• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Please justify to me why 18-20 Year Olds shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a firearm?

blackjack50

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Honest question. Can anyone please justify this? The NRA is suing on this one, and I fail to see a logical reason why someone could be sent to war but not purchase a firearm. And before someone attempts to say “well if you get special training...” remember that you don’t need to be in the military to get rights. That is not the point of the constitution.
 
blackjack50 said:
Honest question. Can anyone please justify this? The NRA is suing on this one, and I fail to see a logical reason why someone could be sent to war but not purchase a firearm. And before someone attempts to say “well if you get special training...” remember that you don’t need to be in the military to get rights. That is not the point of the constitution.
Click to expand...

the anti gun movement is a creeping crud of cancer. Any law that deprives SOME people of being able to buy a gun advices their scheme
 
blackjack50 said:
Honest question. Can anyone please justify this? The NRA is suing on this one, and I fail to see a logical reason why someone could be sent to war but not purchase a firearm. And before someone attempts to say “well if you get special training...” remember that you don’t need to be in the military to get rights. That is not the point of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Simple. They got away with it for handguns so why shouldn't they think they can get away with it for long guns?
 
blackjack50 said:
Honest question. Can anyone please justify this? The NRA is suing on this one, and I fail to see a logical reason why someone could be sent to war but not purchase a firearm. And before someone attempts to say “well if you get special training...” remember that you don’t need to be in the military to get rights. That is not the point of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Its pretty simple, they are not mature in body but especially in mind. Read anything about how the body and mind matures and you will see why. Look at how many of the mass shootings at schools are done by those who are young.
 
blackjack50 said:
Honest question. Can anyone please justify this? The NRA is suing on this one, and I fail to see a logical reason why someone could be sent to war but not purchase a firearm. And before someone attempts to say “well if you get special training...” remember that you don’t need to be in the military to get rights. That is not the point of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because they seem to be using those guns disproportionately inappropriately?
 
blackjack50 said:
Honest question. Can anyone please justify this? The NRA is suing on this one, and I fail to see a logical reason why someone could be sent to war but not purchase a firearm. And before someone attempts to say “well if you get special training...” remember that you don’t need to be in the military to get rights. That is not the point of the constitution.
Click to expand...

There's no need to justify it. It's a sensible response to the insanity.
 
blackjack50 said:
Honest question. Can anyone please justify this? The NRA is suing on this one, and I fail to see a logical reason why someone could be sent to war but not purchase a firearm. And before someone attempts to say “well if you get special training...” remember that you don’t need to be in the military to get rights. That is not the point of the constitution.
Click to expand...

The same (sarcasm)-> logic applies to alcohol. Don't look for sense when it comes to any "age of majority" laws.
 
Manc Skipper said:
There's no need to justify it. It's a sensible response to the insanity.
Click to expand...

Our country...our laws.
We already told you people what we think of your laws.
The only insanity here is your proven vitriol hatred of the United States.
So anything you agree with pertaining to my country, I am against.
 
independentusa said:
Its pretty simple, they are not mature in body but especially in mind. Read anything about how the body and mind matures and you will see why. Look at how many of the mass shootings at schools are done by those who are young.
Click to expand...


What is making our young people so immature? I was ready to own my first gun at 13, purchased on my own, with my own money. All of my friends owned guns as a right of passage at becoming an official teen of 13.

Now we are calling 25 year olds "children"

Should they be allowed to vote when they have less maturity than a 13 year old of the 50s?

 
I prefer to see a law that would restrict 18-20 from semi autos but allow them access to other guns. Revolvers, pump action, bolt, etc all fair game. It would allow them to exercise their rights and allow their minds to fully develop before obtaining semi auto rifles(the current boogeyman).

I also would raise voting and military age to 21 for the same reason I would restrict semi autos 18-20 don't make good choices. In the criminal justice world I would go under 13 is juvenile13-20 adolescent 21 over adults
 
PleasantValley said:
Our country...our laws.
We already told you people what we think of your laws.
The only insanity here is your proven vitriol hatred of the United States.
So anything you agree with pertaining to my country, I am against.
Click to expand...

Being defined by your disagreeability suits you.
 
independentusa said:
Its pretty simple, they are not mature in body but especially in mind. Read anything about how the body and mind matures and you will see why. Look at how many of the mass shootings at schools are done by those who are young.
Click to expand...

As many as people over that age? Why are we still allowing them to vote and go to war if they aren’t mature enough handle the responsibility?
 
Manc Skipper said:
There's no need to justify it. It's a sensible response to the insanity.
Click to expand...

Does it? You still would let them go get killed over seas? Make life altering decisions? Operate machinery that could kill others?

Sounds more like you don’t want to answer the question and can’t explain why the others are ok, but they can’t have the responsibility to own something for self defense. At 18 I was more capable of safety with a firearm than you would ever be as an adult.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
The same (sarcasm)-> logic applies to alcohol. Don't look for sense when it comes to any "age of majority" laws.
Click to expand...

