Age limit on AR-15's?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Personally I think that you should not be able to legally own any gun before you’re 21.

It’s madness that you can be too young to get drunk but still old enough to own a gun.

Not out in the country. Rabbits, squirrels and other eatable animals, varmint killing and plinking. It's was a blast in a corn crib or barn shooting rats with rat-shot when we were kids, learning how to use and aim a pistol. Hunting, fishing and camping with family can't be beat.

a reply to: intrptr

Now...

Why didn't we think of that sooner?

I think the best fix would be to ban buying semiautomatic rifles for people under 21.

But allow 18 years old's to buy bolt action rifles or single shot rifles.

It would be very hard to do a mass shooting with a bolt or single shot rifle but would still allow 18 year old's to buy a rifle for legal hunting.

I started out shooting at 12 on weekends shooting with other teens at a rifle club sponsored by the American legion.

That is one of the reasons i survived Vietnam as the navy did not train there people on marksmanship before putting us on small boats

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

From afar that seems fair, BUT, Florida is as different to Ohio as the UK is to Germany. I owned a firearm since i was 10 but I was taught correctly and had to take a safety course before i could get a hunting license. Not to mention I would get my behind beat if I pointed it anywhere but the ground. We used to have excused absenses during November for hunting season.

Peeps really need to learn our cuture before blasting out a blanket ban this ban that knee-jerk reaction.

So what...is Trump trying to create a bunch of EO's and legal structure that we are going to have to vote someone else in to remove?

He started to have me a little...and boy is he losing me now.

a reply to: seagull

If only we could outshout the law makers propaganda machine.

Laws are passed for law abiding citizens, criminals don't care.

Guns are an easy target, but why aren't the same people concerned about the 37,000 deaths by car each year? Many by drunks, cells phones and speeding. Why arent people suing Ford for makng a car that can go over the speed limit?

Im 29

I own a Savage 320 tactical shotgun and an IWI Jericho 941 (9mm Full metal)

I was in the military, I used an M4 A2 which is an AR (mine had 3 round burst as an option though due to it being military issued).

I am also a pretty hardcore left wing liberal.

The gun issue is one I have trouble with, with my fellow Left Wingers.

I understand its just a tool, and people can kill each other with anything.

I also understand that any semi-auto rifle capable of holding a high round magazine makes killing larger amounts of people, much, much easier.

I understand that a guns purpose is to kill, making it inherently dangerous and mildly unnecessary in todays modern world.

I also understand the potential need for militias, maintaining our citizens ability to fight if need be, use for hunting, recreational shooting and the 2nd amendments role in all this.

There are a few things at play here people dont think about. You cant ban guns here in the US like they did in Australia, theres just too many, theres more than the amount of people. How would you possibly collect them all?
Also, criminals who are not legally allowed to purchase guns, still find ways to do so. Whats to stop a kid from taking a parents weapon, a stolen weapon, or purchase it off someone on the secondary market?

Someone here brought up a great solution.

Since I am AGAINST banning weapons, and against raising the age to buy an AR (because thats just silly, an AR is no different than any other semi auto rifle)... heres a solution I read on this board that I think is GREAT

Treat weapons like cars.

-Require a license.
-Require all firearms be registered and have registration and "title" paperwork.
-Require in depth screening for gun purchases. This means store and private sales require background passing paperwork, and psych eval paperwork before a weapon title can be transferred and registered to a new owner.
-If an individuals firearm is used in a crime, and they were not the ones committing the crime, they can potentially be held legally accountable. You must report a firearm stolen if you are not in possession of it. Legal accountability for crimes will force people to watch and lock up their firearms more responsibly, and will also prevent them from doing backdoor shady deals.

Think about it.. if a gun is used in a crime and it is reported stolen beforehand, you can potentially track the whole path it took to get there, exposing underground gun dealers that are trying to get around the above regulations.


I really think this could work, it would just be expensive to implement. Which is why you have a gun tax on the sales tax of firearms to help pay for it. Along with the licensing and registration fees.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Xtrozero



It was said that the recent shooter had his rifles locked up and the "head of the house" had the key.

