# Raising the legal age of adulthood. Let's discuss.



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Like the rest of you, I've been reading and engaging with others on the aftermath of the latest school shooting.
While reading about the details of the case, as they are currently known, I read about how this person acquired the rifle used in the shooting.
This person passed the background check and bought the rifle legally. He then went on to commit numerous acts of cowardly murder.
The response has been overwhelming, as expected.
But one thing did jump out at me.
Anti-gun activists and proponents often cite that the age to buy a rifle is 18 years old, while the age to buy a handgun is 21. These are federal restrictions imposed under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Since most of the shooters who employ a rifle are under the age of 21, maybe we should bump the age.
So it struck me that we should consider raising the age of buy a rifle to 21.
But that caused an internal conflict. "_If they are old enough to be sent to war to die for their country, they're old enough to do all the other things an adult can do._"

That's when I had the idea to raise the legal age of adulthood itself. It's not a new idea, but maybe one we should start pushing harder for.
Think of the ramifications of raising the legally recognized age of adulthood to 21.
Cigarettes, military service, rifles, and even voting.... all would be impacted by this, and maybe for the better.
Knowing I'm prone to "blind spots", I wanted to start a discussion to get feedback and hear concerns.

Obviously this would have a detrimental effect on our military recruiting efforts. Perhaps active military service would pre-empt this "adulthood" restriction, allowing any active duty 18+ individual to enjoy full adult status. I dunno, that might be impractical. Just brainstorming.

I know I'd welcome the effect this would have on voting.
High school kids voting based on which politician can promise them the biggest reward seems like a bad way to choose leaders.
Let them see more of the real world first. Their voting patterns would likely change.

It doesn't violate due process rights, as red-flag laws would. (I can't believe I used to think those were a good idea, and not ripe for abuse)
It doesn't violate current law that restricts gun registration, as any "universal background check" system would require.
It doesn't violate a person's constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, which SCOTUS has ruled encompasses "all bearable arms" and those in "common use". (two different cases)
It could have a temporary limitation where current 18-20 year olds, as of some date, would retain their adult status.

Nobody looses any rights, and we further restrict immature children from participating in objectively dangerous activities.
Thoughts?


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

In some areas a military person is legal to drink under 18 (if they can drive to a place that allows 18 year olds to drink

I was 15 when I bought my first rifle at a western auto.

making the age 19,20, or 21 is not going to stop this...

first we have to understand it is not a gun problem.. it is a person problem

You could however say 21 to buy a rifle UNLESS you have honorable military service

better question WHAT LAW WOULD HAVE STOPPED ANY OF THESE SHOOTINGS


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

oh, and I think voting should be restricted to tax payers over the age of 25


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Maine-Marine said:


> better question WHAT LAW WOULD HAVE STOPPED ANY OF THESE SHOOTINGS


Believe me, I'm not trying to sidestep this important question.
But the specific cases we've seen in the last three weeks would have been prevented by restricting rifle purchases to older buyers. (assuming the legal purchase was their only known option)
The Buffalo shooter and the Uvalde shooter were both 18 and bought their rifles legally after passing background checks, as neither had any previous felonies. The Buffalo shooter even passed a mental health assessment.
Clearly background checks are not working as intended, and mental health assessments are far too subjective, but anti-gun folks think more of the same will make a difference.

But if the age hard cap was increased by raising the age of adulthood, it would prevent the LEGAL purchase of rifles by, let's face it, grown children.
I'm absolutely NOT saying this would stop all rifle shootings. And we know the Virginia Tech shooter used legally purchased handguns.
But it would add an additional barrier of time to the legal purchase route. It would absolutely cut down on incidents if the teenager had no knowledge of how to acquire a rifle illegally.

It's not a perfect solution by any means. But it's a legal one that doesn't infringe on rights.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> better question WHAT LAW WOULD HAVE STOPPED ANY OF THESE SHOOTINGS


And this is the heart of the matter. You can't discipline a child anymore because you can be arrested. For some things, time out in a corner is not sufficient. Growing up, a child is taught there are no serious consequences for their actions so what do you expect. This kid was a transgender, his FB posts have been shared. He was picked on, from what I've been hearing, because of this. And he had been planning this since 2018 when he and another kid wanted to reenact Columbine. 

Now they want to ban rifles, at least many of them. Schumer has added an amendment for this very thing to an existing bill before Congress. 

None of this existing or new laws will stop this. Guns are very restricted in Chicago. Yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the country. Rittenhouse was shot at by a convicted felon and he admitted it in court. Yet Rittenhouse was charge and no charges at all for the felon. He walked free.

No, we changed from right is right and wrong is wrong to what's wrong is right and what's right is wrong. This won't stop until that is fixed.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> But if the age hard cap was increased by raising the age of adulthood, it would prevent the LEGAL purchase of rifles by, let's face it, grown children.
> I'm absolutely NOT saying this would stop all rifle shootings. And we know the Virginia Tech shooter used legally purchased handguns.
> But it would add an additional barrier of time to the legal purchase route. It would absolutely cut down on incidents if the teenager had no knowledge of how to acquire a rifle illegally.
> 
> It's not a perfect solution by any means. But it's a legal one that doesn't infringe on rights.


So if that doesn't work, do we up the age to 25? Then 30?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> So if that doesn't work, do we up the age to 25? Then 30?


What right is currently restricted to only those who've attained those ages?
None.
So no, this isn't a slippery slope scenario.
It's a consistency issue.
When a person is an "adult", they enjoy all rights. Currently, that is not the case. But making it true would have the added effect of removing a legal path for children to acquire firearms.

You are correct in that we have confused right and wrong, and lowered the value of human life. This is the true scourge of our world.
But that isn't fixed by law. It's fixed by God. Since we can't legislate God into people's lives, we have to work on the symptoms of God missing in their lives.
Bringing all legal adult activities into alignment with a higher age would help. That's what I'm proposing.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Went in the ARMY on my 17th birthday. Why is 18 the cut off??

AGE doesn't have a darn thing with being an adult OR mentally stable. Shouldn't be a goal post or cut off.

Maybe all children should pass a general knowledge test and be signed off by 5 adults. Before getting the rights and privilege of an being considered an adult. 

Not 5 adults of their peers but older adults like parents and grandparents, for example. Sure there will be cases when teachers or others will have to sign off and that would have to be addressed. 

Some how age has to stop being the bench mark.


----------



## CapitalKane49p (Apr 7, 2020)

My take.

If you are old enough to fight, die or get maimed for your country you should be old enough to purchase a firearm.

What that piece of filth did in Texas has nothing to do age limits on firearms. He was evil and if he didn't have a firearm her would have used a car, knife bomb ... to kill people.

Godspeed


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> What right is currently restricted to only those who've attained those ages?
> None.
> So no, this isn't a slippery slope scenario.
> It's a consistency issue.
> When a person is an "adult", they enjoy all rights. Currently, that is not the case. But making it true would have the added effect of removing a legal path for children to acquire firearms.


You're probably too young to remember, but there was a time when there were no restrictions. A 12 yr old could walk into a store and buy any firearm he chose. Guns at schools were normal. Many schools had shooting clubs. Many of the kids went hunting after school and had a rifle in the back window of their truck.

School shootings were not common place back then. Oh, there were guns a plenty, but folks didn't use a gun to vent their frustrations. So with all your proposed rules, how would that change, and how would it affect the future? Remember, the bozos at Columbine had a number of ways with them to wreak havoc, but ended up only using the guns. 

Just as an aside, I remember some fellow in China stabbing a whole classroom full of students.









Man stabs children at Chinese nursery school


25 pupils injured in knife attack in Jiangsu province, the third targeting children in just over a month




www.theguardian.com





Britian has banned even steak knives. Is this something you look forward to?


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Raising the age limit to buy a rifle won't stop someone under 21 from killing. They'll either use some other form of lethality, or simply use stolen guns.

Instead, we should be looking at WHY they are doing this. Obviously, the Texas POS can't tell us, but there's plenty of others who can.

I find it amazing that whenever there's "an event", the first newscasts always end with "...and so far, no motive has been provided...". Yet, even years later, no motive is _ever_ offered by the MSM. That's because they don't want us to know the motives... they only want to focus on taking away our rights.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I feel like some of you are not actually reading what I wrote.
I specifically wrote about some of these concerns, and mentioned it won't stop all killing.
You can't stop a human bent on destruction with laws. No argument there.
This is about what age we consider people accountable and capable of exercising all of their rights, including legally owning and using ALL manner of arms.



Chipper said:


> Some how age has to stop being the bench mark.


I understand this point. But how on earth can you convince a nation to have a subjective determination about when a person can exercise their rights?
That's a big can of wormy nepotism.



CapitalKane49p said:


> If you are old enough to fight, die or get maimed for your country you should be old enough to purchase a firearm.
> What that piece of filth did in Texas has nothing to do age limits on firearms. He was evil and if he didn't have a firearm her would have used a car, knife bomb ... to kill people.


I understand your underlying point. I even addressed your "die for your country" point specifically.
But he bought this gun legally, background check and all. It's "possible" that he could have used another weapon. A devious mind can conjure up all sorts of things. But he chose to buy a gun.
If the legal age of adulthood was raised to 21, he would not have been able to. Maybe that would have prevented this, and maybe he would have chosen another weapon. We don't know.
But what negative impact would raising the adult age to 21 have?

@inceptor, harkening back to the good ol' days doesn't do service to the issues of today.
There is no magic means of restoring the value of human life. There is no simple way to get kids to respect firearms again.
The rot has set in. You know this. You have already accepted that we are doomed.
So the focus shouldn't be on "oh how times have changed", but rather "how do we change with the times".
I never said I wanted any kind of ban. Strawman arguments should be left out.
The idea revolves entirely around a legal means to adhere to the constitution and still make it harder for children to use weapons.

We have 18 year olds still in high school. We have legal adults still fraternizing with legal minors.
Why on earth do we have that?
It may not have been true 50 years ago, but it's true now... 18 year olds are children, not adults.

If anyone can give me a coherent argument for why we shouldn't drop the age of adulthood down to 15 that doesn't completely support my reason for raising it to 21, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> I find it amazing that whenever there's "an event", the first newscasts always end with "...and so far, no motive has been provided...". Yet, even years later, no motive is _ever_ offered by the MSM. That's because they don't want us to know the motives... they only want to focus on taking away our rights.


This is an excellent point.
The answer is both simple and complicated.

Simple:
The MSM is incentivized to allow murder to happen. The bigger the better. "If it bleeds, it leads."
They don't want underlying factors to come to light. They just want it glorified so more will happen.
They're also entirely in the pocket of anti-gun groups, who are in turn in the pockets of groups seeking to undermine our nation.
Calling for restrictions is in their best interest if they wish to achieve their long term goal. Subjugation.
It's a lifelong appointment to be the dictator's talking head. They're all vying for the future position.

Complicated:
The myriad reasons for the shooters doing what they do could fill a library.
From bullying to drugs to nihilism to supremacy to just plain crazy, phycologists can build careers out of these people, but the layperson either doesn't care or is presumed to not care.
Then there's the risk of "copycat" actors who see the "manifesto" and glamor that these murderers produce, and it feeds an ego monster bigger than a Buick.
The last thing a news agency wants is to be included in the next shooter's suicide message. So they leave out the "why" 95% of the time.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> @inceptor, harkening back to the good ol' days doesn't do service to the issues of today.
> There is no magic means of restoring the value of human life. There is no simple way to get kids to respect firearms again.
> The rot has set in. You know this. You have already accepted that we are doomed.
> So the focus shouldn't be on "oh how times have changed", but rather "how do we change with the times".
> ...