Well if the logic is there...it must be applied across ALL ages and objects. If you can’t buy a gun at 18...you shouldn’t be in the military or drinking alcohol or voting. Period
 
Chillfolks said:
I prefer to see a law that would restrict 18-20 from semi autos but allow them access to other guns. Revolvers, pump action, bolt, etc all fair game. It would allow them to exercise their rights and allow their minds to fully develop before obtaining semi auto rifles(the current boogeyman).

I also would raise voting and military age to 21 for the same reason I would restrict semi autos 18-20 don't make good choices. In the criminal justice world I would go under 13 is juvenile13-20 adolescent 21 over adults
Click to expand...

Because those other weapons can’t kill people? You realize they have all been used to commit murder and shootings? In fact...pumps are a popular choice as well. The columbine scum bags even used double barrels.

I would be totally fine with the idea IF we adjusted the age of adulthood to 21. Voting. Porn. Cigarette. Tobacco. Drugs. Alcohol. Serving in the military or law enforcement. All of it.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
The same (sarcasm)-> logic applies to alcohol. Don't look for sense when it comes to any "age of majority" laws.
Click to expand...

The no alcohol below 21 laws were the result of federal blackmail - comply or lose some federal highway funding. This nonsense was (very likley - no link yet) the result of MADD efforts to lower BAC limits for "drunk" driving and to raise the drinking age.

https://www.chooseresponsibility.org/legal_age_21/
 
independentusa said:
Its pretty simple, they are not mature in body but especially in mind. Read anything about how the body and mind matures and you will see why. Look at how many of the mass shootings at schools are done by those who are young.
Click to expand...

First off, if that be the case then why not raise the age of military service, consent to sex, and signing contracts to that age? Secondly, how many of those mass shooters were within the 18-20 year old range?
 
tecoyah said:
Perhaps because they seem to be using those guns disproportionately inappropriately?
Click to expand...

Hey. What brings you over to this site? I stopped going to the other site because I'm not getting notifications. Anyway, to address your post, that doesn't answer the question as to why we allow the same people to join the military and operate tanks and helicopters.
 
Maccabee said:
Hey. What brings you over to this site? I stopped going to the other site because I'm not getting notifications. Anyway, to address your post, that doesn't answer the question as to why we allow the same people to join the military and operate tanks and helicopters.
Click to expand...

I just figured I would check this place out again and see if it changed for the better. We "Allow" people to have these guns in the military because we train them to shoot folks with them.
 
tecoyah said:
I just figured I would check this place out again and see if it changed for the better. We "Allow" people to have these guns in the military because we train them to shoot folks with them.
Click to expand...

As OP stated, since when did a constitutional right requires one to be trained to exercise their right? Also the vast majority of the people buying furearms are responsible people anyway and more mature than their peers of the same age bracket.
 
independentusa said:
Its pretty simple, they are not mature in body but especially in mind. Read anything about how the body and mind matures and you will see why. Look at how many of the mass shootings at schools are done by those who are young.
Click to expand...
Then there should be no more military service until age 21 or voting for that matter. Being to unmature and all.
 
blackjack50 said:
Because those other weapons can’t kill people? You realize they have all been used to commit murder and shootings? In fact...pumps are a popular choice as well. The columbine scum bags even used double barrels.
Click to expand...

It's more about the ability to fire 30 rounds using one mag verse reloading a revolver 5 times. It also would allow the 18 to 20 crowd to own personal protection or hunting arms. Assuming that adulthood is still 18.

I would be totally fine with the idea IF we adjusted the age of adulthood to 21. Voting. Porn. Cigarette. Tobacco. Drugs. Alcohol. Serving in the military or law enforcement. All of it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In criminal law I would classify under 13 as juvenile they would get out at 21 unless truly horrific act. Adolescent would be 13 to 20 getting out at age 35 unless truly horrific crime then over 21 your an adult and get full time along with everything elese.
 
blackjack50 said:
Honest question. Can anyone please justify this? The NRA is suing on this one, and I fail to see a logical reason why someone could be sent to war but not purchase a firearm. And before someone attempts to say “well if you get special training...” remember that you don’t need to be in the military to get rights. That is not the point of the constitution.
Click to expand...

My immediate response to your question would be........"because the FACTS show that a hugely disproportionate percentage of gun deaths (and crimes) in this country are committed by you people (mostly young men) in that general age demographic".

The FACT is that the gun violence rate among teens and young adults (i.e. age 13 to about 22) is HIGHER than the rate for the rest of the population, COMBINED. So that, alone, "justifies" increased gun regulations for that demographic group.

And the military argument is specious, at best. There is a huge difference between equipping 18-20-year-olds with ARs and sending them to fight in war zones abroad...........and making those kinds of weapons freely available to disgruntled, disturbed or even regular-old-emotionally labile 18-20 year old suburban kids on the streets of our neighborhoods here at home. We're talking about two entirely different measures of "maturity" when we compare the two scenarios. There just is no comparison between the level of situational, physical and mental training (and psychological screening) that a miliary recruit recieves before being entrusted with a weapon and live ammunition.......and the "absolute right to a gun" motto endorsed and promoted by the NRA-nuts among us.

The way the NRA-nuts selectively interpret the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is absurd.

The 2A is NOT unlimited. It is 100% Constitutional to restrict access to some firearms. That issue was resolved decades ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom