Trump: Raise age to 21

[jray1536]

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...mprehensive-background-checks-ban-bump-stocks
Old enough to fight for the country but not to buy a gun?

 

[smittyb]

Been that way with beer for years...

 

[45tex]

If were stuck with 21 for rifles and better background checks the left wins again. How does this happen even when the repurbs hold all the cards. I identify less and less with Republicans after every election. I would like another choice and Libertarian is not it.

 

[vmax]

Not going to go over well and won't fix a damn thing

 

[Shady]

I don't think any changes proposed will do much to stop any bad guy who wants a gun from getting one. I do think it will stop or delay a regular joe's purchase.

I have no problems with stronger back ground checks as long as it does not delay the purchase and is more on the back end of it with penalties and jail time to those that do not report info.

In the past I think most 18yo people were smart enough and grown up to deal with responsible gun ownership. Looking at the teens I know very few fit that description.

In the past at 18 a large portion were full time workers and had responsibilities now your lucky to see that at 25 and ya I know there are some but again I am going off what I see and who I know.

With that said I still see no improvements with raising the age to 21 its just another feel good look what we did thing for the anti's

As far as mental health well that one is a very mixed bag on who chooses what is ok and not ok. If someone has proven beyond a doubt that they cant be trusted to self medicate and if they are off meds they go psycho then ya they do not deserve to be armed. I just don;t know how you would go about saying who is crazy and who is not and I know I don't want to be in front of some liberal judge who gets to say.

So i would just as soon leave the mental health thing out of the equation it could easily be manipulated against the good guy who trys to buy a gun. I would choose locking up individuals that prove they will not take meds to make it safe for them and the ones around them.

 

[toddnjoyce]

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...mprehensive-background-checks-ban-bump-stocks
Old enough to fight for the country but not to buy a gun?

Only applies to people who follow the law. Will not reduce access or prevent crime.

 

[Lunyfringe]

And once again generalizes and punishes all people of a certain age based on the actions of a sick few.

Can we have put on the table for the "hashtag NEVERAGAIN" crowd that if their proposals are put in place and it does happen again (becuase these proposals won't work), then they owe reparations to the victims? How about the millions victimized by bans?

 

[TAZ]

Everything goes to 21. No driving. No fu***ng. No aborting. No voting. No drinking. No contracts. No credit. No military service.

If you’re too immature to know right from wrong, then you’re obviously too immature to understand all those other things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vaquero]

I hope your representatives have heard these thoughts from y'all.
And the president.

They're the ones to tell it to.
The choir "gets it".

 

[motorcarman]

Well class, I'm sorry but little Johnny was chewing gum in class again so you all have to wear gum on your noses!!!!!!

bob

 

[TheMailMan]

Everything goes to 21. No driving. No fu***ng. No aborting. No voting. No drinking. No contracts. No credit. No military service.

If you’re too immature to know right from wrong, then you’re obviously too immature to understand all those other things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I totally agree, let's raise the minimum age of military enlistment to 21 and see how that goes for them. I enlisted at 17, went to Boot Camp at 18, but I had been working since 10, driving a farm truck at 12, got my daylight drivers license at 14 (Used to be legal in Idaho), I worked two jobs during the summers after I turned 14. I'll admit I was still a bit of a knucklehead but I never used drugs, never touched alcohol. Being raised Mormon can do that to ya.

I firmly believe if you're not responsible enough to purchase a firearm you're not responsible to vote. Most people can own a firearm and never harm another being. However, irresponsible voting harms everyone.

 

[Charlie]

Only applies to people who follow the law. Will not reduce access or prevent crime.

Absolutely!

 

[Shady]

so you all forgot to say raise the age of consent

 

[benenglish]

so you all forgot to say raise the age of consent

Whoever said anyone was consistent about anything, especially if it's both a political and an emotional issue?

Ages are, roughly:

• consent to sex - 16, 17 or 18 depending on the state
• drink - 21
• buy a rifle - 18
• buy a handgun - 21 (Yes, I'm oversimplifying. Let's not get off-track.)
• drive - 14 with restrictions, 18 without, varies by jurisdiction
• serve in the military - 17 with parental permission, 18 without restriction
• marry - 14 in Texas with parental consent, 18 without restriction, theoretically any age with the approval of a judge, and
  
• leave home - 17 in Texas with restrictions, 18 without.

One SC justice is falsely reported to be on record as saying we should just lower the age of consent to 12 and be done with it. While Ruth Bader Ginsburg never said that, there are plenty of people who have seen idiotic statutory rape convictions and come to a position remarkably similar. There are plenty of people in New York City who think driving is so scary, essentially no one should do it. They'd be happy to see the age to drive raised to 25 or more.

Historically, those ages have floated all over the place. I remember legal 17-year-old strippers in Texas and if I'm not mistaken at least until recently you could still get that job at 16 in some states. Age of consent has been specified as low as 9 under English common law (when it was specified) and was unrestricted in many U.S. jurisdictions until fairly recently. Europeans coming to the U.S. who have been drinking since they were 16 are often severely bummed that they lose that right until they turn 21.