Say what you will, but human nature usually remains consistent. Attitudes have changed. The regard for human life has changed. The need for govt's to control the people has changed. Even accountability has changed. One can blame and sue others for their own mistakes. A man's handshake was as good as a contract. Now, it means nothing, nothing at all. Lying and deceit have become the norm instead of the exception.

This is not evolution. This is a change in personal accountability and entitlement.

So your solution is to adapt to what the govt wants. They tell us God made mistakes, and they have to fix those mistakes. God said there are 2 genders, and we now know there are about 100 or so. God given rights are also a mistake. So, we need to regulate who is allowed what and when. 

Move the legal age to 25. When that doesn't work, then move it to 30. When that doesn't work, then remove those "rights" all together. Remember, there are no God given rights, only gubbermint given rights.


Kauboy said:


> There is no magic means of restoring the value of human life. There is no simple way to get kids to respect firearms again.


Sure there is. Start teaching morals and values again. Teach right from wrong. Stop telling people that if it feels good, do it. BTW, the motto "if it feels good, do it" is a hold-over from the 60's and 70's. 

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are not teaching your kids anything like the govt teaches others kids. I suspect you teach the good ole ways.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> ........
> The last thing a news agency wants is to be included in the next shooter's suicide message. So they leave out the "why" 95% of the time.


The reason they leave it out is so they can do their part to push the 'take all the guns' agenda. Telling the sheeple it's not the guns that are the problem would undermine that.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Move the legal age to 25. When that doesn't work, then move it to 30. When that doesn't work, then remove those "rights" all together. Remember, there are no God given rights, only gubbermint given rights.


If you can find any precedent for that, please share.
To my knowledge it doesn't exist.
Like I said, it's a consistency issue. The fact that children remain children into their late teens nowadays is a symptom.



inceptor said:


> Sure there is. Start teaching morals and values again. Teach right from wrong. Stop telling people that if it feels good, do it.


Great idea!
How?
How do you affect the kids who are on this path? How do you enforce fatherhood? How do you insert "moral teaching" into public education where the vast majority of kids are?
If you mention the Bible these days, you're immediately labeled a religious bigot. If you try to tell anyone they need to fix their life, you're not allowing them to "live their truth".
I'll repeat, there is no magic means of restoring this. The system is broken. It's been broken for a very long time.
We either suffer the destruction of the system and pray to God we are the ones who rebuild it, or we face reality and work with what we have until kingdom come.
And yes, I teach my kids the morals of the New Testament and the lessons of our country's founding. But I care about my kids and how they will enter society.
Pick any shooter, or your average student in public school, and take a guess about their parental involvement. You can't legislate better parenting.



Back Pack Hack said:


> The reason they leave it out is so they can do their part to push the 'take all the guns' agenda. Telling the sheeple it's not the guns that are the problem would undermine that.


That was what I intended to convey in the following lines of the "Simple" breakout, but may have done a poor job. They are certainly on the dole with the agenda


> They're also entirely in the pocket of anti-gun groups, who are in turn in the pockets of groups seeking to undermine our nation.
> Calling for restrictions is in their best interest if they wish to achieve their long term goal. Subjugation.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> .....? How do you enforce fatherhood? ....


You can't.

But what you _can_ enforce is manhood. The traditional family unit may not teach it, but it certainly can be enforced in society. We, as said society, can say, "Listen, dude... we don't put up with that shít, so you need to change your ways. If you don't do so voluntarily, we will make you..... by force, if necessary." Translation: Shape up, or rot in jail... your choice.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> You can't.
> 
> But what you _can_ enforce is manhood. The traditional family unit may not teach it, but it certainly can be enforced in society. We, as said society, can say, "Listen, dude... we don't put up with that shít, so you need to change your ways. If you don't do so voluntarily, we will make you..... by force, if necessary." Translation: Shape up, or rot in jail... your choice.


But can you really do that?
Everybody is looking for a windfall lawsuit. "Words are violence" now. Masculinity is "toxic".
You can still find this type of behavior in small towns here and there, the kinds of places you can still leave your doors unlocked...
But how do we really do this without first changing society? Fix society to fix society.

I suspect the only time this happens throughout history is after a major collapse or war. We saw it with Rome, France, the U.S.
I wonder what it will be for us.
My money is on the "fall of Rome" scenario.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> But can you really do that?.....


_*I*_ can't, but _*we*_ can. It just takes enough of _*us*_ to make it happen.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> It just takes enough of _*us*_


I'm losing faith that there are enough.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> If you can find any precedent for that, please share.
> To my knowledge it doesn't exist.
> Like I said, it's a consistency issue. The fact that children remain children into their late teens nowadays is a symptom.


Precedent? For moving the age?

IF you are referring to removing rights, when was the last time you read the Constitution? They have been steadily removing rights for years. Rights to privacy? Take a look. They have been stripping those rights for decades. They are nearly none existent now. The first amendment? That too has been being stripped for decades. Now they have the ministry of truth. Yes, the original whack job was removed. BUT they're installing a new head that will be more low-key about it.

If I missed something here, let me know.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Precedent? For moving the age?
> 
> IF you are referring to removing rights, when was the last time you read the Constitution? They have been steadily removing rights for years. Rights to privacy? Take a look. They have been stripping those rights for decades. They are nearly none existent now. The first amendment? That too has been being stripped for decades. Now they have the ministry of truth. Yes, the original whack job was removed. BUT they're installing a new head that will be more low-key about it.
> 
> If I missed something here, let me know.


When you first brought up the slippery slope of raising to other ages, I asked for any examples where those ages have been applied differentially, such as we currently do with ages 18 and 21.
I'm asking for any precedent for those ages. Because it feels like you're reaching for an extreme with no precedent.

However, we currently have two tiers of "adult" in our society.
At 18 you can legally do a lot of things. But certain things you still can't legally do until 21.
So if 21 is the age when society agrees (or maybe doesn't, but legally has accepted) that a person can partake in ALL legal activities, why do we still have a division?
I'm asking for consistency in the law, and in our exercising of rights.
Which do you believe is the more likely solution to be culturally accepted?
Reducing the legal age of all legal activities to 18, or raising them to 21?

I'm not referring to removing rights.
In my proposal, nobody loses any rights.
We just move the bar to exercise the full scope of them up 3 years for all who are not presently 18+, to bring consistency to the current societal division between what an 18yo can do, and what a 21yo can do.

I'm still open to hearing opinions about why my specific proposal is a bad idea. Maybe 21 is too high? I just picked it because of the legal drinking and handgun purchase ages. It's an easier sell than a whole new age debate of 19 or 20 for all rights and privileges.
Thus far, I've only seen replies which steer the conversation into other areas. Areas which I think we all agree on, such as correcting the path of our society.
However, I can all but guarantee that in the 60 years it will take to change society, we will absolutely lose most if not all of our 2nd amendment protected rights, if not the amendment itself outright.
Consider my proposal as a "stop-gap" to prevent that from happening for just a bit longer. Buying time, as it were.
I'm not compromising any rights to get it, mind you. That's unacceptable in my view. You don't feed the gator a few fingers so that he takes his time devouring you.
We know their goal. The slow roll of history reveals that they will eventually achieve it, and with every tragedy they exploit, their pace increases.
I won't compromise to stave it off, but I will still work to delay it by other means.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> But if the age hard cap was increased by raising the age of adulthood, it would prevent the LEGAL purchase of rifles by, let's face it, grown children.


This is what I was replying to. You are correct, this is a slippery slope. Once you start raising the ages, the precedent is there. So you can keep moving the marker.



Kauboy said:


> When you first brought up the slippery slope of raising to other ages, I asked for any examples where those ages have been applied differentially, such as we currently do with ages 18 and 21.
> I'm asking for any precedent for those ages. Because it feels like you're reaching for an extreme with no precedent.


There are no precedents for what's happening now. IF they decided to raise the age of adulthood, what's to stop them from doing it again? It's just another step in overall control. Society decided on the ages a long time ago, now you want the govt to step in and change things. Our Founding Fathers believed in God given rights. Now the govt is deciding what rights we are allowed to have.

We are living in unprecedented times. Never before has a govt surveilled its population like they do today. They can turn on your phone and record whatever they choose and you would have no idea it even happened. Govt's in the past have tried to control the citizens, and at no time has it ever turned out well. 

As to precedents, there are many about what is transpiring today. Rome being a good example. This country was founded on morals. 

_Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams_

Well we are kicking that to the curb.

“_There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ― James Madison 

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.” ― James Madison _


----------



## 65mustang (Apr 4, 2020)

We have enough GD laws. Let's make Murder and Mental Illness illegal....oh, wait.


----------



## sarge912 (8 mo ago)

Many more folks are shot each year by gangs. The shooters are almost always using illegally procured weapons. Most of the shooters are under 18, some as young as 12. I'm pretty sure that gun laws are irrelevant to these thugs.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Last I heard, the scumbag in Texas broke 49 laws. Another one won't make one dámned bit of difference.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Last I heard, the scumbag in Texas broke 49 laws. Another one won't make one dámned bit of difference.


Most scumbags break multiple laws on a regular basis.

There are now so many laws on the books, it's impossible to know them all. It's been said that the average law abiding citizen breaks about 3 laws a day and aren't even aware they exist. Yet they keep adding new laws all the time.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

inceptor said:


> Most scumbags break multiple laws on a regular basis.
> 
> There are now so many laws on the books, it's impossible to know them all. It's been said that the average law abiding citizen breaks about 3 laws a day and aren't even aware they exist. Yet they keep adding new laws all the time.


Someone ought to write a book.


Oh, wait...............


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

I was fully grown at age 12.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I'm not seeing solutions.
I'm seeing a lot of talking points that our side has been hashing about for decades, but nothing new.
Meanwhile, our opposition is building and they will eventually steamroll us. It's inevitable. Tyranny always gains power, and must be forced out later.
We can sit on our hands and just let it happen, or we can propose ideas that stave it off and don't restrict rights.

@inceptor, There is no precedent for any legal activity that is restricted until any age higher than 21.
Your generation allowed that age to become the new standard with the GCA of '68. So there was an acceptance that this age was important.
I'm not seeing the outrage, nor legislative efforts, to roll that back and grant 18 year olds the legal right to purchase handguns.
Why? If it's true that "society decided on the ages a long time ago", what happened in '68 and why has it not been reversed?

I've also not seen anyone take up my question about why we shouldn't roll the age of adulthood back to 15. If there's an objective reason that doesn't completely support my idea of raising it to 21, let's hear it.
We've already covered the fact that society is different now. Inceptor rightly claimed we're living in "unprecedented times". Why then, do we not consider the same to be true for the age of adulthood? It is my opinion that it should be different now too, to keep up with the times.

The idea that it will become a slippery slope ignores the consequences of my specifically chosen solution.
I don't want the age to purchase a firearm to go up. I want the age of legal adulthood to go up. There's a built-in safety mechanism in this idea.
Does anyone here actually believe that our opposition wants the legal age of voting to increase to 25, or 30?
Does anyone believe that our opposition wants the legal drinking or smoking age to go that high? No, it won't stop people from breaking the law, but it will make more people law-breakers worthy of punishment, and thus a detractor for advancing the age even higher.
Would our opposition really give up younger voters for the sake of only allowing 30 year olds to buy a gun? Unconscionable!
Tying so many legal activities in our society to adulthood is what prevents this from being abused.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Last I heard, the scumbag in Texas broke 49 laws. Another one won't make one dámned bit of difference.


