felltoearth wrote:

willhud9 wrote:What is so magical about the age of 21? I’m expected as a US citizen to be a full adult with adult responsibilities at 18 and yet don’t have access to full rights and privileges until 21?

Like that will be full of legal complications. You cannot restrict someone their rights simply due to their age. That’s discrimination.

If you think teenagers are too immature/not mentally developed enough to own a gun at 18, but think they are mature enough to handle a motor vehicle, be tried as an adult in court for making stupid decisions, and able to make legal contracts such as signing a lease or purchasing a House then there are some arbitrary rules being tossed around.

If you make a right accessible at the age of 21 then it bears to folllw you should make the age of majority 21. Meaning you cannot sign up for the military until 21; you cannot smoke or drink until 21, etc.

I thought drinking age was 21 in most states.

Many states can choose to lower the drinking age and would have the constitutional authority to do so.

But drinking alcohol is not a constitutionally protected right. So people tend not to get alarmed for its restrictions. But the moment you make a right conditional on an age AFTER the law recognizes you as a legal adult with full responsibilities that carries with it you enter discriminatory territory.

Imagine if I went to a movie theatre to watch an R-rated film as a 19 year old and was told no: my age is not mature enough to handle the content. That is discrimination based on age.

If the government were to try to say 18 year olds cannot speak their mind or peacefully protest because it is "too dangerous" that would be discrimination based on age. Of course such a thing sounds silly, but if that sounds silly than it sounds silly to take another right and say it doesn't apply to 18 years olds, but does apply to 21 year olds.

If 21 is the age we are going for than it would follow that 21 should be the new age citizens become legal adults with the full rights and responsibilities as one.

You dodge the issue entirely - you never have the right to buy a rocket launcher....at any age ...get over it and focus on the core of the problem.
Rights are granted and can be taken away arbitrarily.

Meanwhile, this just turned up ...

Remington files for bankruptcy ...

Remington Outdoor Co Inc, one of the largest U.S. makers of firearms, filed for bankruptcy protection on Sunday to carry out a debt-cutting deal with creditors amid mounting public pressure for greater gun control.

The company’s chief financial officer, Stephen Jackson, said in court papers that Remington’s sales fell significantly in the year before its bankruptcy, and that the company was having difficulty meeting requirements from its lenders.

Remington, America’s oldest gunmaker, announced in February it would reduce its $950 million debtload in a deal that will transfer control of the company to creditors. The company plans to wrap up its bankruptcy as soon as May 3, according to court papers.

Makes one wonder how Remington managed to rack up so much debt in a country where the fetish for guns has long ago transcended the pathological ...

Macdoc wrote:You dodge the issue entirely - you never have the right to buy a rocket launcher....at any age ...get over it and focus on the core of the problem.
Rights are granted and can be taken away arbitrarily.

You need to actually reread the fucking thread instead of cherrypicking one of my posts.

You cannot focus on the core of the problem when the solutions being presented have clear legal issues.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, this just turned up ...

Remington files for bankruptcy ...

Remington Outdoor Co Inc, one of the largest U.S. makers of firearms, filed for bankruptcy protection on Sunday to carry out a debt-cutting deal with creditors amid mounting public pressure for greater gun control.

The company’s chief financial officer, Stephen Jackson, said in court papers that Remington’s sales fell significantly in the year before its bankruptcy, and that the company was having difficulty meeting requirements from its lenders.

Remington, America’s oldest gunmaker, announced in February it would reduce its $950 million debtload in a deal that will transfer control of the company to creditors. The company plans to wrap up its bankruptcy as soon as May 3, according to court papers.

Makes one wonder how Remington managed to rack up so much debt in a country where the fetish for guns has long ago transcended the pathological ...

Some companies are poorly-managed. Remember, you heard it here, first!

willhud9 wrote:

Macdoc wrote:You dodge the issue entirely - you never have the right to buy a rocket launcher....at any age ...get over it and focus on the core of the problem.
Rights are granted and can be taken away arbitrarily.

You need to actually reread the fucking thread instead of cherrypicking one of my posts.

You cannot focus on the core of the problem when the solutions being presented have clear legal issues.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

You dont have democracy Will. What is Trump doing?

Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, this just turned up ...

Remington files for bankruptcy ...

Remington Outdoor Co Inc, one of the largest U.S. makers of firearms, filed for bankruptcy protection on Sunday to carry out a debt-cutting deal with creditors amid mounting public pressure for greater gun control.

The company’s chief financial officer, Stephen Jackson, said in court papers that Remington’s sales fell significantly in the year before its bankruptcy, and that the company was having difficulty meeting requirements from its lenders.

