Well, the board is either fixed, or it's going to run terribly. Cross your fingers and hope for the best. I'm at my technical limit right now.

Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

Message
Author
m47dragon
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:35 pm
Age: 45
Location: Alanson, Michigan
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#31 Post by m47dragon » Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:54 pm

For those who advocate, or simply tolerate, the denial of an American adult' s 2nd Amendment rights because they are not at least 21 years of age: you'd better be petitioning the government to raise the age of registry for Selective Service to 21 as well. My son's should not be compelled to serve a nation that subverts its own Constitution.

When I was 19, I was entrusted with machine guns, rocket launchers, explosives and wire guided missiles. To paraphrase Franklin: the sacrifice of liberty for security ensures neither.

SWIHARTMARK
Member
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:09 pm
Age: 54
Location: DAYTON, OHIO
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#32 Post by SWIHARTMARK » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:12 pm

Yet they are denied beer in Ohio. Florida just raised the legal age to buy guns to 21 today. Other states have similar laws. The states have their rights too as per the Constitution. Most people don't have a problem with it, in fact support it. I haven't seen the other states' laws come under judicial review, have you? This would be the Constitution you are taking about, right?

Best Regards,

Mark

SWIHARTMARK
Member
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:09 pm
Age: 54
Location: DAYTON, OHIO
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#33 Post by SWIHARTMARK » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:40 pm

BTW, you were professionally trained, supervised and not allowed to fire those weapons at combatants unless given orders under the rules of engagement. These kids, not so much. Their parents, likely not so much either.

Best Regards,

Mark

ffuries
Member
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:51 pm
Age: 50
Location: Panama City, Florida
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#34 Post by ffuries » Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:38 pm

Governor Scott of Florida just signed into law effective immediately, that you must be 21 to purchase any firearms in the state of Florida.

From the NRA:

"This afternoon, Governor Rick Scott signed SB-7026 (touted in the media as Florida’s “gun control” bill) into law, violating the Second Amendment rights of persons between the ages of 18-21.

The bill prohibits any person under 21 years of age from purchasing a firearm – any firearm – PERIOD. The bill took effect immediately."
Mike
TSgt, USAF Retired
Jan 86 - Sept 08
Aircrew Life Support
"Your Life Is Our Business"
(122X0, 1T1X1, 1P0X1)
NRA Life Member

SWIHARTMARK
Member
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:09 pm
Age: 54
Location: DAYTON, OHIO
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#35 Post by SWIHARTMARK » Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:36 am

The NRA has begun a Constitutional review of Florida's new law. I wonder if they challenged in other states, if so, I don't think they were successful in their efforts. This is the process of democracy though. The Heller ruling does still allow for gun control. People still have the right to own guns, but society can set limits. Full auto machine guns are regulated a great deal, so might assault rifles down the road. Things do change as they did with machine guns long ago. Even towns in the wild west banned guns in town at times. They were usually full of civil war veterans as well.

Best Regards,

Mark

m47dragon
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:35 pm
Age: 45
Location: Alanson, Michigan
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#36 Post by m47dragon » Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:40 am

SWIHARTMARK wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:12 pm
Yet they are denied beer in Ohio. Florida just raised the legal age to buy guns to 21 today. Other states have similar laws. The states have their rights too as per the Constitution. Most people don't have a problem with it, in fact support it. I haven't seen the other states' laws come under judicial review, have you? This would be the Constitution you are taking about, right?

Best Regards,

Mark
Ah, if you feel that “most people don’t have a problem with it” then it’s fine? That’s not the litmus test of liberty, not in a republic.

Pauljbk
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:44 pm
Age: 43
Location: Wilmington Illinois
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#37 Post by Pauljbk » Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:07 pm

After looking into why a 20 year old in Illinois was rejected from buying a stripped lower sounds like it's because it can be made into an AR pistols which you need to be 21 to buy a pistol in Illinois which makes sense. The shop owner thought the state changed the law when he was turned down but that wasn't right. Just thought I'd give an update, thanks

CRomanos
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:22 am
Age: 53
Location: Cincinnati, OH
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#38 Post by CRomanos » Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:41 pm

One thing that gets me is the notion that firearms laws are fundamentally offensive because they assume that everyone can't be trusted with the safe ownership of guns.