But would it have made it more difficult? Would an unemployed burger flipper have been able to acquire a rifle, had this idea been in place? Maybe, but not with the ease with which he did.
The proposals from the anti-gun side always claim they want to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, but their horrible suggestions always have the affect of restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens in the process, and to a much greater degree.
But with my idea, the law-abiding sees no change in rights AND it becomes more difficult for people younger than 21 to get a gun. This would have directly affected both the Buffalo and Uvalde shooters.
I'm not claiming it would have stopped them. God only knows. But it _could_ have, and won't affect the rights of law-abiding people.
That's the golden goose in this whole mess, right? How do we make the commission of the crime not worth the effort while leaving the law-abiding alone?
Maybe they would have just waited another 3 years. Or maybe they get distracted with reality and never do it. If no rights are lost, what is the risk? (legitimately asking)


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Any of us old school cops will say home school is best and if they get sent off to indoctrination camp at least hire well armed old cops to be the teachers. that should work by cracky. In fact spent 12 years doing it with sixth grade DARE Students. Nobody was brave enough to shoot up my class..lol. The kids knew when I was a goner to grab the Sig and keep on trucking. lol


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I'm not seeing solutions.


That's because there is no solution. You can't fix stupid.

You teach kids that there are no consequences for their actions, and look what happens.

You can change the bar for adulthood all you wish. Set the bar where ever floats your boat, and it still won't change things. I know folks well over that age that I wouldn't consider adults, just overgrown kids that never grew up. We have been on a downhill slope for quite a while and it's only picking up steam.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> ......But with my idea, the law-abiding sees no change in rights ......


Um, yes they would. Especially if they're 18-20.

And you know what will be next? Upping the age for everything simply because 'they got away with it' once. Remember, the gun grabbers, despite claiming to want to 'meet us in the middle', will do it again and again and again and again until they cross our goal line and score a 6pack. Death by a thousand cuts. 

We've spent the last 20-30 years doing nothing but make concessions. It's high time we stopped.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> That's because there is no solution. You can't fix stupid.
> 
> You teach kids that there are no consequences for their actions, and look what happens.
> 
> You can change the bar for adulthood all you wish. Set the bar where ever floats your boat, and it still won't change things. I know folks well over that age that I wouldn't consider adults, just overgrown kids that never grew up. We have been on a downhill slope for quite a while and it's only picking up steam.


You can't fix stupid. No argument there.
Is our only option to just wait to lose? Because that's what will happen.



Back Pack Hack said:


> Um, yes they would. Especially if they're 18-20.
> 
> And you know what will be next? Upping the age for everything simply because 'they got away with it' once. Remember, the gun grabbers, despite claiming to want to 'meet us in the middle', will do it again and again and again and again until they cross our goal line and score a 6pack. Death by a thousand cuts.
> 
> We've spent the last 20-30 years doing nothing but make concessions. It's high time we stopped.


No, they wouldn't. A right not yet allowed is not a right lost.
By that logic, you'd have to argue that 10 year olds have lost their rights.
As I mentioned, anyone who was between 18 and 20 at the time of the law passing would still be a legal adult and have all rights as a 21 year old. For three years, there'd be some confusion.
A 17 year old, never having the right to own a firearm, vote, drink, smoke, etc... would still not be able to until 21. No active rights lost.

Your other point seems to indicate that you didn't read what I wrote in post 30 above.
This isn't a change that only affects guns. It would affect all legal activities only an adult can do.
Would our opposition compromise on voting just for the sake of guns?
It's a poison pill idea intended to prevent abuse of raising the age further. They already want the legal voting age to be dropped to 16. They'd never want it increased to 30, even for gun control.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Let us trust in the Lord and do what we can to be Prepared for most anything. Thats all I know to do or care about doing..so it must be universally applicable to all Born Again Bible Believing Christians huh? I do know the Back of the Book says the Good Guys/Gals win in the long run. As we was taught from watching thousands of old cowboy shows.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> ou can't fix stupid. No argument there.
> Is our only option to just wait to lose? Because that's what is happening now.


FIFY

We are losing. We've been losing for a long time now. Children have been, and are being, indoctrinated for the new normal. TPTB have seen to this.

I picked the ages I did as an arbitrary number because, regardless, it will not matter. The goal post is being constantly moved, and the masses just go along with it. Most folks just want to be left alone and live their lives. They will do nothing about it until it's too late.

You saw an anomaly when Trump was elected. The people spoke.He got elected because TPTB didn't expect such a massive turn out. She wasn't supposed to lose. Sort of like Biden campaigning from his basement. The few times he did have a rally, maybe 20 people showed up. Yet he won by a 6% margin. TPTB were prepared this time. You can bet your last dollar that they won't lose again. It was seen on national tv that they were closely monitoring and adjusting as needed. 

Frankly, I see this coming to a head soon. Global leaders are saying we are facing a global famine because of Ukraine. But, if you've been paying attention, the food supply has been quickly dwindling since the start of the plandemic. The railroads are limiting the shipping of diesel. Many oil fields and pipelines have been shut down. Food prices are raising at an alarming rate and empty shelves are now being viewed as normal.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> ......By that logic, you'd have to argue that 10 year olds have lost their rights......


That's an easy argument to win. 10-year-olds HAVE lost that right.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> You can't fix stupid. No argument there.
> Is our only option to just wait to lose? Because that's what will happen.


Pretty much. Unless you want to start it. I'm getting too damn old for this crap.



Kauboy said:


> A right not yet allowed is not a right lost.


Ah, so rights are given. So the founding were wrong when they spoke of unalienable rights, hmmm? So our master are to tell us what, where and when?

 “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”  ― Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> That's an easy argument to win. 10-year-olds HAVE lost that right.





inceptor said:


> Ah, so rights are given. So the founding were wrong when they spoke of unalienable rights, hmmm? So our master are to tell us what, where and when?


Ok, consistency test, both of you.
Does a 10 year old have a right to keep an bear "all bearable arms" (SCOTUS term)?
Does a 10 year old have a right to choose their leaders? (an offshoot of one's right to self-governance)
Does a 10 year old have a right to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects without warrant? (a parent cannot simply give permission, if true)
Does a 10 year old have a right to do whatever they wish with their body, abusing it with alcohol, narcotics, and other such substances? (right of bodily autonomy) (Yes, I believe adults have this right and it is being infringed.)
Does a 10 year old have the right to travel among the many states without reason or permission?
Does a 10 year old have the right to traverse the public thoroughfares in the manner common for they day (driving a car)? (This is legal precedent allowing adults to drive cars without a license on public roads. Not kidding, Google Charlie Sprinkles.)

If the answer is "no" to any of these, then consistency fails, and the argument is hyperbolic.

The very fact that we identify children as belonging to their parents, and hold the parent's responsible for their actions, is because we all understand that they do NOT in fact possess all rights yet.
Otherwise it would be ILLEGAL to confine them to their rooms, or even houses, as all adults enjoy the right to freedom from the unjust ownership of others.

If either of you do believe that children should enjoy these rights, I'd love to see the last letter you wrote to your representative demanding these rights be restored.
I'll also accept a redacted copy of your membership card to any organization advocating for them.

Yeah, that seems petty. I'll admit. Still, you both made the claim. I'm looking for any evidence that reveals you actually believe it.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Ok, consistency test, both of you.
> Does a 10 year old have a right to keep an bear "all bearable arms" (SCOTUS term)?
> Does a 10 year old have a right to choose their leaders? (an offshoot of one's right to self-governance)
> Does a 10 year old have a right to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects without warrant? (a parent cannot simply give permission, if true)
> ...


You moved this from obtaining adult age, to adults and now to children.

The govt has decided that a 10 year old has the right to a sex change transition and operation. So there ya go. It's been decided.

It won't matter soon because TPTB are very close to letting you know your God given rights no longer exist. Ask Klaus Schwab and his assistant.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> You moved this from obtaining adult age, to adults and now to children.
> 
> The govt has decided that a 10 year old has the right to a sex change transition and operation. So there ya go. It's been decided.
> 
> It won't matter soon because TPTB are very close to letting you know your God given rights no longer exist. Ask Klaus Schwab and his assistant.


Nothing's been moved. And you didn't answer the questions.
I said a 17 year old who currently can't vote, smoke, drink, or buy a gun loses nothing when they still can't do those things until 21.
BPH disagreed, so I posed the example of a 10 year old and he took the extreme position of claiming that 10 year olds lost their rights.
I simply showed, with the list above, that they never actually had those rights and we all agree on that by how we treat them.
You claimed my position was that rights are given. My claim was simple. Humans know that certain rights are not to be exercised by children. This has been true since before governments existed. Children have NEVER enjoyed equal status and rights with adults. They enjoy basic human rights, such as the right to life and others. But they've never enjoyed the full spectrum such as bodily autonomy and self-governance. It might not be something everyone has considered before, but it's certainly not a surprise to anyone. Any of us with children know we don't treat them as we treat adults, and for good reason.

You've already taken the position that governments do not grant rights, so no, the government didn't grant any rights to the child wanting transition surgery.
They took rights away from parents to hold complete dominion over their non-adult children.

You said it yourself. "Society" decided the age of adulthood. It was later codified into law.
Society needs to reassess the decision.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

I think an age restriction is just that, another restriction. 
Kids are brought up by their sphere of influence, whomever or whatever that may be.
Go back to a time when you were brought up, and look at what made you respect other peoples lives.
Upbringing is the key here. We need to make that a priority in our teachings and raising of our children.

I know I digressed a bit, but laws make no difference to someone with intent. If Dad/Mom/Grandparents have a weapon in the house, the kid will figure a way to get it. Or, he will go out and get it. Or use something else. The internet, movies, can you show you all kinds of way murders happen, and have happened. Even teach you how to get away with it..


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Buddy of mine is a gun dealer buys and sells guns every weekend there is a gun show. Travels many miles across the state and attends all 3 days. Setting up 5-6 tables or more of guns. If you have the cash it's yours. Unless you look like your 12. All week long he hits sales both online and off. Trying to get more guns to sell. IMHO it's clearly a business. However he has no license, FFL of any kind. It's cash and carry, no paperwork of any kind.

Of course he calls it his collection. Ever changing collection but it's his "private collection". So he can sell whatever to whomever. It's his "right". He's the one playing the gun show loophole to it's fullest.

How does this work for your age related laws?? You can't control who gets a gun. You need to deal with the fact everybody may and can get a weapon.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Chipper said:


> Buddy of mine is a gun dealer buys and sells guns every weekend there is a gun show. Travels many miles across the state and attends all 3 days. Setting up 5-6 tables or more of guns. If you have the cash it's yours. Unless you look like your 12. All week long he hits sales both online and off. Trying to get more guns to sell. IMHO it's clearly a business. However he has no license, FFL of any kind. It's cash and carry, no paperwork of any kind.
> 
> Of course he calls it his collection. Ever changing collection but it's his "private collection". So he can sell whatever to whomever. It's his "right". He's the one playing the gun show loophole to it's fullest.
> 
> How does this work for your age related laws?? You can't control who gets a gun. You need to deal with the fact everybody may and can get a weapon.


He is no different than many people that do private sales. And that is what he does. 
Dems, and many Pubs, dont want you to be able to sell privately..
And its not a *loophole*. He pays for a booth, laydown area to sell his personal items.. He cant sell ATF items, but he can sell anything legal at those tables.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Ok, consistency test, both of you.
> Does a 10 year old have a right to keep an bear "all bearable arms" (SCOTUS term)?


They did once. But that's been taken away. One point for me.



Kauboy said:


> Does a 10 year old have a right to choose their leaders? (an offshoot of one's right to self-governance)


Not relevant to the issue at hand.



Kauboy said:


> Does a 10 year old have a right to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects without warrant? (a parent cannot simply give permission, if true)


Not relevant to the issue at hand.



