Tenring
Member
The commies do not want the problem solved, they set up the kill/gun free zones to further their agenda of disarming the law abiding citizens.
Changing AR15 Purchase Age to 21
- Thread starter samnev
- Start date
Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!
Join today!
GunNut
Member
Change to 21, change to 45 or maybe 65
What person bent on doing harm gives 2 shits about a law for 21
None, pointless BS that is anti 2A and communism all the way
What person bent on doing harm gives 2 shits about a law for 21
None, pointless BS that is anti 2A and communism all the way
This is just my opinion... nobody will care, nor should you.
The police can't be everywhere, and who would want to live somewhere that they were?
The answer is an armed citizenry. The pervasive attitude, cultivated by the government over decades, is that it's the government's job to care for the people. It's simply a method of control and exactly what we fought a war for independence over.
How many of these glory seeking fukcs would go out to commit these atrocities if they knew they would be gunned down like rabid dogs in the first 15 seconds? If the newspaper headline or the TV news segment started off with "another mass shooting in Buffalo was averted after an unnamed gunman killed one woman in a parking lot and was shot to death by 8 people. On to the weather..."
We need to get back to taking responsibility for ourselves, in every aspect of our lives, and that includes safety and security. But it's not limited to that. We've got to stop looking to government at any level to provide any form of aid. It's not their job and it's not healthy for this country. When I was farming and running cattle, we had a couple very bad years down south (drought) and I was eligible for LDAP (livestock disaster assistance). I could have also gotten them to pay for a pivot. I declined both, and we needed that money desperately.
We've got to start taking care of ourselves. In every aspect of our lives.
That was so well said, sir.
The police can't be everywhere, and who would want to live somewhere that they were?
The answer is an armed citizenry. The pervasive attitude, cultivated by the government over decades, is that it's the government's job to care for the people. It's simply a method of control and exactly what we fought a war for independence over.
How many of these glory seeking fukcs would go out to commit these atrocities if they knew they would be gunned down like rabid dogs in the first 15 seconds? If the newspaper headline or the TV news segment started off with "another mass shooting in Buffalo was averted after an unnamed gunman killed one woman in a parking lot and was shot to death by 8 people. On to the weather..."
We need to get back to taking responsibility for ourselves, in every aspect of our lives, and that includes safety and security. But it's not limited to that. We've got to stop looking to government at any level to provide any form of aid. It's not their job and it's not healthy for this country. When I was farming and running cattle, we had a couple very bad years down south (drought) and I was eligible for LDAP (livestock disaster assistance). I could have also gotten them to pay for a pivot. I declined both, and we needed that money desperately.
We've got to start taking care of ourselves. In every aspect of our lives.
paulgt2164 said:
That was so well said, sir.
cool arrow
Member
In 250 years, America has become that which the founders fled.Gatsby said:
Tenring
Member
Tenring
Member
if you really want to see why we are loosing, just trapse over to that other az site and read what the neophytes are saying, in regards to new gun laws, most are expats of that place we dislike, you know the one that oughta fall off next shake,
anyways, its the blatant reason perhaps in my life time Az will become the southwest east coast rep. just my opinion, but even the mods are for the legal age at 21, just the way it is.
of course this is all the opinion of an old guy
Rj
anyways, its the blatant reason perhaps in my life time Az will become the southwest east coast rep. just my opinion, but even the mods are for the legal age at 21, just the way it is.
of course this is all the opinion of an old guy
Rj
The age requirement to purchase handgun is currently 21...but it wasn't always. Before the Gun Control Act of 1968, it was 18. The goal of raising the age to 21 was to prevent violent crime...well, that didn't seem to work very well. So why does anyone think increasing the age for AR-type weapons to 21 will have any effect? That's like banning red cars in hopes of reducing speeding tickets...
BTW, in 1968 you could buy a full auto M16 for far less than $500...hell, I've seen an old advertisement from 1977 for an MG-42 for less than $1k.
BTW, in 1968 you could buy a full auto M16 for far less than $500...hell, I've seen an old advertisement from 1977 for an MG-42 for less than $1k.
Ballistic Therapy
Member
They don't care one iota about what age you are.
All they care about is making more laws that prohibit guns.
Next they will want an age where you are too old to buy one.
All they care about is making more laws that prohibit guns.
Next they will want an age where you are too old to buy one.
Your typical mass shooter is so maladjusted and socially awkward that even criminals don't want to deal with him. He can function well enough to go to the dealer and fill out a 4473, but he is not going to go all Jason Borne and procure one off the streets if the guns are outlawed.
I have no problem making the age the same for semiauto rifles and handguns. If anything, young people are better off starting with a bolt action so they can learn some markmanship. Plus at least at 21, you have a track record for any background check. At 18, all crimes committed under the age of 18 are mostly buried.
If anything in trade, drinking age should be lowered to 19, just old enough so they are out of high school. They are drinking illegally anyway, enforcement is just a fundraiser for the cops and lawyers. Should be more worried about chasing tail than guns at that age anyway.
And as far as the military thing, I would be totally supportive of keeping our serivcemembers under the age of 21 out of combat zones unless the United States is directly threatened. Make it less likely for leaders to throw their lives away on foreign boondoggles.
I have no problem making the age the same for semiauto rifles and handguns. If anything, young people are better off starting with a bolt action so they can learn some markmanship. Plus at least at 21, you have a track record for any background check. At 18, all crimes committed under the age of 18 are mostly buried.
