No Rights for those under 21 in Cali now

[CamoDeafie]

I don't know! What I want to know, on top of your question is, What about Dad or Grand Dad who have given a rifle as a gift??!? I got my first at the age of 12, and not some .22 but a real rifle, what about all the hundreds of thousands who got a rifle as a gift?

I dont know either. To be honest? what easier way for the Dems to say "look we are getting dangerous weapons off the streets!" than to arbitrarily confiscate millions of lawfully owned guns, on the basis of not being 21+, and destroy them, and put a black mark on the millions of these youth, thus banning them from owning guns if they make it a felony for young adults to own guns.... and let's not go to the sticky situation of possession of firearms by teenagers for hunting purposes

It's probably a "from this date forward" kinda thing...

Yeah, I really doubt these kids should be voting if they can't have a beer and a smoke, let alone being deployed into a war.
I think enlistment is fine at 18, but deployment should be raised...
Then again I think one year mandatory enlistment for every citizen would be good, so what do I know.

mandatory year of citizen defense/militia service after getting mandatory firearms safety training through NRA Eddie Eagle program in high school, as a condition of graduation after 18 years old.... (at 18-19, civil militia training/service as part of say, Civilian Defense Forces subordinate to National Guard?)

At least that would be how I would do it

 

[Boboclown]

How about a NRA class in high school? In NC we tried to pass a law to make gun safety a class for high school. Doubt that's gonna go anywhere with a democrat as the governor.

 

[Ura-Ki]

It's probably a "from this date forward" kinda thing...

Yeah, I really doubt these kids should be voting if they can't have a beer and a smoke, let alone being deployed into a war.
I think enlistment is fine at 18, but deployment should be raised...
Then again I think one year mandatory enlistment for every citizen would be good, so what do I know.

I'm with ya on that one, and have butted heads here before, I agree that kids graduating high school SHOULD be required to serve 2 years in the service as a condition of adulthood! I don't know how to do that, but I do know it works in every country that has it, heck my wife did her two years in the Army, and she agrees its a smart thing to do! THink of all the training for life these kids would have, and think of their understanding of their rights when they are made to stand and defend them!

 

[Flymph]

OMFG reading that article is sickening!


Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure there is something like that for 6th graders going around OR, but they're still sending in petitions or something. Been dificult for me to find the link to it.
I mean, if some people want us to be more like Europe let's start with mandatory enlistment, and let them have a beer and a smoke...

 

[Ura-Ki]

I dont know either. To be honest? what easier way for the Dems to say "look we are getting dangerous weapons off the streets!" than to arbitrarily confiscate millions of lawfully owned guns, on the basis of not being 21+, and destroy them, and put a black mark on the millions of these youth, thus banning them from owning guns if they make it a felony for young adults to own guns.... and let's not go to the sticky situation of possession of firearms by teenagers for hunting purposes



mandatory year of citizen defense/militia service after getting mandatory firearms safety training through NRA Eddie Eagle program in high school, as a condition of graduation after 18 years old.... (at 18-19, civil militia training/service as part of say, Civilian Defense Forces subordinate to National Guard?)

At least that would be how I would do it

That brings up an interesting point, suddenly making all these youth felons and as such permanently barred from ever owning firearms as they are now Nukelerny!
What a way to work around the 2nd, pure genius, cant stop the current gun owning adults, but you can draw a line in the sand and say " from this day forth, No guns for you" and effectively remove firearms! Course we all know only bad guys and outlaws will have guns!

 

[CamoDeafie]

It could be something as simple as 1 year of training, then a period of civil militia service; after which the citizens can choose to become professional military, police, or private citizens.

It doesn't have to be strictly Armed Services though, it could be like the Civil Air Patrol in a way, armed and well equipped... could satisfy the "Well Regulated Militia" part of 2A A period of time attached to ordinary Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard units would also satisfy the training and defense needs, and then after the probationary periods of 1-2 years, these citizens again can choose to stay as professional service people, or return to private citizen life.

This is for the mandatory militia service idea.


and yeah, that's what I am thinking would be the ultimate goal, to eviscerate the 2A by way of turning a big group of citizens into felons or prohibited persons, and then bam, no more 2A in a few (as few as 2) generations of K-12 anti-gun indoctrination

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I have a son who has Type 1 Juvenile Diabetes and is not eligible to serve. How does he earn his Second Amendment Rights?