Kauboy said:


> Does a 10 year old have a right to do whatever they wish with their body, abusing it with alcohol, narcotics, and other such substances? (right of bodily autonomy) (Yes, I believe adults have this right and it is being infringed.)


Not relevant to the issue at hand.



Kauboy said:


> Does a 10 year old have the right to travel among the many states without reason or permission?


Not relevant to the issue at hand.



Kauboy said:


> Does a 10 year old have the right to traverse the public thoroughfares in the manner common for they day (driving a car)? (This is legal precedent allowing adults to drive cars without a license on public roads. Not kidding, Google Charlie Sprinkles.)


Not relevant to the issue at hand.



Kauboy said:


> If the answer is "no" to any of these, then consistency fails, and the argument is hyperbolic.


You're the one making the argument as such by tossing in all this other crap.



Kauboy said:


> The very fact that we identify children as belonging to their parents, and hold the parent's responsible for their actions, is because we all understand that they do NOT in fact possess all rights yet.
> 
> Otherwise it would be ILLEGAL to confine them to their rooms, or even houses, as all adults enjoy the right to freedom from the unjust ownership of others.
> 
> ...


Given the admitted pettiness, I'm not addressing it.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Most know the cartels also deal in guns. No background checks, no ID requirements. Speculation in Uvalde (yeah I'm on a board with someone who lives there) is that this kid bought his stuff from the cartels.

All more gun control issues will do is make the cartels more money as they will be expanding their business.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Like the rest of you, I've been reading and engaging with others on the aftermath of the latest school shooting.
> While reading about the details of the case, as they are currently known, I read about how this person acquired the rifle used in the shooting.
> This person passed the background check and bought the rifle legally. He then went on to commit numerous acts of cowardly murder.
> The response has been overwhelming, as expected.
> ...





Kauboy said:


> Like the rest of you, I've been reading and engaging with others on the aftermath of the latest school shooting.
> While reading about the details of the case, as they are currently known, I read about how this person acquired the rifle used in the shooting.
> This person passed the background check and bought the rifle legally. He then went on to commit numerous acts of cowardly murder.
> The response has been overwhelming, as expected.
> ...


Makes no sense. If they can serve in the military at 18 ,then they should have full rights as a citizen. Almost all states agree that at 18 their citizens are adults. But who's to say that some day someone will get a wild hair and say well that didn't work let's make the age at 45.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Doesn't matter what number you put into the law. Evil will do evil things.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Chipper said:


> How does this work for your age related laws?? You can't control who gets a gun. You need to deal with the fact everybody may and can get a weapon.


What you're describing has never been the method that most, if any, of these shooters are using. We know it's possible. We also know that many of these shooters acquire their arms legally.
If we can make it harder to do so while still retaining all rights of adults, why not?



Back Pack Hack said:


> They did once. But that's been taken away. One point for me.
> Not relevant to the issue at hand.
> Not relevant to the issue at hand.
> Not relevant to the issue at hand.
> ...


Provide evidence that children once had the right to keep and bear all bearable arms. Show me any legal precedent for this.
Children do not enjoy all rights. This is well known, obvious, and universally accepted.
Your failure to address the other issues is a tacit acceptance that you know I'm right.
Feel free to keep whatever scores makes you feel good. This is just a discussion, not a competition.🙄



Real Old Man said:


> Makes no sense. If they can serve in the military at 18 ,then they should have full rights as a citizen. Almost all states agree that at 18 their citizens are adults. But who's to say that some day someone will get a wild hair and say well that didn't work let's make the age at 45.


You've clearly not read through most of my posts...
These were all addressed.


It's clear that this solution is not one this audience is willing to consider, or even read through thoroughly for some.
So, aside from the blanket "let's fix society" wishful thinking, are there any other ways to retain all rights and delay the inevitable?
If the only answer we have is to wait it out and see, that's exactly the answer TPTB want from us. Their appeals to emotion via fear and sorrow will eventually win out.
This country is currently a powder keg. A few more of these high profile tragedies in close proximity, and we can kiss our rights goodbye.
It won't be done legally. It won't be done gently. And it will be far more than just the 2nd.
Maybe they'll send us their "thoughts and prayers" while they do it.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Doesn't matter what number you put into the law. Evil will do evil things.


Yes.
Would that boy have been able to buy a gun the way the past two shooters, and many others, legally did?
No.
Why?
The law with a number in it.

Doesn't mean he couldn't go about it another way.
But not that way, because he's a child.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Doing some more scrounging for historical context, I've discovered that at the time of the founding, and specifically when the constitution was written, anyone under the age of 21 was legally considered an infant, and was fully known to not possess all rights as an adult did.

This is found to be true in The American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Garland and McGeehee, 1900.
Carrying over from English common law in Institutes of the Lawes of England, 1628 to 1644.

So no, "infants" (what we now call minors) never enjoyed a right to arms, just as they didn't enjoy a right to vote, marry, or enter into contracts... until they reached 21.

It's high time we restored the age of majority back to 21. Centuries of history support it, and so do I.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Changing the legal age will do nothing, imho. We need to put prayer back in the schools. We've removed their protection--which is Our Lord--and so the enemy is able to just come on in, and it's doing so in more ways than one. All this leftist thought that's poisoning the minds of our children is also from the enemy.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Like the rest of you, I've been reading and engaging with others on the aftermath of the latest school shooting.
> While reading about the details of the case, as they are currently known, I read about how this person acquired the rifle used in the shooting.
> This person passed the background check and bought the rifle legally. He then went on to commit numerous acts of cowardly murder.
> The response has been overwhelming, as expected.
> ...


There is scientific evidence to support the idea that the human brain isn't fully developed until around age 25. Still, that will not fix the issues we are now facing as a society. The generational degradation of the nuclear family unit, teaching of ethics, morality, and values has lead to this latest generation of children that are reaching adulthood and have no value for human life, other peoples property etc. Honestly its a reap what you sow situation, what do you expect when you let the internet, tv, and video games raise your children along with zero consequences when they misbehave? A republic style government is a reflection of the people and people don't want to admit the harsh truth that we've lost our way morally and would rather restrict freedoms in an effort to fix something that will not be fixed with their solution. Its pretty darn sad.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Doing some more scrounging for historical context, I've discovered that at the time of the founding, and specifically when the constitution was written, anyone under the age of 21 was legally considered an infant, and was fully known to not possess all rights as an adult did.
> 
> This is found to be true in The American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Garland and McGeehee, 1900.
> Carrying over from English common law in Institutes of the Lawes of England, 1628 to 1644.
> ...


Including voting age?


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> ....Provide evidence that children once had the right to keep and bear all bearable arms. ....


You can't be serious about this. Where in the Second is age mentioned?

Now look up the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I recall my grandfather, born in 1903, telling me about his first .22LR he bought in 1914.



Kauboy said:


> Yes.
> Would that boy have been able to buy a gun the way the past two shooters, and many others, legally did?
> No.
> Why?
> ...


He can still steal a gun, just like many others do.

Again, passing just one more law will not suddenly decide to quit their wrong-doing. They're not going to sit back, pause and say, "Well, dammit. This is just too much. That's the straw that broke this camels' back. I'm going straight now."


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Steve40th said:


> Including voting age?


I've mentioned a few times now, yes.
This would affect voting age.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> You can't be serious about this. Where in the Second is age mentioned?
> 
> Now look up the Gun Control Act of 1968.
> 
> ...


We're speaking about matters of law.
Therefore it is more than appropriate to expect your claim to be backed up by law.
Pretending this is unreasonable does not excuse the lack of support.
Anecdotal evidence from your grandfather does not make precedence.
You ignored my most recent post before this one.
Children have never enjoyed the right to arms since our founding. The 1960s and 70s saw a time when the age of majority was lowered for some legal activities. I believe this was erroneous and should be reversed.

Yes, the boy could steal a gun, assuming he had the ability.
The point of the law is to make criminal activity more risk than reward for the person thinking about committing the crime.
If a crime can be made more difficult to commit while all law-abiding citizens still retain all rights, there is no negative to doing it.
The positive is that we could see a reduction in these acts because it's become more difficult, and it holds off the eventual bans even longer.
The mantra of "we don't need more laws" only applies when those laws further restrict the law-abiding. This would not.

There are no negatives from what I can tell, only potential positives.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> We're speaking about matters of law.
> Therefore it is more than appropriate to expect your claim to be backed up by law.
> Pretending this is unreasonable does not excuse the lack of support.
> Anecdotal evidence from your grandfather does not make precedence.
> ...


OK, given there were no laws that prevented him from buying a gun, I guess it WAS a matter of law.

Simply put, there were no laws prohibiting minors from buying firearems on December 15, 1791. But they certainly have been enacted since then. Perhaps I should flip the question back on you and request you show me a law on the books back in 1791 that DID prevent minors from buying firearms.

The only issue is your proposal DOES affect the law-abiding. Criminals don't give a chit about laws. That's what makes them criminals. I sick of constantly conceding to the left, who claim to simply want to 'meet us in the middle' yet never give anything up. They keep coming back for more and more and more, and here you are discussing g_iving _them something.

They wanted autos banned, they got it. Now they want 'assault' rifles (their term, not mine). They wanted high-cap mags (again; their term, not mine), they got it. Now they want barrel shrouds, grenade launchers, adjustable stocks, forward grips and 'shoulder things that go up'. They wanted bump stocks, they got them. Now they're after binary and frt triggers. They never concede... they simply advance with death by a thousand cuts. They wanted age limits, they got it. And now you're offering it up as a sacrifice?

If the point of a law is to "make criminal activity more risk than reward for the person thinking about committing the crime", all these laws are failing miserably. Today's catch-n-release judicial system puts them right back out on the streets. And there are cases of them committing the _same crime_ later in the day.

We have enough laws. Laws that don't work. Adding one more in the vain hope that it will be effective... well, that day has come and gone. The laws are failing so bad that not only are the criminals ignoring them, they're prospering as a result. Creating 'gun-free zones' is simply making 'target-rich environments'.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Government restricts the right to own a gun.. Restriction by definition and through cost.
Hillary wanted to up the tax on ammo. There is a tax right now on ammo for conservation of animals. So, it would have been easy to raise it significantly through Congress..
You can buy automatics. Not cheap.
They had semi autos back in 1791, and Thomas Jefferson had two.. Air powered, 46 caliber, 800 fett/sec.
Malitia act defined age..
We can play the game, but what it comes down to is family.. Family couldnt stop him.. They didnt try.. Hell, many forums knew he was planning, ie Facebook and Instagram.. LEO did nothing.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Steve40th said:


> ........They had semi autos back in 1791, and Thomas Jefferson had two.. Air powered, 46 caliber, 800 fett/sec...


Lewis and Clark took one to the Pacific and back.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

We have so many laws on the books now, it's impossible to know them all. I guess more laws would help.

Drunk driving is against the law. Maybe more laws would stop people from being killed by drunk drivers.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> OK, given there were no laws that prevented him from buying a gun, I guess it WAS a matter of law.


Please clarify this. If referring to the 10 year old in the video, there is a law preventing him from buying a gun.
If referring to the Buffalo/Uvalde shooters, then yes, there was no law preventing them from buying a rifle. My proposal would implicitly create one by moving the age of majority back to what it was at the founding and before.



Back Pack Hack said:


> Simply put, there were no laws prohibiting minors from buying firearms on December 15, 1791. But they certainly have been enacted since then. Perhaps I should flip the question back on you and request you show me a law on the books back in 1791 that DID prevent minors from buying firearms.


