18yrs old - too young to own guns - yet 16yrs old - Old enough to stipulate gun policy?? - madness

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Again, my tweenager nephew is not too young to die in a car accident or be killed by a car, so do you think he has the knowledge or depth of experience necessary to truly discuss speed limits?

He may understand theory, but he's missing the grounding on which that theory is based -- namely the practical experience of having driven a vehicle in all conditions and on all surfaces.

Big difference here. Cars aren't designed to kill other animals...

originally posted by: craterman
YOU add meaning......blah, blah, blah......

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" In those exact words, expressly given. And you're too damn dumb to read and understand them! Instead you argue against your own ability to defend yourself. Amazing amount of stupid there, purely amazing!!!
But don't worry, there are plenty of people who get the meaning. And they have guns for what they are for.


a reply to: DJW001

The Second Amendment says what it says: "a well organized militia...." "To bear arms" has a specific meaning. Please look into it. It does not mean to carry guns around, it means to soldier.

When the Founders drafted this amendment, it was possible for an individual to defend themselves from the small, under-equipped Continental Army long enough to escape into the vastness of the unexplored North American continent. Nowadays, you would not last twenty minutes if the Feds wanted you dead.

If you need a shotgun to keep the foxes away from the chicken coop, no-one will try to take it away. If you want a rifle to put venison on the table, no problem. If you want to carry a pistol in your purse to keep you safe at night, it's a pity that's still necessary, but no-one will stop you. You want more firepower than the local police? May we ask why?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It doesn't keep them from being very effective at it....


...im not sure why this statement is at all relevant to that discussion?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It doesn't keep them from being very effective at it....


...im not sure why this statement is at all relevant to that discussion?

I'm not sure why the car analogy is relevant to the conversation either.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its relating to trusting people who are 18 vs changing the laws.

The OP discusses 16 year olds...a typical age to begin driving.

I see plenty of reasons for it to have been brought up.

Missed your earlier response...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Byrd

That much I will admit.

There's better answers than that - part of it is removing a culture that encourages or promotes the idea that a "man" has to be "manly" and use force to enforce their opinions. (snip for space)]/b]

I'm not necessarily advocating "manliness" by going automatically to violence. Though that is an option--just not the first that should be used. (snip for space) I'm not a big fan of violence as a problem solver--generally it only causes more, though it is a method that can be used.

As for the shooters in the past who've been bullied, or not, I don't know the percentages. It's my understanding that many of them were, indeed, bullied at some point.

A point that came across my Facebook feed: girls (and gays and trans people) are bullied in school as frequently and as viciously as these shooters were (I can speak from personal experience.) But girls/gays/transfolk aren't the ones doing the mass shootings.

Those days leave, and left, an indelible mark that even now, some 40 plus years later still crop up upon occasion.

My heart goes out to you. Those are horrible scars to live with. They still haunt me, too.

I had access to guns, throughout that whole period of my life. Yet never, not once, did I even contemplate reaching for one.

The same is true for a lot of people. What do you suppose was the difference between you and the shooters?

Road rage is something we've all experienced in one form or another, I'm sure. What the solution is to that, I've no clue. People do use guns to be the aggressor in those sorts of situations, I'm not going to argue that, but...people have also used firearms to protect themselves in such situations, as well.

The answer (I use) is to slow down, let them go past, and take their rage somewhere else. If someone accidentally cuts me off or drives in a way that I don't approve of, I avoid them. My blood pressure doesn't rocket and I don't care.

How is a gun going to protect you from road rage? Since I don't own one, all I can think of is driving down the road (distracted) shooting at each other in a tit-for-tat situation. That seems like it endangers a lot more people.

From what I've observed, people have been asking to move forward on gun control on these newer weapons for quite awhile but NRA and others have rejected any call for control (Brady, Giffords, etc). As I said in another post, back when Whitman shot up the University of Texas, measures were enacted to help prevent this from recurring. But the response in recent time (since at least 2010) is "don't take our guns!" rather than "we agree that something needs to be done in terms of changing access to this newer technology" and helping craft legislation that addresses the issues.