Remington, America’s oldest gunmaker, announced in February it would reduce its $950 million debtload in a deal that will transfer control of the company to creditors. The company plans to wrap up its bankruptcy as soon as May 3, according to court papers.

Makes one wonder how Remington managed to rack up so much debt in a country where the fetish for guns has long ago transcended the pathological ...

Because the gun market is shrinking. More and more people are not buying guns, but the same people are. A business model cannot be run that way. New exposure and clients is key to growth but they do not have that. And unlike new technologies there is nothing about a "new rifle" that screams must go out and purchase.

My dad's old remington 700 shot well for many years with no need for me to upgrade to the 710 when it was being made. If I still had that 700 Im not sure I would be convinced to simply buy a 770 either.

The gun market is a niche market. Its dwindling.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Macdoc wrote:You dodge the issue entirely - you never have the right to buy a rocket launcher....at any age ...get over it and focus on the core of the problem.
Rights are granted and can be taken away arbitrarily.

You need to actually reread the fucking thread instead of cherrypicking one of my posts.

You cannot focus on the core of the problem when the solutions being presented have clear legal issues.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

You dont have democracy Will. What is Trump doing?

Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, this just turned up ...

Remington files for bankruptcy ...

Remington Outdoor Co Inc, one of the largest U.S. makers of firearms, filed for bankruptcy protection on Sunday to carry out a debt-cutting deal with creditors amid mounting public pressure for greater gun control.

The company’s chief financial officer, Stephen Jackson, said in court papers that Remington’s sales fell significantly in the year before its bankruptcy, and that the company was having difficulty meeting requirements from its lenders.

Remington, America’s oldest gunmaker, announced in February it would reduce its $950 million debtload in a deal that will transfer control of the company to creditors. The company plans to wrap up its bankruptcy as soon as May 3, according to court papers.

Makes one wonder how Remington managed to rack up so much debt in a country where the fetish for guns has long ago transcended the pathological ...

Somebody on twitter suggested we should send Remington thoughts and prayers...

willhud9 wrote:What is so magical about the age of 21? I’m expected as a US citizen to be a full adult with adult responsibilities at 18 and yet don’t have access to full rights and privileges until 21?

Like that will be full of legal complications. You cannot restrict someone their rights simply due to their age. That’s discrimination.

If you think teenagers are too immature/not mentally developed enough to own a gun at 18, but think they are mature enough to handle a motor vehicle, be tried as an adult in court for making stupid decisions, and able to make legal contracts such as signing a lease or purchasing a House then there are some arbitrary rules being tossed around.

If you make a right accessible at the age of 21 then it bears to folllw you should make the age of majority 21. Meaning you cannot sign up for the military until 21; you cannot smoke or drink until 21, etc.

The country is already full of rules and laws that discriminate by age. Rightfully so. We don't let a 10 year old to consent to sex. We don't let a 9 year old drive a car. We don't (for the most part) let a 12 year old buy a gun. What's the difference? You have to draw a line somewhere. Many states already have a minimum age to purchase and/or possess a gun. How is this different from driving or drinking? Those already have age limits, thank goodness. There's nothing magical about age 21, but it's a higher number than 16 or 18. Most people are more responsible and make better decisions the older they get. The difference between 18 and 21, for most people, is significant enough to matter. I do "think teenagers are too immature/not mentally developed enough to own a gun at 18, but think they are mature enough to handle a motor vehicle, be tried as an adult in court for making stupid decisions, and able to make legal contracts such as signing a lease or purchasing a House".
It's about the harm to society as well as to themselves.
Teenagers behind the wheel are more likely to drive recklessly and crash, so pay higher insurance premiums.

hackenslash wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, this just turned up ...

Remington files for bankruptcy ...

Remington Outdoor Co Inc, one of the largest U.S. makers of firearms, filed for bankruptcy protection on Sunday to carry out a debt-cutting deal with creditors amid mounting public pressure for greater gun control.

The company’s chief financial officer, Stephen Jackson, said in court papers that Remington’s sales fell significantly in the year before its bankruptcy, and that the company was having difficulty meeting requirements from its lenders.

Remington, America’s oldest gunmaker, announced in February it would reduce its $950 million debtload in a deal that will transfer control of the company to creditors. The company plans to wrap up its bankruptcy as soon as May 3, according to court papers.

Makes one wonder how Remington managed to rack up so much debt in a country where the fetish for guns has long ago transcended the pathological ...

Somebody on twitter suggested we should send Remington thoughts and prayers...

