Should there be mandatory training before you can purchase a firearm?

[Kondor3]

...No real need for general firearms safety training..

Until Gun Control folk get their way, anyhow... which they eventually will.

 

[ErikViking]

Solid answer, perhaps most people can handle guns instinctively?

Then again, most people doesn’t miss fire their guns either. With proper mandatory training, one that you would have passed in ten minutes, don’t you think it would be beneficial at all?

Can most people hold a gun safely without perforating the cat? Yes. Just as most people can figure out how to chop food with a butcher knife without losing a finger, and don't require a "butcher knife safety class" before being allowed to cook.

This isn't rocket magic here. What is it you imagine is being taught, or would be taught, in a gun safety class that would constitute the magic bullet (pardon the expression) to make society perfectly safe?

I can see benefits.
Less accidents, higher awareness towards guns and their potential use - or miss use. Storage, effects of different ammunition, how to aim, reloading, fire under stress, how to take cover, suppression and well - basic usage of a firearm.
Also, armed citizens with training would pose an even bigger threat to criminals.

Although there has been some good counter points about the issue, I have to admit that.

I don't recall asking you to recite your fantasies and imaginings of benefits to me. I have asked, at various times, precisely what you think is taught in gun safety classes which will render some huge improvement, and to provide EVIDENCE that your proposals will produce substantial benefits without onorous restrictions. Your daydreams aren't evidence.

Those mandatory courses doesn’t exist yet. So I can’t know what’s in them.

Also, we can’t know what the exact result is going to be either.

But I can guarantee that education is going to result in educated people and that educated people tends to out perform uneducated people in their field.

There is no real restriction involved, this right is only going to get boosted by a mandatory education.

And for the record, you actually did ask me about my imagination:

You: “What is it you imagine is being taught, or would be taught...”

You again: “I don't recall asking you to recite your fantasies and imaginings...”

How is requiring an education to own a gun not a restriction? If someone does not get said education (or fails to pass an education course, one would assume), they are unable to own a gun.

Moral or not, legal or not, practical or not, it's clearly a restriction. Gun ownership would be restricted to those who receive the education in question.

I think it’s a solvable, practical problem. I’ve seen suggestions like using schools and organizations like NRA to distribute education.

In this question I believe the means matters less.

 

[Andylusion]

Can most people hold a gun safely without perforating the cat? Yes. Just as most people can figure out how to chop food with a butcher knife without losing a finger, and don't require a "butcher knife safety class" before being allowed to cook.

This isn't rocket magic here. What is it you imagine is being taught, or would be taught, in a gun safety class that would constitute the magic bullet (pardon the expression) to make society perfectly safe?

I can see benefits.
Less accidents, higher awareness towards guns and their potential use - or miss use. Storage, effects of different ammunition, how to aim, reloading, fire under stress, how to take cover, suppression and well - basic usage of a firearm.
Also, armed citizens with training would pose an even bigger threat to criminals.

Although there has been some good counter points about the issue, I have to admit that.

I don't recall asking you to recite your fantasies and imaginings of benefits to me. I have asked, at various times, precisely what you think is taught in gun safety classes which will render some huge improvement, and to provide EVIDENCE that your proposals will produce substantial benefits without onorous restrictions. Your daydreams aren't evidence.

Those mandatory courses doesn’t exist yet. So I can’t know what’s in them.

Also, we can’t know what the exact result is going to be either.

But I can guarantee that education is going to result in educated people and that educated people tends to out perform uneducated people in their field.

There is no real restriction involved, this right is only going to get boosted by a mandatory education.

And for the record, you actually did ask me about my imagination:

You: “What is it you imagine is being taught, or would be taught...”

You again: “I don't recall asking you to recite your fantasies and imaginings...”

How is requiring an education to own a gun not a restriction? If someone does not get said education (or fails to pass an education course, one would assume), they are unable to own a gun.

Moral or not, legal or not, practical or not, it's clearly a restriction. Gun ownership would be restricted to those who receive the education in question.

I think it’s a solvable, practical problem. I’ve seen suggestions like using schools and organizations like NRA to distribute education.

In this question I believe the means matters less.

Again... there is no evidence whatsoever, that having educational classes, would reduce anything.

Accidents do not happen, because someone picked up the gun, had no idea how to work it, and shot themselves. No one grabs a gun by the barrel, points the handle at someone, and then fiddles around until they shoot themselves.

You said earlier that you have no idea what would be taught in a mandatory class, and thus can't provide any evidence of a benefit, because it doesn't exist yet.