To put it bluntly, the list of people who can't be trusted is downright huge, and I don't have a problem getting a background check to demonstrate I'm not among them. Yes, some people slip through, often with tragic consequences, but considering the millions of people who have been caught and denied by NICS checks, the argument that the system should be scrapped because it's imperfect is nonsense. It should be improved, not scrapped.

Gun ownership is a right, I wholeheartedly agree, but there's no sin in suggesting that not everyone is mature enough or sane enough to exercise that right.

The military puts destructive weapons in the hands of 18 year olds in training, combat and other controlled situations - there is a false equivalency being propagated between civilian age limitations and military ones. Last time I checked, you couldn't go to the armory at an army base and check out an M4 just to walk around with.

And yeah, it sucks that kids are being asked to perform duties to a society before reaping its benefits, I get it, but gun ownership is not the only thing this applies to - drinking is notable in this regard as well.
m47dragon wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:40 am
Ah, if you feel that “most people don’t have a problem with it” then it’s fine? That’s not the litmus test of liberty, not in a republic.
How exactly do you figure? Do you contend that anyone has a right to any weapon, regardless of destructive capacity courtesy of the 2A? I don't think that most legal scholars and courts have agreed with that interpretation. I get the argument of the slippery slope, I get the literal interpretation, but we can't be bound to that when there are clearly reasons to reconsider it. The founders didn't face a situation where a hateful POS could walk into a school and murder 3rd graders. I think if they had envisioned that the 2A would read a bit differently.

SWIHARTMARK
Member
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:09 pm
Age: 54
Location: DAYTON, OHIO
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#39 Post by SWIHARTMARK » Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:45 pm

As far as the founders are concerned, they had no idea somebody could posses a hand held weapon that would be roughly as lethal as a cannon loaded with canister. Not exactly a 12 pounder, but a 2-3 pounder at close range would put a squad in a world of hurt. During their life times, firearms were single shot muzzle loaders, so mass shootings by a single person would be relatively impossible. Whether or not they wanted people packing that much firepower in public is a question not asked by either party of the present debate, but relevant all the same. Perhaps the "well regulated militia" line in the 2nd amendment had something to say about heavy weapons of the day? Today that firepower can be carried in the form of a light arm. They had no idea that was going to happen in any case, hence the arguments for or against some firearms as they have evolved today. Remember, full automatic machine-guns are presently heavily regulated as an example.

I did check an article published from "The Hill", an established DC paper, and it listed Hawaii and Illinois as states where the age limit is already 21 and the NRA has not contested those laws. I would imagine the current lawsuit is just a publicity stunt to make it seem like they are doing something. Given that nothing has changed between the time those laws were established to the present day, the noticeable inaction by the NRA then is remarkable if not stunning if taken in today's light. NRA members should feel slighted as a result if not insulted that they waited this long to do anything about it. Perhaps then they knew the states have the right to regulate guns within certain limits as stated by Heller, but now, I'm missing their logic. I sincerely sense this is all PR. If they were waiting for the courts to change, the Robert's court weighs precedent heavily from what I have read.

Strangely, I haven't seen any of this mentioned anywhere. No sense of history, no sense of technology, no sense of the precedence of the laws. I have seen loads of emotion from all sides, but just the same old well worn imperfect logic. It is significant to note that the website FiveThrityEight run by expert pollster Nate Silver and owned by ESPN, has posted some interactive polling on gun control and 90% of American do not want to ban guns. I heavily suggest googling it up and giving it a go. The majority of people want to ban assault weapons as we speak, not gun ownership. Limiting purchases based on age is a rather moderated response to the present situation.

