Author Topic: Gun Control?  (Read 21883 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #345 on: February 24, 2018, 08:55:41 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35970
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I donít thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. Itís going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. Iíve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  Theyíre no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but canít own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

You canít just take Constitutional rights away from adults based upon age. Itís discriminatory. Should we also take gun rights away from [insert race here] because they disproportionately murder people? Why not? Equal protection? Well, that applies to age, too.

And, the biggest age group in terms of gun murders is 20 to 24. Why stop at 21? Thatís an arbitrary age. Why not 25? 30?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #346 on: February 24, 2018, 09:46:17 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12876
  • Tommy Points: 1469
I donít thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. Itís going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. Iíve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  Theyíre no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but canít own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

You canít just take Constitutional rights away from adults based upon age. Itís discriminatory. Should we also take gun rights away from [insert race here] because they disproportionately murder people? Why not? Equal protection? Well, that applies to age, too.

And, the biggest age group in terms of gun murders is 20 to 24. Why stop at 21? Thatís an arbitrary age. Why not 25? 30?

I think you can take rights away based on age (license to drive; alcohol, pot, vote...), but I don't dispute your point that there is something arbitrary about the number.  I could also take your argument in the other direction.  Why 18? Why not 15?  Why not allow 12 year olds the right to drive or to drink?
With some support from brain science, we do know that the 16 year old brain is less developed, especially in the pre-frontal cortex (which regulates emotional responses among other things), than the 25 year old brain will be.  So we do make decisions that may seem arbitrary or even discriminatory, but that actually have some basis in science. Hopefully we only make decisions that withhold "rights" based on youth when it is truly an issue that impacts the general welfare and the right of Americans to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  Unbridled gun ownership impacts rights for owners and non-owners. 

Again, I doubt age increase is of much good on its own, but I definitely wouldn't take it off the table without a good look at what it could do in conjunction with other measures.


Edit: I do get that there is a difference between a right and a privilege.  And I understand the argument that the 2nd amendment speaks to a "right".    I suppose the realization I am coming to is that I do think gun ownership should be considered more of a privilege than a right. 
« Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 10:02:14 AM by Neurotic Guy »

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #347 on: February 24, 2018, 10:47:48 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35970
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I donít thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. Itís going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. Iíve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  Theyíre no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but canít own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

You canít just take Constitutional rights away from adults based upon age. Itís discriminatory. Should we also take gun rights away from [insert race here] because they disproportionately murder people? Why not? Equal protection? Well, that applies to age, too.

And, the biggest age group in terms of gun murders is 20 to 24. Why stop at 21? Thatís an arbitrary age. Why not 25? 30?

I think you can take rights away based on age (license to drive; alcohol, pot, vote...), but I don't dispute your point that there is something arbitrary about the number.  I could also take your argument in the other direction.  Why 18? Why not 15?  Why not allow 12 year olds the right to drive or to drink?
With some support from brain science, we do know that the 16 year old brain is less developed, especially in the pre-frontal cortex (which regulates emotional responses among other things), than the 25 year old brain will be.  So we do make decisions that may seem arbitrary or even discriminatory, but that actually have some basis in science. Hopefully we only make decisions that withhold "rights" based on youth when it is truly an issue that impacts the general welfare and the right of Americans to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  Unbridled gun ownership impacts rights for owners and non-owners. 

Again, I doubt age increase is of much good on its own, but I definitely wouldn't take it off the table without a good look at what it could do in conjunction with other measures.


Edit: I do get that there is a difference between a right and a privilege.  And I understand the argument that the 2nd amendment speaks to a "right".    I suppose the realization I am coming to is that I do think gun ownership should be considered more of a privilege than a right.

Regardless of whether it *should* be a right, it is one. Itís embodied in the Bill Of Rights. Possessing guns is given the same protection as the right to Due Process, free speech, free exercise of religion, etc.  Itís subject to some reasonable regulation, but completely barring adults from a Constitutional right is not really an appropriate regulation.

Thatís the key difference between gun ownership and drinking, driving, buying cigarettes, etc.

