k.rollin
Regular Member
I'll tell you all about it at the BBQ on Sunday. It's quite a story to type out, and it's probably better in person.
Last edited:
-
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.
NRA Challenges Constitutionality Of Federal Handgun Ban For Law Abiding 18-20 Year-Ol
- Thread starter Ajetpilot
- Start date
I'll tell you all about it at the BBQ on Sunday. It's quite a story to type out, and it's probably better in person.
Whitney
Regular Member
Silly Laws
That is exacty what I interpret. And as Dave says there is no test case. I damn sure dont want to be the first one, regardless of the AG opininon. But more to the point of the OP, what is the reasoning here for such a law. It does not make any sense to allow the ownership of such a device and then prohibit the use of it.
It makes as much sense as banning 18-21 year old "responsible" (sarcasam) adults from purchasing hanguns.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is how are these "silly laws" derrived? I dont mean to sound phillisophical in nature. Who gets to decide this?
That is exacty what I interpret. And as Dave says there is no test case. I damn sure dont want to be the first one, regardless of the AG opininon. But more to the point of the OP, what is the reasoning here for such a law. It does not make any sense to allow the ownership of such a device and then prohibit the use of it.
It makes as much sense as banning 18-21 year old "responsible" (sarcasam) adults from purchasing hanguns.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is how are these "silly laws" derrived? I dont mean to sound phillisophical in nature. Who gets to decide this?
devildoc5
Regular Member
some "bright" congressman or other such representative that "we" elect to discharge "our wishes." "they" then decide that "they" have "incredible" ideas about how to "prevent" violence and other such things. "they" then enact these laws and proceed to tell "us" what we can and cannot do for "public safety"....
Tomas
Regular Member
Heh. When I was in tenth grade I was dating a French gal, and the few times I had dinner at her parent's house, there was wine with dinner, including us.
In the 18-21 age range I was trained in weapons, got a TS security clearance, worked on B-52Fs, B-58s, and one broken SR-71. Oh, yeah, I also got married.
It wasn't 'til I was older, though, that they shipped me off to a war zone - but not THAT much older.
Maturity is not necessarily related to age. I've have met youngsters who were mature well beyond their tender ages, and I have me middle aged adults that I would not trust to do anything reliably.
After all that is said, Heinlein got it right, in my opinion... "Beings must never be judged by categories, but only as individuals."
In the 18-21 age range I was trained in weapons, got a TS security clearance, worked on B-52Fs, B-58s, and one broken SR-71. Oh, yeah, I also got married.
It wasn't 'til I was older, though, that they shipped me off to a war zone - but not THAT much older.
Maturity is not necessarily related to age. I've have met youngsters who were mature well beyond their tender ages, and I have me middle aged adults that I would not trust to do anything reliably.
After all that is said, Heinlein got it right, in my opinion... "Beings must never be judged by categories, but only as individuals."
Last edited: