The youth: Is 18 to young to buy a gun?

[ChrisL]

Well gentlemen. The question was do I think 18 is too young. YES. I think 18 is too young for many things but not all things. You can continue to twist and spin in the wind while I go to work. Bye bye now.

 

[jc456]

It's like you are telling me that I have no right to defend myself because some loon shot up a school, and I have to rely on the government to come and rescue me if I am in a bad situation? How can you NOT see that as a TOTAL VIOLATION of a natural human right? All of you who want to remain defenseless, by all means, go ahead. You cannot force other people to join you.

As long as one is over 18?

18 years old is still a child today. All you have to do is observe a group of 18-year-old boys (and I emphasize BOYS) and it is clear.

have you looked at the millions of 18 year olds that have been drafted over the course of our country and how hundreds of thousands have died defending our country? You really think they looked different? what a shame.

 

[jc456]

A LOT of the gang related shootings in the inner cities are committed by those under 21, believe it or not.

And ...

Walk me through your logic here.

OK, we raise the gun age to 21. Then what happens? Is this the old gun laws will work where drug laws don't bit?

Not just the gun age. Face the facts, the vast majority of 18-year-olds in today's day and age are still children in pretty much every way.

They seem to be remaining so with all the snowflakes and safe spaces.

You're going after the wrong ones. Those are the self victimizing leftist children. I'm talking about red country. Michigan is Democrat only because of Detroit. It would be a solid red state if you removed Detroit

BTW, that's the same for Chicago and Illinois.

Oh yeah. New York, California, all of them.

yep, the left love to keep their flock in their prison camps. Now that is hitlerest.

 

[kaz]

I don't think it is okay to teach children to disrespect "the law." Some laws maybe, but you don't teach your kids to break laws. That makes you a terrible parent who is not doing the best by your children. YOU'RE responsible for them as their parent

Now that I 100% disagree with. Teaching your children to follow the law as little socialist sheep is something I will never do.

I do teach them about consequences. I tell them for example that drugs ARE against the law whether they like it or not. I told them not to do drugs because it's bad for them.

I did not and never would tell them to follow the law because our government's laws are worthy of being followed. That would be child abuse. They'd end up as snowflakes wanting a safe space. Fortunately, neither ended up that way

 

[kaz]

Right, 15 is a reasonable age where I grew up. We knew to go out into the country, not shoot anything if we didn't know what it was, to always check if a gun is loaded.

I didn't hear of any accidental shooting from anywhere around there by kids like me the entire time I grew up there

There are plenty of kids who know how to handle a firearm safely. That doesn't mean they should be able to go buy one and be personally responsible for it. It's fine if parents want to take their kids to the shooting range or out in the woods to shoot targets or to hunt. It's these laws that are outdated related to age of consents that are really bothersome.

so they have a right to shoot it, but not to buy it? how do you justify that line? You know that kids raid mom and dad's liquor cabinet and steal money, a gun in the home is a gun in the home no matter who bought it. that's just silliness and sorely sad.

If they are under adult supervision, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to use a gun. They shouldn't be able to go out and purchase one on their own though, especially considering that most of them are still completely reliant on their parents to take care of them in every way.

Yeah, we want to only be allowed to hunt with our mommy and daddy. You know how kids love only doing things with their parents. Great way to influence people to follow the law

Well, then they don't have to go and do it. Besides that, it is a good way to spend time with your older children and bond with them, and keep those family bonds strong. That is another part of the problem. A lot of parents are isolated from their children's lives.

As I said, my father was a deadbeat and my mother was always working to support us. So I'm just screwed? Sorry kaz, only the advantaged kids who have two reliable parents at home get this perk. Government is going to screw you ... again.

Yeah, thanks.