We could go on citing examples to each other for ages but what good would it do?

The idea that someone magically becomes mature enough to do adult things at a given chronological age is one that we'll never work out with any consistency. I don't accept that we should even try.

I think the whole premise is false but that leads to a much larger, more theoretical, and practically useless discussion.

 

[BillFairbanks]

Everything goes to 21. No driving. No fu***ng. No aborting. No voting. No drinking. No contracts. No credit. No military service.

If you’re too immature to know right from wrong, then you’re obviously too immature to understand all those other things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.

People are either free adult citizens or they aren’t.

How can you have the right to vote at 18 but not have 2nd amendment rights?

I hope the Supreme Court strikes down the age increase.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sdismukes]

The more I think and read about the "mental health" issue, the less impressed i am with using it.

Apart from mental health defects being a spectrum, not a fixed diagnosis, how and where do you draw a line? If you can measure BAC, and a .08 BAC is drunk, but .079 is not, then how do you measure mental health?

Then there is the due process aspect. Over a century ago people were being forcibly committed to asylums because they were eccentric, difficult to deal with, or old and rich and stingy (we want Uncle Joe's money, so let's commit him)! Today, due to laws enacted because of that trend, it is very difficult to commit someone without their consent.

A lot of the mental health evaluation is up to the OPINION of the doctor. If you cherry-pick a doctor who hates guns (easy to find one like that), then simply wanting a gun could be seen as a mental defect. "You can't have guns simply because you want one". The opportunity for implementing an agenda is huge here.

Any proposal that avoids due process in front of a truly impartial judge, with rebuttal opinions being allowed is on its face going to be ripe for abuse.

If you start requiring full-on mental health judgements, court evaluations, and so on, it will become prohibitively expensive to enforce, much less defend.

In any case, prohibiting a person from gun ownership before they commit a crime is a very slippery slope. You can't arrest someone prior to them committing a crime, so the recourse is to label them insane enough to prohibit ownership. Still won't stop someone from otherwise getting a gun in any case....unless you commit them... We're coming full circle to the 1920s again...

 

[TheMailMan]

The more I think and read about the "mental health" issue, the less impressed i am with using it.

Apart from mental health defects being a spectrum, not a fixed diagnosis, how and where do you draw a line? If you can measure BAC, and a .08 BAC is drunk, but .079 is not, then how do you measure mental health?

Then there is the due process aspect. Over a century ago people were being forcibly committed to asylums because they were eccentric, difficult to deal with, or old and rich and stingy (we want Uncle Joe's money, so let's commit him)! Today, due to laws enacted because of that trend, it is very difficult to commit someone without their consent.

A lot of the mental health evaluation is up to the OPINION of the doctor. If you cherry-pick a doctor who hates guns (easy to find one like that), then simply wanting a gun could be seen as a mental defect. "You can't have guns simply because you want one". The opportunity for implementing an agenda is huge here.

Any proposal that avoids due process in front of a truly impartial judge, with rebuttal opinions being allowed is on its face going to be ripe for abuse.

If you start requiring full-on mental health judgements, court evaluations, and so on, it will become prohibitively expensive to enforce, much less defend.

In any case, prohibiting a person from gun ownership before they commit a crime is a very slippery slope. You can't arrest someone prior to them committing a crime, so the recourse is to label them insane enough to prohibit ownership. Still won't stop someone from otherwise getting a gun in any case....unless you commit them... We're coming full circle to the 1920s again...

Where do we draw the line? I have depression due to chronic pain. Because of that I take an antidepressant every day. It also has the benefit of helping with the pain. Due to pain I have trouble falling asleep, so I take a small dose of another antidepressant that helps me fall asleep.

Does this mean I have mental health problems? If I hadn't of broken my back in the Marines I wouldn't now be enjoying all this pain.

 

[Lunyfringe]

Where do we draw the line? I have depression due to chronic pain. Because of that I take an antidepressant every day. It also has the benefit of helping with the pain. Due to pain I have trouble falling asleep, so I take a small dose of another antidepressant that helps me fall asleep.

Does this mean I have mental health problems? If I hadn't of broken my back in the Marines I wouldn't now be enjoying all this pain.

No, but they'd love to use it as an excuse to take away your guns...

 

[Wildcat Diva]

NOW, you guys are finally understanding the mental health/firearm restriction dilemma.

I’m proud of y’all.

There’s a lot of people running their mouths on TV and such that are pretty “slow to start” on figuring out that one.

Mental health practioners aren’t trained to assess dangerousness like it’s a proven science. Hell half the time when I’m considering potential risk I just go on gut feeling. Which NO ONE should be writing down as the gospel (or in anyone’s medical record). Plus mental health is FLIUD. Diagnoses can CHANGE.

 

[HKShooter65]

...

• marry - 14 in Texas with parental consent...

Off topic maybe but that factoid is freaking insane if true!!!!