What if you’re crazy or a wife beater? Don’t you think you should have to have your gun rights curbed if we know you are too crazy to own a gun?
AR15 Age Limit
- Thread starter 812scottj
- Start date
You mean, like the Florida red flag laws that have reportedly been effective? Red flag laws would have made sure that Uvalde kid couldn’t get/keep that gun. Would have alerted authorities as soon as he tried to buy it.
Universal background checks would be the only other thing strict interpretationists of the constitution would be able to support, so that’s the next step. Then, we could close the gun show/private seller loophole. Absolutely no reason to keep that loophole open.
I'm not NECESSARILY against some common sense compromises on gun law. But it won't stop a motivated looney toon. Only armed interdiction OUTSIDE of the school building will keep a whacko with a gun out of the school. That is it. It's the only thing that will WORK. Why in the F**K I still meet with stubborn resistance from ANYONE on this is amazing to me. The only reason to oppose it is if there is another agenda at play here
The one and only thing I care about is stopping school shootings. Making them a thing of the past. So far, I'm the only one (that I know of) that has come up with a concrete plan to do that.
The one and only thing I care about is stopping school shootings. Making them a thing of the past. So far, I'm the only one (that I know of) that has come up with a concrete plan to do that.
Why parents/teachers/citizens/school administrators are not marching on DC to make this happen is a complete mystery to me.
(well, not REALLY. It is sexier to pearl-clutch about gun laws that will have minimal effect (if any)
I honestly believe that most people on the left are well-intentioned, but they lack something in them that allows other people to look at things logically and pragmatically. It's like they willfully CHOOSE the most convoluted solution(maybe) to a problem. And stopping school shootings is not a very complicated task, if you commit fully to it. It's very strange.
(well, not REALLY. It is sexier to pearl-clutch about gun laws that will have minimal effect (if any)
I honestly believe that most people on the left are well-intentioned, but they lack something in them that allows other people to look at things logically and pragmatically. It's like they willfully CHOOSE the most convoluted solution(maybe) to a problem. And stopping school shootings is not a very complicated task, if you commit fully to it. It's very strange.
Last edited:
Actually in this case we might need to take a law away and not allow sentences to be served concurrently.
And most of those with restrictive gun laws are next to places with the most lax gun laws. Many times someone only needs to cross a bridge to get a gun. Take the rights favorite example, Chicago. The majority of guns that have been purchased legally used in crimes in Chicago have been bought in Indiana who has some of the weakest gun laws in the country. Another way to look at it is Hawaii. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the country and people are unable to go to another state to get a weapon to bring it back to Hawaii easily. As a result, they have some of lowest gun related death totals in the country. Gun laws while not 100% effective work whether you think they do or not.
Well, this is America, and I'm not willing to go along with any laws or modifications to existing law that ban a certain gun, or allows a perturbed ex spouse/romantic partner etc. to tie up a law-abiding citizen in miles of court red tape. over what (if you exclude suicides, and you should) amounts to a miniscule number of deaths per year in the United States.
The AR-15 panic is political grandstanding. They're involved in 3 percent of all gun deaths in the United States, and regardless of what you hear, they are NOT the weapon of choice in so called "mass shootings" (handguns are out front by a mile)
The hard data does not justify this mass hysteria.
The AR-15 panic is political grandstanding. They're involved in 3 percent of all gun deaths in the United States, and regardless of what you hear, they are NOT the weapon of choice in so called "mass shootings" (handguns are out front by a mile)
The hard data does not justify this mass hysteria.
So why doesn’t Indiana have Chicago like murders with such lax gun laws…. Oh right, it’s not the gun. It’s fairly disturbing how many people are pushing for one of our constitutional rights to be infringed without due process.
How are waiting periods and red flag laws infringing on anyones rights? That right doesn’t say you can have a gun immediately and if a red flag law flags you, you more than likely shouldn’t have a gun anyway.
Of course, Chicago as a city will have more violent crime than Indians however Indiana laws just help facilitate that crime. Would crime still happen in Chicago if Indiana gun laws were stricter? Of course. Would they happen at the rate they do now? Let’s make Indiana gun laws stricter and find out.
The suggestion that Florida’s short-lived law has “been effective” has been voiced here by some regular posters on this issue. How is this claim sourced? For example, can we say the changes Kentucky made after Michael Carneal killed kids in Paducah have been effective because we have yet to see another such incident? What is the metric used to determine the red flag laws have worked?