The_Piper wrote:

willhud9 wrote:What is so magical about the age of 21? I’m expected as a US citizen to be a full adult with adult responsibilities at 18 and yet don’t have access to full rights and privileges until 21?

Like that will be full of legal complications. You cannot restrict someone their rights simply due to their age. That’s discrimination.

If you think teenagers are too immature/not mentally developed enough to own a gun at 18, but think they are mature enough to handle a motor vehicle, be tried as an adult in court for making stupid decisions, and able to make legal contracts such as signing a lease or purchasing a House then there are some arbitrary rules being tossed around.

If you make a right accessible at the age of 21 then it bears to folllw you should make the age of majority 21. Meaning you cannot sign up for the military until 21; you cannot smoke or drink until 21, etc.

The country is already full of rules and laws that discriminate by age. Rightfully so. We don't let a 10 year old to consent to sex. We don't let a 9 year old drive a car. We don't (for the most part) let a 12 year old buy a gun. What's the difference? You have to draw a line somewhere. Many states already have a minimum age to purchase and/or possess a gun. How is this different from driving or drinking? Those already have age limits, thank goodness. There's nothing magical about age 21, but it's a higher number than 16 or 18. Most people are more responsible and make better decisions the older they get. The difference between 18 and 21, for most people, is significant enough to matter. I do "think teenagers are too immature/not mentally developed enough to own a gun at 18, but think they are mature enough to handle a motor vehicle, be tried as an adult in court for making stupid decisions, and able to make legal contracts such as signing a lease or purchasing a House".
It's about the harm to society as well as to themselves.
Teenagers behind the wheel are more likely to drive recklessly and crash, so pay higher insurance premiums.

Those laws though recognize that a 10 year is not a legally responsible adult though. If a 15 year old robbed a store they are not tried as an adult. They are tried as a minor. They do not have full rights and responsibilities as an adult.

If you say that a person becomes a legally responsible person at the age of 18 but cannot fully express his legal rights until 21 than that person SHOULD NOT be a legally responsible person until 21. Otherwise it is age discrimination.

The_Metatron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Macdoc wrote:You dodge the issue entirely - you never have the right to buy a rocket launcher....at any age ...get over it and focus on the core of the problem.
Rights are granted and can be taken away arbitrarily.

You need to actually reread the fucking thread instead of cherrypicking one of my posts.

You cannot focus on the core of the problem when the solutions being presented have clear legal issues.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

Like hell they can’t be taken away arbitrarily.

A brief search of the YouTubes for “1st Amendment Audit” will return thousands of recordings of pig cops doing exactly that.

Try walking through your post office with a video camera recording sometime. You will taste a constitutional right being ripped away first hand.

That is not the right being taken away though. Poor enforcement of my rights on the part of the government is not equivalent to the government taking my rights away without rule of law.

This is why we have the judicial branch of government. To prevent abitrary decision making abusing the rule of law in a republic.

willhud9 wrote:
Those laws though recognize that a 10 year is not a legally responsible adult though. If a 15 year old robbed a store they are not tried as an adult. They are tried as a minor. They do not have full rights and responsibilities as an adult.

Depends on the state. There are quite a few states in the US which will try those children as adults.

willhud9 wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

willhud9 wrote:What is so magical about the age of 21? I’m expected as a US citizen to be a full adult with adult responsibilities at 18 and yet don’t have access to full rights and privileges until 21?

Like that will be full of legal complications. You cannot restrict someone their rights simply due to their age. That’s discrimination.

If you think teenagers are too immature/not mentally developed enough to own a gun at 18, but think they are mature enough to handle a motor vehicle, be tried as an adult in court for making stupid decisions, and able to make legal contracts such as signing a lease or purchasing a House then there are some arbitrary rules being tossed around.

If you make a right accessible at the age of 21 then it bears to folllw you should make the age of majority 21. Meaning you cannot sign up for the military until 21; you cannot smoke or drink until 21, etc.

The country is already full of rules and laws that discriminate by age. Rightfully so. We don't let a 10 year old to consent to sex. We don't let a 9 year old drive a car. We don't (for the most part) let a 12 year old buy a gun. What's the difference? You have to draw a line somewhere. Many states already have a minimum age to purchase and/or possess a gun. How is this different from driving or drinking? Those already have age limits, thank goodness. There's nothing magical about age 21, but it's a higher number than 16 or 18. Most people are more responsible and make better decisions the older they get. The difference between 18 and 21, for most people, is significant enough to matter. I do "think teenagers are too immature/not mentally developed enough to own a gun at 18, but think they are mature enough to handle a motor vehicle, be tried as an adult in court for making stupid decisions, and able to make legal contracts such as signing a lease or purchasing a House".
It's about the harm to society as well as to themselves.
Teenagers behind the wheel are more likely to drive recklessly and crash, so pay higher insurance premiums.

Those laws though recognize that a 10 year is not a legally responsible adult though. If a 15 year old robbed a store they are not tried as an adult. They are tried as a minor. They do not have full rights and responsibilities as an adult.

If you say that a person becomes a legally responsible person at the age of 18 but cannot fully express his legal rights until 21 than that person SHOULD NOT be a legally responsible person until 21. Otherwise it is age discrimination.

The cat's already out of the bag with the drinking age being 21. Gambling at casinos. Concealed carry of guns.
Anyways, I think making people wait until they're 21 to purchase a firearm would cut down on some murders. How many, I don't know, but I'm of the mind that if it stops one school shooting a year, do it. People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Being blown away at age 14 infringes on that. Legally, I don't know, but it's a responsible, reasonable thing to do if you prefer minimizing suffering in the world where we can.

willhud9 wrote:Otherwise it is age discrimination.

A lot of laws discriminate with respect to age. If you're ok with prohibiting a 3-year-old from smoking cigarettes, you're ok with age discrimination.

Seabass wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Otherwise it is age discrimination.

A lot of laws discriminate with respect to age. If you're ok with prohibiting a 3-year-old from smoking cigarettes, you're ok with age discrimination.

No. That is not how that works. Do we also expect a 3 year old to pay taxes? And have the responsibilities that being a US citizen comes with? No? Why? Because we recognize the difference between an adult and a minor.

But where your analogy falls flat is that no constitutional right has been denied to an 18 year old simply because they are too young. If 18 is our age of majority in which someone legally becomes an adult in the United States than they gain full access to the rights and privileges of being an adult.

If you argue that the 2nd amendment (which current intrepretations of the law go with recognizing it as an individual right) cannot be applied to an 18 year old then you'd have to make the case that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc. don't either.

Again, I am completely fine with raising the age of majority to 21. Quite frankly I dont think 18 is a proper age for adulthood. The brain is still developing and as anyone who has been through college years can tell you, impulsive decisions are quite common.

willhud9 wrote:

Macdoc wrote:You dodge the issue entirely - you never have the right to buy a rocket launcher....at any age ...get over it and focus on the core of the problem.
Rights are granted and can be taken away arbitrarily.

You need to actually reread the fucking thread instead of cherrypicking one of my posts.

You cannot focus on the core of the problem when the solutions being presented have clear legal issues.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

No Will, you need to read Macdoc's post.

It reads quite clearly to me as suggesting that certain currently legal weapons could in the future be treated under law the same way that rocket launchers are now treated under law. There's no suggestion of an end run around the rule of law, only that laws could be changed so some/all guns that are treated the way other powerful deadly weapons already are (under laws that have not been found constitutionally invalid).

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Macdoc wrote:You dodge the issue entirely - you never have the right to buy a rocket launcher....at any age ...get over it and focus on the core of the problem.
Rights are granted and can be taken away arbitrarily.

You need to actually reread the fucking thread instead of cherrypicking one of my posts.

You cannot focus on the core of the problem when the solutions being presented have clear legal issues.

And no, rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. There is a thing called the rule of law. Otherwise democracy is dead and we all live in a perpetual tyranny. Try again Macdoc.

No Will, you need to read Macdoc's post.

It reads quite clearly to me as suggesting that certain currently legal weapons could in the future be treated under law the same way that rocket launchers are now treated under law. There's no suggestion of an end run around the rule of law, only that laws could be changed so some/all guns that are treated the way other powerful deadly weapons already are (under laws that have not been found constitutionally invalid).

But that does not follow. For example, 18 year olds in many states cannot purchase hand guns. But that does not go against their 2nd amendment right because guns are still available to them. Rocket launchers are not covered under current interpretations of the 2nd amendment, nor were they ever. That false premise serves no legal bearing.

If we are going to be discussing solutions for a gun problem we cannot mouth off ideals without addressing the vast majority of any policy change will most likely end up in courts challenged one way or another.

The reality iis in the US an 18 year old can sign up for the military. In fact, all 18 year old men have to register with the draft. If the US government expects its 18 year olds to carry a firearm in combat, but believes they are too young to carry a firearm at home, that makes no sense whatsoever. Its time to reevaluate the age of majority in the country or realize that blanket restrictions on firearms based on age serve no logical basis. If someone is an adult they have full rights.