That is the absolute dumbest answer I have ever read.

WHat do you mean they don't exist? They exist in every single state, across this country and outside the country. I know... I went to one. Manditory classes is required to get your CCW in the state of Ohio.

It was the most useless class of pointless Jepordy quality trivia in the world. Why? Because gun safety doesn't require anything beyond common sense.

Are you telling me that without a dumb instructor barking factoids in your face, that you can't figure out on your own, that you don't point a gun at people? That you don't pull the trigger on the gun, while you have the barrel in your mouth? That you don't wave the gun around randomly, while pulling the trigger?

Are you telling me that you can not identify the trigger of a gun?

Again, I was not even 10 years old, and they handed me a rifle at summer camp, and I started shooting targets with it.

My father was a police officer, and handed me his .357, and without any training, without some dumb class, I could figure out where to put my hand, where to put my finger, and where to point the long round end, with the hole in it.

The idea that you are avoid accidents, by having some instructor standing at the front of the class going "Do not point this at people"... which literally what the gun training course had to say about safety..... is INSANE.

This is like the drivers education classes. My instructor didn't teach me anything, when I learn how to drive. Absolutely nothing. He got in the car, told me to drive around, and then checked marked a list of obvious things..... like "stopped at stop sign".... derp.... "Went through green light".... derp derp.... "followed the speed limit" DERP DERP!.....

....sigh.....

I have this roommate from Bangladesh. Never held a gun before in his life.

He picked it up, held it with both hands, and shot a target at the end of the range with 20 rounds. No training. Never saw a gun in real life before.

Dumb education classes will do nothing. They don't do anything now. We're not talking about quantum physics. We're not even talking about 2nd grade adding and subtracting.

Literally my nephew turned 6, and they bought him a nerf gun. It didn't take a manual for him to be pegging his sisters with nerf darts. No one had to show him not to point the end with the hole, at his eye ball, or where to pull the trigger.

I don't know what you people on the left-wing of gun control, think they are going to put into a gun safety class, that is not obvious to a toddler. And if there isn't anything you can think of, then based on what drug induced fantasy, do you think there will be a benefit?

 

[Pop23]

A solution in search of a problem.

End of story.

 

[Taz]

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

For starters, you forgot that my name is Cecilie, and that I wouldn't allow you to pick garbage out of the dumpster behind my house, let alone actually behave familarly with me.

The other thing you forgot is that you're a drooling imbecile and an enormous burden on any social occasion.

Ceci, so you don't agree with my statement? Then you're an anti-gun nut. Now you know.

"You're an . . ."

"No. Fuck off. Humans are talking, so shoo."

Lol, you’re anti-guns under certain circumstances. Now you know, Ceci.

"No. Fuck off. Humans are talking, so shoo."

Don't yell at the messenger, you're the one who's anti-gun.

 

[Taz]

So is an age restriction, why aren't you upset about that?

Who said I wasn't? You assume facts not in evidence, as usual.

You're against ordinary citizens owning nukes though.

Mostly, I'm against having intelligent conversation shut down by yapping little poodles like you humping everyone's legs and pissing on the carpet. The answer to ANY gambit you wish to try to utterly derail and prevent discussion is "No. Fuck off. If it's coming from you, it's automatically stupid and deserves no comment. Did I mention fuck off?"

Ceci, you’re an infringer, that’s what’s eating your cookies.

"No. Fuck off. Humans are talking, so shoo."

Ceci, why so upset? Can't think of new ways to infringe the 2nd?

 

[Taz]

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

Wow?, Do you think a 15 year old gang banger, or suicidal teen hopped up on antidepressants care if they have the legal right to buy a gun?

Try again, this time make a bit of sense.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

No right is absolute. However, an age limit does not necessarily constitute an infringement if the 'people' in question in the amendment does not include children.

There is no mention of an age restriction, nor does it limit the "people" to adults in the 2nd. It says "shall not be infringed". So where my right to own a nuke, or AA missiles?

 

[Taz]

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

Wow?, Do you think a 15 year old gang banger, or suicidal teen hopped up on antidepressants care if they have the legal right to buy a gun?

Try again, this time make a bit of sense.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

No, I’m for educating idiots:

The minors “rights” are protected through the parent, or state appointed guardian.

Minors have diminished capacity, so not able to act in a reasonable condition”

Medscape: Medscape Access

So where is my 2nd right to own nukes or AA missiles?

And again with regard to age, it reads "shall not be infringed", which imo supercedes anything that comes after it, including an age restriction.

