At what age should we be able to purchase a firearm? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : At what age should we be able to purchase a firearm?


SpringerTGO
02-01-2012, 14:18
OK,
I've gotten beaten over the head repeatedly, because we are born with our 2a rights, and they should not be regulated by anyone.
I'm not trolling, but since there are people who will make an argument over the government taking guns away from mentally ill people, here goes.

So should a 6 year old be able to walk into a gun shop (even with a note from mommy) and buy a handgun?

GlockinNJ
02-01-2012, 14:23
OK,
I've gotten beaten over the head repeatedly, because we are born with our 2a rights, and they should not be regulated by anyone.
I'm not trolling, but since there are people who will make an argument over the government taking guns away from mentally ill people, here goes.

So should a 6 year old be able to walk into a gun shop (even with a note from mommy) and buy a handgun?

IMO, no. A person should be 18 to buy a gun. Same age as the right to vote. I also feel that a kid of any age can fire a gun under the supervision of a parent.

Side note: a blind man in NJ (yep NJ), who had his guns taken away after a ND during cleaning was ordered by court to get his guns back.

Jerry
02-01-2012, 15:12
When he “legally” becomes a man. I believe in most states that’s 18. According to the founders it was 16.

IhRedrider
02-01-2012, 15:34
Second on the when he becomes a free man, currently 18.

SpringerTGO
02-01-2012, 15:58
Not to be argumentative, but if we are born with 2a rights, what does age have to do with it? For that matter, what business is it of the government to determine when we are "men"? Some (even mainstream) religions might call a person a man at a much earlier age.
And if the government can decide when we are men, why can't it decide if we are too mentally impaired to own a firearm?

Jerry
02-01-2012, 16:42
Not to be argumentative, but if we are born with 2a rights, what does age have to do with it? For that matter, what business is it of the government to determine when we are "men"? Some (even mainstream) religions might call a person a man at a much earlier age.
And if the government can decide when we are men, why can't it decide if we are too mentally impaired to own a firearm?

In everything the forefathers wrote/said they refer to “free men”. All “men” over the age of “16” were expected to have a rifle a pound of powder and 100 shot always at the ready incase called upon to defend the “state and or country”.

No one has put up an argument that “qualified” people cannot deem someone mentally ill. The argument is if they are deemed to be too dangerous they should not be walking the streets. In that case they ARE NOT “FREE MEN”.

What I find utterly STUPID is the fact people will say someone is too dangerous to own firearms yet they can still obtain a drivers license, can purchase bow and arrows, gasoline, matches, fertilizer, diesel fuel…. Well you get the idea. :upeyes:

SpringerTGO
02-01-2012, 17:04
In everything the forefathers wrote/said they refer to “free men”. All “men” over the age of “16” were expected to have a rifle a pound of powder and 100 shot always at the ready incase called upon to defend the “state and or country”.

No one has put up an argument that “qualified” people cannot deem someone mentally ill. The argument is if they are deemed to be too dangerous they should not be walking the streets. In that case they ARE NOT “FREE MEN”.

What I find utterly STUPID is the fact people will say someone it too dangerous to own firearms yet they can still obtain a drivers license, can purchase bow and arrows, gasoline, matches, fertilizer, diesel fuel…. Well you get the idea. :upeyes:

I get the idea, but are you suggesting we register fertilizer, matches, and bows and arrows?:rofl:
Homeland Security is getting close to that, so let's hope they aren't reading your post. As it is, I've read of instances of people getting busted purchasing large quantities of fertilizer, so it's not that far off.

And what happens to freedom of religion? What if someones religion recognizes him as a man at 13?

From my experience, once someone is committed to a psych unit, they lose their drivers license. My friends son had to be medicated, get his Dr's permission, and re-take the driving test.
That doesn't mean he can't/won't go off his meds though.

