[Back Pack Hack]

........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]

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]

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.

 

[Kauboy]

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]

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]

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.

....
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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[inceptor]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.


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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.