 

[Taz]

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

Wow?, Do you think a 15 year old gang banger, or suicidal teen hopped up on antidepressants care if they have the legal right to buy a gun?

Try again, this time make a bit of sense.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

Educate yourself.

Medscape: Medscape Access

Understand diminished capacity? The rights remain, through a parent or State appointed guardian.


“Governments have an obligation to protect all citizens and particularly their young people from harm.[13] States, in the interest of protecting public safety, have the authority to limit individual rights. The protective notion of the state, known as parens patriae, assumes that minors are unable to understand fully and consent to the consequences of certain decisions.[14] Parens patriae is possessed by the state, thereby allowing the state to protect its minors health, safety, and welfare. The state, acting in the interest of protecting the minor against her own immature decisions, may impose considerable constraints.[15]All states have codes limiting minors' rights (e.g., the age allowing a minor to obtain a driver's license, the age requirement to attend school, and the legal drinking age) and exerting parens patriae.[16]

In addition, parents have a history of legal precedent giving them the right to raise their children without government interference.[12] One example of the parents' power of authority over control of their children is Meyer v Nebraska.. This case concerned a state statute forbidding the teaching of any language other than English to youth prior to the eighth grade. The District Court of Nebraska had convicted a teacher in a parochial school for teaching German to a 10-year-old child. The parents of the child as well as several other parents in the school were German immigrants who wanted to retain some of their heritage. The Supreme Court found the Nebraska state statute to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows parents to establish a home and bring up children. The opinion rendered by Justice McReynolds stated: "Corresponding to the right of control, it is the parents' natural duty to give his children education suitable to their station in life...."[12]

Constitutionally, the rights of minors are protected; however, their rights are not protected to the same degree as an adult. There are three reasons that minors do not have the same constitutional rights as an adult: the vulnerability of children, their limited decision-making capacity, and the important role parents play in making decisions for their children.[17] Various state codes limit minors' rights while trying to balance the protection of the state interest, the parent interest, and the interest of the minor. Requiring immunizations for school is an example of the use of state law to protect the welfare of the greater community and having the ability to supersede the parents' wishes if necessary. State intervention in child abuse is use of state law to protect the interest of the child.”

But that was a nice, if not childish try

Don't fool yourself, you're for infringement. It's an age restriction, and some states are moving it up.

As well, do you think that your Arab-American neighbour has the right to possess some nukes or not?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Should there be mandatory training before you can purchase a firearm?”

No, this would clearly be an undue burden to the right to self-defense.

There is also no evidence in support that such ‘training’ would be beneficial.

There is no proof, for example, that citizens licensed to carry concealed firearms pursuant to state law requiring training are safer than citizens licensed to carry absent such a requirement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wow?, Do you think a 15 year old gang banger, or suicidal teen hopped up on antidepressants care if they have the legal right to buy a gun?

Try again, this time make a bit of sense.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

No, I’m for educating idiots:

The minors “rights” are protected through the parent, or state appointed guardian.

Minors have diminished capacity, so not able to act in a reasonable condition”

Medscape: Medscape Access

So where is my 2nd right to own nukes or AA missiles?

And again with regard to age, it reads "shall not be infringed", which imo supercedes anything that comes after it, including an age restriction.

As a fact of law your opinion is wrong.

 

[Pop23]

Wow?, Do you think a 15 year old gang banger, or suicidal teen hopped up on antidepressants care if they have the legal right to buy a gun?

Try again, this time make a bit of sense.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

Educate yourself.

Medscape: Medscape Access

Understand diminished capacity? The rights remain, through a parent or State appointed guardian.


“Governments have an obligation to protect all citizens and particularly their young people from harm.[13] States, in the interest of protecting public safety, have the authority to limit individual rights. The protective notion of the state, known as parens patriae, assumes that minors are unable to understand fully and consent to the consequences of certain decisions.[14] Parens patriae is possessed by the state, thereby allowing the state to protect its minors health, safety, and welfare. The state, acting in the interest of protecting the minor against her own immature decisions, may impose considerable constraints.[15]All states have codes limiting minors' rights (e.g., the age allowing a minor to obtain a driver's license, the age requirement to attend school, and the legal drinking age) and exerting parens patriae.[16]

In addition, parents have a history of legal precedent giving them the right to raise their children without government interference.[12] One example of the parents' power of authority over control of their children is Meyer v Nebraska.. This case concerned a state statute forbidding the teaching of any language other than English to youth prior to the eighth grade. The District Court of Nebraska had convicted a teacher in a parochial school for teaching German to a 10-year-old child. The parents of the child as well as several other parents in the school were German immigrants who wanted to retain some of their heritage. The Supreme Court found the Nebraska state statute to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows parents to establish a home and bring up children. The opinion rendered by Justice McReynolds stated: "Corresponding to the right of control, it is the parents' natural duty to give his children education suitable to their station in life...."[12]

