Dianne Feinstein wants age for rifle purchase raised to 21 y.o.

2

Replies

  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,608 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    I graduated from high school, went through basic training, went through tech school, and got stationed at Eglin all before I turned 18.
    I graduated Army basic training on my 26th birthday in 1978. I was very surprised by the number of 17 year olds that graduated with me!
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,599 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    The shock from Columbine had not worn off when, at the school boards request, we presented an exhaustive list of measures that could be taken to protect our communities schools. There was all manner of head-nodding, verbal agreements, etc. Then when we got to how much all these recommendations would cost.....you could have heard a pin drop. Then the outspoken parents who were agreeing with us started in on how it sounded like we were trying to turn the schools into prisons. It will ALWAYS come down to the cash...

    Over the years since, talking with my peers in the business....they all tell the same story....

    If all those kids screaming about gun control knew that their safety had been sold out because of a lack of cash....I wonder what they would be saying....

    Too many six figure do-nothing administrators to keep on the teat...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,533 Senior Member
    I people are to immature to own a rifle at 18, then they are to young to make a decision to vote.

    If one goes then the other needs to.

    See what DiFi would say to that.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    A few things about POTUS's announcement, which read in part:

    “Just a few moments ago, I signed a memorandum directing the attorney general to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns,”

    1. He's directing the Justice Department to do a review of regulations. This is not a legislative solution, but one of those decisions made by unelected officials that used to get folks riled up.
    2. He wants to be the regulations against, in his words, against "all devices." That's danged open-ended, and as some have pointed out could include "high capacity" magazines, lighter triggers, or anything else that might allow you to have a higher rate of fire. He's NOT advocating for a ban on bump stocks, but rather is so open ended other stuff could be lost through collateral damage.
    3. He's wanting them to regulate items that "turn legal weapons into machine guns.” That's a regulative redefinition of previously existing legislation (Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 via the Hughes Amendment.0 Separation of powers, much?

    I remember when the POTUS was running, a few of us here (myself included) suggested that if there was a tragedy he might push for legislation or regulations that would infringe on our rights, but at the same time really do nothing. We pointed out that then-candidate Trump had called for increased regulation on "assault weapons" and maybe even an outright ban, but were told not to worry.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,420 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    This won't be popular.....
    If that's ALL, I repeat ALL that comes of this, I'm fine with it. They believe it helps, and it doesn't affect me.


    I'm going to have to, unfortunately, take agreement with this. If all we have to deal with is adding semi-auto rifles to the "21 and up" list and the anti's pushes are set aside for awhile, so be it.

    Yes, I know, "each small step leads to outright bans blah blah blah." True story, but at some point we have to take something. This would be WAY better than adding all semi autos to the NFA list.

    Also, I'm growing weary of hearing the "if you can carry a machine gun for the military at 17 you should be able to buy one" and other similar arguments. That's an absolutely TERRIBLE example. Joe Blow 17 yr old E-1 only handles a weapon under very scrutinizing supervision and very limited conditions. Be careful what you wish for using that argument., it opens us up to gun grabbers saying if you want a gun like the military you should have to undergo training and supervision like the military. Do you want your guns to only be allowed at shooting clubs during specified times like certain European countries?
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "It's far easier to start out learning to be precise and then speeding up, than it is having never "mastered" the weapon, and trying to be precise." - Dan C
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,729 Senior Member
    What the hell? I am honestly stunned how many people are willing to give up and roll over in the hope that it’s all they take.

    Never give up. Fight against EVERY step they try to take. Especially when this one was totally preventable if local and federal law enforcement did their damn job. This was not the fault of of any law abiding 18 year old that wants to buy the first rifle the same way most of us did the minute we came of age. Why punish them?

    Got a bunch of people sitting around the camp fire with Jim Zumbo here.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    Appeasers, crocodiles...