On a final note, I have heard from people that the right to bear arms is a protection from an oppressive government. I do know that most casualties in war are now caused by heavy weapons, mainly artillery, if not air dropped munitions. Unless you can summon up some fire support of your own, any form of violence against the state does not stand much of a chance of success. Peaceful protest, however, likely has a much better chance of success. If success doesn't happen, I suggest that if you want to live in a democracy, you abide by the will of the people. I think that is what young men die for, not just the right to bear arms.

Best Regards,

Mark

BTW, I sense ESPN gets their stats from the wonks at 538. They also do sports for kicks when they aren't doing politics.

m47dragon
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:35 pm
Age: 45
Location: Alanson, Michigan
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#40 Post by m47dragon » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:06 am

SWIHARTMARK wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:45 pm
As far as the founders are concerned, they had no idea somebody could posses a hand held weapon that would be roughly as lethal as a cannon loaded with canister. Not exactly a 12 pounder, but a 2-3 pounder at close range would put a squad in a world of hurt. During their life times, firearms were single shot muzzle loaders, so mass shootings by a single person would be relatively impossible. Whether or not they wanted people packing that much firepower in public is a question not asked by either party of the present debate, but relevant all the same. Perhaps the "well regulated militia" line in the 2nd amendment had something to say about heavy weapons of the day? Today that firepower can be carried in the form of a light arm. They had no idea that was going to happen in any case, hence the arguments for or against some firearms as they have evolved today. Remember, full automatic machine-guns are presently heavily regulated as an example.

I did check an article published from "The Hill", an established DC paper, and it listed Hawaii and Illinois as states where the age limit is already 21 and the NRA has not contested those laws. I would imagine the current lawsuit is just a publicity stunt to make it seem like they are doing something. Given that nothing has changed between the time those laws were established to the present day, the noticeable inaction by the NRA then is remarkable if not stunning if taken in today's light. NRA members should feel slighted as a result if not insulted that they waited this long to do anything about it. Perhaps then they knew the states have the right to regulate guns within certain limits as stated by Heller, but now, I'm missing their logic. I sincerely sense this is all PR. If they were waiting for the courts to change, the Robert's court weighs precedent heavily from what I have read.

Strangely, I haven't seen any of this mentioned anywhere. No sense of history, no sense of technology, no sense of the precedence of the laws. I have seen loads of emotion from all sides, but just the same old well worn imperfect logic. It is significant to note that the website FiveThrityEight run by expert pollster Nate Silver and owned by ESPN, has posted some interactive polling on gun control and 90% of American do not want to ban guns. I heavily suggest googling it up and giving it a go. The majority of people want to ban assault weapons as we speak, not gun ownership. Limiting purchases based on age is a rather moderated response to the present situation.

On a final note, I have heard from people that the right to bear arms is a protection from an oppressive government. I do know that most casualties in war are now caused by heavy weapons, mainly artillery, if not air dropped munitions. Unless you can summon up some fire support of your own, any form of violence against the state does not stand much of a chance of success. Peaceful protest, however, likely has a much better chance of success. If success doesn't happen, I suggest that if you want to live in a democracy, you abide by the will of the people. I think that is what young men die for, not just the right to bear arms.

Best Regards,

Mark

BTW, I sense ESPN gets their stats from the wonks at 538. They also do sports for kicks when they aren't doing politics.
But, during the American Revolution, private ownership of the destructive devices of the day was a reality. Private ownership of mortars, cannon, armed ships (remember the Privateers?) existed...into the 20th century. It still exists today (albeit under the draconian regulations you refer to.) To say that the Founding Fathers "had no idea" is incorrect.

Perhaps the current lawsuit will be heard in a more favorable court? One that may yield a more favorable precedent? You imply some type of hypocrisy or insincerity on the NRA's part, but perhaps the NRA feels that the conditions in Florida, and under the current administration, are more conducive of victory? I fully understand that you cannot die on every hill and that you need to pick your battles; however, as an NRA Instructor and Life Member, I do wish that they would fight harder in particular arenas. I also wish that more of my fellow Americans would come to the conlusion that the erosion and assault on our enumerated rights, even those we may not individually exercise or feel any sense of ownership for, is an assault on all of the rights of all our citizenry.

