Raising the age to purchase/own

shall not infringed

18 you are an adult, good enough. I owned 5 guns at 18, I never done anything illegal with them. But I never bought any at a store. They were actually gifts over the years. My son, 4, has a gun even. Sure it’s locked in my safe but it is his. And except for hunting, I don’t see him ever using it to kill anything. He’s already been shooting guns. I’ve got a Remington semi auto .22 and a RG .22 revolver he’s shot. At the age of 10 I had my own hunting rifle and had access to a half dozen guns. Dad kept them in a gun cabinet in the hallway with the key in it. The difference is I knew better. I never wanted to hurt anyone with a gun.
 
I don't understand how we (those opposed to further restriction on single right items such as firearms) can lose this discussion

Person A: I think we should raise the age of owning a gun to 21

"WE": I agree. For whatever reason, and not blaming anyone, 18 year olds are viewed differently by society today then they were in decades and generations past. Today most 18 year olds still have a lot of growing up to do. 21 might be a good starting point. In fact I think most neurological information we have today indicates the brain doesn't really stabilize until the mid twenties so we should definitely be exploring if 21 is even the correct number. We should definitely raise the age of majority of full citizenship to 21. Maybe even 25.

Person A: Yeh, see, you get it. "Common-sense" gun laws. What do you mean by the age of majority?

"WE": Well your right about the development of our youth and how times have changed. For all the reasons we should change the age for access to full rights we should do so for other life altering decisions and responsibility: the draft, military service, civil contracts and loans, student loans, voting

Person A: Umm. I only mean firearms.

"WE": Why is development fundamentally different for firearms to restrict one right and not others? Doesn't "common sense" hold that changes in development should be considered across the board?
 
Last edited:
OF COURSE! Why didn't we see it before, when it was right in front of our faces the whole time! NOBODY over 21 ever does anything wrong...
 
Lohman446 said:
I don't understand how we (those opposed to further restriction on single right items such as firearms) can lose this discussion



Person A: I think we should raise the age of owning a gun to 21



"WE": I agree. For whatever reason, and not blaming anyone, 18 year olds are viewed differently by society today then they were in decades and generations past. Today most 18 year olds still have a lot of growing up to do. 21 might be a good starting point. In fact I think most neurological information we have today indicates the brain doesn't really stabilize until the mid twenties so we should definitely be exploring if 21 is even the correct number. We should definitely raise the age of majority of full citizenship to 21. Maybe even 25.



Person A: Yeh, see, you get it. "Common-sense" gun laws. What do you mean by the age of majority?



"WE": Well your right about the development of our youth and how times have changed. For all the reasons we should change the age for access to full rights we should do so for other life altering decisions and responsibility: the draft, military service, civil contracts and loans, student loans, voting



Person A: Umm. I only mean firearms.



"WE": Why is development fundamentally different for firearms to restrict one right and not others? Doesn't "common sense" hold that changes in development should be considered across the board?
Click to expand...



Great argument! If the age limit is raised it should be raised for everything considered "adult". Firearms, smokes, alcohol, weed if allowed in your state, VOTING, signing contracts, getting marriage license on your own, draft, winning lottery, gambling, etc. Perfect!

I don't know how it can be argued a person is mature enough to vote but not to buy a gun.
 
I don't understand how we (those opposed to further restriction on single right items such as firearms) can lose this discussion

Person A: I think we should raise the age of owning a gun to 21

"WE": I agree. For whatever reason, and not blaming anyone, 18 year olds are viewed differently by society today then they were in decades and generations past. Today most 18 year olds still have a lot of growing up to do. 21 might be a good starting point. In fact I think most neurological information we have today indicates the brain doesn't really stabilize until the mid twenties so we should definitely be exploring if 21 is even the correct number. We should definitely raise the age of majority of full citizenship to 21. Maybe even 25.

Person A: Yeh, see, you get it. "Common-sense" gun laws. What do you mean by the age of majority?

"WE": Well your right about the development of our youth and how times have changed. For all the reasons we should change the age for access to full rights we should do so for other life altering decisions and responsibility: the draft, military service, civil contracts and loans, student loans, voting

Person A: Umm. I only mean firearms.

"WE": Why is development fundamentally different for firearms to restrict one right and not others? Doesn't "common sense" hold that changes in development should be considered across the board?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you somehow think this would end the discussion, but you'd be wrong about that. There's nothing wrong with a tiered system that grants rights with varying degrees of responsibility based on age. We already do that when it comes to alcohol. An 18 year old, while considered old enough for such things as owning property, voting, entering into legal contracts, etc., is not considered old enough to purchase or consume alcohol.

Also, as I pointed out in another post, the military is all about training and development. Under supervision and direction, 18 year old recruits are trained in the use of firearms. They are also taught discipline, decision making, the importance of following established procedures and regulations--all of which serves to mold them into good soldiers and responsible adults . It's not as if they're handed an M16 and then left on their own.

So, no, a one-size-fits-all approach to rights and responsibility doesn't make "common sense".
 
I missed the mention of alchohol in the Constitution. Giving someone the right to vote but not own a gun is troubling at best. Remember you have a responsibility to the country, eligibility for draft into the military, that is a major indication of adulthood. The military and its trading aside depriving someone of the right to effective self defense while requiring them to participate in the draft indicates giving up to their life without volunteering, indicates no rights are individual in nature
 
I think there is a difference between regulation based on age and denial based on age. I have to look at the arguments around alcohol. I think it’s fundamentally different but we should at least be able to glean the arguments of why 21? I think we need to make sure to tie voting and gun rights together in the same argument with age increases though. Voting is far more powerful.
 
I think we could address the voting issue by placing more emphasis on civics during the high school years. I've been of the opinion for several years now that our educational system is at the core of many of the societal problems we're currently dealing with, including these shootings. Today's children turn 18 with just a cursory understanding of our political system and the power we have as citizens because we can vote. There's an old saying--A house cannot be built on sand.

You make a good point about regulation vs. denial. Maybe what needs to happen is something along the lines of only allowing those between 18-21 to buy single shot low powered rifles that wouldn't be very effective if used in mass shooting scenarios. They'd have to wait until turning 21 for the high powered and semi-automatic rifles. The single shot rules could also apply to shot guns. They'd be limited in choices for hunting purposes, but they'd still have some options. If similar rules were adopted for handguns, then they could get 22 revolvers at 18 instead of having to wait until turning 21 to buy them.
 
Last edited:
I was leaning more towards, gasp, licensing. It used to be in Michigan that if you wanted a license at 16 you had to show where you had attended a driving school and pass a test. At 18 only a test was required. I’m not 100% opposed to reasonable licensing requirements provided they are not so onerous that the right becomes restricted to the wealthy, idle, or both.

My concern about limiting type of firearm is two fold. While you and I know the difference between a single shot rifle, an internal box magazine, and a detachable clip effectively codifying those differences is not necessarily simple and there is going to be backlash. Secondly, with a two tier system, you play into the “nobody needs a _______” argument. To be effective you would effectively be giving up the fight on Feinstein’s AWB. Too much ground would be sacrificed or it would not be effective. Maybe it’s three fold: effective self defense should not be sacrificed in the discussion.
 
Licensing could become a problem in terms of setting standards and affordability for those getting the license. Do we come up with one set of standards that would apply in all states, and if so, where would the states' rights argument fit into those standards? Also, some states already require training prior to permitting, and the fees for that in some of those states aren't cheap. Adding another layer for 18 year olds buying rifles would cost them money at a time when most of them are lucky to be working part time at McDonald's. But I'm certainly not against the idea.

To your second point: We could come up with something that would work if we could do something about all the antagonism that's prevalent when it comes to gun rights.
 
Last edited:
I was listening to a talk radio show and the host made an interesting comment on the Bill of Rights.

Most of them,while they seem to draw a line,include an "except for...." Like the 3rd Amendment says "except for in times of war"

The 2nd Amendment is different in that it clearly states "Shall Not Be Infringed"
I understand there are"Yeah,but..." laws. Like 21 to buy alcohol. But buying alcohol is not clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights with the strong statement "Shall Not Be Infringed". It might be the "Yeah but..." laws are wrong. Wheter we agree or not.
------------------------------------
Many of the restrictive laws and regulations we deal with are twisted interpetations of the commerce clause. We have a tax stamp for NFA firearms,etc.
----------------------------------
Anti-discrimination law clearly includes Age as a specific protected group,just like Race,Religion,Gender,etc.

Lets not argue about whether a baker "should" be required to bake a samesex wedding cake.- the case went to court and the baker lost. That's just a fact.The law says you cannot discriminate and make your own rules about who you sell cakes to. OK.This is not the place to debate it. Settled.
Right now,before the laws are changed,it is still LAWFUL in most states for an 18 year old to buy an AR-15.
AGE is as protected from discrimination as RACE or GENDER.
So,by what twist of reasoning is it not a discrimination case for Dicks Sporting Goods to refuse to sell an AR-15 based on AGE ?? How is that different than refusing to sell anything,including a wedding cake,based on Race or Gender or Religion???

