A bigger picture on gun rights

I would be against a ridiculous age limit, like 35, however I think 18 is fine. After all, that is the age of consent to join any branch of the military sans parental consent. If an 18 year old is thought to have the sense to carry arms in the military (thousands of hours unsupervised), then they should be able to own a gun outside the military (barring other disqualifiers, but that’s a different issue).

I would support younger with parental consent, but some of these mass shooting incidents clearly demonstrate some parents shouldn’t be allowed to make that decision. Plus if we ever had to defend our country as militia, I’d like to think we wouldn’t throw all the 16 and 17 year olds out front.

a reply to: TinySickTears

The reason the issue is in courts all the time is also quite simple. Enemies of America, mostly foreign as well as domestic communists and fascists like di-fi keep trying to destroy the USA by getting firearms legislated out into Oblivion. Don't say it ain't t so, because Cali senator said it on TV straight up, she would have taken them all if she could only get the votes. She is a true fascist and enemy of the free republic.

That is why it's always in the courts. And as far as I know, the age restrictions in most states are on FFL purchases, not private transfers or gifts or even ownership in general.

Thousands of minors in the USA, many not even teenagers, own their own firearms and it's legal. I don't have a problem with that.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Tanga36
a reply to: Mahogany

Let's get this out of the way, I am VERY Pro 2nd Amendment.

Now that my disclaimer is out of the way, I shall address what you have asked about. No, the 2nd does not specify an age, nor does it specify an age in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Therefore, your assessment is correct and the states have every right to self-regulate and impose an age requirement because of the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

However, because of the "shall not be infringed upon" part of the 2nd, it does become a bit convoluted. This is what other Pro 2nd Amendment folks use to argue many of the gun laws. In my opinion, it does not hold water because there have been numerous laws upheld at the state and federal level that have already "infringed upon" certain people's right to bear arms. The federal government imposed an age requirement on the purchase of long guns and handguns. Because of that, the states are now able to impose age requirements and raise them to 21. The Gun Control Act of 1968 raised the federal age requirement to 21 for a handgun and that was not overturned by the SCOTUS. This opens the door for states to put any age requirement they want, just as long as it meets the minimum federal requirements. I am not a lawyer so it is entirely possible that I'm wrong but that is how I'm seeing things.

My personal opinion is that states should have more rights to regulate so, even though I do not agree with the raising of age requirements, I feel they have the right to do it and I fully support the states' choices to legislate themselves.

Thank you for your educated response. It is sad you got no stars for describing how this works legally.

Instead, opinionated drivel gets all the attention as usual. I was truly hoping for a conversation here, not what page 1 looks like. Guess I can't hope for more out of a website like this, but I thank you for your response.

There is still hope for ATS to come back from the current state it is in. That's my hope, anyways. Unfortunately, everything is being turned political and it usually ends up with the usual responses. Until both sides of the political spectrum can see that we (us regular folk) are not each other's enemies, things will stay like this. We need to come together, even when our beliefs don't mesh, so that we stand a chance against the real enemy. As long as everyone is on the defense and portrays everything as an attack, we remain divided and don't stand a chance. That's what TPTB truly want. The larger the division the better for them.
Just my opinion.

I think this is a ploy to reduce the popularity of hunting among younger people.

Hunting numbers are in decline, have been for several decades. This is anti-2nd amendment types trying to make gun ownership and gun knowledge less prevalent.

Springtime on the American plains. When a walk behind the barn through tall grass can lead you in a face-to-face encounter with multiple rattlesnakes. A pistol is about the only thing useful in this situation-- you cannot swing a shovel as fast as a snake can dodge, and close the distance between you and it by the length of said shovel's handle.

Or how about a flat tire in tall grass, on the side of a freeway, after dark in central Texas. Not only can you hear the wild hogs, you can smell them...

In some states, like Indiana, it is not legal to hunt alone until you are 18. So you cannot go out with a BB gun after squirrels, without an adult present.

Other states, you can hunt small game at 10 or 12, and big game soon after.