Duly flipped, but the reason no laws existed prohibiting the keeping/bearing of arms by a minor was because it was known that if the age of majority was not yet attained, then numerous rights did not yet apply.
There were few federal laws at the time of the constitution, as the newly formed government had attempted to closely follow the limitations the constitution placed.
But there were various state laws which denoted that a minor was not bound to procure their own arms when reporting for the militia because it was not legal for them to do so, and that it was in fact the duty of the parent to provide the arms.
A few such examples:


> New Hampshire 1776
> 
> An Act for Forming and Regulating the Militia Within The State of New Hampshire, in New-England, and For Repealing All the Laws Heretofore Made for That Purpose, 1776 Acts & Laws of the Colony of N.H. 36, 39.
> 
> ...


There are many others, but you stated 1791 so I obliged. Over the next many years, other states adopted similar statutes expecting the parents of minors to supply arms for their 18+, but under 21, children.
As we moved farther from the founding, and the legal understandings of the day, we find that more and more laws were written to codify what was already well-known prior.



Back Pack Hack said:


> The only issue is your proposal DOES affect the law-abiding. Criminals don't give a chit about laws. That's what makes them criminals. I sick of constantly conceding to the left, who claim to simply want to 'meet us in the middle' yet never give anything up. They keep coming back for more and more and more, and here you are discussing g_iving _them something.


I'm tired of the compromise too. But how does my proposal affect the law-abiding?
Remember, I'm working from the perspective that people who have not reached the age of majority do not have a right to arms.
That being the case, who is adversely affected and how?



Back Pack Hack said:


> They wanted autos banned, they got it. Now they want 'assault' rifles (their term, not mine). They wanted high-cap mags (again; their term, not mine), they got it. Now they want barrel shrouds, grenade launchers, adjustable stocks, forward grips and 'shoulder things that go up'. They wanted bump stocks, they got them. Now they're after binary and frt triggers. They never concede... they simply advance with death by a thousand cuts. They wanted age limits, they got it. And now you're offering it up as a sacrifice?


What is the sacrifice? Nobody who presently enjoys the right loses the right.



Back Pack Hack said:


> If the point of a law is to "make criminal activity more risk than reward for the person thinking about committing the crime", all these laws are failing miserably. Today's catch-n-release judicial system puts them right back out on the streets. And there are cases of them committing the _same crime_ later in the day.
> 
> We have enough laws. Laws that don't work. Adding one more in the vain hope that it will be effective... well, that day has come and gone. The laws are failing so bad that not only are the criminals ignoring them, they're prospering as a result. Creating 'gun-free zones' is simply making 'target-rich environments'.


As we see, and you've pointed out, it's the enforcement of the law that is failing.
Our side constantly asserts that if we just enforced current law, things would improve.
It's not necessarily the laws on the books that are failing. We need to get rid of these Soros-funded DAs and mayors.
As to laws not working, I've been present when a gun buyer is denied. The law does work if enforced properly.

My apologies for breaking up the reply. No disrespect implied. I wanted to cover each point because I believe they are good ones, and deserve proper attention.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> We have so many laws on the books now, it's impossible to know them all. I guess more laws would help.
> 
> Drunk driving is against the law. Maybe more laws would stop people from being killed by drunk drivers.


Are you suggesting that the legal requirement to provide ID when purchasing alcohol is a detriment to our society, and that we would benefit from not having it?
Wouldn't that potentially cause more drunk driving?
I'm addressing the point-of-sale aspect of this. What happens after point of sale is impossible to control, and not part of my proposal.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Are you suggesting that the legal requirement to provide ID when purchasing alcohol is a detriment to our society, and that we would benefit from not having it?
> Wouldn't that potentially cause more drunk driving?


I said nothing about ID. You're suggesting more laws would fix the problem. So I just suggest that the laws we have be expanded. Obviously, we don't have enough laws on the books and need to add more. You're not the only one saying that. It's part of the liberal mantra. Oh yeah, they've extended it to abolishing the second amendment too.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Please clarify this. If referring to the 10 year old in the video, there is a law preventing him from buying a gun.


I was referring to my grandfather, who legally purchased a firearm (legally, meaning in accordance to the law) when he was under 18.




Kauboy said:


> ....
> That being the case, who is adversely affected and how?


Seriously.... you have to ask? A right delayed is a right denied.

Suppose you're 16. Currently, you're allowed to purchase at 18. Next year, your proposed law goes into effect. Now this 16-year-old must wait FIVE year to exercise their 2A right. In two years, that gets bumped up to 25. Now said person must wait another four years. A few years later, it gets raised to 30..... then 35.... then 40.

How long must this person wait for YOU to consider their right to be violated?




Kauboy said:


> What is the sacrifice? Nobody who presently enjoys the right loses the right.


I guess if you don't get it by now, you never will.




Kauboy said:


> As we see, and you've pointed out, it's the enforcement of the law that is failing.
> Our side constantly asserts that if we just enforced current law, things would improve.
> It's not necessarily the laws on the books that are failing. We need to get rid of these Soros-funded DAs and mayors.
> As to laws not working, I've been present when a gun buyer is denied. The law does work if enforced properly.
> ...


A more reasonable law would be a requirement that anyone who intends to commit murder to contact the local constabulary at least 24 hours in advance to state the day, time and location of intended murder. That law will only affect the criminals as the law-abiding gun owners, who have no intention of doing so, will have no reason to contact the po-po.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> I said nothing about ID. You're suggesting more laws would fix the problem. So I just suggest that the laws we have be expanded. Obviously, we don't have enough laws on the books and need to add more. You're not the only one saying that. It's part of the liberal mantra. Oh yeah, they've extended it to abolishing the second amendment too.


You're making a false equivalency. The libs want laws that unjustly affect everyone, under the guise of affecting criminals. My proposal won't affect anyone who can already legally do all the things an adult can do.



Back Pack Hack said:


> I was referring to my grandfather, who legally purchased a firearm (legally, meaning in accordance to the law) when he was under 18.


As I mentioned, that is anecdotal. There is no way to verify the account.



Back Pack Hack said:


> Seriously.... you have to ask? A right delayed is a right denied.


We covered this already.
Children lack numerous rights. They are not denied. They are attained at the age of majority.



Back Pack Hack said:


> Suppose you're 16. Currently, you're allowed to purchase at 18. Next year, your proposed law goes into effect. Now this 16-year-old must wait FIVE year to exercise their 2A right. In two years, that gets bumped up to 25. Now said person must wait another four years. A few years later, it gets raised to 30..... then 35.... then 40.
> 
> How long must this person wait for YOU to consider their right to be violated?


I covered this twice already.
At the nation's founding, the age of majority was 21. That is the precedent.
Lowering it to 18 has had wildly detrimental effects, as far as I can tell.
My proposal to raise the age of majority would be itself a poison pill against any further increase past the originalist precedent, as it would mean other rights, specifically voting, would be affected.
The libs can cry all they want, but we all know they won't raise that for the sake of guns.
That would likely mean they won't support this idea either. In that case, it would be a cudgel with which to beat them soundly for the next few decades.



Back Pack Hack said:


> I guess if you don't get it by now, you never will.


Ditto, relating to the above.
That's three times covered. Let's see if it sticks.



Back Pack Hack said:


> A more reasonable law would be a requirement that anyone who intends to commit murder to contact the local constabulary at least 24 hours in advance to state the day, time and location of intended murder. That law will only affect the criminals as the law-abiding gun owners, who have no intention of doing so, will have no reason to contact the po-po.


You're equating a passive point-of-sale obstacle with the act of giving notice for premeditated murder.
I know you're reaching in this discussion, but that's a stretch even for you.
In my scenario, the act is prevented without a crime being committed.
In yours, the 1st crime is only committed when the 2nd is committed.
One is preventative and entirely passive. The other is reactionary in nature, as a crime must first be committed for the offense to apply.
Surely you can see these are not the same.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

You're stretching it yourself. It seems you're claiming raising the age limit to purchase a gun (legally) back to 21 would somehow be the end-all of gun violence. It won't. It can't. Enacting more laws that criminals will simply ignore is an exercise in futility.

Your 'point-of-sale obstacle' is totally non-relevant if on merely steals a gun to commit mass murder. Theft is not a point-of-sale. No one checks ID, no one runs a NICS, no one gets a 'gut feeling' when their gun is stolen.

My point about the proposed 'law' to require notification of an intent to commit a crime would be to _demonstrate the absurdity_ of such a law. Do you think a mass shooter is actually going to obey such a law?

I get it. You want the legal age to be 21. I'm not saying you're wrong. We just disagree. And I'll eave it at that.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> You're making a false equivalency. The libs want laws that unjustly affect everyone, under the guise of affecting criminals. My proposal won't affect anyone who can already legally do all the things an adult can do.


Actually I'm not. But, you're stuck on raising the age for adults. Once you start, you've set a precedence and there's no turning back. Good luck with that. I'm sure Pelosi and Schumer will have your back.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> You're stretching it yourself. It seems you're claiming raising the age limit to purchase a gun (legally) back to 21 would somehow be the end-all of gun violence. It won't. It can't. Enacting more laws that criminals will simply ignore is an exercise in futility.
> 
> Your 'point-of-sale obstacle' is totally non-relevant if on merely steals a gun to commit mass murder. Theft is not a point-of-sale. No one checks ID, no one runs a NICS, no one gets a 'gut feeling' when their gun is stolen.
> 
> ...


I'm beginning to question whether you intentionally skip what I've said.
In reply to MM, post #4: (emphasis added)


Kauboy said:


> But if the age hard cap was increased by raising the age of adulthood, it would prevent the LEGAL purchase of rifles by, let's face it, grown children.
> *I'm absolutely NOT saying this would stop all rifle shootings. And we know the Virginia Tech shooter used legally purchased handguns.*
> But it would add an additional barrier of time to the legal purchase route. *It would absolutely cut down on incidents if the teenager had no knowledge of how to acquire a rifle illegally.*
> 
> It's not a perfect solution by any means. But it's a legal one that doesn't infringe on rights.


You are correct that a point-of-sale restriction would not apply to a stolen gun. It's not intended to.
I'm not trying to solve all the problems. I'm just looking at one means of acquisition that both of the recent shooters used, as well as many others.
Any means of acquiring a gun illegally comes with its own risks that a child may or may not choose to undertake. But stopping the legal route of a child acquiring a gun, that's the focus here. (with the added benefit of stopping children from voting for the biggest bribes they can get 😉)

No, mass shooters will not obey the law.
But they must get their weapon first.
It is my position that we can make this harder for a great number of them by removing the legal avenue of children to buy guns.
It is also my position that 18 year olds are children and 21 was the age of majority for centuries before hippies changed it.








🤣


We do not agree, but I truly appreciate the discussion.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Actually I'm not. But, you're stuck on raising the age for adults. Once you start, you've set a precedence and there's no turning back. Good luck with that. I'm sure Pelosi and Schumer will have your back.


I feel like a broken record.
Did you see my replies addressing the numerous times this has been discussed?
It's a poison pill. They won't take it.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I feel like a broken record.
> Did you see my replies addressing the numerous times this has been discussed?
> It's a poison pill. They won't take it.


I've read it all. You're stuck on a policy that is more and more restrictive. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

You can buy privately, too. And that is a heart ache for dems..


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

When this country was formed, the Constitution was designed for the states to say what happens in each state. There was no mention of federal agencies. None. Nor a standing army. In fact it was stated that a standing army should not exist.

Still, the feds got around that with the interstate commerce clause. Regulations, laws and taxes followed. So the agencies were created to handle all the new stuff. Many said it was temporary. Yet these agencies grew, and more agencies were created. To make sure these agencies were necessary, more laws were created to keep them relevant. 

Now you wish to increase those laws.

Kindly tell me where in the Constitution that federal agencies override the states. Also where the passages are that state the need for a governing body over the states. It won't be long before the states have no say in how things are ran. It will be by federal decree.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> I've read it all. You're stuck on a policy that is more and more restrictive. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say.


