weapons in our society. BTW the school shooter had 10 round clips and quite a number of them. Agreed, a high capacity would have resulted in more deaths. But by that same logic, having to reload after only 2 or three would have resulted in fewer and without taking anyone's gun away. Reasonableness. That's what these kids and others want to see. But the argument is always that they or we want to take away everyone's guns. What inconvenience would it be to have to reload after fewer rounds? Is it not worth the lives it would save? There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Can a 21 year minimum age to buy a gun be constitutional?

 

[Moonglow]

This is a good point and dems have no rebuttal. They want teens voting because teens are stupid drunks and vote dem. But they don't want them to have guns because they don't want anyone to have guns - except govt officials and celebs.

Rep. Steve King: If You're Not Responsible Enough to Own Gun Until 21, Don't Vote Until 21 Either

March 27 2018 Rep. Steve King (R-IA) observed that teenagers who believe people are not responsible enough to own guns until the age of 21 ought to be willing to wait until 21 before they vote.

The responses to King’s tweet varied, some of which were marked by vitriol and/or personal attacks too vulgar to print.

Legal age for booze 21....

 

[bodecea]

This is a good point and dems have no rebuttal. They want teens voting because teens are stupid drunks and vote dem. But they don't want them to have guns because they don't want anyone to have guns - except govt officials and celebs.

Rep. Steve King: If You're Not Responsible Enough to Own Gun Until 21, Don't Vote Until 21 Either

March 27 2018 Rep. Steve King (R-IA) observed that teenagers who believe people are not responsible enough to own guns until the age of 21 ought to be willing to wait until 21 before they vote.

The responses to King’s tweet varied, some of which were marked by vitriol and/or personal attacks too vulgar to print.

Go ahead and pass a Constitutional Amendment to change the voting age back then.

 

[bodecea]

This is a ridiculous argument from crazy Steve King. You can't kill anyone by voting.

HAHAHA. Is that all you got?? Stupid teens are a huge part of the dem voter base. Along with illegals and welfare queens.

Got you worried, eh?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well, that's a credible argument. In fact, if they can't buy beer until they're 21, and if they should not be able to buy guns until they're 21, why should they get to vote before they turn 21?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because it's suggested by the libs that amendments can be subjected to age requirements simply by making a law. Like I said, if so, then I'm all for it. But if Democrats want that, then they have to give up something at the same time; something Democrats never do. After all, Democrats see negotiations as doing everything their way and you get nothing in return.

Well let be factual and admit that it was idiotic to lower the voting age in the first place.

Kids have no idea what they want or understand in life.

Most of these kids that wan to change the Second Amendment will most likely die from a opioid death, car crash or suicide before a mass shooting by some mental midget with a AR-15.

Also if they believe they can ban the Second Amendment without repealing it, well let them try but as it look the USSC will most likely strike them down, well hopefully.

In the end all this protesting and propaganda is all for nothing because the repeal of the Second Amendment will never happen so it is a dead subject to me...

That is correct. The left knows this however, so their goal is to restrict firearms as much as they can without crossing that Second Amendment line.

Now they conned these kids to perform their evil for them, and these kids are totally clueless how they are being used. They like the attention, they love all the people wanting to "friend" them on Facebook. They love seeing their names in the national media.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns. What Democrats hate is us being able to defend ourselves with guns. If they were ever able to take away our guns, then only the criminals and cops would have them.; Democrats know this. That would make all of us victims. Victims love Democrats and Democrats love victims. The more victims in this country, the more likely Democrat voters.

That's the problem. Nobody agrees on what "The line" is. The amendment is written to reflect a time in America when autonomy was still threatened and I'm sure the founders never intended that the US become the wild west. Also, it reflects a time when arms themselves were basic and when it couldn't be imagined what kind of arms would be available in the future. Those that take an absolute position on the right to bear arms understand that it is ludicrous to include arms such as Nuclear weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, and any number of other "arms." But we've already crossed the line of reason with semi auto and automatic weapons or kits to convert. Is the next step a 50 Cal mounted in the bed of your pick up truck? I mean, there is no clear line. So, the amendment already shows its out datedness. It needs to be repealed in order that a new standard based on modern capabilities be established.