You have so far produced zero justification for this policy other than the utterly irrelevant fact that under 21 year olds commit murder in inner cities, so you want to punish responsible conservative kids who grew up outside the city so you feel better about yourself

 

[jc456]

There are plenty of kids who know how to handle a firearm safely. That doesn't mean they should be able to go buy one and be personally responsible for it. It's fine if parents want to take their kids to the shooting range or out in the woods to shoot targets or to hunt. It's these laws that are outdated related to age of consents that are really bothersome.

so they have a right to shoot it, but not to buy it? how do you justify that line? You know that kids raid mom and dad's liquor cabinet and steal money, a gun in the home is a gun in the home no matter who bought it. that's just silliness and sorely sad.

If they are under adult supervision, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to use a gun. They shouldn't be able to go out and purchase one on their own though, especially considering that most of them are still completely reliant on their parents to take care of them in every way.

Yeah, we want to only be allowed to hunt with our mommy and daddy. You know how kids love only doing things with their parents. Great way to influence people to follow the law

Well, then they don't have to go and do it. Besides that, it is a good way to spend time with your older children and bond with them, and keep those family bonds strong. That is another part of the problem. A lot of parents are isolated from their children's lives.

As I said, my father was a deadbeat and my mother was always working to support us. So I'm just screwed? Sorry kaz, only the advantaged kids who have two reliable parents at home get this perk. Government is going to screw you ... again.

Yeah, thanks.

You have so far produced zero justification for this policy other than the utterly irrelevant fact that under 21 year olds commit murder in inner cities, so you want to punish responsible conservative kids who grew up outside the city so you feel better about yourself

well said,

 

[jc456]

not to get off topic, but a helicopter went down yesterday and five humans died. The pilot is 33 and lived. should pilots not be allowed to fly helicopters until they are older? We live in a world of risks everyday and anyone who thinks a government can remove those risks are fking stupid.

 

[jc456]

And ...

Walk me through your logic here.

OK, we raise the gun age to 21. Then what happens? Is this the old gun laws will work where drug laws don't bit?

Not just the gun age. Face the facts, the vast majority of 18-year-olds in today's day and age are still children in pretty much every way.

They seem to be remaining so with all the snowflakes and safe spaces.

You're going after the wrong ones. Those are the self victimizing leftist children. I'm talking about red country. Michigan is Democrat only because of Detroit. It would be a solid red state if you removed Detroit

BTW, that's the same for Chicago and Illinois.

Oh yeah. New York, California, all of them.

yep, the left love to keep their flock in their prison camps. Now that is hitlerest.

It takes a village. Look at how the demolosers villages fare? Who would ever want a village.

 

[jc456]

so they have a right to shoot it, but not to buy it? how do you justify that line? You know that kids raid mom and dad's liquor cabinet and steal money, a gun in the home is a gun in the home no matter who bought it. that's just silliness and sorely sad.

If they are under adult supervision, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to use a gun. They shouldn't be able to go out and purchase one on their own though, especially considering that most of them are still completely reliant on their parents to take care of them in every way.

Yeah, we want to only be allowed to hunt with our mommy and daddy. You know how kids love only doing things with their parents. Great way to influence people to follow the law

Well, then they don't have to go and do it. Besides that, it is a good way to spend time with your older children and bond with them, and keep those family bonds strong. That is another part of the problem. A lot of parents are isolated from their children's lives.

As I said, my father was a deadbeat and my mother was always working to support us. So I'm just screwed? Sorry kaz, only the advantaged kids who have two reliable parents at home get this perk. Government is going to screw you ... again.

Yeah, thanks.

You have so far produced zero justification for this policy other than the utterly irrelevant fact that under 21 year olds commit murder in inner cities, so you want to punish responsible conservative kids who grew up outside the city so you feel better about yourself

well said,

BTW, a scenario that children would have no clue about to make the statements the left are backing.

 

[CowboyTed]

Why not make it a tiered licensing requirement. That you have to be 18 years old to drink, 18 years old to drive, 18 years old to buy a gun. But not all at the same time. You have to chose only one. Then when you turn 21, you can add a second option, and by the time you turn 25, you can have all three.