Hint: Just about every lock has two keys, not to mention duplication.

And the head of the house says the guy must of had a key too...I don't think it was a safe, so a hammer would have worked as well as a key I bet... Safe with a combo is good. Even a gun lock is not bad.

originally posted by: toysforadults
let me guess %5 of everyone arguing about this have actually held or fired an AR-15 and even less understand caliber and rate of fire and all of that?

I'm probably at least close, maybe %10

Perhaps 12%, at one time I was part owner in a company that built custom rifles. We specialize in the really nice AR-15's. I could build one in my sleep, and my granddaughters at 14 and 15 are hell on wheels with a AR-15 carbine.

A little history, the AR was designed and built Eugene Stoner the chief engineer for ArmaLite, a division of Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corporation. While at ArmaLite, he designed a series of prototype small arms, including the AR-3, AR-5, AR-9, AR-11, AR-12, none of which saw significant production at that time. AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle.

The White House said on Tuesday setting an age limit for buying AR-15-type assault rifles

Damn , shows how folks just keep putting ignorance into political office.
They really didnt know there was already and age limit ?
I got ta found out who brought that up . So I can have a belly shake laugh at that State and who they elect...
If that was Trump , that would mean his third strike with me , and he is out...

a reply to: intrptr

We have the means. Just too many don't feel the need, 'til it bites. By then, it's usually too late.

We get the govt. we deserve.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Personally I think that you should not be able to legally own any gun before you’re 21.

It’s madness that you can be too young to get drunk but still old enough to own a gun.

I think I agree with this. Especially in light of the fact that we have so many immature kids these days. They seem to be far behind their counterparts born just 20 years ago. In my opinion.

I realize there is the "slippery slope" argument coming...meaning that if they do this they next law will go further etc. I don't really see that happening though. If "Liberals" really wanted to take guns they would have done more during Obama's term or last time they controlled both parts of congress. I'm just not seeing these laws sneak in there. I think some common sense laws make sense and aren't all bad.

I wish more liberals would be talking about mental health though. That's the second part of this discussion that never seems to get enough tracktion.

We're going to have more and more problems until mental health gets more funding and better policy.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Im 29


Treat weapons like cars.



-Require a license.
-Require all firearms be registered and have registration and "title" paperwork.
-Require in depth screening for gun purchases. This means store and private sales require background passing paperwork, and psych eval paperwork before a weapon title can be transferred and registered to a new owner.
-If an individuals firearm is used in a crime, and they were not the ones committing the crime, they can potentially be held legally accountable. You must report a firearm stolen if you are not in possession of it. Legal accountability for crimes will force people to watch and lock up their firearms more responsibly, and will also prevent them from doing backdoor shady deals.

Think about it.. if a gun is used in a crime and it is reported stolen beforehand, you can potentially track the whole path it took to get there, exposing underground gun dealers that are trying to get around the above regulations.

That would be hard to do and not infringe on a right...

The reason you need a license for a car is because it is not a right, but a privilege. Also, if every gun was registered what would stop the bad guys from confiscating them in your "potential need for militias" scenario. Lastly, you can't get rid of 400 million guns and you sure the hell wouldn't get them registered either. At the end of the day the only option is the other side of all this that deals with identifying the people who need to be identified to not be in the possession of guns.

At the end of the day if Cruz hit the fire alarm and walked over to a big truck and waited until 3000 kids grouped in their dedicate locations with a fire alarm and then hit the crowd doing 100 I would think the whole gun thing would have been less deaths.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


I'm all for pre-crime. Put some hot looking precog in a Jacuzzi and let her read everyone's mind.

The old thought police routine...