Sure there is a line; arms means firearms. It doesn't mean bombs. If you are caught making a pipe bomb in your garage, they will haul you off to jail. Nobody needs a pipe bomb for self-defense.

The founders knew weaponry would advance just like anything else. That's one of the reasons they included an amendment process for our constitution. But most everybody would have to agree with such a change which is why you can't do it with a small majority of people.

Let me explain what the real problem here is: Democrats can't be trusted. That's it in a nutshell.

Let's say ten years ago we outlawed high capacity magazines like so many on the left demand. This school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. So would you have been satisfied with the results of that school shooting if we had such a law in place? Of course not. The left would be insisting on more restrictions. And if we did that, the next mass shooting they would be crying about even more restrictions.

Your Democrat leaders know quite well the problem is not firearms, the problem is the people. But......as long as they can blame the guns instead of the people, they think they can drum up support for their political agenda which is to disarm society.

Okay. I should have said an m-60 machine gun or uzi or tech 9 or mac 10. That's splitting hairs. These are arms that wern't around when the amendment was produced and I'm sure the founders didn't foresee a time when there were 300 million weapons in our society. BTW the school shooter had 10 round clips and quite a number of them. Agreed, a high capacity would have resulted in more deaths. But by that same logic, having to reload after only 2 or three would have resulted in fewer and without taking anyone's gun away. Reasonableness. That's what these kids and others want to see. But the argument is always that they or we want to take away everyone's guns. What inconvenience would it be to have to reload after fewer rounds? Is it not worth the lives it would save? There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

You can't let the brainwashing get to you.

I don't know how much you know about guns, but changing magazines only takes less than two seconds--one second if you count shots and practice. As this school shooting is proof positive of, smaller magazines won't do crap for any mass shooting. If somebody wants to kill as many people as possible, then changing ten magazines won't stop or slow him down.

So why is the left calling for this? Because it's one baby step in a series to come if they get their way this time. They figure that it won't upset all that many people as trying to take away all rifles or semi-automatic handguns. But if we let them get away with this, that time will come shortly.

The police who are highly trained miss their targets most of the time. It's normal when shooting a gun. The farther away your target, the more you will miss.

That being said, if you are confronted by several attackers instead of just one, a ten round magazine just may end your life. At a 20% accuracy rate, shooting ten times means you may only hit your target(s) twice. One round does not guarantee a kill or even that you will stop your attacker.

 

[HenryBHough]

Just learned through a Safe Driving Course that people over 85 have a lower accident rate than children under 24. But just to be on the safe side we need to immediately raise the legal driving age, nationally, to 26. After all, they're infants until 26. If you doubt me, read the reams of details that Obamacare laid down as gospel.

 

[mikegriffith1]

There is also the fact that the human brain usually does not fully develop until the age of 21. So we're letting people vote whose brains are not even fully developed in most cases.

 

[HenryBHough]

There is also the fact that the human brain usually does not fully develop until the age of 21. So we're letting people vote whose brains are not even fully developed in most cases.

Whilst I cannot disagree, I feel I must also point that we need to special the special case of liberals - which are something a little less than human (humans aren't too big on murdering their own unborn children). They develop more slowly; most do not even begin to mature until age 40.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is also the fact that the human brain usually does not fully develop until the age of 21. So we're letting people vote whose brains are not even fully developed in most cases.

Why do you think they vote Democrat until that time?

 

[Norman]

This is a good point and dems have no rebuttal. They want teens voting because teens are stupid drunks and vote dem. But they don't want them to have guns because they don't want anyone to have guns - except govt officials and celebs.

Rep. Steve King: If You're Not Responsible Enough to Own Gun Until 21, Don't Vote Until 21 Either

March 27 2018 Rep. Steve King (R-IA) observed that teenagers who believe people are not responsible enough to own guns until the age of 21 ought to be willing to wait until 21 before they vote.

The responses to King’s tweet varied, some of which were marked by vitriol and/or personal attacks too vulgar to print.

This is a great compromise, both sides can be happy.