Seems like the baker was required to pay in the 6 figure range for refusing to make a cake.

I'm thinking every otherwise lawful purchaser who was refused the sale of an AR-15 for being 18 through 20 years old has grounds for a discrimination suit and settlement based on Age Discimination as much as a same-sex couple denied a wedding cake based on Gender Discrimination.How is it not discrimination for Dicks Sporting Goods to deny a sale based on a (lawful) age? Would that work to deny a Racial Minority? A religious Minority? An LGBT person? What makes company policy supersede a lawful right to purchase?

Attorneys? A class action suit might get a lot of 18 through 20 year olds a "scholarship" and send the massage messing with the RTKBA for PC brownie points is a really bad idea.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts are everything should be dropped to 18, You're an adult or you're not.

How about this I'll go along with raising to 21 however in exchange I want these changes

1. No one under 21 can be charged as an adult.
2. No one under 21 can enlist in the military.
3. No one under 21 can be issued a drivers license.. well let you get temps at 18.

If you're not mature enough to buy a gun then you're not mature enough to die in a war, be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle unsupervised or be sentenced as an adult (Hey you don't fully know right from wrong yet)

The military will cry foul as they LOVE 18 year olds, the fresher the better, 18-25 is prime time USDA grade A meat.
 
17 years old. Taken shooting for the first time when 10 years old. Treats firearms with respect and never uses them as toys, and has a great time. Rifle is locked up when not in use. He will be given the key to the gun lock when he turns 18.
If you can't teach them right, find someone who can, and eliminate 99% of the problems. Re introduce firearms safety training in schools.
Massad Ayoobs excellent primer "Gun Proof Your Children" is an excellent read with good ideas I used to great benefit.
I am no great shining example of parenting, not even close, but I think I got THAT one right.
 

Attachments

  • Ricky STG44.jpg
    Ricky STG44.jpg
    232.4 KB · Views: 14
The point about only needing to be 18 to be drafted is not that it shows you are mature enough to behave properly on your own. The point is that the country is saying you are mature enough to be forced to die for your country if so deemed. So yes, if you are old enough to be sent to war and die involuntarily, then you darn well should be allowed to buy and own firearms for your civilian protection and as part of the general militia. And I totally agree with JoeSixPack: no vote or no guns, then no fresh meat on the lines.

I'm fine with privileges such as driving to be gradually conferred. But essential "adult" activities should all be the same age, not cherry picking what we like or don't like. then perhaps we would have more vested interest in actually making sure our kids become responsible adults by the time they are 18. Why 18? Because at that age kids are out of mandatory 1-12 education and free to live on their own, have a job, vote, make kids, rent an apartment, collect welfare, etc. So yes, if all of that is available then they should continue to be able to buy and own guns. Not every kid gets to live at home with mummy and dada until they are 25, waiting to finish school and then finally becoming an adult.
 
If the right to vote were tied to the right to purchase a firearm, those calling for the age to be raised would sit down and shup pretty quickly. ;)
 
Last edited:
My thoughts are everything should be dropped to 18, You're an adult or you're not.

How about this I'll go along with raising to 21 however in exchange I want these changes

1. No one under 21 can be charged as an adult.
2. No one under 21 can enlist in the military.
3. No one under 21 can be issued a drivers license.. well let you get temps at 18.

If you're not mature enough to buy a gun then you're not mature enough to die in a war, be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle unsupervised or be sentenced as an adult (Hey you don't fully know right from wrong yet)

The military will cry foul as they LOVE 18 year olds, the fresher the better, 18-25 is prime time USDA grade A meat.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY, I also would prefer, at 18, you can do all the above and be held responsible. Crazy has no age boundary.

You forgot, getting married and working a full time job or starting your own business.

I was driving and working at 16. And shooting within limitations on buying, FWIW.
 
We can all argue that 18 is the legal age at which an individual is an adult. The right to vote and serve in the military (or the obligation to serve if drafted) being primary examples. We also don't have any reluctance to try 18 year olds as adults when charged with a crime. Yet we refuse them the right to drink alcohol legally, and set higher age limits to hold many elected positions, among many other things.

Why the dichotomy? I believe it is because we all recognize that there is a difference in maturity between an 18 year old and someone a few years older. Ask an actuary why auto insurance is so much higher for an 18 year old or a physician about brain development if you doubt this.

Does that mean there should be limits on gun ownership for 18 year olds? I don't know, but I don't think we can just dismiss it either, and I think it is a conversation worth having.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top