I would be in jail for a million years by now...

a reply to: ANNED

really? en.wikipedia.org... he used a bolt gun for most of it ,he did have an m1 carbine a semi auto shotgun and a .25acp as well as a pump action .35 ut he was not popping people w the .25 from the tower

On August 1, 1966, after stabbing his mother and wife to death, Charles Whitman, a former Marine sharpshooter, took rifles and other weapons to the observation deck atop the Main Building tower at the University of Texas at Austin, then opened fire on persons indiscriminately on the surrounding campus and streets. Over the next 90 minutes he shot and killed 14 people (including one unborn child) and injured 31 others; while a final victim died in 2001 from the lingering effects of his wounds. The incident ended when police reached Whitman and shot him dead. As of February 2018, the attack is ranked as the eighth-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

none of these were even high capacity (15 were the m1 mags if memory serves me) he DID saw off his shotgun which makes a rare entry of a class 3 fire arm to these kinds of things and its implied his was the basis for paddocks plans in vegas

www.washingtonpost.com... _term=.bb6abf4fcaf3

In Texas, locals raced him to get their own guns and shoot back, helping to pin Whitman down and slow his shots. Police then made their way up the Tower and killed him. “These guys were pretty good shots,” said Bill Helmer, then a graduate student who witnessed the mayhem. “There was a lot of lead flying up there at him.” When the shooting started, nobody could quite figure out where the shots were coming from. Professors began calling the police. The tapes of those calls are chilling.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: ANNED

really? en.wikipedia.org... he used a bolt gun for most of it ,he did have an m1 carbine a semi auto shotgun and a .25acp as well as a pump action .35 ut he was not popping people w the .25 from the tower

On August 1, 1966, after stabbing his mother and wife to death, Charles Whitman, a former Marine sharpshooter, took rifles and other weapons to the observation deck atop the Main Building tower at the University of Texas at Austin, then opened fire on persons indiscriminately on the surrounding campus and streets. Over the next 90 minutes he shot and killed 14 people (including one unborn child) and injured 31 others; while a final victim died in 2001 from the lingering effects of his wounds. The incident ended when police reached Whitman and shot him dead. As of February 2018, the attack is ranked as the eighth-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

none of these were even high capacity (15 were the m1 mags if memory serves me) he DID saw off his shotgun which makes a rare entry of a class 3 fire arm to these kinds of things and its implied his was the basis for paddocks plans in vegas

www.washingtonpost.com... _term=.bb6abf4fcaf3

In Texas, locals raced him to get their own guns and shoot back, helping to pin Whitman down and slow his shots. Police then made their way up the Tower and killed him. “These guys were pretty good shots,” said Bill Helmer, then a graduate student who witnessed the mayhem. “There was a lot of lead flying up there at him.” When the shooting started, nobody could quite figure out where the shots were coming from. Professors began calling the police. The tapes of those calls are chilling.

Your point is what.
Many lives were saved that day by local hunters that used there own high powered scoped rifles to take on Charles Whitman and in those days there were no SWAT teams and very few cops carried rifles as most cops carried handguns and shotguns.
timeline.com...

originally posted by: neo96
Age limit on AR-15's?

No GD.

There's no age requirement on the first.

18 gets to vote.

Making up some asinine requirement for the second?

NO.

Geezus we let them behind the wheel of car at 16.


15 with learners permit.

Hey, we should have an age requirement to vote and require education and training / certification on the constitution before allowing it?

AR's are only so-so guns.
They just look scary to some people.
A good bolt-action is much more reliable.
I'll take a revolver over any semi-auto.
A break-barrel single shot over a pump.
Guns are no more than a club when they jam.
Which they tend to do at the worst time.

why? the majority of gun crimes especially in schools are committed by people 21 and over so what is the point of an age limit?

is a civil war really worth it to you anti-gun advocates? keep pushing if you all really think it's a good idea in the charged environment in this country right now, can't you see how close the pot is to overflowing? just one wrong spark and we'll have a disaster far worse than school violence.

we are not Canada, Australia, the U.K, or Europe and pushing us in the same direction will awaken the beast that has been held back by the constitution so far, our nation has always had a tendency to try terrible things until it was ruled unconstitutional, we shifted focus or it got de-funded.

if you want a war mongering imperialistic hard right corporation dominated nationalistic socialist-capitalist state then go ahead and disarm the constitution of it's power and authority by invalidating the 2nd and 14th amendment.

age limits on our rights is illegal straight up people, voting is different because that age limit was set by the constitution itself, and the way the 2nd is written i don't see an amendment being feasible either, if this passed it would shortly be tossed out as being unconstitutional and illegal.