The Founding Fathers were men (and women) of emotion as well. However, I think that their logic was quite clear. Could they envision a mass shooting? They watched as their coastal towns were shelled by the Royal Navy (you know, their former, fellow countrymen.) They suffered when British troops and their allies destroyed their property, burnt their homes and even targeted and killed civilians (Google Cherry Valley.)

I have to ask, why raise the age to 21? What does that change? I stated earlier that, when I was under the age of 21, I was entrusted with far more responsibility for machinery far more destructive than a firearm and a response indicated that I had better training and controlled conditions. Are lack of training and controlled conditions factors contributing to the mass killings experienced in our country? (To be clear, I am a strong proponent of voluntary firearms training for all who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights but that is another topic.) Something is lacking within the perpetrators of these acts but it is not a lack of training or controlled conditions.

SWIHARTMARK
Member
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:09 pm
Age: 54
Location: DAYTON, OHIO
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#41 Post by SWIHARTMARK » Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:15 pm

The founding fathers had ZERO idea people could walk down the street with the firepower of cannons in their hands. Lugging a mortar in one's hand back then would have been difficult, if not impossible. The other weapons mentioned were crew served or had to be hauled by farm animals. Privateers were state sponsored naval vessels given "letters of Marque" for the purpose of attacking ships of those countries at war with the United States of Amerca. Accordingly, they were controlled by the state, or else they would be considered pirates, a highly illegal profession at the time punishable by immediate execution if caught. The founding fathers also considered 21 to the be the legal age of an adult, not 18.

With that last sentence in mind, the courts have let stand numerous laws concerning gun ownership with people younger than 21. First it was handguns and now it looks like the tide is turning to all guns. The states were given further rights to restrict certain guns as well. Maryland has banned assault weapons on their own and I haven't heard the NRA filing any lawsuits on that, but I may be wrong. The recent Heller lawsuit decided by the Supreme Court allows gun ownership, but does not do away with gun control. Hawaii, Illinois, Florida, and Maryland are well within their rights to restrict ownership by age or certain weapons. The people have spoken and those are the laws there.

As far an individual vs a state committing a mass shooting, there are obvious differences of logic between you and I. First, a state committing a mass shooting is possible since they had a group of trained professionals doing the killing sanctioned by the state. A modern day mass shooting is done by a lawless individual with the firepower once welded by a group of trained professionals. This is a state verse the individual argument by your part according to your examples. I was talking individuals doing mass murders and now you are throwing in nation states doing something similar and equating that they are the same. I would say they certainly are not by any means and you are confusing the issue with something off tangent to the issue. They aren't the same and never were in this argument. Please stop confusing the two in this case.

Actually you weren't entrusted with responsibility with your weapons while in the military That responsibility belongs to the state and your officers. You can only use them under orders. Nobody loads up a 50 cal M2 and starts shooting into an unarmed crowd without orders from somebody. When this has happened in our history in our country, the officers were court marshaled. Further more, those not capable of obeying orders are dishonorably dismissed from service. An individual civilian has no officers or state giving them orders and only faces discipline well after a crime has been committed. Disobeying an order even without actually committing a "crime" is still reason for discipline or discharge. Military and civilian realities are not the same and please stop equating the two.

I think the NRA does not fully educate its membership as to what it can and cannot do for its membership. It is a lobbying group most of all, not a court unto itself. It can cherry pick its facts as well as its opponents, but it still cherry picks its facts and throws in nonsense arguments far away from the matter at hand. If it is so self righteous in its beliefs, why hasn't it lifted all restrictions on full automatic weapons? Why can't people drive tanks to work? Why can't you buy a surplus Mig-23 complete with 23mm cannons? Why hasn't it thrown out laws banning exploding targets using tannerite? Perhaps it and its members have lost sight that a democracy represents the will of the people not just one of the bill of rights that is still subject to judicial interpretation, which has taken place over the centuries. Full unrestricted private use of massively lethal weapons is not in the interest of any society, nor has it ever been. Until the courts side with full unrestricted private use of massively lethal weapons, we shall have to abide by their decisions or not have a country bound by laws.