If anything in trade, drinking age should be lowered to 19, just old enough so they are out of high school. They are drinking illegally anyway, enforcement is just a fundraiser for the cops and lawyers. Should be more worried about chasing tail than guns at that age anyway.
And as far as the military thing, I would be totally supportive of keeping our serivcemembers under the age of 21 out of combat zones unless the United States is directly threatened. Make it less likely for leaders to throw their lives away on foreign boondoggles.
I'm curious of all of those opposed to a 21+ age requirement for AR type rifles; where is your outrage and loud vocal opposition for the age requirement for the purchase of handguns/frames/receivers?
Of all the various boards I visit multiple times per day, there isn't a single thread about fighting the age requirement for pistols...why not?
Did any of you follow the Natalia Marshall v ATF/DOJ case from last year?
Of all the various boards I visit multiple times per day, there isn't a single thread about fighting the age requirement for pistols...why not?
Did any of you follow the Natalia Marshall v ATF/DOJ case from last year?
I am opposed to background checks. They have only been around since -what? 1985? How did the Republic manage to survive for over 200 years without background checks? The purpose of the "Brady Law" was to reduce crime. As Dr. Phil says, "How's that working for you?"
I am opposed to the age 21 requirement for handguns. Why is there a difference? It used to be 18 for both handguns and long guns. Then the Democrats said that most crimes were committed with handguns, because they were easily concealable. When people like me said "They will just substitute rifles," the Democrats said "No they won't; rifles are too bulky for crime." So, how's that working for you?
I am opposed to the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. That law came about as a reaction to the criminal gang wars that arose as an unintended consequence of Prohibition. We were assured that if we banned the Thompson Submachine Gun -- the "weapon of choice" of gangs, then gang warfare would go away. So, how's that working for you?
I am old enough to remember buying guns by mail (from Shotgun News) and the United States Post Office would deliver them to the house. Now they have a precedent for prohibiting online sales of ammunition. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (before they learned to say Gun "Safety") was supposed to stop political violence: political assassinations and terrorism. So, how's that working for you?
I am opposed to the age 21 requirement for handguns. Why is there a difference? It used to be 18 for both handguns and long guns. Then the Democrats said that most crimes were committed with handguns, because they were easily concealable. When people like me said "They will just substitute rifles," the Democrats said "No they won't; rifles are too bulky for crime." So, how's that working for you?
I am opposed to the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. That law came about as a reaction to the criminal gang wars that arose as an unintended consequence of Prohibition. We were assured that if we banned the Thompson Submachine Gun -- the "weapon of choice" of gangs, then gang warfare would go away. So, how's that working for you?
I am old enough to remember buying guns by mail (from Shotgun News) and the United States Post Office would deliver them to the house. Now they have a precedent for prohibiting online sales of ammunition. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (before they learned to say Gun "Safety") was supposed to stop political violence: political assassinations and terrorism. So, how's that working for you?
Quake_Guy said:
This gun control is only going to continue to ratchet up further and further until they come for all of the guns if people have that attitude. These gun grabbers want them ALL, and they're taking them away incrementally. As soon someone uses a scoped bolt action to go around killing people, they'll call them sniper rifles and want those gone as well. You have to draw a line in the sand.
Funny how a few people in this thread fail to see the "death by a thousand cuts" that has been going on since the 30s.
The "that ain't so bads" and "if that is all they want, could be worsers" are the death of the 2A because you don't see the big picture.
It is just as bad as the "other" side who says "no one is taking your guns" when they fail to realize by throwing more and more barriers to ownership and use till it becomes financially or procedurally untenable is the same thing as "taking the guns." If I can't afford to buy or keep, and I can't afford ammo - you have removed the ability of the firearm to be a firearm - and "yer tooks mah gunz." Just because someone didn't kick in the door and take the gun - doesn't mean that someone hasn't "taken" the gun. If I have a car in the driveway, and you come and steal the wheels off it -and I can't get new ones - it is no long a car, it is now hillbilly lawn art. It is just amazing to me how daft both sides of the "issue" are..
The "that ain't so bads" and "if that is all they want, could be worsers" are the death of the 2A because you don't see the big picture.
It is just as bad as the "other" side who says "no one is taking your guns" when they fail to realize by throwing more and more barriers to ownership and use till it becomes financially or procedurally untenable is the same thing as "taking the guns." If I can't afford to buy or keep, and I can't afford ammo - you have removed the ability of the firearm to be a firearm - and "yer tooks mah gunz." Just because someone didn't kick in the door and take the gun - doesn't mean that someone hasn't "taken" the gun. If I have a car in the driveway, and you come and steal the wheels off it -and I can't get new ones - it is no long a car, it is now hillbilly lawn art. It is just amazing to me how daft both sides of the "issue" are..
rockbronco
Member
I understand why people think that a simple age limit is “ok” and while for a split second you can agree it’s not “that” bad compared to other options that could happen. You have to remember none of this stuff is the root problem. It won’t solve anything but take one more right away from law abiding citizens. No one here wants to give anything because they all understand that an inch leads to a mile and slowly but surely we loose more rights then we ever will gain back.
Tenring
Member
Agreed - wow, just wow
IMO - Fear is why most of those who agree with giving a little or a concession on this issue. They believe that just give them this and they will leave us alone ... Fear.
IMO - Fear is why most of those who agree with giving a little or a concession on this issue. They believe that just give them this and they will leave us alone ... Fear.
