I *think* it's 23 to concealed carry in MO, which requires a class and a qualification shoot. 8 hours total. Some cities allow open carry, which oddly enough requires no course......
I *think* it's 23 to concealed carry in MO, which requires a class and a qualification shoot. 8 hours total. Some cities allow open carry, which oddly enough requires no course......
Sorry, I don't know if that video was from IN. I saw the video the same time I was writing that and put the two together. My bad.
It looks like there is no minimum age limit to purchasing a long gun from a private seller on the federal level and in most states, however.
And there's even fewer restrictions on possessing them.
Looks like you can be of any age to buy them in IN, just not posses them.
link
Europe gets tougher on gun control
Europe is proposing new gun control laws in response to recent terror attacks and mass shootings.
The European Union has agreed to ban sales of the most dangerous semi-automatic firearms, and to make it much harder to legally buy other weapons in the EU.
People across the EU will now have to go through medical checks before getting a license to buy firearms. Online sales will also be limited.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the head of the European Commission, called the agreement a "milestone in gun control in the EU."
"We have fought hard for an ambitious deal that reduces the risk of shootings in schools, summer camps or terrorist attacks with legally held firearms," he said.
I wonder what the overlap is here (at GTXF, not at large) that think Voter ID laws are unconstitutional but also want increased barriers to entry for firearm ownership.
It's a cognitive dissonance for a lot of folks, on either end of the liberal and conservative spectrums, when they have to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they think should apply to their neighbors and themselves. If they choose one but not the other they lose their whole argument because they have to invalidate the underlying authority either way.
Yeah, interesting point you got there.
Conservatives are supposedly pro-life, but want pro-choice for healthcare/vaccines while risking health/life.
Liberals are pro-choice, but want to deny choices by mandating healthcare/vaccines for all.
Is this really cognitive dissonance?
Perhaps it's once again more about economy. Conservatives tend to want to save now, but may end up spending more later. Whereas liberals just wish to spend now, but of course can't really guarantee that there'll be savings later!
Keeping the baby and not paying for healthcare and not taking vaccines are just cheaper now..., but if something goes wrong, these expenses could bankrupt you.
Abortions and healthcare premiums(Including shots) will likely cost more now, but surely they should save more money later on in theory.
So this may not be cognitive dissonance, bottom line may just be about $$$! But of course it's harder to explain why buying gun saves conservatives money now..., but maybe guns let them feel that they help them protect their hard earn money?
IMO, anyone that holds onto those original parts of the constitution as set in stone are not basing their decisions in reality. Laws need to evolve and grow for the country to grow.
Basing ones right to own a current-day semi-automatic assault rifle based on an amendment from 1791, is awfully misguided. But, feel free to buy any gun from that time period.
They wouldn't have been able to foresee that most citizens would be able to buy semi-automatic weapons, that could fire a 30 round magazine in a minute. They were still packing gunpowder manually, the idea of a magazine at all wasn't even a concern. Not to mention that you can buy them online. Had they known that you could obtain such massive firepower so easily, and that they'd become such a problem, I'm fairly confident they would have added a few more provisions from the get go.
Things were much simpler back then. At the time those amendments were written most places didn't have indoor plumbing or electricity. Let alone the most powerful military in the world. In fact it was quite the opposite. Which is why they thought the general population needed to be armed to defend the country.
I think there should be some kind of proof of citizenship to vote. But, it should be easily obtainable and free. Most of the problems being reported on are because Republicans are making it increasingly more difficult to get a legal ID. And some specifically target certain groups. Not to mention that there has been virtually no voter fraud, no matter how much the right complains about it.
To summarize chat: if you would like the 2A removed or amended, write your representative and propose legislation. That's the only way you can effect change here. The voting v. gun comparison is an illustration that people are happy to have the Constitution stand up for their rights, but not of others if they don't agree with it.
Your anti-traditionalist viewpoint is valid as an opinion. And with Scalia leaving us here in the lurch you'll very likely have more favorable representation on the SCOTUS moving forward. But for now until you get some traction on repealing the 2A the status quo isn't going to change much.
True that laws are not set in stone and should evolve with time, but most important part is that we ought to consider what is the spirit of the law. Why did the founding fathers put such law in place in the 1st place?
If founding fathers intended this for hunting purposes, yeah, we for sure don't need semi-automatic weapons...
If our right to bear arms was intended for us to defend against our very own corrupted government , then we probably should have the right to own nuclear weapons, let alone automatic assault weapons! Of course perhaps nuclear weapons are just too mutually destructive, but we probably should be allowed to own comparable weapons used by the US military if some sort of civil war breaks out. That way we don't have to rely on the KGB or other nations to supply us with weapons to rebel against our own evil corrupt govt.
Electoral college has failed to prevent somebody not very qualified to be in office. Our right to bear arms may be our last line of defense should things go further south. But hopefully things will go north and really great like the stock market... not too much south... fingers crossed.
Heh at this point I view the 2A & gun control as a nice-to-have, akin to legalizing gay marriage in 2004.
Fact is, regardless of if the polls state that the U.S. population is for it, they're not passionate enough about it to show up at the polls for it. So Dems should let it slide.
Anti-traditionalist?
Since you now live in PA, don't forget these traditional motoring laws.That was written more recently than the 2nd amendment.If you ever find yourself driving at night through rural parts of Pennsylvania, state law requires that you stop every mile to send up a rocket signal. It's true. And if you see a skittish team of horses coming toward you, be sure to take your car apart, piece by piece, and hide it under the nearest bushes—unless, of course, you want to be in violation of state law.
Repealing the 2nd amendment?who ever said that? I just think there should be more common sense laws, like what you need to drive a car. Registration, tests, fees, etc...
That's the problem with trying to have an honest discussion about this. If anyone tries to bring it up, people start screaming that Obama's going to take their guns away!!!
Over 50% of gun owners believe this. Even though it has been said zero times. Oh wait... nearly every GOP candidate this year has.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