Why is it Indiana's job to make Chicago safer?
Red Flag laws or rather, the problem with them is that it doesn't take any supporting evidence. Just make a call, send someone you don't like into a lengthy red tape battle. They're bad laws.
Red Flag laws or rather, the problem with them is that it doesn't take any supporting evidence. Just make a call, send someone you don't like into a lengthy red tape battle. They're bad laws.
IIRC, gun violence has actually declined the last 3 years. (Not the number, the RATE, which is the more accurate measurement.)
No one said it was their job to make Chicago safer. Just saying they are a contributing factor. Let’s be real though. Anything can send someone you don’t like into a lengthy red tape battle. A woman who claims DV against and ex and he is in a lengthy red tape battle whether he did it or not. Are you going to argue because of that, they are bad laws too?
If that's all she has to do, is claim it, with no supporting evidence, then yeah, I'd say that's a pretty bad law. LOL
And I think saying, let's just slap some arbitrary rules on Indiana because Chicago can't get it's sh*t together, "just to see if it works", is a ridiculous notion. And indicative of the backwards thinking that runs through this entirely overblown narrative.
You want to cut gun violence deaths in half, overnight? Stop rolling suicides into the statistics. It's silly, and agenda driven.
And I think saying, let's just slap some arbitrary rules on Indiana because Chicago can't get it's sh*t together, "just to see if it works", is a ridiculous notion. And indicative of the backwards thinking that runs through this entirely overblown narrative.
You want to cut gun violence deaths in half, overnight? Stop rolling suicides into the statistics. It's silly, and agenda driven.
That’s how all DV laws work. Domestic violence laws are bad. Got it. School shootings and the need to stop them are overblown. Got it.
Hawaii? Why not the moon? Lol. Come on man. Little cheaper to go into Gary Indiana and back than to Hawaii and back, right?
Criminals will break the law. Insane people will find a way. If it’s not an AR-15 it will be large vehicles. This isn’t really disputable. It has happened.
I hate what has happened with these shootings but I just think that giving the government (the same government that instituted lockdowns and has now nearly wrecked the economy) even MORE power is absolutely foolish.
You can't prove a negative - no one knows how many mass murders were prevented. However common sense would tell you that since 6000 times law enforcement was made aware that a person owning guns was making violent threats, went to court and got an order to seize the weapons, that just maybe, it has saved a few lives.
Red flag laws are a valuable tool for law enforcement and I'm hopefully that more states pass them in the future.
(1) If the idea for restricting gun sales by age is premised upon some of the mass shootings that involved young males, why should we restrict women above the age of 18 from buying a gun? For that matter, why restrict guns from males who are not white?
(2) If most of the gun murders in cities are perpetrated by young black males killing young black males, should we restrict gun purchases for young black males to the age of 25?
(3) An increasing number of gun murders in inner cities are perpetrated by males under the age of 18. Have we restricted their ability to get guns?
(2) If most of the gun murders in cities are perpetrated by young black males killing young black males, should we restrict gun purchases for young black males to the age of 25?
(3) An increasing number of gun murders in inner cities are perpetrated by males under the age of 18. Have we restricted their ability to get guns?
Last edited:
Does the statement “the red flag laws have been effective” require proving a negative to be factual? If it cannot be proven, don’t you think we should stop saying it as if it is fact?
It is probably better to say red flag laws have informed law enforcement 6,000 times (some of those obviously would have occurred without any red flag law) under red flag laws. That is what we know in this thread. Maybe there are better stats that have not been conveyed?
Except you can’t restrict laws to certain races or sexes (except abortion since the right only seems to want to focus on the woman while the guy gets to walk away Scot free). You can to ages as evidenced by driving, voting, and alcohol laws.
History says letting anyone have complete control over anything never works out. If conservatives had complete control this would be the western/Christian version of ISIS and if liberals had complete control we'd spend too much money, go broke, and feel the complete wrath of leftist communism.
Whether you want to believe it or not you two need each other lol. Otherwise wtf else would you talk about?
TCurtis - I don't know you, but it's safe to say you certainly have "got" reductionism down.
pat...
Yes, how silly of me to expect someone filing a charge against another to have, you know, a modicum of evidence concerning the veracity of the charge. LOL LOL
I've already said how to solve school shootings, and fully support the use of tax dollars to make it happen.