    OTOH, I don't think that some here are willing to give up their semi-autos, but that that's what they hopefully see as the end result. Me, I just see this as us getting a little more pregnant.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    A few things about POTUS's announcement, which read in part:

    “Just a few moments ago, I signed a memorandum directing the attorney general to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns,”

    1. He's directing the Justice Department to do a review of regulations. This is not a legislative solution, but one of those decisions made by unelected officials that used to get folks riled up.
    2. He wants to be the regulations against, in his words, against "all devices." That's danged open-ended, and as some have pointed out could include "high capacity" magazines, lighter triggers, or anything else that might allow you to have a higher rate of fire. He's NOT advocating for a ban on bump stocks, but rather is so open ended other stuff could be lost through collateral damage.
    3. He's wanting them to regulate items that "turn legal weapons into machine guns.” That's a regulative redefinition of previously existing legislation (Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 via the Hughes Amendment.0 Separation of powers, much?

    I remember when the POTUS was running, a few of us here (myself included) suggested that if there was a tragedy he might push for legislation or regulations that would infringe on our rights, but at the same time really do nothing. We pointed out that then-candidate Trump had called for increased regulation on "assault weapons" and maybe even an outright ban, but were told not to worry.

    ... and like you ... I was thinking anyone who’s book is titled “The Art of the Deal” does not surprise me by saying something on day and agreeing to something another. He is not lying like other politicians do but lying because that’s how he sometimes works in business ... give away something get get something. Bad thing is here he was no really a true 2A supporter (a Fudd at best) but used “the deal” of he’d protect it and such as a candidate. He kinda honored it with Vegas but I singed a little buckling in his knees but with the Parkland shooting his pre-candidate ideas he had shared seem to be surfacing and with the public cries for action “the deal” coming into his mind also. I do believe he won’t rip into gun rights like Odumba or give Feinstein all the things she wants but it comes as no surprise he’ll go for a bump stock ban, the Fix NICS, I’d say throw in the adding of certain lists like the terrorist watch list and such to a “no buy list” along with a few others. I see him slicing the cake and giving more pieces the the gun grabbers ... no surprise but I’m disappointed that Bream and quite a few of us where correct the he would show his true colors on the issue if the situation arose.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,533 Senior Member
    I was one of the first to remind everyone here that Trump was for gun control, a staunch supporter of removing the rights of the lesser people.

    At this time, he has done nothing to warrant our scorn. I am willing to wait before I say "I told you so." even though I feel it coming.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,147 Senior Member
    If I remember correctly, a lot of the Vegas shooter's rifles were jammed, no? If he hadn't have been using bump stocks, he might have killed or wounded more people.

    I can attest to this from experience. I bought a bumpstock 3 years ago and tried it out at Jerry's 2 years ago and again last year. Although it's a lot of fun to shoot simulated full auto, it's practically worthless in a combat situation except you can spray a lot of bullets and maybe hit something. The damn thing fires so fast that the barrel climbs up in the air no matter how hard you try to keep it level to the ground. Last year when I tried the auto setting on the stock, I got through one or 2 mags and the thing stopped firing. Either the action wasn't lubricated well enough or the gas tube was clogged, which had been suggested by someone.

    Regardless, I'm going to be pissed if they ban the bumpstock. I wrote Trump, Sen. Rubio and Rep. Desantis about it twice already. I rather enjoyed using the thing, flawed as it is.

    BTW, the democruds are using an incremental strategy. If you think age limits and bumpstock banning is no big deal, wait 5 years and see what else they have shoved up our asses. They are just waiting until they get the right president, congress and supreme court.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,651 Senior Member
    Now, Trump is considering backing the age 21 legislation. Major screw-up, in my opinion.

    We have a lot of good people out there trying to focus on actual problems and solutions, and he stabs them in the back with this BS 'quick fix' that he apparently thinks will win support for him.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,608 Senior Member
    I people are to immature to own a rifle at 18, then they are to young to make a decision to vote.

    If one goes then the other needs to.