Jerry
02-01-2012, 17:49
I get the idea, but are you suggesting we register fertilizer, matches, and bows and arrows?:rofl:

Are you suggesting registering firearms is a good idea? :rofl: :steamed:

No, I’m not suggesting we register anything. What I’m saying is… how STUPID is it to want firearms taken while there are many, many other things, just as, if not more, dangerous readily available. I’m suggesting that if someone is too dangerous to have a firearm they are too dangerous to have access to anything dangerous.

They are allowed access to things that are extremely dangerous that the government IS NOT FORBIDDEN from infringing upon, yet the one thing the government IS FORBIDDEN from infringing upon IS. MORONIC!!!!!!!!!!!


Homeland Security is getting close to that, so let's hope they aren't reading your post. As it is, I've read of instances of people getting busted purchasing large quantities of fertilizer, so it's not that far off.

One doesn’t need a large amount to do more damage in less time than one can do with a firearm.

I agree that government is way out of control. But the sheep love it. Don't be a sheep, start fighting back. Write your senator. Vote the MORONS out of office.



And what happens to freedom of religion? What if someones religion recognizes him as a man at 13?

Exactly what religious purpose is he using a firearm for? Not allowing a BOY to purchase a firearm has nothing to do with religion. My religion uses wine as a sacrament. A child cannot buy wine but he can partake of the sacrament during the services. So you see not being able to purchase does not exclude one from practicing his/her religion.


From my experience, once someone is committed to a psych unit, they lose their drivers license. My friends son had to be medicated, get his Dr's permission, and re-take the driving test.

So which is it? He lost his driving privileges or he had to retake the test. Driving is a privilege not a right.



That doesn't mean he can't/won't go off his meds though.

And he’ll still be able to drive, buy cutting tools, gasoline, matches, fertilizer and still buy a firearm on the street from a drug dealer. Only thing is he’ll be arrested if caught with the gun. Now tell me that isn’t IDIOCRACY. :upeyes:

IhRedrider
02-01-2012, 18:02
springer,
What do you want? Gun control, violating the 2A? or children buying guns? Your posts are a little counter to each other.

SpringerTGO
02-01-2012, 18:10
No, Iím not suggesting we register anything. What Iím saying isÖ how STUPID is it to want firearms taken while there are many, many other things, just as, if not more, dangerous readily available. Iím suggesting that if someone it too dangerous to have a firearm they are too dangerous to have access to anything dangerous.

They are allowed access to things that are extremely dangerous that the government IS NOT FORBIDDEN from infringing upon, yet the one thing the government IS FORBIDDEN from infringing upon IS. MORONIC!!!!!!!!!!!



One doesnít need a large amount to do more damage in less time than one can do with a firearm.

I agree that government is way out of control. But the sheep love it. Don't be a sheep, start fighting back. Write your senator. Vote the MORONS out of office.




Exactly what religious purpose is he using a firearm for? Not allowing a BOY to purchase a firearm has nothing to do with religion. My religion uses wine as a sacrament. A child cannot buy wine but he can partake of the sacrament during the services. So you see not being able to purchase does not exclude one from practicing his/her religion.



So which is it? He lost his driving privileges or he had to retake the test. Driving is a privilege not a right.




And heíll still be able to drive, buy cutting tools, gasoline, matches, fertilizer and still buy a firearm on the street from a drug dealer. Only thing is heíll be arrested if caught with the gun. Now tell me that isnít IDIOCRACY. :upeyes:

In my example of religious freedom, it had nothing to do with a minor buying a gun for religious purposes. A 13 year old is considered a man in Judiasm. So why can't a Jewish man buy a gun at age 13? Same for alcohol for that matter. That is not just age discrimination. An argument can be made for religious discrimination as well.

In the case of the bipolar friend of mine, he lost his driving privileges when he was hospitalized.
And you are right, driving is a privilege...... how did that come to be?

RenegadeGlocker
02-01-2012, 18:16
Whenever you can afford one.

SpringerTGO
02-01-2012, 18:22
springer,
What do you want? Gun control, violating the 2A? or children buying guns? Your posts are a little counter to each other.

I'm just pointing out that most people here are fine with some form of government control of firearms.
I'm also pointing out that the 2A is regulated, in that we are born with 2A rights, but we don't get to exercise them until the government says it's ok.
Of course I'm not for children buying firearms.