 

[Ura-Ki]

I would do it as an ether or with extensions only for those in a qualifying field!
After high School, you choose ether a Militia type hitch with a focus on civilian services/aid ( after the required Rifleman's qualifications) and then the choice of remaining in a public service type of job, or returning to civilian life! Or, you do two years in one for the branches of the regular military, and then you are offered an extension based on need of the service, or qualifying conditions met for your chosen field, and then full enlistment for no less then 4 years, and preference given for a strait up enlistment commitment instead of the mandatory 2 year obligation! In other words, if you choose the full 4 years, you get to move to the front of the class and get the full benefits afforded through the G.I. Bill!

 

[CamoDeafie]

I have a son who has Type 1 Juvenile Diabetes and is not eligible to serve. How does he earn his Second Amendment Rights?

I'm deaf. never been eligible to serve.. although the IDF has had successful deaf soldiers... however... There are always exceptions. I was able to work as a civilian contractor for the US Navy as a machinist.. surely there would be jobs/duties where combat duties are not a priority, but being able to defend oneself is a priority.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I have a son who has Type 1 Juvenile Diabetes and is not eligible to serve. How does he earn his Second Amendment Rights?

I don't believe any of us here are making the 2nd rights a condition of any thing. As always, you are born with those rights, and the State defines when you are old enough to excercize them. What we are discussing is a requirement of all youth ( with exceptions like those you mention) where youth serve! Not as a condition to any thing, but a requirement for all! Again, with exceptions ( and I can see a place for that, where those with exceptions can still fulfill a service obligation) where they can still have the benefits of specific training and a better shot at a job

 

[Shooter1]

So aside from playing with the cute little troll I have a question.

What happens to the as many as a million 18-21 year olds in CA that already have a firearm? And to their firearms?

I would say nothing. Grandfathered. I was a gun owner at twelve in the 60's in California. Bought my ammo over the counter at the hardware store. Hunter safety course the month I turned 12. (1968) Pheasant hunting at 13. Every Wednesday afternoon at the range with my supportive father. I think I turned out ok......I know, I know, some would argue..... Had a .22 pistol taken by the sheriff once for shooting too close to houses. Was shooting away from and into a dirt bank. Dad and I went to PDHQ on Monday to pick it up, had to bring a parent.
Contrary to what some may think I am not anti-gun or anti-cop or anti-military. I have enjoyed firearms my entire life for sport, hunt and protection.
Those were different times. I would say better times. I am not advocating taking rights away. I am putting my thoughts out here because I appreciate the shooting community and opinions. Even those that differ from my own. There is a segment of responders who can't do so without taking offense at what they don't believe.

 

[Jcon268]

View attachment 506379

I'm okay with it, with some caveats. Here's why. LEO's and military both get exhaustive firearms training. Most civilians do not. Now any 18-20 year old LEO or military member or other profession with this training should be exempt and able to purchase any legal firearm/ammo. My state {Washington} has no requirement for firearms class or proficiency for purchase other than background check. I understand there are some states that do. I applaud them for doing so.
It is well established the brain is not fully developed as far as the ability to understand consequences of action until early to mid 20's. One can assume LEO or military training helps in this regard. Let's hope so.

The average 18-20 year old is ill equipped for the responsibility of firearms ownership. I'm not talking about the youth who was brought up hunting or with competitive shooting sports. These individuals could challenge a pre-requisite class and successfully perform a proficiency evaluation. And if successful be issued a wallet card or other document, similar to the process of obtaining a drivers license in Washington state. A perfect system? No. A step in the right direction? I believe so.

As always, your comments opinions and constructive criticisms are welcome.

My biggest criticism to your argument is that if it has been determined that an 18-20 year old brained has not developed enough to maintain the level of responsibility to own a gun (which I don't believe is true), then why on Earth would we allow them to vote? So much more damage can be done with an ill cast vote because an 18 year old didn't bother to read up on the political status quo. In fact, I'm witnessing the far left trying to glean the advantage by manipulating that very same age group into voting strictly Democrat. They say the pen is mightier than the sword...and it can do a whole lot more damage to this country too.