Constitutionally, the rights of minors are protected; however, their rights are not protected to the same degree as an adult. There are three reasons that minors do not have the same constitutional rights as an adult: the vulnerability of children, their limited decision-making capacity, and the important role parents play in making decisions for their children.[17] Various state codes limit minors' rights while trying to balance the protection of the state interest, the parent interest, and the interest of the minor. Requiring immunizations for school is an example of the use of state law to protect the welfare of the greater community and having the ability to supersede the parents' wishes if necessary. State intervention in child abuse is use of state law to protect the interest of the child.”

But that was a nice, if not childish try

Don't fool yourself, you're for infringement. It's an age restriction, and some states are moving it up.

As well, do you think that your Arab-American neighbour has the right to possess some nukes or not?

A right can’t be infringed prior to it being awarded.

The States, as you might be aware, create the age as to when this right firsts exists.

Sorry, doubling down on stupid just made you look twice as stupid.

 

[Pop23]

“Should there be mandatory training before you can purchase a firearm?”

No, this would clearly be an undue burden to the right to self-defense.

There is also no evidence in support that such ‘training’ would be beneficial.

There is no proof, for example, that citizens licensed to carry concealed firearms pursuant to state law requiring training are safer than citizens licensed to carry absent such a requirement.

For the first time..........

Agreed

 

[Pop23]

Wow?, Do you think a 15 year old gang banger, or suicidal teen hopped up on antidepressants care if they have the legal right to buy a gun?

Try again, this time make a bit of sense.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

No, I’m for educating idiots:

The minors “rights” are protected through the parent, or state appointed guardian.

Minors have diminished capacity, so not able to act in a reasonable condition”

Medscape: Medscape Access

So where is my 2nd right to own nukes or AA missiles?

And again with regard to age, it reads "shall not be infringed", which imo supercedes anything that comes after it, including an age restriction.

A nuke is not bearable

 

[Taz]

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

No, I’m for educating idiots:

The minors “rights” are protected through the parent, or state appointed guardian.

Minors have diminished capacity, so not able to act in a reasonable condition”

Medscape: Medscape Access

So where is my 2nd right to own nukes or AA missiles?

And again with regard to age, it reads "shall not be infringed", which imo supercedes anything that comes after it, including an age restriction.

As a fact of law your opinion is wrong.

My point earlier on was to show that the NRA is a gun manufacturers lobby because they don't fight for your right to own anything other than a gun.

If you want to have a militia able to compete with a tyrannical government, then you need the same weapons that they have, which is what the FFs meant. So that means nukes, cruise missiles, the whole gang... That later on, a judge may have rules otherwise is also an infringement as should be struck down on principal.

 

[Taz]

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

Educate yourself.

Medscape: Medscape Access

Understand diminished capacity? The rights remain, through a parent or State appointed guardian.


“Governments have an obligation to protect all citizens and particularly their young people from harm.[13] States, in the interest of protecting public safety, have the authority to limit individual rights. The protective notion of the state, known as parens patriae, assumes that minors are unable to understand fully and consent to the consequences of certain decisions.[14] Parens patriae is possessed by the state, thereby allowing the state to protect its minors health, safety, and welfare. The state, acting in the interest of protecting the minor against her own immature decisions, may impose considerable constraints.[15]All states have codes limiting minors' rights (e.g., the age allowing a minor to obtain a driver's license, the age requirement to attend school, and the legal drinking age) and exerting parens patriae.[16]

In addition, parents have a history of legal precedent giving them the right to raise their children without government interference.[12] One example of the parents' power of authority over control of their children is Meyer v Nebraska.. This case concerned a state statute forbidding the teaching of any language other than English to youth prior to the eighth grade. The District Court of Nebraska had convicted a teacher in a parochial school for teaching German to a 10-year-old child. The parents of the child as well as several other parents in the school were German immigrants who wanted to retain some of their heritage. The Supreme Court found the Nebraska state statute to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows parents to establish a home and bring up children. The opinion rendered by Justice McReynolds stated: "Corresponding to the right of control, it is the parents' natural duty to give his children education suitable to their station in life...."[12]

Constitutionally, the rights of minors are protected; however, their rights are not protected to the same degree as an adult. There are three reasons that minors do not have the same constitutional rights as an adult: the vulnerability of children, their limited decision-making capacity, and the important role parents play in making decisions for their children.[17] Various state codes limit minors' rights while trying to balance the protection of the state interest, the parent interest, and the interest of the minor. Requiring immunizations for school is an example of the use of state law to protect the welfare of the greater community and having the ability to supersede the parents' wishes if necessary. State intervention in child abuse is use of state law to protect the interest of the child.”