What are these "newer" weapons that you're referencing?

Future technology. The Founding Fathers never imagined guns like ours. I can't imagine what future guns might look like or might handle like but somehow I doubt that they will be lower speed and less lethal.

Why do we need yet more legislation? There are already a plethora of gun laws on the books, local, state, and federal in the United States. More laws are not going to solve the issue. Further curtailment of my 2nd amendment right isn't an answer I'm willing to contemplate much past a rather loud "No".

First - the laws aren't uniform. What's legal in one state might not be in another state. And you can buy in one state and not have to report in another. The hash of laws makes enforcement very confusing. Wouldn't it be convenient for you if (say) you have a concealed carry permit... and it's now legal everywhere in the US because your permit's registered? Reworking legislation and making it a federal level process would be better, IMHO.

Second - the laws are often written for much older weapons and really aren't appropriate for newer ones. Laws designed to regulate hunting with a modern hunting rifle probably aren't applicable to a muzzle loader from the 1700's.

A more proactive stance from the "don't take our guns" (DTOG) crowd about bringing forward legislation to keep guns out of the hands of some people (instead of the absurd (to my thinking) response of "we need gun education and training") would have made this a non-issue quite some time ago. The fact that it now appears that people feel their firearms are more important than our lives and our children's lives mean there's a growing backlash and the measures that may be enacted may be more extreme than if the "DTOG" had stepped up and encouraged what they felt was sensible gun control measures.

Gun training and education would go a long way towards eradicating the fear of them that all too many on the other side of me feel.

It's not really "fear of them." A closer mark is "concern about how they're being used." If I found a gun lying around I would not panic (I would pick it up carefully and put it someplace for the police to come collect.) If I knew more, I might make sure that the safety was on and the thing was unloaded before calling the police to come get it.

All the gun training in the world isn't going to erase my concern if I see someone suddenly pulling out a gun and waving it around.

They are inanimate objects, no scarier than a hammer in and of themselves. So it's hardly what I'd call absurd. The moment I feel that my firearms are more important than a child, you can have 'em. But, my firearms are there to protect the children in my life... If you choose to protect the children in your life with something other than a firearm should that time come, you are certainly welcome to do so.

When it comes to protecting the children in my life, I'll use every single tool at my disposal. That's an appeal to emotion that just doesn't work well, as my firearms will protect children should that need ever come to pass. They certainly will not ever harm a child.

You should probably amend that to "In my hands they will not ever harm a child." If someone else gets their hands on them (by whatever means), you can't guarantee that your guns won't ever hurt a child.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

America is the country where this stupid behavior happens. More guns, more problems with guns.

The constitution clearly sayss a well regulated militia. It doesn't say unrestricted gun access.

Also these youth are speaking out about what is affecting them.

Your argument is weak.

Would you want somebody to own an AR-15 who has a history of drunken behavior and domestic violence? Cry me a river about taking rights away. But I don't want some white trash drunk wife beater going to the shop and buying a BFG....

We need common sense legislation, but that's something you Trump supporters want nothing of the sort. Just take your NRA money and shut up.

originally posted by: Byrd



You should probably amend that to "In my hands they will not ever harm a child." If someone else gets their hands on them (by whatever means), you can't guarantee that your guns won't ever hurt a child.

But there are laws against theft already.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

In the past women were too feminine to vote. Was it madness that the suffragettes were allowed express their views on voting policies?

What about African Americans? There was a time when they were too black to be offered equal rights. Was it crazy that this country was willing to listen to men like Martin Luther King?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with these kids. What I am saying is that your reasoning to ignore what they're saying is fallacious at best.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

No. We're not discussing. There isn't much of the opposing point of view being presented. CNN staged their town hall as a 2 minutes of hate with a live scapegoat on the stage for the audience to howl at. There was no reasoned discourse.