Every US state requires a "hunter education course" covering safety, ethics, and environmental impact, with most states using the same course, and recognizing each other's certificates.

There are a whole lotta if's involved, but if they are saying states can say 21? That is wrong. (ownership,not use, that should be even younger)
If you can die for your country with a gun in your hand, at 18, you damn sure should be able to own one.

But you should be able to "use" one, at any age your PARENTS deem fit. I realize this may cause contriversy, but as many have stated, states like mine, we learn to hunt and respect guns at an early age.

Even as a girl, I think I was 10 or 12.

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: Mahogany
States Rights is the 10th Amendment and you can’t lose that.

AHEM...Not always true. The union refused to let the south exercise their rights to leave the union when they cited the 10th amendment. The PRE civil war 10th allowed this btw.

originally posted by: Graysen
I think this is a ploy to reduce the popularity of hunting among younger people.

Hunting numbers are in decline, have been for several decades. This is anti-2nd amendment types trying to make gun ownership and gun knowledge less prevalent.

Springtime on the American plains. When a walk behind the barn through tall grass can lead you in a face-to-face encounter with multiple rattlesnakes. A pistol is about the only thing useful in this situation-- you cannot swing a shovel as fast as a snake can dodge, and close the distance between you and it by the length of said shovel's handle.

Or how about a flat tire in tall grass, on the side of a freeway, after dark in central Texas. Not only can you hear the wild hogs, you can smell them...

In some states, like Indiana, it is not legal to hunt alone until you are 18. So you cannot go out with a BB gun after squirrels, without an adult present.

Other states, you can hunt small game at 10 or 12, and big game soon after.

Every US state requires a "hunter education course" covering safety, ethics, and environmental impact, with most states using the same course, and recognizing each other's certificates.

I like that angle Graysen, a likely conspiracy in my paranoid mind. The anti-gun activists will use the excuse that no one needs an assault rifle because it's only purpose is for killing other people. Well, it will be easier to finish the job by saying that since no one goes hunting anymore, then you don't have a use for that shot gun or deer rifle either.

I wanted to comment because my girlfriend just mentioned some report that hunting license sales are way down this year in our area. Apparently do to less interest in hunting, however, I thought, "Yea, less licenses being bought, more illegal hunting going on". Occasionally I joke that I'm filling that doe permit from 20 years ago that I never filled. The locals go out during the "early season" before (and I mean right before) all the city slickers get here for the firearms opener.

a reply to: chiefsmom

I was 10, when my sister and her then husband, gave me a shotgun for Christmas, right out of the Sear catalog.

To this day, it's the best shooting shotgun I own. Fifty dollars, I think it was...

Many of us grew up around guns, using them for a myriad of things. I bought my first gun with paper route money, I was 13, it was a .22, again, right out of the Sear catalog. It wasn't the greatest of rifles, but I sure plinked a lot of tin cans, and clay pigeons with it. It finally broke when I was in high school--I almost cried... Everyone understood.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

I like that angle Graysen, a likely conspiracy in my paranoid mind. The anti-gun activists will use the excuse that no one needs an assault rifle because it's only purpose is for killing other people. Well, it will be easier to finish the job by saying that since no one goes hunting anymore, then you don't have a use for that shot gun or deer rifle either.

I wanted to comment because my girlfriend just mentioned some report that hunting license sales are way down this year in our area. Apparently do to less interest in hunting, however, I thought, "Yea, less licenses being bought, more illegal hunting going on". Occasionally I joke that I'm filling that doe permit from 20 years ago that I never filled. The locals go out during the "early season" before (and I mean right before) all the city slickers get here for the firearms opener.

Frankly, millennials largely lack the temperament for hunting.

Those that do hunt, generally do not pick up a gun until a week before they set out in the field. Then when they shoot a buck in the gut or the back, they say, "This puny rifle lacks stopping power.... I need a magnum."

For the few that do manage to bring down a buck, they immediately have to google the nearest game processor, since they have no idea how to dress out the meat, or how to cook a roast for that matter. "Can I just get this all processed as burger meat?"