Who does it restrict?
It's a reset back to the time of our founding.
You are amenable to the idea that we revert back to a nation similar to what was formed under the constitution. Yet opposed to returning to the same environment within which that constitution was written.
Think on that for a bit.
When Madison put quill to paper, the age of majority was 21. This is the age that the founders all considered adults to enjoy fully vested rights.
We mucked about with it, and are now shocked that things went off the rails.
Refusing to reset further ensures we continue away from the path and plan they laid the foundation for.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> You are amenable to the idea that we revert back to a nation similar to what was formed under the constitution.


That won't happen without a revolution and I'm just too damn old for that.

But are you amenable to keep adding laws on top of the heaps of laws we have now? Where does it stop? Would the proposed laws stop someone from committing mass murder? Hell, in the UK steak knives are banned. 

You can't legislate attitudes. You can't legislate mental illness. This kid and another were arrested in 2018 for wanting to do another Columbine. They saw this coming, yet nothing was done. You can go to jail for disciplining your child. Time out is not a real punishment. They have no consequences for bad behavior and people wonder what happened. YouTube is full of video's of teens smashing stuff because something didn't turn out the way they expected. You teach them these attitudes and do nothing about it. Then wonder why stuff like this happens.

Face facts. The feds want to confiscate our guns. Period. They have said it many times. Beto keeps running on that very issue as his core issue. Did you see him at the press conference?

An unarmed citizenry is much easier to control. An unarmed citizenry is easier to lower the population rate. THAT is one of their goals. They really haven't been shy about it. Bill Gates did a TED Talk on this very subject back in 2010. And yeah, the video is still up. Klaus Schwab and his assistant have been warning us of what's coming soon. You should look up the recent video by the assistant. If that won't curl your hair then nothing will.



Kauboy said:


> Yet opposed to returning to the same environment within which that constitution was written.
> Think on that for a bit


I'm opposed to heap laws upon laws. EVERY SINGLE TIME something like this happens, and yes it was a tragedy, the first option is always to create new laws and restrict people's rights. Even Trump did it with his bump stock ban. I never did like those things but thats beside the point. Realistically, would a higher age requirement stopped this kid? Speculation in Uvalde is that he got his stuff from the cartels. Yeah, I know someone who lives just outside of there. They had friends who were affected. This kids was a burger flipper. On his salary, could you afford a couple of Daniel Defenses? Or even a really nice pickup like he wrecked?

I'm opposed to is a ruling fed. And that's where we nearly are. When we have little to no say in how things are done, you have a ruling class. You think most were elected fairly? You're a Texan, look up how LBJ got elected to congress. It's now in the open. And if you think that was the first or the last time, well, I rest my case.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> That won't happen without a revolution and I'm just too damn old for that.
> 
> But are you amenable to keep adding laws on top of the heaps of laws we have now? Where does it stop? Would the proposed laws stop someone from committing mass murder? Hell, in the UK steak knives are banned.
> 
> ...


Lot to cover there, but I'll hit the main points.

Yes, I'm amenable to additional laws if they do not infringe on the rights of citizens. Bans would infringe on the rights of citizens. Not sure why you brought them up again.
I'd be amenable to a new law making pedophilia a death penalty worthy offense. I'd be amenable to a new law requiring castration of convicted rapists. I'd be amenable to a new law that puts identity thieves in stocks in the town square of their victims.
There are a myriad of potential laws that are just and don't affect the rights of good people.

The Uvalde kid was not arrested in 2018. That was an inaccurate report of an incident involving two students and an assumption that this kid was one of them. Turned out he wasn't.

Yes, the feds want our guns. Been clear for decades. Started big in 1934 and has been rolling forward ever since.
As I said, the end is inevitable. But I think delay, without compromise, is possible.

I've been keeping track of Schwab and the WEF for the last 10 years. Bad stuff. The longer we can delay the loss of our rights, the harder it will be for them to succeed.
As I see it, returning the age of majority back to 21 is a delay without compromise.

Would a higher age requirement have stopped this kid?
I answered this in a previous post. It would have stopped him from legally buying his guns. That's all it would have done.
If he still had the mind to carry it out, it would have meant acquiring them in a manner with much higher risk(theft or illegal dealer). Would he have succeeded? We can't know.
But we know that if the age of majority was 21, he would not have acquired them the way he did.
Only God knows if it would have stopped him. We can speculate, but we cannot know.
We don't get to know how many 16 year olds have this desire, but by the shear fact that they cannot legally buy a gun, have not carried out similar attacks.
If we did know, our speculation about this kid would be a bit more evidence-based.

I too am bewildered about how this kid, with his job and home life, managed to buy $6-7K worth of gear, apparently without a credit card. Cartel link is a high possibility being that close to the border.

I'm aware of our fake elections. Have you seen "2000 Mules" yet? It might crack the whole thing open, or it might drift into obscurity if enough people just don't care.

EDIT: After reading through this again, I noticed you didn't provide an answer to my question concerning who this would restrict.
Since the crux of my argument is that I do not see this restricting any person from enjoying a right they currently enjoy, I'm stuck on trying to understand the claim being made that it would restrict anyone unjustly.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> EDIT: After reading through this again, I noticed you didn't provide an answer to my question concerning who this would restrict.


By upping the age, you would restrict those who would have otherwise not been restricted and that had earned the right they were due. One moron can ruin things for a lot of people. 

Hypothetical example, kids are allowed to get a drivers license before the age of 18. A couple of random kids decide that Grand Theft Auto is a really fun game. They really enjoy running over citizens on foot. So they decide that is looks like so much fun and want to really kill pedestrians with said vehicle. Besides, look how famous they would be. After the fact, a new law is past and now the license age is 21. Many who earned the right have lost it because of a few morons.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> By upping the age, you would restrict those who would have otherwise not been restricted and that had earned the right they were due. One moron can ruin things for a lot of people.
> 
> Hypothetical example, kids are allowed to get a drivers license before the age of 18. A couple of random kids decide that Grand Theft Auto is a really fun game. They really enjoy running over citizens on foot. So they decide that is looks like so much fun and want to really kill pedestrians with said vehicle. Besides, look how famous they would be. After the fact, a new law is past and now the license age is 21. Many who earned the right have lost it because of a few morons.


Until one attains the age of majority, certain rights are simply not available. There is no "earning".
My proposal would not cause any loss of rights.
I specifically stated that any person between the ages of 18 and 20 at the time of the law's passing would still be a legal adult. A "grandfather clause", if you will, as is common in many laws.
They would lose nothing.
The 17 year old days away from their birthday, having never attained the age of majority, would still have the same set of rights they enjoy. Nothing is lost, but the full panoply of rights would be delayed for an additional 3 years until the age of majority was reached.
There may be an expectation of new rights upon their 18th birthday, which this would extinguish, but that is not an actual loss.
The only reason anyone could conclude that this equates to a "loss" of rights is a result of the poorly thought out decision to lower the age of majority in the first place. We should seek to fix bad law, should we not?
In reality, this would not actually be a new law. It would be a repeal, and reversion to previous law.
This was precedent at our nation's founding.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Until one attains the age of majority, certain rights are simply not available. There is no "earning".
> My proposal would not cause any loss of rights.
> I specifically stated that any person between the ages of 18 and 20 at the time of the law's passing would still be a legal adult. A "grandfather clause", if you will, as is common in many laws.
> They would lose nothing.
> ...


So every time an incident happens, regardless of what it is, you can change the standard. Keep moving the goal post should work. After 21, you can aim for 25, then 30 and so on.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Just need to address the issue thay some people are evil.
People knew what this kid was thinking of doing, and they failed to do a damn thing about it.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> So every time an incident happens, regardless of what it is, you can change the standard. Keep moving the goal post should work. After 21, you can aim for 25, then 30 and so on.


You keep saying the same thing... and I keep saying the same thing in response, and it's never addressed.

Tell me who will move the goal post.
Who will support prolonging the voting age to 25 and then 30?
Who will support prolonging the right to a jury of your peers to 25 and then 30? (that's right, children don't enjoy this right either)
Who will support prolonging the right to privacy to only those of 25 and then 30? (a child has no right to privacy if the parent/guardian decides it)

This idea is not confined to gun buying.
This idea is tied to every legal thing an adult can do.
Raising the age of majority is a poison pill idea that is directly tied to voting age, and thus will never be abused by the leftist crowd because they want the voting age to be as young as the population will accept.
21 is already a historic precedent. 25, 30, and onward are not, and never have been.

That's the 4th of 5th time I've repeated this, and never had anyone respond to it with any argument about why it wouldn't be true.
Wanna go around again? 😁


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Tell me who will move the goal post.
> Who will support prolonging the voting age to 25 and then 30?


The same people who moved the goal post in the first place. 

So when they find out that moving the age to 21 didn't work, what do you think will happen next? And when someone who is 25 or under does something horrific, won't they move the goal post again?

At least now I know you are for expanding the govt. They want more like you, I can assure you.



Kauboy said:


> *21 is already a historic precedent. 25, 30, and onward are not,* and never have been.


Yet.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

And, besides those evil black rifles, Brandon is suggesting we do away with 9mm. I guess they are about as evil as the rifles. Get ready for the onslaught.



> Biden turned heads Memorial Day when he claimed that the most popular caliber of gun in America was "high caliber" and that there was "no rational basis" for Americans to use the firearms for protecting themselves or even for "hunting."
> 
> *The president also floated the suggestion of banning the guns outright.*











GOP lawmakers torch Biden over suggested ban on 9mm pistols


Biden turned heads Memorial Day when he claimed there was "no rational basis" for Americans to use 9mm handguns, including for hunting or "protecting themselves."




www.foxnews.com


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> The same people who moved the goal post in the first place.
> So when they find out that moving the age to 21 didn't work, what do you think will happen next? And when someone who is 25 or under does something horrific, won't they move the goal post again?
> At least now I know you are for expanding the govt. They want more like you, I can assure you.


Which people, and who is "they"?
Seriously, be specific.
Who supports increasing the age of buying a gun AND voting?
There is no current political ideology or sect I can think of that wants both of these.
Also, as stated previously, this would be a repeal of law back to previous precedent. Not expansion.
I'm not sure why you keep accusing me of expanding government or wanting bans when I've proposed nothing of the sort. Don't misrepresent my position to make an easier target to attack. Rebut my specific position.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Which people, and who is "they"?
> Seriously, be specific.
> Who supports increasing the age of buying a gun AND voting?


THEY will be the people who move the goal post you keep praising. THEY will also be the people who want to ban the 2nd Amendment. No, it hasn't started yet, but it will. Hide and watch.

As to the rest of it, I'm done. We are getting nowhere fast. Actually I'm surprised. I would have never thought you would be for expansion of liberty restrictions. And yes, upping the age limit would be another restriction.

But, just for the record, I think we have much larger issues we'll be facing by the fall.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> THEY will be the people who move the goal post you keep praising. THEY will also be the people who want to ban the 2nd Amendment. No, it hasn't started yet, but it will. Hide and watch.
> 
> As to the rest of it, I'm done. We are getting nowhere fast. Actually I'm surprised. I would have never thought you would be for expansion of liberty restrictions. And yes, upping the age limit would be another restriction.
> 
> But, just for the record, I think we have much larger issues we'll be facing by the fall.


"They" don't exist.
The people who want the 2nd amendment gone will never compromise on voting age to get it. I am eternally confident in this.
It's a repeal, not an expansion. Seeing it any other way is an act of the imagination. I'm surprised you're not in favor of repealing bad law.
Nobody who currently enjoys the right would be restricted in any way. More imaginative thinking.

