Well, I've got an idea. If we're interested in what age most people can safely and responsibly own and use guns, let's make it 30. I realize the 29-year-old fmaidment won't like that very much, and of course he'll refer to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and especially its sacred 2nd Amendment, but that's too bad.Shame on the New York Times for printing such a belligerent editorial! Shame on the New York Times for arguing for the continued abridgement of the Constitutional rights of America’s lawful gun owners and the law-abiding citizens 18-20 years of age.
If we're just trying to expand gun rights regardless of what's best for everyone involved, I still say no. Perhaps gun owners should be happy with what they have now and stop pushing for nonsensical expansions of their rights.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Perhaps gun owners should be happy with what they have now and stop pushing for nonsensical expansions of their rights."
ReplyDeletePerhaps women should be happy with what they have now and stop pushing for nonsensical expansions of their rights.
Perhaps black people should be happy with what they have now and stop pushing for nonsensical expansions of their rights.
Perhaps gay people should be happy with what they have now and stop pushing for nonsensical expansions of their rights.
You see the pattern here? You fit right in.
I'd go with 30 too.
ReplyDeleteThe under-30 crowd is just too flakey. Some of them are responsible but there are too many others still trying to find themselves.
If under 30 is too irresponsible to bear arms then that is going to make a really old military and police officers. Hard to recruit too as most people over 30 are not usually the enlisting type. Or where you going to create the under 30 loophole for military and police since obviously the military and police would be far more trustworthy and stable than mere 2nd class citizens.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteWhat age were you when you owned firearms?
Anonymous, the last one, I was in the Marines at 17.
ReplyDeleteAztec, yeah I see the pattern. It's you putting gun owners into the category of oppressed minorities. That's part of your need to be the victim.
Anonymous, If you want to make a point about the right age for owning guns responsibly, please don't do it by asking questions about my personal experiences. If you've "read on other blogs" about my history with guns, then you may also have read that I don't want to share any more personal details of my life.
ReplyDeleteRight MikeB302000,
ReplyDeleteyou don't want to share your personal experiences but you don't hesitate to talk about other people's personal lives.
How do you think the people in the stories you mention feel having their life put under the microscope by you?
How do you think they feel being accused of the things you accuse them of?
Yet you want even talk about the age you owned firearms on a post where you advocate limiting the right to keep and bear arms to 30 year old.
Little bit of a double standard there, isn't it?
Anon: What on earth are you talking about? Nobody here has put anybody's life under "a microscope."
ReplyDeleteThe posts you read here are all cited in newspapers and media outlets. I realize you would prefer we not talk about gun violence and pretend guns only bring happiness and gumdrops--but doesn't playing the victim get old after a while?
If you're referring to gunloon blogs--those bloggers post the stories about themselves.
Jadegold,
ReplyDeleteRight.
MikeB302000 hasn't asked people here if they have violated the law.
Mikeb302000 hasn't asked how people store their firearms.
MikeB302000 hasn't asked if the people in the news stories are drunks, abusive, mentally ill,etc.
Is prison appropriate for a guy like that with four other kids to support?
In trying to fathom the depths of the Weer'd mind, I wondered what could his point be.
Right.
So MikeB30200,
ReplyDeleteHow old?
I will not get under that microscope. I don't care how many guns you point at me.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you use your real blog name, you pusillanimous ass. I haven't checked the IP addresses, but your style is very familiar. So, either come or go, but don't come here as anonymous, it fools no one. And please don't start asking the same questions, which I've clearly said I won't answer, over and over again. It's a drag.
And one more thing, please don't bother to point out that I violated my own norm by name calling. I do do it once in a while.
Hmm, Let's see if you like your own words about gun owners being under the microscope used against you, eh?
ReplyDelete(I hold out scant hope of seeing this comment published though).
How about this, Colin. Require all gun owners to be licensed and all guns to be registered. When someone buys a gun, they know they'll be receiving a home inspection visit for a compliance check. If they can't produce the guns registered to them, they go to jail.
Don't you think that would put an end to straw purchasing?
Or how about this one?
Every gun purchase generates a record of a particular weapon registered to a particular licensed owner. A document would be issued accordingly. Every year, the gun owner must present himself along with the gun and the registration document to the local police for a stamp. Failure to appear results in an immediate arrest warrant.
Do you think that would put an end to straw purchases?
This is one of my favorites -- you not only want to invade people's physical privacy but their mental privacy also.
I say nothing short of licensing and registration combined with background checks on every transfer will do the trick. Those are the big things. Local police need to be involved in the issuance of carry permits and serious training and psychological screening needs to be implemented.
And you Mikey won't even answer a question about how old you were when you own firearms.
Double standard?
That's a non-sequitur. Describing my idea of strict gun laws which would put an end to straw purchasing has nothing to do with putting people under the microscope.
ReplyDeleteThere's no double standard there at all, because the two elements of the equation are unrelated.
It was a sloppy way for you to once again get it accross that I won't talk about certain things.
You accused me of having done the very thing that I refuse to do. That's another lie and you know it. I mainly talk about news items and general ideas I have. I may have asked directly about your or someone else's behaviour with guns, but I don't think I ever questioned anyone's refusal to answer. You have done so to me literally scores of times.
Anon: I always have to laugh when I hear gunloons talk about privacy.
ReplyDeleteWhere were the gunloons when Bush Jr said it was legal to listen to all your electronic communications? Without warrant.
The answer is: nowhere.