Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

It should be limited. Would you want Bloods or Crips to have nuclear weapons?

 

Dumb statement, nuclear weapons are not arms and the 2nd doesn't apply to them.

 

What do you mean?

What the hell does freedom of association have to do with illegal immigration?

 

How the hell does someone commit mass murder "through the police powers of the state?"

 

You gave me the picture AFTER I said that!

 

I just checked out that location and can see that there is no elevation at that position! WITH elevation, and you are onto something!

 

I would have thought that it was obvious that I was arguing AGAINST the idea, considering how much I have been scrutinising the person arguing FOR it.

 

What would be the alternative to a blanket rule? Some sort of testing process to determine maturity?

 

Al;ready explained. Now, should the minimum age be the same for alcohol and guns, and what should the age be for both? Or will you continue to PATHETICALLY deflect?

 

That was my opinion, but you said that I was wrong didn't you?

 

No, that's reckless endangerment. However, absent of any harm, I'm not sure that this crime should involve prison time. Just the removal of the gun and the right to bear arms for some time. Maybe a fine. That seems like sufficient punishment.

 

The only alternative is a society where parenting, family reputation, and personal responsibility are foundational tenets. We are not interested in that kind of society so we must deal with increased attempted state control of behaviors.

 

And that's just not right, but that's the reality many of us face.

 

What’s really frustrating is watching the attempted state controls predictably fail miserably when we know the other model works well in limiting not only gun violence but other destructive behaviors as well.

 

What other model?

 

Are you trolling or what?

 

Parenting, personal responsibility, and caring about your family name.

 

Really? Even if it was the third time the idiot did it?

 

Oh, well now you're talking about a repeat offender. Well sure, by the third time there should probably be some jail time.

 

Well the government has never claimed that it can replace those has it?

 

Is there only ONE SINGLE alternative model?

 

And how would age of gun ownership fit into such a society?

 

I don’t know for certain what government has claimed. But government has implemented policy that actively erodes the three things I’ve cited. And they continue to claim laws regulating the sale of and possession of weapon types can end firearm violence. We have gun free zones, more regulation at every level from purchasing requirements to magazine capacity limits, and massive propaganda efforts to stigmatize firearms and yet the violence continues and even intensifies in some cases. We are told by government more regulation is the answer, but it isn’t working.

 

Mostly Democratic State governments, right?

Well LESS regulation wouldn't work either would it?

 

In the society I prefer, age to purchase would become irrelevant. I had access to firearms at the earliest age I can really remember. As did many people I knew and know now. Certainly before I would have conceived of the idea to go buy one. I’m not sure how limiting the ability to purchase even has relevance if a kid has access to firearms already. I was taught not only to be respectful of and responsible with firearms, but I was taught it was my responsibility to use said firearms for practical purposes in the case my parents weren’t around to do so.