But that was a nice, if not childish try

Don't fool yourself, you're for infringement. It's an age restriction, and some states are moving it up.

As well, do you think that your Arab-American neighbour has the right to possess some nukes or not?

A right can’t be infringed prior to it being awarded.

The States, as you might be aware, create the age as to when this right firsts exists.

Sorry, doubling down on stupid just made you look twice as stupid.

So let's face it, you're a double infringer. And you support the states right to infringe at will. So make that a triple infringer.

 

[Taz]

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

No, I’m for educating idiots:

The minors “rights” are protected through the parent, or state appointed guardian.

Minors have diminished capacity, so not able to act in a reasonable condition”

Medscape: Medscape Access

So where is my 2nd right to own nukes or AA missiles?

And again with regard to age, it reads "shall not be infringed", which imo supercedes anything that comes after it, including an age restriction.

A nuke is not bearable

A suitcase nuke is, chemical weapons are, AA missiles are, mines are... And you're still not allowed to have any.

And FYI, no mention of it being only to carry. You lose, you infringer.

bear1
ber/
verb

1. 1.
   (of a person) carry.
   "he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"
   synonyms: carry, bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug
   "I come bearing gifts"

 

[Pop23]

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

No, I’m for educating idiots:

The minors “rights” are protected through the parent, or state appointed guardian.

Minors have diminished capacity, so not able to act in a reasonable condition”

Medscape: Medscape Access

So where is my 2nd right to own nukes or AA missiles?

And again with regard to age, it reads "shall not be infringed", which imo supercedes anything that comes after it, including an age restriction.

As a fact of law your opinion is wrong.

My point earlier on was to show that the NRA is a gun manufacturers lobby because they don't fight for your right to own anything other than a gun.

If you want to have a militia able to compete with a tyrannical government, then you need the same weapons that they have, which is what the FFs meant. So that means nukes, cruise missiles, the whole gang... That later on, a judge may have rules otherwise is also an infringement as should be struck down on principal.

Nukes are purely offensive. One does not defend self by blowing one self up.

Now, you seem to claim that the writers of the document, having just defeated an unjust government, would create a document in which........,

That unjust government would hold the very weapons that the citizens needed to defeat the unjust government, until the citizens requested them.

Quit acting like a child and you might stop being treated like a child.

 

[Pop23]

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

No, I’m for educating idiots:

The minors “rights” are protected through the parent, or state appointed guardian.

Minors have diminished capacity, so not able to act in a reasonable condition”

Medscape: Medscape Access

So where is my 2nd right to own nukes or AA missiles?

And again with regard to age, it reads "shall not be infringed", which imo supercedes anything that comes after it, including an age restriction.

A nuke is not bearable

A suitcase nuke is, chemical weapons are, AA missiles are, mines are... And you're still not allowed to have any.

And FYI, no mention of it being only to carry. You lose, you infringer.

bear1
ber/
verb

1. 1.
   (of a person) carry.
   "he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"
   synonyms: carry, bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug
   "I come bearing gifts"

The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT disagrees.

I know their qualifications, what are yours.

 

[Auld Phart]

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

So you’re for infringement. Got it.

No, I’m for educating idiots:

The minors “rights” are protected through the parent, or state appointed guardian.

Minors have diminished capacity, so not able to act in a reasonable condition”

Medscape: Medscape Access

So where is my 2nd right to own nukes or AA missiles?

And again with regard to age, it reads "shall not be infringed", which imo supercedes anything that comes after it, including an age restriction.

As a fact of law your opinion is wrong.

My point earlier on was to show that the NRA is a gun manufacturers lobby because they don't fight for your right to own anything other than a gun.

If you want to have a militia able to compete with a tyrannical government, then you need the same weapons that they have, which is what the FFs meant. So that means nukes, cruise missiles, the whole gang... That later on, a judge may have rules otherwise is also an infringement as should be struck down on principal.

My point earlier on was to show that the NRA is a gun manufacturers lobby because they don't fight for your right to own anything other than a gun.

National Rifle Association


Should they fight for your right to own a car, an airplane, have abortions, something else?