We're discussing. You and I and everyone else on social media, ATS and in person and on the news.

The kids are protesting. Protests rarely have an opposing view, because...it's a protest. During and after the protest the rest of us discuss. That's how it works.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Guns were designed to propel an object from a person towards a person approaching one's territory with bad intentions, among other reasons. Once they discovered gunpowder, and you can blame the Chinese for that as I recall, guns came next, like wheels and cars.

a reply to: Umberto

Your argument is an emotional wish list, which means it is no argument at all.

You want more firepower than the local police?

Those days are long gone.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Byrd



You should probably amend that to "In my hands they will not ever harm a child." If someone else gets their hands on them (by whatever means), you can't guarantee that your guns won't ever hurt a child.

But there are laws against theft already.

Theft is not the only way that people get guns. A member of the household taking a household gun is not theft. Several school shooters used family guns, obtained legally.

Heck, I can think of several ways that someone might end up with someone else's gun... loaned for sport shooting, for instance or inherited (I inherited a gun from my mother-in-law because she needed to get rid of it. (I took it to the cops to be destroyed.)) Given to a friend during a messy divorce (happened to someone I know. In an odd twist of circumstances the one holding the guns got arrested for child pornography and the guns were then confiscated and the one who owned them questioned). Dropped during a traffic accident and picked up by someone else.

Those are just the ones I know of directly. I'm sure there's others.

originally posted by: roadgravel

You want more firepower than the local police?

Those days are long gone.

Thus invalidating the "defense against tyranny" argument.

Only a fool lobbies to abrogate his right or ability of self defense. Only my enemy lobbies to lessen my right. Libtards think this is simply an expression of opinion. I assure you it is not just that, it is a full on attack upon the rights of the people. An armed people who, at some point, will have enough of it.

a reply to: DJW001

a reply to: craterman

Only a fool argues to put weapons in the hands of those who would murder them.

a reply to: WeRpeons

I guess you couldn’t come up with any sort of argument pertaining to my posts.

Looks like you got smacked out of this debate with a little good logic. It appears good logic is your kryptonite.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: roadgravel

You want more firepower than the local police?

Those days are long gone.

Thus invalidating the "defense against tyranny" argument.

I wouldn't say so. Just because people don't out gun the police doesn't mean it's a done fail.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Banning the AR-15 is the first step toward having common sense gun laws.

As for banning hand guns altogether, my personal perspective would be "I really wouldn't care if that happened." I'm not a gun owner. If all handguns were taken off the street, imagine how many lives would be saved. Handguns in my opinion, more often then being used for protection are used to kill, period. Guns that are kept in homes for protection are sometimes used to kill during domestic arguments, accidents happen when handling a loaded gun, they're used in suicides, and children who unknowingly think it's a toy accidentally kill themselves or someone else. They're also used in road-rage incidents, robberies, and drive-by shootings.

It's my opinion the only guns that should be legal to own are hunting rifles. Some posters have argued that AR-15's are used for hunting. My feelings and the feelings of some common sense gun owners, is where does the "experience" in hunting come into play when they're using a semi-automatic rifle to hunt? Hunters have used regular hunting rifles for centuries. Why would removing AR-15's hurt the "experience and excitement of hunting?"

Removing all hand guns and possibly amending the 2nd amendment should be left for the public to decide at the voting booth. Our politicians are influenced by too many special interest groups. Let the majority of Americans decide, since gun violence threatens and kills people everyday in our society. Of course the government would have to crack down on illegal guns that are being smuggled to criminals on our streets.

Some people like me, just can't justify owning a weapon used to kill another human being or an animal. Just because the AR-15 is responsible for killing a smaller percentage than hand guns, doesn't make it less dangerous. If someone entered a crowded room with an AR-15 as compared to a hand gun, which gun do you think would claim more lives? There's no comparison.