Further, I've spelled out some reasonable measures with respect to waiting periods and private gun sales that I believe make sense.
So... not really sure what you're blabbering on about.
pat...
Yes, how silly of me to expect someone filing a charge against another to have, you know, a modicum of evidence concerning the veracity of the charge. LOL LOL
I've already said how to solve school shootings, and fully support the use of tax dollars to make it happen.
Further, I've spelled out some reasonable measures with respect to waiting periods and private gun sales that I believe make sense.
So... not really sure what you're blabbering on about.
Last edited:
Not blabbering on about anything. Just pointing out your arguments about red flag laws literally apply to virtually all laws in place today as once accused you have to navigate red tape to clear your name.TCurtis - I don't know you, but it's safe to say you certainly have "got" reductionism down.
pat...
Yes, how silly of me to expect someone filing a charge against another to have, you know, a modicum of evidence concerning the veracity of the charge. LOL LOL
I've already said how to solve school shootings, and fully support the use of tax dollars to make it happen.
Further, I've spelled out some reasonable measures with respect to waiting periods and private gun sales that I believe make sense.
So... not really sure what you're blabbering on about.
Driving, voting, and Alcohol are not constitutional rights. So, if you think restricting 18-21 year-olds’ gun rights is constitutional because you are tired of young white males going on killing sprees, how do you justify limiting the gun rights for those 18-21 year-olds who are not white males?
When was the last time an 18-21 year old woman killed a bunch of kids at a school with a gun?
If you think you have a rational foundation for restricting a constitutional right, why is it that all those who are not white males have to have their natural right infringed by the government when there is no basis in fact?
Voting isn't a constitutional right? hmmm could have fooled me.
Good point and, yet, not really. No one has argued that we should raise the age of voting above the age of majority like you are for guns.
Also, remind me where in the constitution is the right to vote?
Age limits for gun purchases are already in place. Why is increasing it an infringement on constitutional rights but the ones in place now aren’t? Are you arguing all age restrictions should be removed? Should we really allow a 3 year old the ability to have any gun? According to your argument, his constitutional rights are being infringed upon.
And, as defense already said, voting certainly is a constitutional right.
I think most adults understand the difference between the age of majority and a three year-old.
Show me where in the constitution the right to vote exists. I will wait.
But the 3 year olds right is being infringed upon. You can't have it both ways. Either age restrictions are ok or they aren't.
You are enjoying an absurd argument. The idea that a person who is of the age of majority in this country does not have a constitutional right is novel. If you think the Supreme Court is going to agree that the second amendment does not attach until you are whatever the age the government says, you are not playing with a full deck.
Again, either age restrictions are constitutional or they aren't...accuse me of whatever you want but that fact still remains...in fact, many states already have laws in place that you must be 21 to purchase a handgun so they have in fact been determined to be constitutional...applying that to other weapons is no different.
Actually, as we have pointed out before, the age restrictive statutes are currently in the court of appeals to be reviewed. If you think age is irrelevant for constitutional rights, you probably are alone with that belief. By your logic, the legislature could raise the age for gun ownership to 101 and it will meet constitutional muster. If age limitations are constitutional it will be because the right is not really infringed (some guns but not all guns, purchase but not ownership, or some other factor) or because the Congress met the standard of review for limiting without infringing (whatever that might be or mean). But, it will not be because the right begins when the government says it begins.
Last edited:
It creates the opportunity to infringe on someone’s constitutional rights without due process. It’s not hard to understand.
Actually it doesn't. The delay is actually due process at work since they are doing due diligence to make sure someone actually qualifies for a gun in the first place. That investigation is actually the definition of due process. It doesn't stop people who can purchase/possess a gun from doing so. It delays it a bit. It will just help catch those that shouldn't and prevent them from doing so. No where in the 2A does it say someone has a right to instant access to a gun. It shouldn't be hard to understand but for the ones with the gun fetishes it certainly seems to be.
The 2A doesn’t explicitly allow for instant access to a gun, but it does say “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Meanwhile, people sometimes are flagged with a “delay” as a result of their background checks. The most recent perpetrator of mass gun violence bought the weapon on his 18th birthday….how much time elapsed between that day and the commission of his crime?
The gun control proposals presented here fall under the category of “it might help”. I’m not willing to hang public safety on that idea.