I glass & stalk. With rifle, and with a bow during archery season. I had a hunting millennial tell me I was mentally unstable if I was so obsessed with hunting that I could crawl through 200 yards of light brush to get a shot at the perfect doe.

Thinking about the "we're all doomed" thread, I believe that millennials don't have the patience to develop skill, so they try to overcome the deficit by purchasing technology.

I archery hunt with a longbow or recurve. one guy showed me his compound bow with elliptical pulleys and an illuminated scope. He said if I bought 4 grand of technology, I could shoot a buck from 50 yards, from a hideout up a tree.

I my maximum range is 30 yards. I've never actually shot from there, because I sneak up on the deer to within 12-20 yards. If I had all those cables that make your bow look like a harp, I'd be snagging it on tree branches and bunches of grass. And if I had quiver bolted to the belly of my bow, the balance of the bow would change with every arrow I loosed.

That's why I don't even carry a quiver when I get up close to a buck. I have one arrow on the string and the other clamped to the belly of the bow with my off-hand. I've never taken a follow-up shot, so I surely don't need 4 other arrows banging around and catching on brush.

I got rid of my little bottle of talcum powder for puffing the wind, too. I have a 3" frayed red thread tied to each end of my bow. I can see the amount of wind drift without moving anything but my eyes.

I don't use printed camouflage either. But that's another thread.

To make a short story long. Hunting is too much for virtual people. enough said.

a reply to: Mahogany. One reason it says “the rights of the people” is to indicate that states can’t violate the right or abridge. It’s not a state issue in that regard.

a reply to: Mahogany

...except the 2nd is an enumerated right guaranteed by the Constitution, removing it entirely from being in any was a state's rights issue. As the 10th says, anything not granted in the Constitution to the feds is considered state's rights... but looking, looking, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I can own guns. It is allowed by law.

Please, try and come and take it from me.....all of them.

There in lies the problem with trying to legislate any kind of gun control.

You cannot enforce it and will be met by stiff resistance from all of us "gun nuts" when you try.

Largest standing militia is the Unites States Population.

I can't wait until you try to take guns from the folk in the Appalachian and Louisiana Bayou areas.

originally posted by: Tanga36

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Tanga36
a reply to: Mahogany

Let's get this out of the way, I am VERY Pro 2nd Amendment.

Now that my disclaimer is out of the way, I shall address what you have asked about. No, the 2nd does not specify an age, nor does it specify an age in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Therefore, your assessment is correct and the states have every right to self-regulate and impose an age requirement because of the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

However, because of the "shall not be infringed upon" part of the 2nd, it does become a bit convoluted. This is what other Pro 2nd Amendment folks use to argue many of the gun laws. In my opinion, it does not hold water because there have been numerous laws upheld at the state and federal level that have already "infringed upon" certain people's right to bear arms. The federal government imposed an age requirement on the purchase of long guns and handguns. Because of that, the states are now able to impose age requirements and raise them to 21. The Gun Control Act of 1968 raised the federal age requirement to 21 for a handgun and that was not overturned by the SCOTUS. This opens the door for states to put any age requirement they want, just as long as it meets the minimum federal requirements. I am not a lawyer so it is entirely possible that I'm wrong but that is how I'm seeing things.

My personal opinion is that states should have more rights to regulate so, even though I do not agree with the raising of age requirements, I feel they have the right to do it and I fully support the states' choices to legislate themselves.

Thank you for your educated response. It is sad you got no stars for describing how this works legally.

Instead, opinionated drivel gets all the attention as usual. I was truly hoping for a conversation here, not what page 1 looks like. Guess I can't hope for more out of a website like this, but I thank you for your response.

There is still hope for ATS to come back from the current state it is in. That's my hope, anyways. Unfortunately, everything is being turned political and it usually ends up with the usual responses. Until both sides of the political spectrum can see that we (us regular folk) are not each other's enemies, things will stay like this. We need to come together, even when our beliefs don't mesh, so that we stand a chance against the real enemy. As long as everyone is on the defense and portrays everything as an attack, we remain divided and don't stand a chance. That's what TPTB truly want. The larger the division the better for them.
Just my opinion.

