Vermont lawmakers pass firearms control bill

a reply to: CB328

Vermont joins Florida in deciding not to let teenagers buy deadly weapons any more, assuming the governor signs this bill.

I missed that in your link.
Where is the mention of "deadly weapons"?

Never mind, I just realized the mistake is yours. It is a law about firearms sales.

The Vermont bill raises the age for gun purchases to 21 and expands background checks for private gun sales.

It's a recruiting tool. Want legal guns at 18? Join the army.

So what keep someone under 21 from buying in another state? Sounds like a useless law to me.

a reply to: intrepid

Sounds like a useless law to me.

It is. Some in the Vermont legislature wanted to be seen to be "doing something". Then one of them had the bright idea "Let's pass an age restriction on purchasing guns! We'll look really cool, like we actually give a damn." Or somethin' like that.

Just for the record...

Vermont had an entire 8 murders committed by a firearm in 2015....

Gun Murders By State

Sounds like this law is a fixing a non-existent problem....

a reply to: CB328

Who gets shot in vermont?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: CB328

Who gets shot in vermont?

Wildlife mostly.

Though occasionally some city slicker from Massachusetts mistakes a cow for a deer while out hunting.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: CB328

It was never about the children, it was about limiting private sales and creating more lists.

Edit.. and mag size

And that is bad why?

a reply to: DAVID64

Now this is a red herring:

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

www.logicallyfallacious.com...


... or was it colluquially called WHATABOUTISM.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Another Red Herring.

Thread after thread of this abridging of rights.

The U.S. Constitution only gives states and the people power over "unenumerated rights" not spelled out in constitution.

The second amendment is definitely enumerated and very clear about "shall not be infringed" fact it's the only amendment that includes that specific language and shows its importance.

States can pound sand, call constitutional convention or secede, they dont follow what they agreed when joining union.

originally posted by: Phoenix
Thread after thread of this abridging of rights.

The U.S. Constitution only gives states and the people power over "unenumerated rights" not spelled out in constitution.

The second amendment is definitely enumerated and very clear about "shall not be infringed" fact it's the only amendment that includes that specific language and shows its importance.

States can pound sand, call constitutional convention or secede, they dont follow what they agreed when joining union.

The constitution talks about the right of THE PEOPLE not of individuals, but the people as a class. And as such it is to be WELL REGULATED (ohhhh bad word).

I wish people would look into the history of this amendment and the history of gun control rather then parrot something they heard from whoever.... with out any research. That is how SCAM artists get away with so much.

WAKE UP - DO YOUR HOMEWORK - ARM YOURSELF WITH FACTS.

Check out:

www.radiolab.org...

a reply to: CB328

Don't you feel a sense of arrogance when the term "common sense approach" is uttered?

Like the utterer's ideas are somehow morally superior and mentally superior to someone else's'?

Kind of like when the term "other modern/evolved/1st World/etc. nations" is used? Like only governments who adopt policies aligned with my POV are worthy of such a term? The rest? Primitive and dangerous.

How about when the term "a step in the right direction" is used? Even though the data clearly demonstrates only a very small percentage of murders are committed with 'deadly weapons', even one less is a good thing, right? Who can argue with that? The important part is we feel like we are doing something.

I know I sound like an a**h*** here. I don't want the Cruz's of the world killing anybody any more than I assume you don't. But I really cannot take the stalking horse language used in the debate anymore. If I get through to just one person, then I feel like I am doing something

a reply to: FyreByrd

Not quite. District of Columbia v. Heller.

"The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right — unconnected to service in the militia — to possess certain weapons for self-defense."

"The Court first determined that “the right of the people” refers to individuals, not to the militia;"

harvardlawreview.org...

a reply to: CB328


So at 18 years of age a kid can join the military, work on or around nukes, care for and launch and recover multi million dollar weapons platforms, and other branches can be sent to a war zone and get shot and shoot the other side...

BUT... at home nope we cant trust you to purchase a gun... yea that makes a ton of sense.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Well...........

You're just flat out undeniably and totally WRONG,

To wit, qouting DC v Heller by SCOTUS,

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

DC v Heller

Wishy washy thinking or interpretation (bending) founders intent makes me sick for education in this country.

"Unconnected with service in a militia"

For constitutional idiots, dummies and benders, they should note proper English use of commas.

SCOTUS did........

a reply to: Irishhaf

Glad it does to someone...

I find it confusing, personally. Just like an 18 year old soldier just back from Iraq couldn't buy, legally, some beer. That I bought it for him will remain a secret...don't tell anyone, OK?

It's always the next law that'll solve the problem. Make every thing sunshine and daffodils. The next one.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: CB328


So at 18 years of age a kid can join the military, work on or around nukes, care for and launch and recover multi million dollar weapons platforms, and other branches can be sent to a war zone and get shot and shoot the other side...

BUT... at home nope we cant trust you to purchase a gun... yea that makes a ton of sense.

This , that I bolded...^^^^
Actually , add the part of assisting in launching them.
Thanks for that smile. And so true.
I know someone very well that did just that.....once upon a time.

a reply to: Phoenix

Yes , yes , yes...
They would have gotten away with it too , if it wasn't for that pesky comma
And folks confuse the word "militia" with "armed forces"
Militia- is formed from regular citizens
Armed Forces (US Military) - speaks for itself.

a reply to: seagull

Just like an 18 year old soldier just back from Iraq couldn't buy, legally, some beer.

Before 2007 (I think that is the year) it mattered not the age as long as the person had that beautiful ID card.
I guess the military had to become "Politically Correct"
I know someone really well that could legally buy and drink beer at 17 .That was a long time ago ...in a galaxy far, far away.
Another story , for another day.

a reply to: Gothmog

I think that's about when it changed, if I remember correctly. I do remember a lot of my fellow employees got very upset when that came down.

Mostly for the very reason of "We send 'em off to die for the country (supposedly), yet they won't be able to buy beer when they get back?"

I wasn't the only one that bent, if not broke, that particular rule.

A young Marine just out of boot in his dress blues stopped by the store one evening, he'd just got back into town, and was going to surprise a friend at his birthday party. My boss was still there, and I got in trouble--I think he shook his finger at me...when I sold it to him. I hated that, still do, law with a passion.

Oddly enough, I never, not once, had one of those kids get mad. Not once. Good people, those young men and women.