Best Regards,

Mark

wjh
Member
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:28 pm
Age: 56
Location: Kansas
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#42 Post by wjh » Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:50 pm

These "restrictions" can be argued forever. Never forget the ultimate goal of the anti-gunner, a gun free society. Everything they do is designed to move the ball towards that goal. What is "reasonable gun legislation" today will not be good enough tomorrow. In 1986 the NRA caved to the machine gun ban. That was the "reasonable gun legislation" of the day. Today the "reasonable gun legislation" is the banning of semi-automatic rifles. After semi-automatic rifles are banned, what will then be the "reasonable gun legislation"? Will it be the banning of semi-automatic pistols? Perhaps limiting where you can shoot.....how much ammunition you can possess.....laws on storage....... laws on how many weapons (remember the Vegas shooter) you can have.... possession taxes on weapons....etc. It is NEVER, EVER going to be enough until they are all gone. Passing "reasonable gun legislation" will not make them disband their groups. It will only embolden them to continue with further "reasonable gun legislation".

CRomanos
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:22 am
Age: 53
Location: Cincinnati, OH
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#43 Post by CRomanos » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:58 pm

There are certainly those who want them all gone, as there are those who advocate for no restrictions what so ever.

The task for people of reason is to find a tolerable medium. My vote is for expansion of mental health services, and yes, I can live with increasing the legal age to 21 and strengthening the NICS.

Other things that merit some consideration - barring those on the TWL from purchasing weapons, if there's a way to appeal that label (that opens up a whole other can of legal worms, I know), maybe considering a long history of violent misdemeanors. We all know people off the radar but who shouldn't have guns - either because of mental instability, or bad temperament, or a violent temper, or whatever. How do we keep guns out of their hands? Many of these mass shooters have a history of these things, sometimes known only to their families, friends, and maybe local police.

I get it that these ideas are fraught with controversy, but we need to be able to look at all angles of this issue. If it remains one of gun rights vs. gun bans, I'm not sure it will work out to our favor, in a country where per-capita gun ownership has not necessarily increased.

Hell, for that matter, most of us could do a better job including our friends and family who aren't in the culture. Ever taken anyone shooting for the first time who didn't have tons of fun? This is also about PR, and not only are we not winning that battle, but the NRA's intransigence is deepening the divide they should be working to close.

Markeb2800
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:52 am
Age: 43
Location: Oquawka IL
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#44 Post by Markeb2800 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:29 am

Liberals will never be happy with "common sense" gun control laws. They will continue to chip away at our rights as long as we allow them. We must fight every attack on our Constitutional rights. Today it's semi-autos. Tomorrow, our scoped hunting rifles could be "sniper rifles", and need to be banned. Don't waste your time debating "trolls" on gun sites. Contact your elected officials and keep the pressure on them. I send emails and make phone calls about once a week.

Respectfully,

Mark

bakka9
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:22 pm
Age: 38
Location: Tucson, AZ
United States of America

Re: Walmart says 21 to buy a long gun

#45 Post by bakka9 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:19 am

I wonder if Walmart would receive the same accolades from the general public if they had banned the sale of tobacco products to adults under the age of 21. After all, if Walmart has no obligation to make an otherwise legal sale based on a person's age, couldn't Walmart save the poor hapless American adult from his own bad choices?

Of course, there is no unreasonable fear of cigarettes resonating in the public consciousness right now. If we as a country are actually considering yanking the right to bear arms away from 18-year-olds wholesale, we really need to just raise the age of adulthood to 21, complete with the voting age and registration for selective service. Anything less and the group for whom rights are actually inalienable can be as large or as small as Congress sees fit.

Post Reply

Return to “General Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests