Conservative New Orleans court ruling for people between 18 and 21 comes amid major shifts in firearm legal landscape
Shocker.
I kinda agree with this, without reading the article yet. I hope there is a clause for “-except with some training certificate”
The age for getting drafted into the military (in America) is 18. Once in the military, you will receive some kind of training on firearms. If for some reason 18yr olds didn’t join the military (political or otherwise), but instead wish to get training through their own means, I think being able to purchase a firearm should still be a right. Obviously not military weaponry, but most other stuff, yeah
Yeah, I forgot, when you join the army, they give you a rifle and handgun that you get to keep with you at all times. Not like there’s an armory with an officer in charge of doling them out.
"This is my rifle, this is my gun!
This is for fighting, this is for fun!"
-S.K.
So they lowered the earliest buying age from 21 to 18? You can join the military at 18 (not that I think that’s a particularly sane thing either), so this makes a vague amount of sense.
Why are there comments here acting like they removed the age minimum entirely?
Because the title doesn’t specify, and most people only read titles.
Tbf, it does specify “young adults under 21” which I take to mean legal adults ages 18, 19, and 20, and the body text specifies as well.
But yeah you’re still probably right lol.
I understand that, but it’s literally in the preview text of the article (at least in the Jerboa app for android), and more importantly it’s stated in the fucking body text of the post.
I didn’t read the article either (this time). There’s no excuse here.
People get upset about “tone policing” lately, but I can’t just stay silent when it’s this blatant that people are complaining about something that isn’t even true.
Edit: I’m not seeing the comments that were talking about this as if they had removed the age minimum entirely now. Guess they’ve either been deleted or I blocked those users earlier and don’t remember that I did that.
Hey, I’m with you. Anyone commenting on an article without reading it deserves to be called out for it.
I’ve always thought it stupid that you could join the military and go kill people at 18, but had to be 21 to drink or smoke. The obvious solution would be to make gun ownership and military service require you be 21 though.
It’s 18 for military so they can get people right out of high school before they’ve had a chance to live life.
So 21, and include 2 year college degree as part of the tax supported k-12 education. Make it preschool-14.
Yes yes, I also know they want you to join for college costs too but fuck that.
They specifically DON’T want the majority of recruits to have an associate degree. That would qualify them to be officers, well at least to go to OCS to see if they qualify.
If you can’t be trusted with a gun you shouldn’t be in the military. No more of this “you’re an adult only when it’s convenient for us” crap.
I mean, there’s a difference between trusted with a gun while supervised and trusted to have a gun at your disposal 24/7 without supervision.
I shot myself in the arm at age 3 with a pellet gun.
I learned to use a rifle at age 10, with full out safety training.
I learned to fix guns in machine shop at age 17.
As much as I’ve learned about weapons in my life, I still don’t trust 93% of people with access to them.
I mean… in the military you get training and supervision. Us civies can just walk out the shop with a brand new rifle: no training, few questions asked.
Then provide training?
Requiring training and a license to own a gun? That would go to court as being unconstitutional.
That’s been the case in Connecticut since Sandy Hook, and so far nobody has successfully challenged it
So just proliferate free training to as many people as possible.
That’s kinda the point of The BSA/GSA. Unfortunately these days scouting seems to be mostly arts and crafts, rather than outdoorsman training.
Yea, my opinions of you need to be X or Y age to do A or B boils down to: “IDC, just pick one got dang number and stick to it”
I believe we would live in a much better world if gunpowder and the gun had never been invented.
I guess you’ve never considered the relationship between increasing deadliness of weaponry and increasing peace then?
Have you ever thought of that? How increasing the power wieldable by an individual reduces the overall amount of coercion?
Are you aware of the relationship between nuclear proliferation and war deaths?
It’s interesting stuff. If you haven’t considered this particular phenomenon you should, because it’s one of the most important evolutions of human society in history.
Killing for peace? That math don’t add up to me, and it never will.
Would we? That still leaves a lot of weapon types open for business.
Crossbows are just guns that run on springs instead of gunpowder.
Gotta imagine there’d be a lot less mass murders at school if we taught the kiddos to assume the Testudo in response to one crazy with a sword.
I mean, maybe we should address the root cause rather than just assume school murders will always happen.
They didn’t used to happen. And US civilians have been able to purchase the AR-15 since the 60s. Then Columbine happened.
They were able to purchase guns that were extremely functionally similar to the AR-15 since the end of WW2 in the form of the M1 carbine. They were cheaply available as surplus for quite awhile. The difference between the two is mostly in weight and ability to penetrate armor and barriers effectively
School shootings happened long before Columbine. They have, however, accelerated over the last decade to incredible levels.
You’re right. We need to ban sticks and rocks immediately!
I was thinking chemical weapons, but okay.
You’re right, farts are banned immediately!
Good idea, you have my vote.
What about fists? Anyone can make one and throw it without any license
A terrifying thought.
Is it unethical if they sell the kids rainbow coloured “fascist-seeking” rounds?
