Honest Discussion By A Pro-Gun Advocate On Firearm Laws

[jonathan180iq]

Because of something called the Constitution.

Regulating how arms are obtained, ensuring safety of use, and limiting the type of firearms that are allowed do not infringe upon those rights. The Supreme Court has agreed with this a couple of times.

 

[esmith]

Regulating how arms are obtained, ensuring safety of use, and limiting the type of firearms that are allowed do not infringe upon those rights. The Supreme Court has agreed with this a couple of times.

You said: "We restricted people's comforts because we realized it was better for everyone. Why shouldn't we do something similar with firearms?"
It all depends on how far you want take "restriction"
Anything that goes beyond the current Federal Law is going to far.
Now your anti-gun states like CA have gone and trying to go further in their "we know better" policies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Counter:
If someone steals you car and kills someone should you be held liable?

If it's a car that has been specifically designed to kill people and you leave it unlocked with the keys in it, yeah - maybe you should be held liable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anything that goes beyond the current Federal Law is going to far.

So the current law is exactly correct?

This must be the first and only time in history that a legislature managed to create a perfect law. Wild.

 

[averageJOE]

2. Raise the minimum age to 21 to purchase a AR-15 style weapon.
My contention is that this is a knee jerk reaction.
What mental attributes does a 21 year old person have over a 18 year old person?
Do they not realize that a person 17 years of age can join the US military and be issued a automatic weapon. What do they want to do, pass a law that you must be 21 years old to join the military?
Again this is a knee jerk reaction by those that have not set down a looked at the issue.

As a veteran, I hate this argument. So much to the point that I believe it to be nothing more than a strawman.

There are tons of things one does in the military that doesn't automatically make them OK to do in the civilian world. For example, not all states allow one to transfer their military jumps (as in parachute jumps) into getting a skydiving licence. Basically, being a paratrooper doesn't automatically qualify one to be a skydiver.

When soliders are "issued" a weapon it is for two reasons; for training purposes, or for deployment. They don't get to take them home, or back to their dorm rooms. And when it comes to extreme gun control and gun restrictions we don't have to look no further than the military. The military is in total control of those weapons. When out in training, solider's are still required to have a Blank Firing Adapters, and sometimes accompanied with a safety block, on a all times. And when they are given live rounds, either on a range or deployment, EVERY SINGLE round is accounted for. Have you ever been on a range when one round isn't accounted for? Have you ever been on a base that has one weapon unaccounted for? I have. The entire base goes on lock down. Fast food restaurants and all.

The military can control an 18 year old with an M4. Society cannot control an 18 year old with an AR-15.

And don't ask me if the age if the military should be raised to 21. Not only will you not like my answer, but it is a topic for a whole other discussion.

Don't take this as a reason to raise the age to 21. Just a reason to STOP using the weak reason of the military as a reason not to.

 

[esmith]

So the current law is exactly correct?

This must be the first and only time in history that a legislature managed to create a perfect law. Wild.

It may not be 100% correct in your opinion. But in my opinion it is good enough (that good enough for you?)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It may not be 100% correct in your opinion. But in my opinion it is good enough (that good enough for you?)

No, it isn't, because you implied that it isn't just good enough, but that it couldn't be made better with a bit of tweaking.

 

[esmith]

As a veteran, I hate this argument. So much to the point that I believe it to be nothing more than a strawman.

There are tons of things one does in the military that doesn't automatically make them OK to do in the civilian world. For example, not all states allow one to transfer their military jumps (as in parachute jumps) into getting a skydiving licence. Basically, being a paratrooper doesn't automatically qualify one to be a skydiver.

When soliders are "issued" a weapon it is for two reasons; for training purposes, or for deployment. They don't get to take them home, or back to their dorm rooms. And when it comes to extreme gun control and gun restrictions we don't have to look no further than the military. The military is in total control of those weapons. When out in training, solider's are still required to have a Blank Firing Adapters, and sometimes accompanied with a safety block, on a all times. And when they are given live rounds, either on a range or deployment, EVERY SINGLE round is accounted for. Have you ever been on a range when one round isn't accounted for? Have you ever been on a base that has one weapon unaccounted for? I have. The entire base goes on lock down. Fast food restaurants and all.

The military can control an 18 year old with an M4. Society cannot control an 18 year old with an AR-15.

And don't ask me if the age if the military should be raised to 21. Not only will you not like my answer, but it is a topic for a whole other discussion.

Don't take this as a reason to raise the age to 21. Just a reason to STOP using the weak reason of the military as a reason not to.

Then maybe we should look at why society can not. And the military can not control everyone, and I have 21 years experience to back that up.
In addition I was and never would advocate raising the age to join the military to 21. What I was attempting to say is that the military accepts the idea that person 17 years of age is competent to handle a weapon.
Second the idea of having to turn in you weapon into the armory in certain ares of the world (like in the US) is plain stupid. If you trust them enough in a combat zone then trust them.