No, I don't think there is hope for ATS. I am starting to think there is no hope for USA and peace at all, we will see a civil war.

When replies like yours are ignored, important questions about our Constitution ridiculed and made fun of by way of ignorance and people post that they armed their children illegally as a retort...

It's too late.

People on here have been showing their colors more and more, and they are not pretty colors. I personally think ATS is becoming a viper's nest and is approaching the end of its operations. It's too bad really, but at that point it will have served its function already.

If you need the state to regulate your gun use, you are a part of the problem.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Tanga36

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Tanga36
a reply to: Mahogany

Let's get this out of the way, I am VERY Pro 2nd Amendment.

Now that my disclaimer is out of the way, I shall address what you have asked about. No, the 2nd does not specify an age, nor does it specify an age in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Therefore, your assessment is correct and the states have every right to self-regulate and impose an age requirement because of the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

However, because of the "shall not be infringed upon" part of the 2nd, it does become a bit convoluted. This is what other Pro 2nd Amendment folks use to argue many of the gun laws. In my opinion, it does not hold water because there have been numerous laws upheld at the state and federal level that have already "infringed upon" certain people's right to bear arms. The federal government imposed an age requirement on the purchase of long guns and handguns. Because of that, the states are now able to impose age requirements and raise them to 21. The Gun Control Act of 1968 raised the federal age requirement to 21 for a handgun and that was not overturned by the SCOTUS. This opens the door for states to put any age requirement they want, just as long as it meets the minimum federal requirements. I am not a lawyer so it is entirely possible that I'm wrong but that is how I'm seeing things.

My personal opinion is that states should have more rights to regulate so, even though I do not agree with the raising of age requirements, I feel they have the right to do it and I fully support the states' choices to legislate themselves.

Thank you for your educated response. It is sad you got no stars for describing how this works legally.

Instead, opinionated drivel gets all the attention as usual. I was truly hoping for a conversation here, not what page 1 looks like. Guess I can't hope for more out of a website like this, but I thank you for your response.

There is still hope for ATS to come back from the current state it is in. That's my hope, anyways. Unfortunately, everything is being turned political and it usually ends up with the usual responses. Until both sides of the political spectrum can see that we (us regular folk) are not each other's enemies, things will stay like this. We need to come together, even when our beliefs don't mesh, so that we stand a chance against the real enemy. As long as everyone is on the defense and portrays everything as an attack, we remain divided and don't stand a chance. That's what TPTB truly want. The larger the division the better for them.
Just my opinion.

No, I don't think there is hope for ATS. I am starting to think there is no hope for USA and peace at all, we will see a civil war.

When replies like yours are ignored, important questions about our Constitution ridiculed and made fun of by way of ignorance and people post that they armed their children illegally as a retort...

It's too late.

People on here have been showing their colors more and more, and they are not pretty colors. I personally think ATS is becoming a viper's nest and is approaching the end of its operations. It's too bad really, but at that point it will have served its function already.

Well you are free to leave at anytime. its not like we are keeping you here against your will are we?

The US version of peace is the best version. WHy? because it allows people to make their own choices instead of their government doing it.

Look around the internet for "idiots with guns" and you'll see age isn't always a good measure for safe gun handling and use.

When some refers to guns as toys or uses them as a symbol of power or coolness then you know the people to stay away from for your own safety.

a reply to: Mahogany

If my state … Illinois *cough*, were to put limitations on the age of ownership for my children, I would not follow that law. As a parent, I know my own children, and my teenage girls can shoot very well -- thank you very much

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Are you sure? I mean there's no possibility that some underpaid govt. flunky, ask him if he's underpaid, I'm sure he'll say he is, doesn't know your kids better than you do??

Are you sure?? /sarc.

People, well too many of 'em, any way, surely do seem to want the govt. to take care of them.

a reply to: seagull

Hah ... I appreciate your dark sarcasm. That makes me chuckle.

It is true of course, that people like myself are vastly outnumbered by the dumbed-down hordes, especially in places like *cough* Illinois, where they have dominated the state's government.