Then the various levels of government in the united states cannot legally get involved in matters of suicide, as the first amendment of the united states constitution requires a separation of church and state.
None of which changes the simple fact that the united states constitution dictates a separation of church and state. If various religions and their practitioners regard the act of one ending their own existence as a sin, then the government cannot legally take any steps to prevent such, as it is a violation of that separation of church and state. The matter is as simple as that. Legally it has to take no action and let them end their own existence, as doing otherwise is unconstitutional, no different from depriving individuals of their right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury.
I put myself through college, including graduate school, hunting for subsistence and money from the age 17 on, acquiring some 30 guns by the age of 21 and at 18 was considered old enough to be drafted to fight and die for this country. But then, by the age of 17, I had the continual training and supervision of my and uncle from an early age... something many families no longer play a role in with their children.
So do you want the age to buy guns to be 21? You can serve in the Army at 18, you should be able to buy any kind of gun at 18 including handguns.
we can agree to disagree, not a big deal unless you want it to be one. we don't have to settle it at 20 paces or anything....
So why should a person be able to serve in the army at 18 and not get guns until they're 21? And if you're against people under 21 getting guns than why did you have guns when you were under 21?
Maybe for the same reason that a member of the military has access to automatic weapons, grenades, but not the general public w/o jumping through additional hoops. I started shooting pretty early on, and I honestly don't recall how old I was when I actually purchased my first firearms vs borrowing dad's stuff when we went out plinking, but if I had to guess I am pretty sure I had at least 2 if not 3 by the time I turned 18, maybe the laws were different in the 80's, i'm not sure to be honest, if not then I must have waited until my 18th, that was a long time ago. I didn't say I was against 18 vs 21, I just said that I had no problem with 21 (for a civilian). Its not like that's my line in the sand and I won't support any candidate that wasn't pushing age 21, just saying that its not something that is a disqualifier for me, in the name of compromise. Would it help much as far as saving lives? Probably not in any meaningful statistical way, but frankly most other laws don't help in any meaningful statistical way. IMO it would just be a feelgood thing to make the grabbers happy, perhaps might help to avoid a possible mass school shooting by some crazy kid along with the mass media chit storm that follows.
And if you ask me the general public should have access to that same stuff without going through additional hoops. Anything that the government can use against me, I should have access to. Since in most states you can get a driver's license at 16 there is no reason you shouldn't be able to get guns at 18. As a matter of fact 18 might be a bit high what with the age for a driver's license being 16 in most states. And that's exactly what we don't want, giving the grabbers feel good things to make them happy. If they want to be happy they can do so by switching sides. Give them an inch they'll take a mile.
agree 100%, this has been explained to me and to repeat, I agree 100%, they will get 21 and ask for 25, they will get 30 round mags and go after 20's, then 10's, they will go after the AR's then go after the mini 14, then all semi auto's, etc... they won't stop and shouldn't be negotiated with.. However, that doesn't mean I have to share ALL the opinions of the hardcore 2a people, and IMO there are plenty of common sense compromises to be had that would make us "slightly" safer. I'm fine with age 21, background checks that include fingerprints (ducks and hides) 20 round magazines, red flag laws, and all transactions outside of family members should go through a FFL for a $20 fee. I don't look for candidates that share those particular views, if I have a choice i'd prefer status quo vs going over the top with banning certain models, etc but none of the above would get me worked up, although I still might vote out the candidates that supported those idea's even if I agreed with them in principal because I'd fear that they'd go further in the next round of cuts.
necessary? not really effective? likely not in any measurable way, perhaps saves a 100, or a few hundred lives? I think it would help somewhat with curbing crime and the career criminals, but I'd struggle to validate the argument, criminals after all, are criminals, so they tend to ignore the important laws that the rest of us abide by.
I tolerate them already, every firearm I own was purchased legally with a background check, I survived the experience unscathed. The fingerprint idea usually gets people all worked up, but I think its a great idea, match that up with the database and you'll probably catch a lot of bad guys. Won't bother me, I was fingerprinted for work at age 18, the wife at age 19, it ended my potential life of crime right there. these are probably reasons I'd be a very unsuccessful politician, I think maybe 3% of the country would share the majority of my views, the other 97% would disagree for one reason or another on guns, taxes, marriage, immigration, etc etc etc.
I thought I did, but i'll try again, the reasonable hoops I jump through are worth my time and the inconvenience to not allow any random criminal to walk in/out of a gun shop fully armed and ready to go like he was buying a box of gum at Walgreens. I can deal with that.
This wouldn't stop you from having a parent purchase a firearm for you as a gift. It just means you can't walk into a gun store and buy one before 21. Of course, this will not stop the 12-18 year old gang bangers from getting guns as they do now in places where they already can't own a gun.
But... you said the restrictions you suggested are not necessary and not specifically or particularly effective. How will the, as you say, not allow any random criminal to walk in/out of a gun shop fully armed and ready to go like he was buying a box of gum at Walgreens? And you explained why -you- are willing to tolerate those unnecessary and ineffective restrictions, but not why others should be.
The problem I see here is that juvenile records are usually sealed. So if some jackass with a criminal juvenile record a mile long goes into a gun store at 18, none of that criminal behavior will show up. I'm not saying I agree or disagree entirely, I haven't thought about it enough yet.
Well, it does. At 18 any criminal activity would then be documented as an adult, and not sealed in the case of a juvenile crime. That means there would be 3 years of history there to draw on to perform a background check. At 18, there would be no criminal history available, even if the person had potentially raped, robbed and murdered through puberty. I'm exaggerating some, but you get the point. The FL school shooter comes to mind, as do several other young mass shooters.
Right, but the juvenile history would still be sealed - so long as the person does nothing from 18-21 he can still get a gun.
Yeah, but someone who's out raping robbing and killing people as a teenager isn't going to stop when they turn 18.