 

[esmith]

No, it isn't, because you implied that it isn't just good enough, but that it couldn't be made better with a bit of tweaking.

I'm will accept that what is on the books now is all we need, but I would accept removing some restrictions

 

[idav]

Then maybe we should look at why society can not. And the military can not control everyone, and I have 21 years experience to back that up.
In addition I was and never would advocate raising the age to join the military to 21. What I was attempting to say is that the military accepts the idea that person 17 years of age is competent to handle a weapon.
Second the idea of having to turn in you weapon into the armory in certain ares of the world (like in the US) is plain stupid. If you trust them enough in a combat zone then trust them.

Soldiers are competent to have a weapon under very strict conditions which means the guns being in armories most the time.

 

[averageJOE]

Then maybe we should look at why society can not. And the military can not control everyone, and I have 21 years experience to back that up.
In addition I was and never would advocate raising the age to join the military to 21. What I was attempting to say is that the military accepts the idea that person 17 years of age is competent to handle a weapon.
Second the idea of having to turn in you weapon into the armory in certain ares of the world (like in the US) is plain stupid. If you trust them enough in a combat zone then trust them.

I don't know how long you've been out, but the military has changed.

I'm saying the military controls both the weapons and the soldier. The military "trusts" an 18 year old (not 17. you may join at 17 but have to be 18 before you go to basic) because they understand that they have the ability to control both.

Again, do not use the military as a reason NOT to raise the age to 21 to purchase an AR-15.

 

[Nous]

If you would get out of your bubble world and into the real world you might just learn something.
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/ATF/e0405/final.pdf

What is it you think I should learn from that report? What is its relevance to anything I've said?

 

[esmith]

What is it you think I should learn from that report? What is its relevance to anything I've said?

Because the ATF doesn't have the time to do the investigations.

 

[Nous]

Because the ATF doesn't have the time to do the investigations.

Nothing I've said is contradicted by anything in the report you linked to. Correct?

 

[esmith]

I don't know how long you've been out, but the military has changed.

Yeah, and certain aspects have been for the worse

I'm saying the military controls both the weapons and the soldier. The military "trusts" an 18 year old (not 17. you may join at 17 but have to be 18 before you go to basic) because they understand that they have the ability to control both.

another person not doing research.
High schoolers enter Army through Split Option program

If I would trust someone in a combat unit in a hostile fire zone who is under the age of 21 then I will trust them in a non-combat situation. If they screw up then they face the consequences of their actions. Enough said.

Again, do not use the military as a reason NOT to raise the age to 21 to purchase an AR-15.

Try reading what I wrote in Post# 128

 

[esmith]

Nothing I've said is contradicted by anything in the report you linked to. Correct?

No, but it is basically a wast of time since a LEO will not use the NICS data base to do any investigations and the odds of the ATF doing so are slim and none.
When a weapon is found at a crime scene or taking from someone who has it in their possession about as far as the investigation goes is checking to see if it is stolen. If not it sets in the evidence locker until it is disposed of. Prosecutes do not even want to bother themselves with prosecuting lying on a Form 4473

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm will accept that what is on the books now is all we need, but I would accept removing some restrictions

Are you of the idea that no further restrictions would ever a good or necessary thing?

 

[Falvlun]

Then maybe we should look at why society can not. And the military can not control everyone, and I have 21 years experience to back that up.
In addition I was and never would advocate raising the age to join the military to 21. What I was attempting to say is that the military accepts the idea that person 17 years of age is competent to handle a weapon.
Second the idea of having to turn in you weapon into the armory in certain ares of the world (like in the US) is plain stupid. If you trust them enough in a combat zone then trust them.

The difference is that the 18 yr old in the military is given extensive training on how to safely use their weapons.

I am for a training program implemented for anyone who wants to buy or own a gun, as well as additional training required for different types of gun. Do that, and no need for a 21 age restriction. They would demonstrate their competence, just like a kid in the military does.

 

[esmith]

Are you of the idea that no further restrictions would ever a good or necessary thing?

That is correct.
However, I will admit that I am open to discussing those that sell a gun shows on a regular basis.
I have sold firearms to private individuals and I do not see a problem with that. There is no way I would go to a gun show to do so though.

 

[esmith]

The difference is that the 18 yr old in the military is given extensive training on how to safely use their weapons.

I am for a training program implemented for anyone who wants to buy or own a gun, as well as additional training required for different types of gun. Do that, and no need for a 21 age restriction. They would demonstrate their competence, just like a kid in the military does.

And people take drivers training. How is that working out?