Raising the age to purchase/own

Are we going to alter the second amendment protection because of 1 person, or have there been many?
Click to expand...

just to play devil's advocate, I think you'd have a hard time
proving the second amendment has anything to do with the age of 18.

With that being said I don't like the idea a young adult not being able to purchase a .22 or shotgun. Target shooting, hunting, skeet and trap, and others all seem to be dying sports with less young people interested in them. Make them wait 3 more years to get some experience even less people may be interested.
 
There is the need for an age where people are held accountable for their actions, an age where they are capable of making mature decisions on their own. An age where they are to be treated as a responsible adult.

Driving a car, buying prescription drugs, purchasing alcohol, and owning a firearm are all things that are inappropriate for immature people. Same goes with voting and the draft (if one is practiced). However, the age for all of those things should be the same. There should not be different ages for each. When a person is considered a responsible adult, they deserve the freedom and responsibility those things bring.

I also suggest that the higher the age of freedom (and responsibility), the more certain allowances may needed. For example, if you make the age 21, perhaps a person should be able to volunteer for military service prior to that age. If a person wants to drive, or own a firearm, training could be made available for those under 21 (as is the case now, with supervised driving available as early as 14 ½ years of age in some places).

I would also add that things protected under the constitution, like gun ownership and voting, should not have an education/training/test requirement for responsible adults (who have reached such an age). There is simply too much tendency on the part of government to prohibit individuals from engaging in those protected freedoms by enforcing an education/training requirement of their own choosing or convenience. Alternately, education/training/testing for constitutionally protected rights could be made a requirement of primary education.

I believe a reasonable age for freedom (and responsibility) lies in the 18 to 21 year range. But to make the age different for different freedoms is a poor practice.

The age of freedom should be the same across the nation. In most cases, I'm in favor of allowing the States to decide matters. But in this particular case, I would make it a federal decision. However, at the same time, States would have the power to allow freedoms at earlier ages at their discretion.

The above is rather similar to what is now the practice in the US. However, the main distinction is making the federal age the same for all freedoms/responsibilities.
 
The militia part of does because of the Militia Act stating originally stating all white males 18-45 years of age after several revisions it is now all persons 18-45 years old. This law is over 200 years old so well established. Those who say we don't use militias today are fooling themselves, they are used in ever city today they just don't call them militias they call them neighborhood watches. Citizens banding together to protect each other same ideal different names.
 
Well, I've met several 30s-50s yr olds who were too immature to operate machinery, sharp tools, or guns, or sire offspring. So let's raise the age limit to 61.

I remember reading about John Adams and at the age of 13 he was tutored to prepare for applying to Harvard. He met with his tutor every few weeks, reviewed what he had read previously, got a new book and went home to study. He was accepted to Harvard at the age of 15 (not unusual then) after successfully testing in Rhetoric, Mathematics through calculus, Latin and Greek oral and written tests all in those languages including essays, and other typical subjects. We are sliding further and further away from expecting our children to become adults. Used to be at 14 yrs old in my time a young man was expected to take on more responsibilities and be accountable and get a part-time job. Now we are raising tea cup kids who haven't worked, have had everything handed to them including the laptop and phone the parents can't track, feel entitled to the best, and yet we don't trust them until they are three years away from home. Maybe we should kick them out at 15 so they re mature by 18?

There would be far less shootings (according to some people's thinking) if the age limit to buy firearms was raised to 61, or just don't let anyone buy guns and we would be so safe! There are stupid, evil and careless people of all ages. The problem is not that the age to buy is too low, the problem is we shirk responsibility for raising our kids and are afraid to hold them accountable. The angst over the Florida shooting is revealing in that even gun owners are wringing their hands on what more gun laws we need, when it has been repeatedly endlessly that this shooter was on LE radar dozens of times and many people around him DID NOT act to enforce the current laws. So yeah, let's make more laws and ban them guns, rather than face the problems with what we already have in enforcement.
 
18 is either the age of majority and full rights as a citizen or it is not.

I'm all for a discussion that moves it upward into the mid twenties and there are premises that support it (brain development, life expectancy changes, changes in society for "benchmark" events in relation to age, etc).

I'm not for a discussion that splits the difference. The right to individual effective self defense is an inherent right of every individual and legislating it away for a portion of the ADULT population is not a good step.
 
People do not automatically become an adult the instant they turn 18 except in a legal sense.
Click to expand...
Then at what age do they become adults? 21? 34? 40?

If 18-year-olds aren't mature enough to handle a firearm, then it's our society and parenting skills that need serious examination, not our gun laws.
 
18 year olds are mature enough to handle automatic weapons, use artillery, and a lot more.

The school shooting issues are not because of the age of the person, but the lack of parenting, unaddressed mental issues - and in the FL case, a complete failure by three different GOVERNMENT agencies.........you know, the ones who say you don't need a gun they'll protect you?
 
Interesting points of view

These are all very interesting points of view that cause a reasonable person to ponder their merits. This is why little if anything constructive gets done after a shooting. This is also why the constitution and bill of rights are so important, and the need for a difficult process to change them. Heavy debate needs to be done prior. Good input gang!

My concern is we are discussing the school shootings like the only people that might do such a evil act is also an american citizen governed by our laws. What happens when we add in the outside threat of terrorists? The best solution is to harden the schools as best as possible for all threats. That is best done at the local level with protection as close to the schools as possible. We are not going to be able to screen them for mental stability, or age are we? We are not going to get them to honor gun free zones and we are not going to be able to keep black market weapons, or trucks out of their hands. School protection needs to address all potential bad guys (woops bad people).

Please make sure our solutions address all potential acts as much as possible. The world is a dangerous and a wonderful place with no safe zones.

Thanks for an interesting civil discussion. Spread your thoughts. They all have valid points. The NRA was not the BG, the young man is.
 
I was wondering how many incidences there have been where the shooter bought an AR or AK legally and was under the age of 21? Are we going to alter the second amendment protection because of 1 person, or have there been many?
Click to expand...
I think the question is silly. There is no age stipulation written into in the second amendment. So I will pose this question. Using your analogy a 6 or 10 year old should be able to purchase a weapon because of the 2 ND. amendment?????
 
If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm they must not be trusted with a vote. I see the later as FAR more dangerous.

Why not a 10 year old? Not an adult under the eyes of the law either criminally (in most cases) or civilly. I see there being a clear distinction.
 
If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm they must not be trusted with a vote.
Click to expand...
The irony? Some of the commentators supporting an age-limit raise for gun purchases are now advocating to have the voting age lowered to 16.

(Normally, I'd put a little smiley emoticon after that, but...no.)
 
If gun ownership age goes up, then so does voting, military enlistment, driving, and being considered an adult to enter contracts, etc.
 
Regarding this:
"People do not automatically become an adult the instant they turn 18 except in a legal sense."
Then at what age do they become adults? 21? 34? 40?

If 18-year-olds aren't mature enough to handle a firearm, then it's our society and parenting skills that need serious examination, not our gun laws.
Click to expand...

In a legal sense, we have in the USA, there are at least three levels of recognized adulthood that I recall:
At 18, the individual is recognized as an adult in most aspects, excepting alcohol consumption, handgun purchases, etc.
At 21, full adulthood is generally recognized with a notable exception.
At 35, the individual could become President, regardless of their manners and how they carry themselves, if enough people vote for them.

So the law is an imperfect tool in this regard, though it generally works well enough in spite of some notable failures, that there can be a functioning society. We have to hold individuals accountable by these methods of measuring adulthood, imperfect as it may be.
Actual biological adulthood varies with the individual, but is probably less relevant than mental and emotional maturity as well as the attainment of demonstrable responsibility. Thus, a well trained 18 year old is often more competent than an untrained 35 year old.

But on gun control laws, we have always had them; the chiefest of which is the Second Amendment. All others should support and enhance it, rather than contradict it. We do need to have constructive discussions about these things so that something good can come out of these difficult days.
 
We do need to have constructive discussions about these things so that something good can come out of these difficult days.
Click to expand...

I'm more than willing to have a discussion about moving up the age of buying a firearm as long as it is attached to other markers of adulthood such as voting, entering a civil contract, taking student loans, being eligible for the draft, and various other things. Restricting someone from purchasing a handgun and then allowing them to drive a full size tanker truck with dangerous chemicals for instance seems counter intuitive.
 
I agree with Lohman (what the heck is going on??? :p) raising the age limit for a gun but not for voting or driving a truck is just bias and prejudice.

There is no age limit for evil. The guy wanted to hurt people that couldn't fight back and he did.

Raising the age limit of anything assumes that it's just maturity causing acts of evil. That's a silly argument. Even more silly is assuming the Left will be satisfied with an age limit increase.
 
Other cultures have used different ages for adulthood. In the Old Testament it was 20, if I remember correctly. I like the 18/21 format that we have, but think that it needs proactive training during those three years, like mandatory, enlistment in a choice of citizen services with non-military and National Guard options, etc.
 
If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm they must not be trusted with a vote. I see the later as FAR more dangerous.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. To the dismay of many of my fellow Americans were they to read that I actually believe voting in an uneducated and irrational manner is more dangerous than owning a firearm; I offer one example.

ADOLF HITLER WAS ELECTED

And more people subsequently died because of this one event than all the firearm deaths in America... EVER... since the country was founded. Including deaths as a result from the Civil War and the Revolutionary War. Conservative estimates put the death toll from WWII, including all civilian deaths, military deaths, Jewish deaths, etc. at 50 million.
 
Last edited:
If the age limit for purchasing a rifle were raised moderately--with exceptions for those serving in a branch of the military--I could accept that. It was a different world when 18 was set as the minimum age for rifle purchase. 18 year olds, even when I was a kid, were often working full-time jobs and some were married (by choice, even!). Now, 18 is just the age of a final year of school and the general expectation level seems only to be that they shouldn't post anything too stupid on social media using their gift Iphone.

If the voting age were moved up as part of a package deal, I would be okay with that also.
 
Take a 16 year old and put him into a war environment and watch how quickly he becomes 21.

How many WWII bomber pilots were 18--19?

We have coddled and protected our youth to the extent that it would be a time consuming exercise to determine of they were capable of emulating the demand on youth in 1942. They would all be thrown into the requirement pool and final assessment would be as it was it WWII, at the end of the conflict, with awards given to those who surfaced to success, and renowned acknowledgement to those who failed to return.

Nothing has changed. We have not yet been challenged to the same extreme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top