This way you have to be at least 21 to be a drunk driver, by which point you've either been drinking or driving for three years.

Agreed... Do we then give people who turn 65 they have to give up one, another at 70 and another at 75.....

 

[jc456]

Why not make it a tiered licensing requirement. That you have to be 18 years old to drink, 18 years old to drive, 18 years old to buy a gun. But not all at the same time. You have to chose only one. Then when you turn 21, you can add a second option, and by the time you turn 25, you can have all three.

This way you have to be at least 21 to be a drunk driver, by which point you've either been drinking or driving for three years.

Agreed... Do we then give people who turn 65 they have to give up one, another at 70 and another at 75.....

why hasn't this been an option until now? why were we ok with killing them in wars and you can't respect that today?

 

[CowboyTed]

I think they asked simple questions...

Why doesn't this happen in other countries at such frequency?
Why does the government continually let this happen without any reaction?
Is the inaction of some representatives in fear of the NRA?

They are not setting policy just asking tough questions.

The government doesn't "let" this happen. That you think in this way is just a small part of the big picture here.

These are government properties, and the crime happens on those properties..

There are some very common sense laws that could make gun ownership safer and easier... More computerisation for one is a good example, the ATF by law has to keep only paper records, Dicky amendment of no federal money invested in gun violence, bump stocks, universal background checks....

Simple stuff... That is the inaction I am talking about, when nothing was done after Sandy Hook, was that good enough? Seriously....

You and people like you NEED to learn that your government is not going to be able to keep you safe. Your safety lies on your own self.

I don't have any problems with modernizing an old system though. However, these are issues that should be left up to individual states and how much do they feel is worth putting into this type of endeavor. This is not under the jurisdiction of the feds.

Under that premise everyone has to been armed all the time... Where is the right to be not armed and still be safe?

We are talking about a school full of adolescent kids... Do you see it that there has to be armed protection at all times?

People have a right to feel safe with out a gun in there hand.. Europe has this..

So these kids would have to carry a gun to school because 'Your safety lies on your own self. '....

There is no such right. That is why the police show up AFTER a crime to sort it out and punish the bad guy. By that time, it is too late for you or your loved ones. Why do you want to put such an important thing (your own safety) in the government's hands? Are you really this complacent with the government?

These kids asked how are how can they be safe going to school? I think your premise is that responsible kids should be arming themselves when going to school...

But if they only have a hand gun and a multiple guys enter with AR-15s, should they not have AR-15s as well (with all the accessories)....

What age should these kids get the guns to protect themselves?

 

[kaz]

I think your premise is that responsible kids should be arming themselves when going to school...?

No one said that except you, you ******* stupid lying ass wipe.

You went wrong in your post in the first two words ...

 

[jc456]

The government doesn't "let" this happen. That you think in this way is just a small part of the big picture here.

These are government properties, and the crime happens on those properties..

There are some very common sense laws that could make gun ownership safer and easier... More computerisation for one is a good example, the ATF by law has to keep only paper records, Dicky amendment of no federal money invested in gun violence, bump stocks, universal background checks....

Simple stuff... That is the inaction I am talking about, when nothing was done after Sandy Hook, was that good enough? Seriously....

You and people like you NEED to learn that your government is not going to be able to keep you safe. Your safety lies on your own self.

I don't have any problems with modernizing an old system though. However, these are issues that should be left up to individual states and how much do they feel is worth putting into this type of endeavor. This is not under the jurisdiction of the feds.

Under that premise everyone has to been armed all the time... Where is the right to be not armed and still be safe?

We are talking about a school full of adolescent kids... Do you see it that there has to be armed protection at all times?

People have a right to feel safe with out a gun in there hand.. Europe has this..

So these kids would have to carry a gun to school because 'Your safety lies on your own self. '....

There is no such right. That is why the police show up AFTER a crime to sort it out and punish the bad guy. By that time, it is too late for you or your loved ones. Why do you want to put such an important thing (your own safety) in the government's hands? Are you really this complacent with the government?

These kids asked how are how can they be safe going to school? I think your premise is that responsible kids should be arming themselves when going to school...

But if they only have a hand gun and a multiple guys enter with AR-15s, should they not have AR-15s as well (with all the accessories)....

What age should these kids get the guns to protect themselves?

who owns power if a man with a gun walks into a school that has no man with a gun?

 

[kaz]

These are government properties, and the crime happens on those properties..

There are some very common sense laws that could make gun ownership safer and easier... More computerisation for one is a good example, the ATF by law has to keep only paper records, Dicky amendment of no federal money invested in gun violence, bump stocks, universal background checks....

Simple stuff... That is the inaction I am talking about, when nothing was done after Sandy Hook, was that good enough? Seriously....

You and people like you NEED to learn that your government is not going to be able to keep you safe. Your safety lies on your own self.

I don't have any problems with modernizing an old system though. However, these are issues that should be left up to individual states and how much do they feel is worth putting into this type of endeavor. This is not under the jurisdiction of the feds.

Under that premise everyone has to been armed all the time... Where is the right to be not armed and still be safe?

We are talking about a school full of adolescent kids... Do you see it that there has to be armed protection at all times?

People have a right to feel safe with out a gun in there hand.. Europe has this..

So these kids would have to carry a gun to school because 'Your safety lies on your own self. '....

There is no such right. That is why the police show up AFTER a crime to sort it out and punish the bad guy. By that time, it is too late for you or your loved ones. Why do you want to put such an important thing (your own safety) in the government's hands? Are you really this complacent with the government?

These kids asked how are how can they be safe going to school? I think your premise is that responsible kids should be arming themselves when going to school...

But if they only have a hand gun and a multiple guys enter with AR-15s, should they not have AR-15s as well (with all the accessories)....

What age should these kids get the guns to protect themselves?

who owns power if a man with a gun walks into a school that has no man with a gun?

Cowboy Ted would be waiting for government to come and protect him while they wait outside for the shooting to be over so then can come in safely and draw a line around his body

 

[Fiero425]

Only in this retched country can there be such hypocritical double standard where we can send kids into war, have the right to buy a gun, and be responsible for serious crimes, but at the same time, they're not mature enough to drink or buy cigarettes! Makes sense to crazy people I guess!

 

[kaz]

Only in this retched country can there be such hypocritical double standard where we can send kids into war, have the right to buy a gun, and be responsible for serious crimes, but at the same time, they're not mature enough to drink or buy cigarettes! Makes sense to crazy people I guess!

I was trying to stay with you on this one, but what does "be responsible for serious crimes" mean in your list? You're saying that's legal or illegal or what?

 

[jc456]

Only in this retched country can there be such hypocritical double standard where we can send kids into war, have the right to buy a gun, and be responsible for serious crimes, but at the same time, they're not mature enough to drink or buy cigarettes! Makes sense to crazy people I guess!

 

[jc456]

Only in this retched country can there be such hypocritical double standard where we can send kids into war, have the right to buy a gun, and be responsible for serious crimes, but at the same time, they're not mature enough to drink or buy cigarettes! Makes sense to crazy people I guess!

I was trying to stay with you on this one, but what does "be responsible for serious crimes" mean in your list? You're saying that's legal or illegal or what?

even 16 year olds can be charged as an adult.

 

[koshergrl]

The same people who think 18 is too young to buy a gun think 13 is old enough to have sex and get an abortion without telling mom.
They think 16 is old enough to dictate gun control policy.
They think 8 or 9 is old enough to learn about trannies and anal sex.

If that doesn't set off huge red flags, then nothing will.

Leftists are imbeciles. They need locked up.