Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-01-2012, 14:18   #1
SpringerTGO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,484
At what age should we be able to purchase a firearm?

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?
SpringerTGO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 14:23   #2
GlockinNJ
Senior Member
 
GlockinNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: PRONJ
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpringerTGO View Post
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.
GlockinNJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 15:12   #3
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
When he “legally” becomes a man. I believe in most states that’s 18. According to the founders it was 16.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 02-01-2012 at 15:13..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 15:34   #4
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 519
Second on the when he becomes a free man, currently 18.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 15:58   #5
SpringerTGO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,484
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?
SpringerTGO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 16:42   #6
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpringerTGO View Post
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.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 02-03-2012 at 18:21..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 17:04   #7
SpringerTGO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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.
I get the idea, but are you suggesting we register fertilizer, matches, and bows and arrows?
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.

Last edited by SpringerTGO; 02-01-2012 at 17:05..
SpringerTGO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 17:49   #8
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpringerTGO View Post
I get the idea, but are you suggesting we register fertilizer, matches, and bows and arrows?

Are you suggesting registering firearms is a good idea?
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!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpringerTGO View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpringerTGO View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpringerTGO View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpringerTGO View Post
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.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 02-02-2012 at 16:09..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 18:02   #9
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 519
springer,
What do you want? Gun control, violating the 2A? or children buying guns? Your posts are a little counter to each other.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 18:10   #10
SpringerTGO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
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 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 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.




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 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.
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?
SpringerTGO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 18:16   #11
RenegadeGlocker
Senior Member
 
RenegadeGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,817
Whenever you can afford one.
RenegadeGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 18:22   #12
SpringerTGO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
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.
SpringerTGO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 18:27   #13
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpringerTGO View Post
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.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 02-01-2012 at 22:08..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 18:38   #14
G30Mike
Say When!
 
G30Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: St. Joseph MO
Posts: 431
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"?

Last edited by G30Mike; 02-01-2012 at 18:39..
G30Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 18:56   #15
T-Rod45
Loves The Glock
 
T-Rod45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 1,111
18 - with training

The same age they can be trained to go to war.
__________________
•21SF gen3
•26 gen3
•20 gen3 (sold)
•23 Gen4 (/19 conversion)
•M&P •Ruger •Smith&Wesson •Kel-Tec •Mossberg •LWRC •Glades Gun Works
T-Rod45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 19:02   #16
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by G30Mike View Post
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?
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 02-01-2012 at 19:03..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 19:02   #17
RenegadeGlocker
Senior Member
 
RenegadeGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rod45 View Post
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/joini...y/a/enlage.htm
RenegadeGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 19:44   #18
G30Mike
Say When!
 
G30Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: St. Joseph MO
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Could it be the system is FUBAR?
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.
G30Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 20:01   #19
T-Rod45
Loves The Glock
 
T-Rod45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenegadeGlocker View Post
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/joini...y/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.
__________________
•21SF gen3
•26 gen3
•20 gen3 (sold)
•23 Gen4 (/19 conversion)
•M&P •Ruger •Smith&Wesson •Kel-Tec •Mossberg •LWRC •Glades Gun Works
T-Rod45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 04:27   #20
NEOH212
Diesel Girl
 
NEOH212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North East Ohio
Posts: 9,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlockinNJ View Post
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!
__________________
When you finish speaking, don't forget to wipe.
NEOH212 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:08.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,017
300 Members
717 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31