And yes, I am extremely pro gun. But it seems a little hypocritical for some people to get on a bandstand and go as far as to challenge me to fights over where I might draw the line, while at the same time they want the sale of firearms regulated.

Jerry
02-01-2012, 18:27
In my example of religious freedom, it had nothing to do with a minor buying a gun for religious purposes. A 13 year old is considered a man in Judiasm. So why can't a Jewish man buy a gun at age 13? Same for alcohol for that matter. That is not just age discrimination. An argument can be made for religious discrimination as well.

In the case of the bipolar friend of mine, he lost his driving privileges when he was hospitalized.
And you are right, driving is a privilege...... how did that come to be?

13 being a man for religious purposes has nothing to do with being a man for legal purposes. While the government is forbidden from infringing on his “religious” manhood he is viewed as a child by the law. Let the kid do something with serious consequences as a man and see how fast they assert he’s a child.

How did driving become a privilege... The People let the government license it. Just like CCW turned carrying a firearm into a privilage.

G30Mike
02-01-2012, 18:38
Also being a man for legal purposes, what's with juveniles (12-17) being tried as adults? If they can be tried in a court of law as an adult, why couldn't they go buy a firearm or alcohol or cigarettes? Why the double standard when it comes to "lawfully being a man"?

T-Rod45
02-01-2012, 18:56
18 - with training

The same age they can be trained to go to war.

Jerry
02-01-2012, 19:02
Also being a man for legal purposes, what's with juveniles (12-17) being tried as adults? If they can be tried in a court of law as an adult, why couldn't they go buy a firearm or alcohol or cigarettes? Why the double standard when it comes to "lawfully being a man"?

Could it be the system is FUBAR? :dunno:

RenegadeGlocker
02-01-2012, 19:02
18 - with training

The same age they can be trained to go to war.

That would 17 then.

By federal law (10 U.S.C., 505), the minimum age for enlistment in the United States Military is 17 (with parental consent) and 18 (without parental consent).

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlage.htm

G30Mike
02-01-2012, 19:44
Could it be the system is FUBAR? :dunno:

The federal government FUBAR? I highly doubt that. They are our friends and here to keep us safe from ourselves!

Seriously though, here in MO the age of consent, and the age you are a legal adult is 17. At 17 you can do grownup things here, like commit a crime and go to adult prison. Still a huge gray area from 17-18 though.

T-Rod45
02-01-2012, 20:01
That would 17 then.

By federal law (10 U.S.C., 505), the minimum age for enlistment in the United States Military is 17 (with parental consent) and 18 (without parental consent).

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlage.htm

17 it is!

Seriously though... Now that I think of it, I don't think I was nearly responsible enough at 17 for a gun... But again, with proper training, I think the average 17 year old can be responsible with a firearm.

NEOH212
02-02-2012, 04:27
IMO, no. A person should be 18 to buy a gun. Same age as the right to vote. I also feel that a kid of any age can fire a gun under the supervision of a parent.

Side note: a blind man in NJ (yep NJ), who had his guns taken away after a ND during cleaning was ordered by court to get his guns back.

+1 on that! :agree:

NEOH212
02-02-2012, 04:29
Also being a man for legal purposes, what's with juveniles (12-17) being tried as adults? If they can be tried in a court of law as an adult, why couldn't they go buy a firearm or alcohol or cigarettes? Why the double standard when it comes to "lawfully being a man"?

I don't know how many 12-17 year olds that I have met that I would trust with a CCW and a handgun.

I can't think of any. Some have been mature for their age, but still not thinking like an adult.

On the flip side of the token, I have met many adults that I don't trust with a CCW and a handgun, or any gun for that matter.

Jerry
02-02-2012, 16:22
I don't know how many 12-17 year olds that I have met that I would trust with a CCW and a handgun.

I can't think of any. Some have been mature for their age, but still not thinking like an adult.