    See what DiFi would say to that.
    I agree 100% When 18-20 year olds were officially able to vote on 01 Jul 1971 I had just turned 19. 18 year olds were on that date legally adults. While searching that subject last night I discovered that was not entirely true! Actually states and U.S. territories determine their age of majority! Oregon and many other states lowered it to 18. Others did not. Of course the requirement of being 18 or over to purchase rifles and shotguns plus ammunition for them and 21 or over to purchase handguns plus ammunition for them was determined by GCA 1968. In my opinion U.S. citizens with the right to vote should have the same Constitutional rights as all citizens of voting age.
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 890 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    People, people, people! Know with whom you are dealing! Since NFA we have been giving, giving, giving, and giving, and the Left calls it compromise. In a compromise, neither side gets ALL they want, but they both get something. WE have been giving the whole time and not getting a dammed thing in return. THAT IS NOT COMPROMISE! Past time to dig in heels and say HELL NO! to any more of this taking.

    BigDanS, I REALLY hope that post you made was tongue in cheek satire. And I'm sayin'.

    And after it is raised to 21 then to 25 then to 30 it never stops. Maybe we should raise the age to drive from 16 to 18 to 21 and on and on as look how many young people are killed in accidents or kill someone in an accident from texting or talking on their smart phone.
    Where does it stop?

    That is like the Hunters, Skeet, or Trap shooters that don't own or care for AR-15's and do not have a problem if they are banned.
    If all gun owners don't stick together eventually they will try to ban everything.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    What the hell? I am honestly stunned how many people are willing to give up and roll over in the hope that it’s all they take.

    Never give up. Fight against EVERY step they try to take. Especially when this one was totally preventable if local and federal law enforcement did their damn job. This was not the fault of of any law abiding 18 year old that wants to buy the first rifle the same way most of us did the minute we came of age. Why punish them?

    Got a bunch of people sitting around the camp fire with Jim Zumbo here.

    Good Gawd! I thought I was alone! FINALLY someone else standing up and saying NOT ONE MORE INFRINGEMENT WITHOUT A FIGHT! The LEFT cannot be appeased. They wish to take them all and caving in every time to their demands weakens us more and more.

    WHY should someone less than 21 years old be debarred the ownership of arms! The Militia clause in Title 10 is being violated by the proposed law Feinstein suggests.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246


    U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246

    10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Why should someone less than 21 years of age be reduced to victim hood because they are barred from firearms ownership? Would you rather your sons and daughters less than 21 years of age be made prey of violent offenders? SERIOUSLY? Are their lives worthless until they are 21 years old?

    I honestly can't believe what I'm reading.

    When I was in the Navy, I carried (1911 and two magazines) on the ship almost daily as my watches required it. I was also armed off the ship occasionally as I was also tasked with going with the Disbursing Officer to pick up the payroll with one other armed person. We were armed with 1911s AND M-14 rifles for that duty. And I was UNDER 21 for 2 years of that duty.

    As to being under 'adult supervision' while armed on those duties, gimme a break! The Disbursing Officer was as immature as it gets and he was older than me! And the majority of armed watches I stood had NO supervision by anyone whatsoever. The only adult supervision I got was at the missile houses or ASROC launch station when the Weapons Officer unlocked the badge locker and the locked doors to the missile house or the ASROC launch station; he did that and left. I was on my own, and armed. From the age of 19 to 23 y.o.

    And NONE of the things proposed by the Nervous Nellies, network talking heads, or the brain dead politicians do ANYTHING to secure all the gun free zones they've created that ensure a safe shooting gallery for the crazy person that is armed and wants to kill people. NOT.....ONE....THING! CHEW ON THAT!
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    Okay, dumb question ... would this be like the 21 yo to buy a handgun from an FFL but private sales (or lending, etc) to an 18 yo in many place are completely legal.

    Part II ... what is there to stop a P0S from stealing one from a family member, friend, stranger, LGS ... they are not going to abide by laws if they are hell bent on doing something.