Now, overall the Supreme Court has been very passive regarding gun regulations (read Clarence Thomasí dissent this week), but thereís no principled or Constitutional reason for such bans to be valid.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 11:15:48 AM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #348 on: February 24, 2018, 10:50:40 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33482
  • Tommy Points: 5524
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.
Trust me on THIS - my "uncomfortableness" if there is such a word - had ZERO impact on me doing my JOB  - if it came down to that.

This is evident by my HONORABLE service in the Navy and retirement with benefits AFTER.

This is evident by my Shadow Box that I love that brings to my rememberance my faithful service.

This is evidence to me passing my Armed Qualifications at the shooting ranges when it came to that.

This is evidence by the MANY Security Drills that I was a part of during my time in Service.

That's all nice and equally irrelevant. Officer Peterson could've said the same thing just 2 weeks ago. However, unlike him you were fortunate you weren't put to the test. The likelihood of you responding well wouldn't have been very high based on what you said. I definitely wouldn't want someone with that mindset having my back. Again, you were really lucky.
Lets halt this right here. GF served this country honorably and none should be questioning his ability to do his duty.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #349 on: February 26, 2018, 11:42:22 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41773
  • Tommy Points: 2431
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/968155353912369152

Quote
Trump rips Fla. Deputies for not going into school. "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."

This guy, man. This guy. We elected this guy president of our country. We're morons.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #350 on: February 26, 2018, 11:45:52 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35970
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/968155353912369152

Quote
Trump rips Fla. Deputies for not going into school. "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."

This guy, man. This guy. We elected this guy president of our country. We're morons.

He must have meant if he had his full Secret Service detail with him.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #351 on: February 26, 2018, 11:50:38 AM »

Online rondohondo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10673
  • Tommy Points: 1184
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/968155353912369152

Quote
Trump rips Fla. Deputies for not going into school. "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."

This guy, man. This guy. We elected this guy president of our country. We're morons.



Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #352 on: February 26, 2018, 11:51:19 AM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3770
  • Tommy Points: 250
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/968155353912369152

Quote
Trump rips Fla. Deputies for not going into school. "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon."

This guy, man. This guy. We elected this guy president of our country. We're morons.

He must have meant if he had his full Secret Service detail with him.

No, we can actually take this as literal truth.

He believes it.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #353 on: February 26, 2018, 12:20:52 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12876
  • Tommy Points: 1469
I donít thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. Itís going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. Iíve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  Theyíre no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but canít own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

You canít just take Constitutional rights away from adults based upon age. Itís discriminatory. Should we also take gun rights away from [insert race here] because they disproportionately murder people? Why not? Equal protection? Well, that applies to age, too.

And, the biggest age group in terms of gun murders is 20 to 24. Why stop at 21? Thatís an arbitrary age. Why not 25? 30?

I think you can take rights away based on age (license to drive; alcohol, pot, vote...), but I don't dispute your point that there is something arbitrary about the number.  I could also take your argument in the other direction.  Why 18? Why not 15?  Why not allow 12 year olds the right to drive or to drink?
With some support from brain science, we do know that the 16 year old brain is less developed, especially in the pre-frontal cortex (which regulates emotional responses among other things), than the 25 year old brain will be.  So we do make decisions that may seem arbitrary or even discriminatory, but that actually have some basis in science. Hopefully we only make decisions that withhold "rights" based on youth when it is truly an issue that impacts the general welfare and the right of Americans to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  Unbridled gun ownership impacts rights for owners and non-owners. 

Again, I doubt age increase is of much good on its own, but I definitely wouldn't take it off the table without a good look at what it could do in conjunction with other measures.


Edit: I do get that there is a difference between a right and a privilege.  And I understand the argument that the 2nd amendment speaks to a "right".    I suppose the realization I am coming to is that I do think gun ownership should be considered more of a privilege than a right.

Regardless of whether it *should* be a right, it is one. Itís embodied in the Bill Of Rights. Possessing guns is given the same protection as the right to Due Process, free speech, free exercise of religion, etc.  Itís subject to some reasonable regulation, but completely barring adults from a Constitutional right is not really an appropriate regulation.

Thatís the key difference between gun ownership and drinking, driving, buying cigarettes, etc.

