Trump looking to increasing rifle age purchase limit.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t have a problem with it.
After working with teenage boys for more than a decade, I’d proffer there are a fair percentage of them that at 18, are not mature enough to make many decisions alone, particularly when it comes to dealing with anger and interpersonal issues.
 
I could agree with banning the sale of semi-auto rifles to under 21 persons as long as it is not against the law to "possess" one. That way, a kid could still be given a semi-auto as a gift from a parent who, hopefully, sets the proper rules for using it. He or she could also shoot another's legally owned semi-auto with their permission. It might decrease some of the school and other shootings but, I don't think it would make a significant difference. If the mentally unstable wants a gun, they will probably find a way to get one.
 
A better description would be a Rep in conservative clothing.

In light of what just happened in Florida and everything else going on, I'm good with the idea. Those that are under 21 that want the responsibility that comes with a firearm can inlist.
 
The problem with these seemingly simple gun control proposals is that you get a Feinstein who decides to write it in such a way that it encompasses a lot of other stuff as well, which then gets the bill killed. For example, I've seen some in the media saying, in regards to will there be some type of gun control passed now, "They couldn't even get bump stock legislation passed after the Las Vegas shooting..." well that's because Feinstein went and wrote it where it bans bump stocks and any device that allows you to fire the weapon more quickly. Which means bump stocks and probably every aftermarket trigger you could buy. So not surprisingly, the legislation was heavily resisted and died.

A proposed piece of legislation that only banned bump stocks and only raised the age to purchase semiautomatic firearms to 21 might have a shot at passing (I am not saying I am okay with banning bump stocks, just explaining what I see as maybe plausible as passable legislation).
 
I just saw the late news segment on Trump's statement. I find the choice of language interesting.

He said that his administration had conducted an investigation to see if bump stock devices like the one used in the Vegas shooting were legal under current law.

He did NOT say they were illegal.

He said the ATF is going to propose a regulation change....

He also mentioned raising the age limit to purchase to 21...

The devil, of course is in the details, and we will have to wait a little bit before we see what is actually proposed.

He's against anything that would turn a regular rifle into a machinegun.

Here's where the serious risk comes in. Expect to kiss "bump stocks" goodbye, but bumpfire stocks are a novelty item. A fun range toy, but their use in Vegas is their death warrant in the public mind.

And, personally, I prefer them to "grab" (restrict/[prohibit) bump stocks, rather than the semi auto rifles they fit on. Despite the fact that it is wrong, in principle, I don't think there's any saving that particular baby this time.

If we "give" them bump stocks, its possible the wolves will lose momentum. Because, they won't rest until they get something...and the longer they chase the sleigh howling, the bigger the pack gets. And, its a sad fact but our system that when enough people demand something be done, something will be done, and politicians tend to listen to the loudest voices, and the wolves howl louder than we do.

The serious risk to our continued ownership of semi autos will be in the exact language used in the proposed regulation about "things that turn ordinary rifles into machineguns".

Rate of fire is almost certainly a term that will be used. Personally, I think it will probably used in such a way that it will could be interpreted to our detriment. Rate of fire covers both the cyclic rate of the firearm, and the rate a skilled user can fire it. Depending on what the language of the proposed regulations are, they could have huge unintended consequences.

As far as raising the legal age to purchase a rifle, that was set in law in 1968. The President cannot change that. Its not a regulation, its a law. Congress can change the law, the President cannot. But, he can ask for the change, and sign it, if Congress passes a new law.

We need to look closely at what is actually proposed, not what is talked about in sound bytes.

Whether or not Trump "betrays" any promise or not is not the issue to be concerned about here. There's other places for that.
 
There are worse things President Trump could propose. I would guess congress will jump on this band wagon. Here in Texas you have to be 21 to buy a handgun so I guess this would not be that different. 18 year old's could still buy rifles. But what I have against this proposal is it too is blaming the gun and not the person firing it. There have been other shootings where the shooter was over 21 so this would not have had any affect, nor will it stop the next shooting, leading to another "talk" about more laws. I would have preferred President Trump to address the need to do away with gun free zones, including ALL FEDERAL LAND and buildings. I would have liked to see the President encourage people to take training on how to be more effective in self defense and to encourage communities to look for means to PROTECT the children instead of looking to take away rights. We, as a people, will not solve this by looking to the federal government for answers. Too many of them have stated over and over that their goal is to take away guns, you can not solve this problem talking to them.
 
But what I have against this proposal is it too is blaming the gun and not the person firing it. There have been other shootings where the shooter was over 21 so this would not have had any affect, nor will it stop the next shooting, leading to another "talk" about more laws. I would have preferred President Trump to address the need to do away with gun free zones, including ALL FEDERAL LAND and buildings. I would have liked to see the President encourage people to take training on how to be more effective in self defense and to encourage communities to look for means to PROTECT the children instead of looking to take away rights.
Click to expand...


Well said.

If a law is to be passed, it should remove eased pathway to school shootings as discussed in this quote.

If rights are on the chopping block, what rights are next for chopping. All of these rights limit government which is a key issue nowadays.
 
Nathan said:
If rights are on the chopping block, what rights are next for chopping. All of these rights limit government which is a key issue nowadays.
Click to expand...

On the nose.

