Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
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?
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
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.

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.

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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
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.

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.

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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
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.

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 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.

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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
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)

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
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.

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.
  • Like
Reactions: 65mustang

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
That's an easy argument to win. 10-year-olds HAVE lost that right.
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
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?

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.
Not relevant to the issue at hand.
Not relevant to the issue at hand.
You're the one making the argument as such by tossing in all this other crap.
Given the admitted pettiness, I'm not addressing it.
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.🙄

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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #51 ·
Doesn't matter what number you put into the law. Evil will do evil things.
Would that boy have been able to buy a gun the way the past two shooters, and many others, legally did?
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 ·
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #58 ·
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.

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."
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.

Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
10,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #63 ·
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.

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.

And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That each and every Officer and private Soldier of said Militia, not under the control of Parents, Masters, or Guardians, and being of sufficient Ability therefore, in the Judgment of the Select-men of the Town wherein he has his usual place of Abode, shall equip himself and be constantly provided with a good Fire Arm … .

Delaware 1785

An Act for Establishing a Militia, §§ 7-8, 1785 Del. Laws 59.

[E]very apprentice, or other person of the age of eighteen and under twenty-one years, who hath an estate of the value of eighty pounds, or whose parent shall pay six pounds annually towards the public taxes, shall by his parent or guardian respectively be provided with a musket or firelock … .
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.

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 giving 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?

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.

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.
1 - 20 of 41 Posts