swatspyder
Regular Member
imported post
FunkTrooper wrote:
/thread
FunkTrooper wrote:
and................
/thread
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Why Must 18 thru 20-year-olds Be Defenseless?
- Thread starter kwiebe
- Start date
kwiebe
Regular Member
imported post
NavyLT wrote:
It's disheartening to see the posts making generalizations re: "maturity" of an age group, etc. This is just nanny state thinking, imo, and has no place in a Constitutional Republic. If they're adults, they're adults. Deal with it.
And I think the comparison with the voting issue/serving in the military is valid (while not a perfect analogy). Comparing things does not mean you're equating them, and I disagree with the premise that the voting issue was about "voting against the war." That may have been the practical impression of those involved, but the real issue from a societal perspective was the relative responsibility and trust associated with the concept of voting vs. the concept of serving your country.
My point was that, in the issue of adult carrying, it is reasonable to compare the level of societal trust and responsibility associated with carrying a firearm, peaceful society or no. By law, that decision should be left up to the adult, and once again, if the adult is of the age where he may serve his country, that should be indicative of the amount of societal trust and responsibility willing to be placed upon that individual.
NavyLT wrote:
+1
It's disheartening to see the posts making generalizations re: "maturity" of an age group, etc. This is just nanny state thinking, imo, and has no place in a Constitutional Republic. If they're adults, they're adults. Deal with it.
And I think the comparison with the voting issue/serving in the military is valid (while not a perfect analogy). Comparing things does not mean you're equating them, and I disagree with the premise that the voting issue was about "voting against the war." That may have been the practical impression of those involved, but the real issue from a societal perspective was the relative responsibility and trust associated with the concept of voting vs. the concept of serving your country.
My point was that, in the issue of adult carrying, it is reasonable to compare the level of societal trust and responsibility associated with carrying a firearm, peaceful society or no. By law, that decision should be left up to the adult, and once again, if the adult is of the age where he may serve his country, that should be indicative of the amount of societal trust and responsibility willing to be placed upon that individual.
compmanio365
Regular Member
imported post
I happen to know people in their 60s I wouldn't trust being around if they were armed......I know people under 18 I would have no problem covering my back in a firefight....age has very little to do with it.
I happen to know someone personally that's the same age as I that I wouldn't trust at this point with a rusty spoon, much less a firearm. Unfortunately this person hasn't done anything yet to get their carry rights revoked......until they do something, they have the same rights as any other person; my opinion is only that, my opinion.
Frankly, arbitrary laws about age have very little to do with reality, and just perpetuate the "feel good" society we live in. The world is not safer because little Johnny can't own his own rifle or pistol.
I happen to know people in their 60s I wouldn't trust being around if they were armed......I know people under 18 I would have no problem covering my back in a firefight....age has very little to do with it.
I happen to know someone personally that's the same age as I that I wouldn't trust at this point with a rusty spoon, much less a firearm. Unfortunately this person hasn't done anything yet to get their carry rights revoked......until they do something, they have the same rights as any other person; my opinion is only that, my opinion.
Frankly, arbitrary laws about age have very little to do with reality, and just perpetuate the "feel good" society we live in. The world is not safer because little Johnny can't own his own rifle or pistol.
virgil47
Regular Member
imported post
Vandal wrote:
B.S. If a person is old enough and mature enough to vote for the leader of the most powerful nation on earth and are also mature enough to carry and use a machine gun in the military then they are certainly old enough to buy and carry a handgun or buy a beer.
Vandal wrote:
B.S. If a person is old enough and mature enough to vote for the leader of the most powerful nation on earth and are also mature enough to carry and use a machine gun in the military then they are certainly old enough to buy and carry a handgun or buy a beer.
killchain
Regular Member
imported post
virgil47 wrote:
Just like open carrying, everyone has the right to own a gun/carry but maybe some people shouldn't do it. It is the right of a 35-year old man with anger problems who got a few suspensions in school for fighting, and screams at people on the road, but maybe he should think twice about carrying a pistol if he thinks he'll blow his top. (Not speaking of anyone in particular, just saying.
)
Me personally, I have a very firm grasp of what I feel is right and what people's rights are. I support things like open carry because it is everyone's right. Sometimes I think some people shouldn't do it, but I'm not going to try to stop them or tell them. It's your right, your business, and as long as you don't hurt anyone around me everything is A-OK. This applies to a LOT of things, not just open carry.
But who are we to say who can and who can't? Why should an 18-year old be restricted whereas a 21-year old isn't? Other than the relative idea of "maturity" no one can really provide a concrete answer... and maturity is relative.
virgil47 wrote:
Word Virgil, word. Very true, I agree with you 110%, especially in reference to the military. Anyone who can take the Oath and put their life on the line for their country should be afforded all the rights a "full-blooded adult" has, including the right to own/carry a handgun, buy alcohol, etc.
Just like open carrying, everyone has the right to own a gun/carry but maybe some people shouldn't do it. It is the right of a 35-year old man with anger problems who got a few suspensions in school for fighting, and screams at people on the road, but maybe he should think twice about carrying a pistol if he thinks he'll blow his top. (Not speaking of anyone in particular, just saying.
) Me personally, I have a very firm grasp of what I feel is right and what people's rights are. I support things like open carry because it is everyone's right. Sometimes I think some people shouldn't do it, but I'm not going to try to stop them or tell them. It's your right, your business, and as long as you don't hurt anyone around me everything is A-OK. This applies to a LOT of things, not just open carry.
But who are we to say who can and who can't? Why should an 18-year old be restricted whereas a 21-year old isn't? Other than the relative idea of "maturity" no one can really provide a concrete answer... and maturity is relative.