We clearly see this from two different perspectives. You presume I'm naïve to the reality of the situation and I presume you're not fully understanding it.
Perhaps this conversation would progress differently in person, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere else in text.
Thank you for the discussion just the same.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Until one attains the age of majority, certain rights are simply not available. There is no "earning".
> My proposal would not cause any loss of rights.
> I specifically stated that any person between the ages of 18 and 20 at the time of the law's passing would still be a legal adult. A "grandfather clause", if you will, as is common in many laws.
> They would lose nothing.
> ...


One thing you tend to forget. All human have the God given right to keep and bear arms. Last I looked there's nothing in the constitution that says no Rights until you are 21 or 18. So you are depriving all not 21 of their rights. Next it will be self incrimination or right to assemble or a speedy trial.

Where would it end


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

@Kauboy in 6 months or less, I do believe you are going to see things that you thought were never possible. You're a prepper, I sure hope you're ready.

Topics are really starting to heat up. Just hide and watch.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

And here is a taste of things to come.









14 mass shootings tallied in US over Memorial Day weekend, data shows


The spate of shootings over the Memorial Day Weekend broke out amid calls for gun control following the school massacre in Uvalde, Texas.




nypost.com





Ya gotta love the last paragraph in the article



> “Yeah, summer is coming and on July Fourth weekend, we’ll probably see many [mass shootings], but I don’t see this as a harbinger of worse things to come,” Fox said. “*The one thing that does concern me is we’ve seen a surge in gun purchasing. And it’s hard to commit a mass shooting without a gun.”*


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

first accept you can not stop all evil. Second is to start As a silent majority to stop being silent and grow a back bone. Instilling moral values and real education will be a dog fight. The i biggest thing I can point to is the year I was born 1962 there were zero school shootings but that is the year the stench on the bench threw God out of the schools with their enlightened ruling. Simple things like stoping using new teaching techniques like common core. That is a school board dog fight. It fails to provide a real life education just follow orders right or wrong and your rewarded. Start teaching the Bible. Besides religion there is historical context with it. It is the foundation of our culture and laws. Hey they try and force kids to be Muslims for a week so not allowing something that founded this country is hogwash . This will be a political fight locally to nationally. Watch the wacko left go nuts. Stoping murder? How about driving home the message though shalt not kill? Stop expanding childhood. Condense it. Require maturity and responsibility. Stop making excuses and exceptions. Refuse to do basic math or read and write competently? No diploma. Consequences for poor behavior or just being lazy. Allow kids to start making money at an early age. Think about your first job for money. When did you start cutting grass? Stop mandating the lazy mind set.. Not a complete plan but ideas to consider. We have to stop allowing Libtards from mandating crazy behavior and mental illness as normal mainstream thought. This kid could not look at himself and figure out what he was. The elevator is not going up to the top. I heard a rumor he was on psych meds. It seems many of these killers are on such medications. A legitimate review of these meds should at the minimum be conducted and not by the pharmaceutical companies or those working on these companies behalf. Compulsory military service? Be a screw up and tour Leavenworth.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Real Old Man said:


> One thing you tend to forget. All human have the God given right to keep and bear arms. Last I looked there's nothing in the constitution that says no Rights until you are 21 or 18. So you are depriving all not 21 of their rights. Next it will be self incrimination or right to assemble or a speedy trial.
> 
> Where would it end


Nowhere, at all, did I claim anything about children having "no rights". Literally nowhere.
Either you've not read the thread, or you believe 10 year olds have a right to be tried by a jury of their peers (other 10 year olds).
Seriously, go read the thread. This was covered Children do not enjoy all rights until they reach the age of majority, but they do enjoy some.
I know people like to _think_ that all humans, regardless of age, have all rights, but it's literally NEVER been true. Children have never EVER been entrusted with all rights the way an adult is.
All humans have basic human rights. But the full panoply of rights is not possible for children. They don't have a right to marry. They don't have a right to self-govern. They don't have a right to bodily autonomy. They don't have a right to privacy. They don't even have a right to actual freedom, as they have always been considered "owned" by their parents until adulthood or winning a court case to legally separate them.

You need to consider the reality of our laws and history before basing your position on bad logic.


----------



## Mr.penguin (9 mo ago)

Raising the legal age to buy a gun doesn't stop another person from buying the gun legally and giving access to that gun to a minor. Also we need to address the root of the problem: mental health and white supremacy in this country. If we don't do that we could ban all guns and people will just use knifes and crossbows or bombs. You can't ban Gasoline or chemical fertilizer can you?


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Changing the age to buy alcohol didnt stop many from buying. Illegal drugs, same thing. 
Watch what happens in Canada, with Trudeau stopping weapons purchases' etc..
And on a side note, nobody is prepared enough to go against our Government..


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Mr.penguin said:


> Raising the legal age to buy a gun doesn't stop another person from buying the gun legally and giving access to that gun to a minor. Also we need to address the root of the problem: mental health and white supremacy in this country. If we don't do that we could ban all guns and people will just use knifes and crossbows or bombs. You can't ban Gasoline or chemical fertilizer can you?


My proposal is not to simply raise the age to buy a gun, but raise the age of majority back to what it was at our nation's founding.
I never claimed it would stop people from getting guns. But it would remove the legal route for children to buy them.
White supremacy has been proven to not be a major problem nor factor in these attacks.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Steve40th said:


> Changing the age to buy alcohol didnt stop many from buying. Illegal drugs, same thing.
> Watch what happens in Canada, with Trudeau stopping weapons purchases' etc..
> And on a side note, nobody is prepared enough to go against our Government..


There's no legal age for illegal drugs. Bad example.
Your last comment sounds a lot like Biden, and it's false. The Taliban proved that.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

My point is criminals will be criminals. Laws that restrict us only restrict us..
Taliban didnt win the battles, but they won the political war..


Kauboy said:


> There's no legal age for illegal drugs. Bad example.
> Your last comment sounds a lot like Biden, and it's false. The Taliban proved that.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Steve40th said:


> My point is criminals will be criminals. Laws that restrict us only restrict us..
> Taliban didnt win the battles, but they won the political war..


How are we restricted by the age of majority being returned to what it was at our founding?
A law that impacts point-of-sale cannot simply be broken.
Could the 18yo child have purchased his rifle the way he did if the age of majority was 21? No, and he would have no say in it or a chance to break that law and buy it from the FFL dealer anyways.
He _could_ have still found a way to carry out an attack. But it would not have been with a legally purchased firearm.


My proposal is intended to target a broad point. Children should not be entrusted with rights only fit for adults, such as marriage, voting, self-governance, bodily autonomy, guns, and others.
My proposal would reset the age of majority back to what was once considered a more appropriate age for these rights to be exercised.
But, it looks like the dimwitted dems are just going to push for moving the age of buying a rifle to 21. (H.R. 3015)
So we are again facing the same division where an "adult" (18yo child) cannot exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
They are targeting all semiautomatic firearms that can accept more than 5 rounds.
It's just one of a slew of new bills proposed: 5/31/22 ☀ Punchbowl News AM, - Punchbowl News

I hope this brings our discussion here into focus.
THIS is what a restriction of rights looks like.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Your basic premise is flawed. The constitution says nothing about purchasing a gun. The natural right is to keep and bear arms. This has no age limit on it. Just like free speech and self incrimination. As for selling a firearm there is nothing to prevent me as a seller or giver to say no to selling or giving you one.

You've got the two concepts mixed.

And don't tell me to go and read all of your posts it's very clear that on this issue you are an appeaser who hopes his idea will postpone the seizure of his firearms by the ultra ◀


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Real Old Man said:


> Your basic premise is flawed. The constitution says nothing about purchasing a gun. The natural right is to keep and bear arms. This has no age limit on it. Just like free speech and self incrimination. As for selling a firearm there is nothing to prevent me as a seller or giver to say no to selling or giving you one.
> 
> You've got the two concepts mixed.
> 
> And don't tell me to go and read all of your posts it's very clear that on this issue you are an appeaser who hopes his idea will postpone the seizure of his firearms by the ultra ◀


Do children have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers?
Do children have a right to privacy?
Children do not enjoy all rights. Period.
This also includes a right to keep and bear arms.

I am not the one working with a flawed premise here.
Do any amount of research on rights of children. You're fabricating an argument from whole cloth that has no legal or historical precedence.
All of this was covered, with support, already. But you don't want me to ask you to do your due diligence before continuing the conversation, so I guess I'll just imply that you should...
Here's one post to reference: Raising the legal age of adulthood. Let's discuss.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Do children have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers?
> Do children have a right to privacy?
> Children do not enjoy all rights. Period.
> This also includes a right to keep and bear arms.
> ...


The right goes with the being not the age. You say children ar
en't adults, yet we try them every day in court for crimes they commit. That means they get the extra same rights as some fool in her ,60's. 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th amendments to the constitution. Now explain why the second doesn't pertain to a child? 

Unfortunately I'm not the one with the faulty logic 

But you've got your mind all wrapped around an axle so further talk to you won't change that so grab a beer a smoke put on your favorite music and enjoy the day


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> My proposal is intended to target a broad point. Children should not be entrusted with rights only fit for adults, such as marriage, voting, self-governance, bodily autonomy, guns, and others.
> My proposal would reset the age of majority back to what was once considered a more appropriate age for these rights to be exercised.


It seems your age limit needs to be upped. On the local news tonight, it turns out that the gunman who targeted Koreans was a 37 year old man. He hated Koreans, he said.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Real Old Man said:


> The right goes with the being not the age. You say children ar
> en't adults, yet we try them every day in court for crimes they commit. That means they get the extra same rights as some fool in her ,60's. 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th amendments to the constitution. Now explain why the second doesn't pertain to a child?
> 
> Unfortunately I'm not the one with the faulty logic
> ...


How many of them have unfettered free speech rights? ZERO. (court rulings state children do not enjoy an absolute right to free speech, specifically in school) (1st amendment)
How many of them can retain their right against unreasonable search and seizure that their parents can't override? ZERO. (4th amendment)
How many of them enjoy a right to liberty, able to leave their parent's guardianship at will? ZERO. (takes a court order) (5th amendment)

They absolutely do NOT enjoy the same rights as a 60 year old.

If you can tell me why the above statements are false, we can talk about this fiction concerning children possessing a right to firearms.
The age of majority must be reached for all rights to be available.
Currently that age is 18, and yet all rights are not available. 18 year olds are children. They were considered legal "infants" at the time of the founding, and personally I think that's pretty comical.
21 should be the appropriate age of majority, as it was then.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> It seems your age limit needs to be upped. On the local news tonight, it turns out that the gunman who targeted Koreans was a 37 year old man. He hated Koreans, he said.


Nope.
Your logic, not mine.
That's a legal adult well beyond the age of majority.
Fry him.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Nope.
> Your logic, not mine.
> That's a legal adult well beyond the age of majority.
> Fry him.


Did you watch the press conference tonight? Brandon agrees with you.

Of course they'll be adding the assault weapon ban, high capacity magazine ban, and just for the fun of it, make the red flag law national. Oh, I almost forgot, they want to hold gun manufacturers responsible every time someone is killed.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Did you watch the press conference tonight? Brandon agrees with you.
> 
> Of course they'll be adding the assault weapon ban, high capacity magazine ban, and just for the fun of it, make the red flag law national. Oh, I almost forgot, they want to hold gun manufacturers responsible every time someone is killed.


He wants the age of majority raised to 21?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> He wants the age of majority raised to 21?


If he can't get a gun ban in place, then he said the next best thing would be to raise the age you can buy one to 21.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> If he can't get a gun ban in place, then he said the next best thing would be to raise the age you can buy one to 21.


Then he doesn't agree with me.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Those 18-21 need a compulsory service. 
Military, Border Patrol, City Clean Up, Day Care, Senior Care, Hospital Care, whatever - just serve for two years and get them off to a better start then we are today.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

stowlin said:


> Those 18-21 need a compulsory service.
> Military, Border Patrol, City Clean Up, Day Care, Senior Care, Hospital Care, whatever - just serve for two years and get them off to a better start then we are today.


Involuntary servitude is a major violation of rights, irrespective of age.

Make it volunteer, and we can talk about "earning" adulthood a bit sooner via service to one's country.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Involuntary servitude is a major violation of rights, irrespective of age.
> 
> Make it volunteer, and we can talk about "earning" adulthood a bit sooner via service to one's country.


Understand; I feel like there is plenty they can volunteer for, and if none of the options serve them they can volunteer to live in Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea. Sorry I'm just a little extra jaded with the youth of today.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (11 mo ago)

Its really simple... We don't need to do any of that BS... Just teach gun safety in school & not being a puddy tat in our culter.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> Its really simple... We don't need to do any of that BS... Just teach gun safety in school & not being a puddy tat in our culter.


Practically speaking, how would you do that?
Your opposition is vehemently against introducing firearms to children because of an irrational fear. How do we effectuate the change we know is needed before the right is squashed for good? We're on the clock, and the countdown is speeding up.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Like everyone, I've been watching these cases in horror. I am diametrically opposed to anything that violates the second amendment and would never support any laws or gun bans that are so designed. It's easy to armchair quarterback and say how simple it is. "Just arm teachers", and "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". I'm tired of hearing these tired arguments from the right and I'm sick of generally everything from the left. I know some teachers, they aren't exactly "gun people" nor are they inclined to carry a gun every day. The "Good guys with a gun" I'm sorry to say often stand behind their vehicles waiting for tactical teams or backup while people are bleeding out. That has happened in several mass shootings. 

Where school shootings are concerned, they happen because an elementary school full of children is low hanging fruit. Easy pickings for a psychopath. Harden the schools. They may look like prisons rather than a school but it is a solid first step. SROs in every school and controlled access. I always considered school prison anyway. Put daisies on the gates and walls if you must.

We also have to realize todays kids, ain't us. I don't remember not having a gun of some type in my hand. I also don't have a memory of intentionally wanting to hurt anything. We were outdoorsmen, worked with our hands, couldn't wait to leave home, played pong instead of Grand Theft Auto and didn't know what "Incel" meant. Social media was tweaking your quadrajet in your A body with everyone in a parking lot.

Delay the age of adulthood? Not perfect to be sure, but something has to change.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Yeah but you have a 70yoam at 1600 pa who's in his 2nd or 3rd child hood. Guess we should take the nuke football away from him


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Real Old Man said:


> Yeah but you have a 70yoam at 1600 pa who's in his 2nd or 3rd child hood. Guess we should take the nuke football away from him


*







*


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Back Pack Hack said:


> *
> View attachment 114666
> *


No shi+


----------



## starsky (Dec 6, 2020)

sarge912 said:


> Many more folks are shot each year by gangs. The shooters are almost always using illegally procured weapons. Most of the shooters are under 18, some as young as 12. I'm pretty sure that gun laws are irrelevant to these thugs.



Best comment on here, criminals don't care about gun laws, their is a reason chicago and new york has high crime rates. When you disarm citizens criminals run free. Most of the criminals are ages 12-17.
This notion of changing laws to make it that at 21+ your adult will have drastic change on laws and society. That means now young criminals get a even more protection from laws and now your even more at risk of being a target. This would also effect the millitary and laws on sexual consent and marriage etc.


----------



## starsky (Dec 6, 2020)

Kauboy said:


> You keep saying the same thing... and I keep saying the same thing in response, and it's never addressed.
> 
> Tell me who will move the goal post.
> Who will support prolonging the voting age to 25 and then 30?
> ...


Best comment on here key word is ADULT, it effects every law that involves things adults are allowed to do it just doesn't effect guns. It would effect marriage, sexual consent laws. It would effect criminal cases and sentencing. It would even effect sexual assult cases.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

@Kauboy, I reviewed this thread today, and it got me wondering. So I did a search. There was no official age of adulthood until the 26th amendment was passed in 1971. By law now the legal age is 18. It was normally accepted that the legal age was 21. Viet Nam changed all that. The draft was for those 18 and over. Even before the 26th amendment. I was given the entrance medical in 1970 when I decided to enlist. They wouldn't take me btw. Even the draft didn't want me.

Maybe I'm a curmudgeon, an old fart if you will, but I remember very few restrictions on firearms. When prohibition was repealed, instead of folding the agency that was created for that, they became the ATF. Not by law, but by decree. It was decided then that machine guns needed to be regulated. Again, not by law, but by decree.

When I grew up, you could walk into Sears or Montgomery Ward and buy a gun. Buying a gun at a flea market was easy. No ID or background checks, no license required. As long as you could pay for it, it was yours. Many schools had shooting teams. Guns were carried in gun racks in the back of pickup trucks. No school shootings, no mass shootings. Guns were not considered evil, back then they were seen as tools mostly. Sure, there were robberies and guns were used, but that wasn't the norm.

Upping the age of adulthood won't change society. Society is changing. And society is following the Communist Manifesto. That started in the late 50's. Even Paul Harvey saw the writing on the wall in 1965. You may not remember 1965, but I do.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Society is changing.


This is the entire reason behind my proposal.
Guns didn't change. Society did. We should update our laws accordingly. Not concerning guns, but concerning who is an adult in our new society.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

starsky said:


> Best comment on here key word is ADULT, it effects every law that involves things adults are allowed to do it just doesn't effect guns. It would effect marriage, sexual consent laws. It would effect criminal cases and sentencing. It would even effect sexual assult cases.


Yes, it would.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> This is the entire reason behind my proposal.
> Guns didn't change. Society did. We should update our laws accordingly. Not concerning guns, but concerning who is an adult in our new society.


What needs to happen is to teach right from wrong. We lost that since the 60s and now we are reaping the results of that. And instead, we are loosening restraints. If it feels good, do it.

The Bible told us there would come a day when right will be wrong and wrong will be right. I think we are there.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

All that changing laws does is tighten down and restrict the freedom we used to have. Now you need govt approval for most things. It's a shame we got ourselves in that position.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> All that changing laws does is tighten down and restrict the freedom we used to have. Now you need govt approval for most things. It's a shame we got ourselves in that position.


This change would not affect the existing rights of anyone. It would only delay the effective date of rights for those not yet adults. Those who enjoy the freedoms in question now would continue to do so. Those that don't still won't for a bit longer.
Yes, the solution is to teach right from wrong. That solution has no viable implementation method at scale.


----------



## ItsJustMe (Dec 12, 2020)

This is where I question it. Any law that makes exceptions is a law with flaws. For instance, pro-life advocates argue that the fetus is a human and deserves the right to life. EXCEPT in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. In the case of rape or incest, the fetus is still a human and is innocent in the crime that caused its conception. And to make EXCEPTs for gestation is an argument that nobody can prove (is it not "human life" prior to 15 weeks, or whatever time frame one chooses). This is a flawed argument that requires an exception be made; therefore, the law itself would be flawed, IMO.

There are certain jobs where one must (now) be at least 18. Will we make exceptions for that? Will anyone under 21 be barred from those jobs (I think it's usually to do with insurance, but for whatever reason).

As for the argument regarding laws when our nation was established, (gun ownership age requirements, for instance), I don't think that is a good point. There were laws that were wrong, we know they were wrong and have changed them. To say let's go back to those days is also a flawed argument.

As for military service, we will EXCEPT that also? Why? If the argument is that a person is a "child" until age 21, are we then guilty of sending children to war? Or do they magically become adults because they joined to defend their country?

What about sex crimes? A 21 year old college senior has consensual sex with a 20 year old college junior. Is that statutory rape? Will the 21 year old be labeled as a pedophile for the rest of their life? Or will there be an EXCEPT for that? Will a 20 year old who impregnates another 20 year old, since they are both "children", be required to support the child? And will there then be a "law" that states children cannot raise children, so the infant will be removed from their custody?

If a 20 year old manages to get an illegal gun, commits murders, will they be tried in juvenile court? Some juvenile criminals are released at the age of majority (now 18). Will that remain the same? Will that 20 year old be released at 21, after shooting 29 people in a school? We do make exceptions for those, now. Certified as an adult. A 16 year old will be placed in a prison with adults? No? Maybe in a facility with other juveniles? Until they turn 18, then transferred to an adult prison? No? Okay, we'll place the 20 year old in with 13 year olds in a juvenile facility? Now I'm getting confused.

Currently, an 18 year old can own property. Will we not allow them to buy a car? Sign a loan? Inherit real property?

I am not arguing against making 21 the age of majority. I am stating that it will create so many problems and not solve any that I can see, why do it?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ItsJustMe said:


> I am not arguing against making 21 the age of majority. I am stating that it will create so many problems and not solve any that I can see, why do it?


It won't "create" any new problems or exceptions.

Pro-life "with exceptions" is not pro-life. (my opinion)

No exceptions will be made for jobs. Adult jobs will stay with adults. Adults would now only be those 21 and older. (NOTE: I've mentioned many times in this thread that anyone currently 18, 19, and 20 at the time of this new laws passing, would still enjoy the same expectations they always have. For 1-3 years, their DOBs will be checked a bit closer, and then it all irons out.)
I never suggested we revert all laws to what they were at our nation's founding. I used an argument to suggest they may have had this particular thing right. No strawmen, please.
No new exceptions to military service. Parents can sign up their 17 year olds now. Parents will be able to sign up their 20 year olds then. This creates no new exception.
If an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old now, they are a pedophile and registered sex offender for life. The same will apply for 21 year olds. No new exceptions. (we're a bit too promiscuous as a society as it is)
If two minors have sex and cause a pregnancy now, the same rules will apply when those minors are 20. No new exceptions.
No new exceptions for crimes committed. If the prosecutor succeeds in convincing a judge to try a criminal as an adult, that's the same as today, and the same rules apply. No new exceptions.
Property ownership is only applicable to adults. Until an adult, no property can be legally owned. Nothing changes here either. Refer to my note above in parenthesis if you're confused about current adults under 21.

The only reason you believe there will be problems with this proposal is because you still think of 18, 19, and 20 year olds as adults.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> The only reason you believe there will be problems with this proposal is because you still think of 18, 19, and 20 year olds as adults.


Some are, many are not. But I've known legal adults who are anything but.

But, you keep adding laws, and I'm sure eventually people will be morally inclined to follow all the laws. Except we have laws on the books now that are being ignored by law enforcement, both ends of the spectrum. Yet still, it's been said that with all the laws on the books now, the average person commits 3 crimes a day and don't even realize it. Of course, I doubt you ever break the speed limit, and pause a considerable time at a stop sign so there is no question you didn't stop.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Some are, many are not. But I've known legal adults who are anything but.
> 
> But, you keep adding laws, and I'm sure eventually people will be morally inclined to follow all the laws. Except we have laws on the books now that are being ignored by law enforcement, both ends of the spectrum. Yet still, it's been said that with all the laws on the books now, the average person commits 3 crimes a day and don't even realize it. Of course, I doubt you ever break the speed limit, and pause a considerable time at a stop sign so there is no question you didn't stop.


I'm happy to know you doubt I break the law. Not sure why that's relevant to the discussion, but thanks just the same. 😉


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Not sure why that's relevant to the discussion


A bit of sarcasm there, my friend. Because this is all about changing laws and adding new laws.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

As a certified Old Geezer it is my personal observation that a majority of humans don’t reach maturity until about age 40


----------