TXAZ said:
I don’t have a problem with it.
After working with teenage boys for more than a decade, I’d proffer there are a fair percentage of them that at 18, are not mature enough to make many decisions alone, particularly when it comes to dealing with anger and interpersonal issues.
Click to expand...

Was that also your opinion on long gun sales when you were 18?

As to emotional maturity and decision making, you've described quite a few 30 year olds.
 
At 18 are you an adult or are you not? If you are not old enough to be trusted with a gun how can we possibly trust you with a VOTE? Likewise how can we compel through the draft to military service? Can we even accept those that volunteer for the same? Can we hold obligation to civil contracts? Can we allow you to go $50K (or more) into debt for education?

I'm fine with the discussion but the discussion needs to be about moving up the age of majority. This "your a citizen with full obligation but not full rights" is not a path I want to start on.

*Yes I realize that handgun sales already fall under such a circumstance. I'm less concerned about alcohol sales and consumption as they are not mentioned as individually protected rights in the Constitution. Obviously those behind the Whiskey rebellion would disagree with the distinction but that is a foot note in history.
 
And, personally, I prefer them to "grab" (restrict/[prohibit) bump stocks, rather than the semi auto rifles they fit on. Despite the fact that it is wrong, in principle, I don't think there's any saving that particular baby this time.
Click to expand...

Agreed that bump stocks are not the hill we should choose to die on, however I agree that the wording will need to be narrowly focused to only include devices that basically seek to work around full-auto NFA items and not minor improvements such as may be seen by a good trigger tune.

I could agree with banning the sale of semi-auto rifles to under 21 persons as long as it is not against the law to "possess" one. That way, a kid could still be given a semi-auto as a gift from a parent who, hopefully, sets the proper rules for using it. He or she could also shoot another's legally owned semi-auto with their permission. It might decrease some of the school and other shootings but, I don't think it would make a significant difference. If the mentally unstable wants a gun, they will probably find a way to get one.
Click to expand...

I could support this. While I have mixed feelings on raising the age to 21 for legal FFL purchases, I also know that this would not "put out" most 18 year olds who have been correctly trained in the use of firearms as they would likely have one in the family home. It would prevent 18 year olds with troubled backgrounds and family lives, who have not been taught firearms responsibility (or much of anything else in the home), from obtaining a firearm until they have 3 more years to mature. And it SHOULD (key word is should) age out some would-be school shooters.

Was that also your opinion on long gun sales when you were 18?

As to emotional maturity and decision making, you've described quite a few 30 year olds.
Click to expand...

To answer plainly and honestly, it wasn't something I thought about very much when I was 18. I had a .22 and a shotgun provided by my family. I suppose I would not have appreciated it to answer plainly.

As to the bold, yes you are correct... however a lot happens from 18 to 21 in many young men and women. Even though today's young adults stay home longer, stay in college longer, and start being "grown ups" later; they surely still mature a fair bit in those 3 years. I know I did. A LOT!
 
As to emotional maturity and decision making, you've described quite a few 30 year olds.
Click to expand...

With the lack of intelligence, common sense and maturity, maybe moving driving, guns, voting and everything else to 30 should be considered. What would the libs do without all of those teens and 20 somethings voting for them?

But it's "for the children" after all............ (snarky rant off)
 
Anyone that thinks being through basic training somehow makes that person more of a "man" than someone who hasn't has some fantasy and prejudice going on in their minds.

You are a "man" because of how you treat others, put their needs ahead of yours, and how you handle yourself in situations where the right thing to do will only get you fined, hurt, or killed. You don't need a stripe on your sleeve to be that kind of person. I think the military can help but it's not a prerequisite.

I'm fine with the age of "adulthood" being increased if it applies across the board. If it applies only to gun ownership then it's just one more prejudice forced onto the people.

Further and this is the real crux of the matter.....is it "immature" or "a thing of youth" to murder people? Is that normal for a 20 year old to kill classmates but not normal for a 21 year old? Of course not. The shooter knew he was committing murder so raising the age of rifle ownership would have zero effect.
 
I’ll disagree Ten Ring. With age *usually* comes an incremental rise in maturity.

Why do most car rental companies refuse or charge more if the driver is under 25?

It certainly isn’t because they have faster reactions.
 
Sorry TXAZ - most meth/crack heads seem to be in their mid 20s-30s and are about as useful to society as the flu....
 
Irrelevant Fitasc.

I’m pretty sure crack and meth heads have nothing to do with the school shootings. And probable don’t rent many cars (stealing may be a different story.)
 
Is anyone wondering why NRA supported congresscritters who completely control the legislative process are discussing what type of new restrictions they'll pass when they haven't passed a single pro-RKBA bill with majorities in the House and Senate and the man who spoke at the 2016 NRA convention in the White House?
 
Not in the slightest, Bart. If they were capable of giving us everything we’ve asked for, then why would we need to support them? They know we fight the hardest when we’re on the threshold of a breakthrough... so why not move the goalposts...?
 
I'll go along with raising the minimum age to purchase a gun only if the age of legal adulthood is raised along with it. If 18-20-year-olds aren't intellectually and emotionally mature enough to be trusted with a firearm, then how can we expect them to be legally responsible for themselves?
 
This is the same Federal Government that will gladly give an 18 year old a M4 and send him 8-10,000 miles around the globe to kill people, but now wants this same 18 year old to wait 3 years to buy one privately?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top