    Oh yeah, my kid, at almost 17yo, would not bother me or quite a few people we know having/carrying/shooting any firearm I own or others available to him sometimes. I can’t say the same for a bunch of people I’ve seen at ranges who are over 21 yo ... up to well over my age. It is not the age it is the person ... age is a number and maturity is mental.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,220 Senior Member
    NCFUBAR wrote: »
    Okay, dumb question ... would this be like the 21 yo to buy a handgun from an FFL but private sales (or lending, etc) to an 18 yo in many place are completely legal.
    Probably the same way my 15 and 17 year olds got their own AR-15's.
    Part II ... what is there to stop a P0S from stealing one from a family member, friend, stranger, LGS ... they are not going to abide by laws if they are hell bent on doing something.
    Absolutely nothing. You would have Sandy Hook all over again.
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,626 Senior Member
    FIRST: Never forget that liberals are liars, they lie all the time, and they lie about everything. That means nothing from the lips of any liberal can be taken at face value - there's always an unspoken agenda behind everything they propose. The key is to look backstage to find out their true intentions.

    Raise the age to buy a rifle to 21? This is a Democratic idea, therefore, for that reason alone, it may with honesty and legitimacy be dismissed out of hand, without further comment. However, just for poops and giggles, I'll comment.

    Gun control has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with control. This law will do nothing to protect anyone. A teenage sociopath with mass-homicidal tendencies will not be put off by this - as Adam Lanza did he will simply steal the rifle he feels he needs to carry out his intentions. Or, he will acquire a fake ID - the kind kids have used for decades to fool bouncers and bartenders and store clerks - to buy beer and get into clubs - and use it to fool a private party seller and buy his desired "assault" rifle. Nikolas Cruz's massacre was not a failure of our gun laws, it was a failure of his idiotic school district, and local and federal law enforcement. Thirty-something police calls about this kid! Repeated warnings to the FBI! The school district refuses to press appropriate charges! If anybody involved in this boy's life had done their job, he'd have been arrested long ago, and his name would have been sent to NICS, and he would never have been able to buy his AR15 from a licensed dealer. Not that it would have likely made any difference. He would still have acquired the weapon in any of the several other ways, I already mentioned.

    All Feinstein wants to do is further shrink the market of gun buyers, and put more economic pressure on manufacturers. Not one life will be saved, she knows it, and couldn't care less anyway. As usual, the victims of this legislation will be the millions of law-abiding 18-20 year olds who have done nothing wrong, never hurt anyone, who "didn't do it," but have been singled out for punishment, just because. They'll lose their Constitutional right to a rifle because they're easy targets - liberals have a very hard time focusing on the truly evil among us, for whom they have boundless sympathy and understanding.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    I can attest to this from experience. I bought a bumpstock 3 years ago and tried it out at Jerry's 2 years ago and again last year. Although it's a lot of fun to shoot simulated full auto, it's practically worthless in a combat situation except you can spray a lot of bullets and maybe hit something. The damn thing fires so fast that the barrel climbs up in the air no matter how hard you try to keep it level to the ground. Last year when I tried the auto setting on the stock, I got through one or 2 mags and the thing stopped firing. Either the action wasn't lubricated well enough or the gas tube was clogged, which had been suggested by someone.

    Regardless, I'm going to be pissed if they ban the bumpstock. I wrote Trump, Sen. Rubio and Rep. Desantis about it twice already. I rather enjoyed using the thing, flawed as it is.

    BTW, the democruds are using an incremental strategy. If you think age limits and bumpstock banning is no big deal, wait 5 years and see what else they have shoved up our asses. They are just waiting until they get the right president, congress and supreme court.
    Thanks for validating what I heard.

    And I agree on the "incremental strategy." I don't trust anyone...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,855 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/feinstein-raising-assault-rife-purchase-age-to-21_us_5a87cb9ee4b004fc31924670

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced Friday that she is introducing legislation to raise the minimum age to purchase rifles — including military-style assault weapons — from 18 to 21.

    Under federal law, handguns cannot be sold to anyone under age 21. But licensed gun dealers are permitted to sell assault-style rifles and other “long guns” to buyers 18 and older.

    Nikolas Cruz, the suspected gunman in Wednesday’s school shooting in Parkland, Florida, used an AR-15 assault-style rifle, according to police. He is 19 years old.

    Lone gunmen in many of the most deadly mass shootings in the U.S. over the past several years, including the Las Vegas massacre on Oct. 1, were armed with similar weapons.