On the flip side of the token, I have met many adults that I don't trust with a CCW and a handgun, or any gun for that matter.

The problem we have is… government is taking on the role of “nanny”. The role parents used to play. I was raise around firearms and taught how to handle them, when and where “I” was allowed to handle them and where "I" could and could not go alone with them. It’s called prenatal responsibility. Too many kids don’t have responsible parents. Hell, many have illiterate morons raising them. So the government has tried to take on the role of mommy and daddy and we all get screwed because of it. :steamed:

Gunnut 45/454
02-02-2012, 18:07
SpringerTGO
I'm for children buying guns? Your right they should be able to buy a gun with the consent of there parents! Yep let parents raise there children as they see fit! I shot my first firearm at 10 with my father by my side! I was hunting by myself at 15. Carring a big bad firearm all by myself. So whats your point? I carried a pistol on my hip at 16!:supergrin: Back then I could buy ammo with out my parents permision! Used to take my guns to school and go hunting after school. :whistling:

Jerry
02-02-2012, 23:02
SpringerTGO
I'm for children buying guns? Your right they should ba able to buy a gun with the consent of there parents! Yep let parents raise there children as they see fit! I shot my first firearm at 10 with my father by my side! I was hunting by myself at 15. Carring a big bad firearm all by myself. So whats your point? I carried a pistol on my hip at 16!:supergrin: Back then I could buy ammo with out my parents permision! Used to take my guns to school and go hunting after school. :whistling:



I shot my first firearm at 5. I was walking around a friends property “alone” with a BB gun at 7. I was given my first revolver, Ruger Single Six at 12. I was riding my horse with the Single Six on my hip and a Marlin .22 is a saddle scabbard at 15... "alone". I could go alone and buy ammunition from the day the Single Six was given to me. My brother gave me a brand new Savage double barrel 12 gauge for my 16th. Birthday. And off to the woods “alone” I went.

So I'm 100% with Gunnut.

IhRedrider
02-03-2012, 17:30
I'm just pointing out that most people here are fine with some form of government control of firearms.
I'm also pointing out that the 2A is regulated

Regulated where in the Constitution, and regulated by who, as documented in the Constitution?

, in that we are born with 2A rights,

Where in the Constitution does it say that we are "born with 2A rights?

but we don't get to exercise them until the government says it's ok.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Of course I'm not for children buying firearms.

And yes, I am extremely pro gun. But it seems a little hypocritical for some people to get on a bandstand and go as far as to challenge me to fights over where I might draw the line, while at the same time they want the sale of firearms regulated.

If someone has challenged you to a fight, you should probably report them. I did challenge you to back up some of your statements in another thread, but you have not risen to the challenge.



In your original post you asked this question...


So should a 6 year old be able to walk into a gun shop (even with a note from mommy) and buy a handgun?

The answer to that question is obviously NO. But that has nothing to do with what is legal, and that was not your question. You asked "should". If you want to know if there should be Governmental regulation of this, the answer is still, NO. As to the 2A protecting a 6 year old, that would depend upon if he is protected under the Constitution. If you look at the Preamble to determine who the Constitution pertains to, is says "We the people of the United States". Does a 6 year old qualify as one of "We the people"? Probably not, but his parents do qualify. Therefore if parents want to provide weapons to their children, that's their business. If said child causes injury to someone else, guess who is liable. His parents.

Now in your OP you said you were not trolling. I think you have either not read and understood the Constitution, or you were indeed "Trolling". By trying to compare a 6 year old to an adult. No matter where you choose to draw the line, nobody with even a cursory understanding of life would assert that a 6 year old has the same Rights as an adult.

expatman
02-03-2012, 18:14
I don't know how many 12-17 year olds that I have met that I would trust with a CCW and a handgun.

I can't think of any. Some have been mature for their age, but still not thinking like an adult.

On the flip side of the token, I have met many adults that I don't trust with a CCW and a handgun, or any gun for that matter.

Hello NEO212. My name is Randy *****, and I am pleased to meet you. Now that I have introduced myself you can honestly say that you have met someone who, at 12-17 years of age was indeed mature enough for you to trust with CCW of a handgun. I understand that this is a bit "post facto" but I think you get my point.

My first gun was a 10/22 bought with my lawn cutting money under the supervision of my mother. I carried a friend of the familys 1911 when out in the mountains on camping trips (not concealed I know but I assure you I could have if I wanted to without inadvertantly killing someone). I enlisted in the Army at 17 and never had any problems with weapons safety. I am a "city boy" who spent a lot of time in the woods. I was surrounded by other children my age who were in my opinion just as responsible as myself otherwise I would not of entertained their company. I suspect that there may be many more people just like me out there than you realize.

I respect your opinion, just respectfully disagreeing.

runcible68
02-04-2012, 13:58
I know we let 17 and 18 year old youngsters in the military utilize everything from assault rifles to TOW missiles, but they are trained and supervised in their use by professionals. And even then, they are not allowed to carry them anywhere they want in the U.S.

Personally, I think 18 is too young to be allowed to own a firearm for personal use or CCW. "Manhood" was defined by the founders as 16 and later upped to 18. But that was during a much different time, when people had to grow up faster and accept responsibility at an early age. (Having a family, getting a job, military service via the draft.) While there are certainly exceptions, 18 year olds are mostly still adolescents and do not have the emotional maturity to own a gun or carry concealed. Adolescence, in a real emotional/cognitive sense, especially in this age of coddling children, ends after 18. For some it never ends. That's one of the reasons the drinking age is still 21. Therefore, even though I know I'll get flamed for this, I don't think one should own a firearms until they are 21.

Besides, many kids get guns for the "cool factor" and do not get any significant training, such as the military would impose on them. And having seen how some 21 year olds act on the range, I can't imagine it getting better, in a generalized sense, to someone younger. 18 - 21 year old have higher rates of death from irresponsible behavior as it is.

1gewehr
02-04-2012, 15:02
I don't see how it is any business of the Federal government to get involved in this. Prior to 1968, there was no Federal age limit. Some states had limits, some didn't.
I was given my first .22 by my grandfather when I was 14. I bought a .303 Enfield at 16. and yes, they were MINE. I kept them in my closet at home., bought my own ammo, took them out whenever I wanted to and was responsible for making sure I was safe and they were kept properly.

As far as I can see, it's not a government responsibility. It's up to the parents to decide what their children are capable of doing. when government makes decisions, it's a 'one size fits all' solution. The problem with that is most people will lose freedom as a result.
My belief is that individuals should be able to have all the freedom they can handle. when a particular individual proves incapable of handling that responsibility, why should you punish everyone else? and that is exactly what any form of gun control is; punishing everyone for the faults of a few.

NMPOPS
02-05-2012, 03:17
18. But the age should be determined by each state not the Feds. Driving is not covered by the Constitution, therefore it is regulated, and is a privilege, by each State, as it should be.

Sent from my Ally

Jerry
02-05-2012, 10:56
I don't see how it is any business of the Federal government to get involved in this. Prior to 1968, there was no Federal age limit. Some states had limits, some didn't.
I was given my first .22 by my grandfather when I was 14. I bought a .303 Enfield at 16. and yes, they were MINE. I kept them in my closet at home., bought my own ammo, took them out whenever I wanted to and was responsible for making sure I was safe and they were kept properly.

As far as I can see, it's not a government responsibility. It's up to the parents to decide what their children are capable of doing. when government makes decisions, it's a 'one size fits all' solution. The problem with that is most people will lose freedom as a result.
My belief is that individuals should be able to have all the freedom they can handle. when a particular individual proves incapable of handling that responsibility, why should you punish everyone else? and that is exactly what any form of gun control is; punishing everyone for the faults of a few.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup: :bowdown:

Gunnut 45/454
02-05-2012, 11:52
1gewehr
Agree 100 % that 1968 firearm law if the 2nd was applied to it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL! As in "Shall not be Infringed" !

Rally Vincent
02-05-2012, 17:57
The same age you're able to enlist in the military.