 

[CamoDeafie]

One thing for sure, were military training and service provided to a majority, the majority would be far less willing to fund wars for no "real" reasons, or be willing to send millions to some backwater countries in the name of ideologies and "spreading democracy".... but would prefer, keep the military much closer to home, and use as necessary to protect national interests. (This is a big reason for Vietnam being such a big problem politically and socially at home)Unlike World War Two, when it was frigging clear that Hitler and his ideology was evil, bent on world domination alongside the Imperial Japan (who actually attacked us in Pearl Harbor);
in the 60s, Communism was pretty well supported by many intellectuals at universities and colleges in the United States, which influenced a lot of youth, and there's also the subject where propaganda from North Vietnam depicted the South Vietnam political powers as being corrupt and mobster-like and bad for the People...

(Seeing some frightening parallels here today )

You of course have heard the apocryphic tales, when a military man asked a rich family, if they would be so crass in sending military to die for them over little things, if their own sons and daughters were directly affected by being members of the military...

Back to the topic. I am not in favor of raising age of gun ownership any further. Rather, I would prefer lowering age of handgun ownership to 18, make it equal. After all, here is one group that most would benefit from being able to own handguns... that of the 18-20 year old woman. Is it not true that this group is one of the most particularly harmed groups in terms of rapes and sexual violence and trafficking, among other abuses such as domestic violence?

 

[Jcon268]

Vote democrat and dump tRump. The BEST thing you can do for your country.

I don't blame you for not liking Trump....but you do realize that it is the Democratic party that is assaulting 2nd amendment rights, right? Republicans are standing idly by and allowing it at this point.

 

[Shooter1]

I don't blame you for not liking Trump....but you do realize that it is the Democratic party that is assaulting 2nd amendment rights, right? Republicans are standing idly by and allowing it at this point.

I prefer to look at it another way. It is the NRA that is preventing ANY dialog other than their own. Just as much of an Assault on gun rights. I believe the pushback from the NRA against those who have lost loved ones to gun violence will hasten the "gun haters" to action sooner rather than later. The NRA may well turn out to be it's own enemy. Remember, not all liberal democrats are anti-gun. Silly to even think so.

 

[Jcon268]

I prefer to look at it another way. It is the NRA that is preventing ANY dialog other than their own. Just as much of an Assault on gun rights. I believe the pushback from the NRA against those who have lost loved ones to gun violence will hasten the "gun haters" to action sooner rather than later. The NRA may well turn out to be it's own enemy. Remember, not all liberal democrats are anti-gun. Silly to even think so.

It's not that all Democrats are anti gun, it's that all Democratic politicians are. By voting Democratic politicians, you're putting someone in power who will do what they feel is necessary to appease their voter base including the extreme polar end which is basically ban guns OR make them so hard to get that nobody will have them. As for your words "gun violence" I'm a bit surprised. How about just violence? I don't think the gun makes the choice to kill people. As much as I feel for the victims of gun violence and their families, it doesn't fix anything to designate blame on guns and, proximally, law abiding gun owners as well.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

If at 18 , a person can be called upon to serve our country...They should be able to own a personal firearm as well.

And furthermore :
One can vote and change the country when 18...
Why can't one own a firearm and possibly defend that vote , when age 18...?
If one right is bestowed why not the rest of them...?
Why create a second class citizen...?
Andy

 

[coop44]

Not all horse thieves are democrats
But all democrats are horse thieves

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I just got done doing a thread clean up here...
Can we all please:
Refrain from making comments that break forum rules...
Or cause ill will towards others , who may think differently....
Thank you.
Andy

 

[Boboclown]

My biggest criticism to your argument is that if it has been determined that an 18-20 year old brained has not developed enough to maintain the level of responsibility to own a gun

The brain is not fully developed until in the mid 20s. However, as per the norm of the internet people took this and exaggerated it. People still do, in fact, have a grasp of the concept of consequences by that age. More than just a few in that age group are mentally capable of owning a gun. If anything, the majority (and this is where the term silent majority comes into play) is capable. A person does not have to grow up around guns or be in the military to understand the responsibilities of owning a gun. Otherwise the issue would be much worse, despite the fact that it isn't.

People will look at something, then as a result of them having little to no understanding of what the information really means they start to make erroneous comments of such. More so if its spread on the internet enough.

In addition to that, people who use that argument fail to realize your brain goes in the opposite direction as you get older. So if a person who is 18 is not old enough to own a gun because the brain isn't "fully developed," then by that logic a there ought to be an age where they're no longer allowed to own a gun as your brain begins to deteriorate as you get older.