    “Licensed gun dealers cannot sell a handgun to anyone under 21, but they are allowed to sell assault rifles like the AR-15 to anyone over 18. This policy is dangerous and makes absolutely no sense,” Feinstein said in a statement.

    “If you can’t buy a handgun or a bottle of beer, you shouldn’t be able to buy an AR-15,” she continued. “This is common sense, and I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in this effort.”


    Well, if this gets any traction, then NO ONE should be allowed to join the armed forces until they are 21 years old, or older. Soldiers as young as 14(and the 14 y.o. was a MOH recipient at Iwo Jima) have been fighting in wars for as long as this country has been around. If they are now deemed not mature enough to buy a rifle or handgun until they're 21, or buy a beer, then they're ALSO damned sure too young to be in the military service. This is a black and white choice; there is no gray area here. Either they are old/mature enough to buy and own them at 18, or they have no business cheating by joining the military and getting to handle/shoot them.

    And while we're at it, if the age for buying/owning a rifle AND pistol is raised to 21, then the voting age should ALSO BE RAISED to 21. If you're too stupid to own either a rifle or pistol until you're 21, then you don't need to be voting and screwing up the country either!

    That's all well and good but the guy that shot up Las Vegas was well past 21. I don't separate School Shootings from any other mass murder shootings. They all require a sick individual. But I will say, it's an easy fix for schools, arm the teachers or have armed guards. One guy at the listening session is a superintendent at a district in DC. They have metal detectors and armed guards at the entrance. I think they also have limited access to the school so you have to go through a check point to enter.

    You don't hear of many shootings at airports past security.

    If I have to be disarmed, I want everybody disarmed, except the guards.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    If 18 - 20 year olds aren’t responsible enough to buy and own an AR they aren’t responsible enough to not vote and not select freakin’ idiot politicians.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,967 Senior Member
    :applause:
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,280 Senior Member
    While not in favor of changing the law, I'm not sure I would sell an AR to an 18 yr old in a private sale. I was 18 once.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    Now Little Marco had come out in favor of raising the age limit on rifles and a magazine capacity ban.

    Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Johnny rebJohnny reb Member Posts: 448 Member
    UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL!! That needs to be remembered
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,220 Senior Member
    Now Little Marco had come out in favor of raising the age limit on rifles and a magazine capacity ban.
    I seen that. It is disappointing, but not unexpected. The only two that I trusted to remain solid on 2A was Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    And now Pres. Trump wants to raise the age (I guess of purchasing items) to 21.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966662241977360384

    I wonder how these politicians would feel about raising the age of exercise for other rights to 21?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,220 Senior Member
    I saw that coming a mile away. Then they will propose even more when (not if) something else happens. Then the all important conservative justice everyone was going on about refused to hear a couple of 2A cases.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,651 Senior Member
    I was one of the first to remind everyone here that Trump was for gun control, a staunch supporter of removing the rights of the lesser people.

    At this time, he has done nothing to warrant our scorn. I am willing to wait before I say "I told you so." even though I feel it coming.

    My wife and I go over this with each other, daily - me, bitching about his apparent duplicity on some things that I worry about him not taking seriously (like appearing to be supporting the age 21 restriction), and her ignoring such things, in the belief that it will all work out in the end. She has faith in his good intentions and his ability, whereas I believe nothing I hear, and only half of what I see.

    I worry that his ego will triumph over his logic, or that he will give his political enemies too much to 'shoot at,' but it hasn't happened yet. As you say, what he has actually done does not warrant my scorn, so far. I will be perfectly content to ride this roller coaster for another 6-1/2 years, if he can continue to keep the promises he made during the campaign. If he does that, I will happily say to my wife, "you were right - I should have trusted him."
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,553 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Just because of who it is is enough to oppose it. It could be worse though, it could be Pelosi!

    but if it were Pelosi, her statements wouldn't comprise a coherent thought.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,101 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I seen that. It is disappointing, but not unexpected. The only two that I trusted to remain solid on 2A was Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

    Agreed. Those are the only two I trust to act on actual convictions. The rest? Eh....
    Overkill is underrated.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.