Now, overall the Supreme Court has been very passive regarding gun regulations (read Clarence Thomasí dissent this week), but thereís no principled or Constitutional reason for such bans to be valid.

Before I declare with conviction that I favor repeal of the 2nd amendment, I want to be clear that I understand this well enough:  regulations/moderations to Freedom of Speech -- e.g., practical speech restrictions like not yelling "fire" in a theater, or not using hate speech to incite others -- are different than protecting the general welfare by raising the age of owning an assault rifle from 18 to 21.    If I got it correct, then I guess I have crossed the line over the past week from favoring reasonable regulation to the 2nd amendment to favoring repeal.

I actually do believe people should have the privilege of owning guns for recreation and protection, but if framed as a "right", after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018, I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles, any more than it is a right to own a bazookas or hand grenades.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #354 on: February 26, 2018, 12:28:38 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35970
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

Iím sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on ďassault riflesĒ? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #355 on: February 26, 2018, 12:38:07 PM »

Online mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3456
  • Tommy Points: 581
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.
Trust me on THIS - my "uncomfortableness" if there is such a word - had ZERO impact on me doing my JOB  - if it came down to that.

This is evident by my HONORABLE service in the Navy and retirement with benefits AFTER.

This is evident by my Shadow Box that I love that brings to my rememberance my faithful service.

This is evidence to me passing my Armed Qualifications at the shooting ranges when it came to that.

This is evidence by the MANY Security Drills that I was a part of during my time in Service.

That's all nice and equally irrelevant. Officer Peterson could've said the same thing just 2 weeks ago. However, unlike him you were fortunate you weren't put to the test. The likelihood of you responding well wouldn't have been very high based on what you said. I definitely wouldn't want someone with that mindset having my back. Again, you were really lucky.

This wreaks of the voice of ignorance and an attack on GreenFaith1819's competence based on nothing you could possibly know.  Please stop.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #356 on: February 26, 2018, 12:46:54 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32774
  • Tommy Points: 1527
  • Pre-school artwork
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

Iím sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on ďassault riflesĒ? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.


Because they seem to be a common factor in mass shootings.

Knicks: Irving, Drummond, Marcus Morris, S. Muhammad, C. Lee, Sullinger, Hield, M. Chriss , V. Carter, T. Zeller, N. Cole, T. Prince, Livio Jean-Charles, Tyler Ulis, N. Collison

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #357 on: February 26, 2018, 12:56:38 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35970
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

Iím sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on ďassault riflesĒ? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.


Because they seem to be a common factor in mass shootings.

Right, but theyíre a very small part of the problem of gun violence.  FBI statistics suggest there are fewer than 400 murders with rifles of any kind per year. In the wake of the Pulse shooting,  Huffington Post suggested that ďassaultĒ rifles make up less than 1% of gun fatalities.

The prior ďassault weaponĒ ban had almost no affect. With at least some political momentum now, why focus it on such a small problem? Are the thousands of kids killed and injured by handguns worth less than the dozens of casualties from school shootings?

Gun control advocates should come up with their own ďContract With AmericaĒ that is aggressive, but appealing to the majority of the country.

* Comprehensive universal background checks, including all non-family transfers

* National registry of all firearms

* A waiting period for all gun sales

* Limits on magazine size

* No modifications to make a gun fire faster like bump stocks

* Requirements for trigger locks, etc.

* Mandatory safety classes for all new gun purchases

* Huge increases in block grants to the states for increased mental health funding

Keep it simple, and make it clear you support hunters and folks protecting their homes
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 01:10:02 PM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #358 on: February 26, 2018, 01:03:47 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33482
  • Tommy Points: 5524
Quote
... after 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018 ...

Iím sympathetic to gun control, but stuff like this is propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html

Quote
I am leaning further away from believing it is a right to own assault rifles

Why the focus on ďassault riflesĒ? They make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.


Because they seem to be a common factor in mass shootings.

Right, but theyíre a very small part of the problem of gun violence.  FBI statistics suggest there are fewer than 400 murders with rifles of any kind per year. In the wake of the Pulse shooting,  Huffington Post suggested that ďassaultĒ rifles make up less than 1% of gun fatalities.

The prior ďassault weaponĒ ban had almost no affect. With at least some political momentum now, why focus it on such a small problem? Are the thousands of kids killed and injured by handguns worth less than the dozens of casualties from school shootings?
I agree completely and say it every time gun control is brought up. The real plague on this country is handgun deaths. And the NRA knows this which is why they will probably fight like hell and make a spectacle about raising the age limit on buying assault rifles and banning bump stocks, so that the real issue of handguns never gets brought up.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #359 on: February 26, 2018, 01:04:48 PM »

Online mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3456
  • Tommy Points: 581
I donít thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. Itís going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. Iíve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  Theyíre no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but canít own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

You canít just take Constitutional rights away from adults based upon age. Itís discriminatory. Should we also take gun rights away from [insert race here] because they disproportionately murder people? Why not? Equal protection? Well, that applies to age, too.

And, the biggest age group in terms of gun murders is 20 to 24. Why stop at 21? Thatís an arbitrary age. Why not 25? 30?

I think you can take rights away based on age (license to drive; alcohol, pot, vote...), but I don't dispute your point that there is something arbitrary about the number.  I could also take your argument in the other direction.  Why 18? Why not 15?  Why not allow 12 year olds the right to drive or to drink?
With some support from brain science, we do know that the 16 year old brain is less developed, especially in the pre-frontal cortex (which regulates emotional responses among other things), than the 25 year old brain will be.  So we do make decisions that may seem arbitrary or even discriminatory, but that actually have some basis in science. Hopefully we only make decisions that withhold "rights" based on youth when it is truly an issue that impacts the general welfare and the right of Americans to pursue life, liberty and happiness.  Unbridled gun ownership impacts rights for owners and non-owners. 

Again, I doubt age increase is of much good on its own, but I definitely wouldn't take it off the table without a good look at what it could do in conjunction with other measures.


Edit: I do get that there is a difference between a right and a privilege.  And I understand the argument that the 2nd amendment speaks to a "right".    I suppose the realization I am coming to is that I do think gun ownership should be considered more of a privilege than a right.

Regardless of whether it *should* be a right, it is one. Itís embodied in the Bill Of Rights. Possessing guns is given the same protection as the right to Due Process, free speech, free exercise of religion, etc.  Itís subject to some reasonable regulation, but completely barring adults from a Constitutional right is not really an appropriate regulation.

Thatís the key difference between gun ownership and drinking, driving, buying cigarettes, etc.

Now, overall the Supreme Court has been very passive regarding gun regulations (read Clarence Thomasí dissent this week), but thereís no principled or Constitutional reason for such bans to be valid.

Well, it's not really that black and white.  The right to bear arms is protected and the courts have held that, despite the vagueness (and multiple versions of) the "well regulated militia being necessary" part, that the provision refers to individual rights.

But the SCOTUS has on multiple occasions made it clear that the right does not extend to possession of any arms and that Congress and the States have legitimate authority to regulate that right.   Just as they have authority to place curbs on other rights protected by the Constitution.

The National Fire Arms act of 1934, which imposed numerous restrictions, taxes and regulations on guns (including bans on certain types of guns), was enacted in response to all the gangland killings during prohibition.  It was challenged (based on the 2nd amendment) and supported by the SCOTUS in 1938.

This has established strong precedence that the government _can_ tightly regulate guns in a variety of ways in this country and is the model for prior and existing legislation that has controlled gun ownership at both the Fed and State level.

The current free-for-all, basically un-controlled access to guns that we've had over recent years is not really the product of the 2nd Amendment.  It is the product of the dramatic gutting of prior (Constitutionally allowed) Federal gun control laws.  In particular the 2003 Tiahrt amendment (which prohibited law enforcement from publicly releasing data showing where criminals bought their firearms), the failure of Congress to renew the assault weapons ban when it expired in 2004 and then the 2005 Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which granted gun manufacturers immunity from civil lawsuits.

Those three acts by a GOP Congress under a GOP President are what have enabled the current waive of massive gun availability in this country.  Not the 2nd Amendment.

Those acts are fully subject to repeal and modification, should a future Congress and President decide to do so.

The 1994 ban on assault weapons could be re-instated permanently, should a future Congress and President decide to do so.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.