No firearms until you're 21....

[dougv]

I think the left is so scared of firearms that they turn their heads away from anything to do with them. Instead of burying their heads in the sand, they should be teaching gun safety at an early age to every kid, male or female and it wouldn't be a bad idea to include the parents as well, even if the age to purchase is changed to 21. As part of the training, take them to see the affects of what a firearm can do to someone.

In Ct we had death by the electric chair and one day, my dad took me to a display at a shopping plaza and I'll tell you, that chair was something I would never want to see in action. Seeing someones face blown away or other damage will reinforce the training. Obviously, that part has to be done with a certain age group but adding in a short gun safety lesson every year in school would keep it fresh. Schools had rifle teams years ago so the students had the opportunity to use the guns as well, taking away that "curiosity factor" that always seems to lead to problems when not supervised. In scouts I always had the opportunity to shoot during summer camps and my dad hunted so I had that opportunity to be around guns at an early age.

In Ct it was always 18 for long rifles but with handguns you had to be 21, even for ammo. I had an antique rifle that belonged to my great grandfather and because the ammo was also used in a hand gun, my mother had to sign for it before I turned 21.

[ragsflh]

raising age limit is not going to stop sickos.they will steal,trade drugs,rob,.if you remember you don;t need a gun to kill.look what mcveigh did in okc with fertilizer.,jim jones with koolaid, muslum with bombs attached to themselves.airplanes on 9-11.i still think we need some guards/metal detectors in schools.there is plenty of unemployed vets needing jobs.says pd was notified 39 times of shooter???? why was nothing done till its too late.we have the laws ,lets enforce them.everyone wants to point a figure or make new laws up. put security people in schools,even if they can stop 1 shooter its a start.

[1dn5up]

Middletown CT ; Auto filled with gasoline cans crashes into hospital, no firearms involved, Trump to put restrictions on as how many red fuel cans can be bought per year !

Funding to revive and rebuild Letchworth Village is in the works .

[ol' school]

Middletown CT ; Auto filled with gasoline cans crashes into hospital, no firearms involved, Trump to put restrictions on as how many red fuel cans can be bought per year !

Funding to revive and rebuild Letchworth Village is in the works .

Frank, we didn't even hear about that in the national news... they are all too busy with their anti-gun agenda.

[rhino 2]

Middletown CT ; Auto filled with gasoline cans crashes into hospital, no firearms involved, Trump to put restrictions on as how many red fuel cans can be bought per year !

.

When red fuel cans are outlawed , Only outlaws will have Red fuel cans...

[frostbite51]

It doesn't matter what plans you make if someone doesn't do his job -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.23e73abcaffb

[peteg59]

^...Wow, crazy story, Ron.

The deputy got cold feet when a potential life or death encounter was avoided due to, hopefully not: his cowardice under fire.

Sheriff did the right thing in pulling him from duty. That's not what the deputy was supposed to be getting paid for...

[2006gold]

My views on the gun buying age are the same as the drinking age ... If this country can send an 18 year old to fight and die for his country, they sure as heck can let him drink and buy a gun.

Texas tried that. It was a disaster and quickly raised the age back to 21. too many kids showing up to school plastered plus buying booze for their friends under 18.

[FuzzyWuzHe]

Texas tried that. It was a disaster and quickly raised the age back to 21. too many kids showing up to school plastered plus buying booze for their friends under 18.

So just who is responsible for their actions if they are 18 or over? They are. Again, another case of not making people responsible for their actions. What message do we send when we send an 18 year old man to fight and die for his country, but, tell him he can't buy booze? And talk about hypocrites, as soon as we enlist him, we allow him to purchase booze on the base (federal property, state has no say, I was able to buy booze in Alameda, California at 18 on the base, if I wanted, while in the Navy). Logical? I think not.

I offer another idea on personal responsibility. When I was just a pup, I remember seeing the warning on cigarette packages that the surgeon general gave. They are still there today, not to mention the ads on TV mandated by court because of lawsuits. And yet, we still have millions of people in the world smoking. I am not anti smoking, what people do is their business. But I am anti smoking around me and I'm really opposed to the burden smoking puts on our health care system. If people want to smoke and they are not blowing the smoke in my face ... I'm good. But, as a consequence, I think that smokers should have additional insurance imposed on them much like driving does. Higher risk, higher cost or maybe when they get cancer or other medical issues, have the insurance not cover it. I'm not talking about life insurance. I'm talking about a significantly higher health insurance (key words Significantly Higher) just for being a smoker. Probably should be the same for drinking too, as well as, drug abuse. If the actions of people who want to "indulge" affect the masses (burden on health care) they should be held responsible for that burden. Now I know this will be a hugely unpopular position, even in this forum, but I think it's time to hold people responsible for people's actions.

You can not, in this country anyway, legislate "things" out of people's lives. Did we learn nothing from prohibition or the "Drug War". If American's want to do a thing, by George, they are gonna do it. That my friends has become the American dream. The only possible solution is to make the consequences of doing the thing unpleasant. I don't mean a fine for driving drunk or mandatory "rehab" for getting high, I'm talking about unpleasant things like imprisonment for first offenders. Another possible solution would be to make everything legal and tax the snot out of it. You make cigarettes have a $20 a pack tax and that would certainly at least help pay for the health care burden. Remove the illegality of drug use and tax it heavily. RJ Reynolds would gladly market marijuana in packs. The down side of this is the "Boston Tea Party" syndrome. But, it would not be "taxation without representation".

Cancer from Smoking, Drug addiction, Alcoholism and even some mental health issues, in my humble opinion, are not diseases, they are human choices. There is not a human on the planet by now that does not know that cigarettes cause cancer and kill or that drinking can lead to liver issues and death or that drugs are addictive and can kill, yet they roll the dice and do it anyway. As to mental health, and I'm talking about the people that intentionally do things to hurt other people and Blame it on mental health, THEY ALL KNOW THEY ARE DOING WRONG. We are all born with a conscience, either you believe God implanted that in your heart or that we are hard wired by evolution, we all have that conscience. The "bad" people choose to do bad. You can't legislate that out of humans. The only fix is to make the consequences of doing "bad" way worse than doing right.

I pose a hypothetical. Say Florida allows this Cruz dude to plead guilty to 17 counts of premeditated murder and takes the death penalty off the table. He will live the rest of his life in prison. Three squares, free medical, exercise periods, heck, even TV. Now granted, not a stay at the Ritz, but, far better that what he gave those 17 children. And, we the people will pay for it. Maybe he just wanted a free ride and decided killing would give it to them. Only God knows what was in his heart.

And before you guys expect me to have an answer as to HOW WE MAKE the consequences worse than the excitement of being "Bad", I will admit I don't know how to do that. Any proposal I could come up with would be deemed cruel and unusual punishment, under the constitution, by the left. My very first Chief in the Navy after I grew to the ranks of E6 and was promoted to "Leading Petty Officer" gave me his take. He told me one day when I was struggling with a "Bad Apple", "If the Navy would let us shoot just one every morning at quarters, in front of everyone, it wouldn't take too long to get the others to toe the line." We'll all agree that's a tad extreme, but, is it? That is a question way about my pay grade. God said, "an eye for an eye". He also said, "thou shall not kill", but, that wasn't meant for punitive actions, the Old Testament is full of instances where "killing" is allowed. So again I say, I don't have an answer, but, I know new laws that limit who can buy guns or booze and at what age are not the answer.

The only reason we pass laws in this country today is because some lobby wants the new law. IE, helmets for motorcyclists, insurance companies lobby. Have you wondered why there is a huge influx of "flavored booze" now? You know, vanilla in whiskey? The new Jameson that is aged in casks that were used for beer and makes the Jameson have a different flavor? King Obama gave the booze people a break on the taxes for "flavored" alcohols. The alcohol lobby wanted this because they can charge you the same price for a bottle of Vodka with a hint of lime, that they do for regular Vodka (maybe more since it's flavored) and yet, they pay a far less tax on the bottle of flavored booze and their profit margin is way higher.

Man, I am all over the place today, so, I will have to apologize to the bulletin board as a whole, I've been a tad frustrated with the issue of personal responsibility lately and I guess I just need to rant. Sorry if I offended anyone.

[vwbug72501]

When red fuel cans are outlawed , Only outlaws will have Red fuel cans...

Ban Military Assault Cans!

[2006gold]

Just came out that three more sheriff deputies showed up at that Florida high school and did not enter the building, instead crouched behind their cars. It wasn't until the local police arrived that any peace officer entered. I can see the possibility of a ton of lawsuits for dereliction of duty. Geez.

[rhino 2]

You know If they have a badge and carry a gun and say their on duty 24/7 ....Then they have to run to the shots, .....The fastest way to stop a shooter is to shoot back....

[Jack Klarich]

Just came out that three more sheriff deputies showed up at that Florida high school and did not enter the building, instead crouched behind their cars. It wasn't until the local police arrived that any peace officer entered. I can see the possibility of a ton of lawsuits for dereliction of duty. Geez.

You know If they have a badge and carry a gun and say their on duty 24/7 ....Then they have to run to the shots, .....The fastest way to stop a shooter is to shoot back....

True, once a cop you are always a cop 24/7

The three cops arriving on scene may not have had orders YET to enter, maybe just contain the area and survey the info?

[Blueline]

[RedOregon]

Texas tried that. It was a disaster and quickly raised the age back to 21. too many kids showing up to school plastered plus buying booze for their friends under 18.

When? Where? Got any source for that?

[2006gold]

When? Where? Got any source for that?

It was back in the late 70's I think. Lived in Arlington, Texas at the time. maybe the mid 70's. hadn't been back from the Navy very long.

[dmillsr3]

It was back in the late 70's I think. Lived in Arlington, Texas at the time. maybe the mid 70's. hadn't been back from the Navy very long.

Texas did but it was in the early 70s. I was there. But alcohol was readily available to us underage children through older brothers, cousins, friends, bootleggers, you name it, before the change. I do not know why the legislature decided to change it back to 18, but I do not recall that there was any more incidence of being drunk in school/college that would have caused the change. By that time I didn't care, I was 21.

So it was analogous to the assault rifle discussion. They could take away our liquor but those of us who wanted it, could get it anyway. I still remember the way to the shack where you could get a pint on a Friday night if needed. Same with ARs for underage buyers. If a 17 year old today wants an AR, I think the law making that purchase illegal is only be a slight impediment.

[RedOregon]

So it was analogous to the assault rifle discussion. They could take away our liquor but those of us who wanted it, could get it anyway. I still remember the way to the shack where you could get a pint on a Friday night if needed. Same with ARs for underage buyers. If a 17 year old today wants an AR, I think the law making that purchase illegal is only be a slight impediment.

Bingo.

[peteg59]

So it was analogous to the assault rifle discussion. They could take away our liquor but those of us who wanted it, could get it anyway. I still remember the way to the shack where you could get a pint on a Friday night if needed. Same with ARs for underage buyers. If a 17 year old today wants an AR, I think the law making that purchase illegal is only be a slight impediment.

There is a serious flaw in that way of thinking on guns.

You might get a slap on the wrist for buying booze while "underage", due to the likely charges being misdemeanors.

However, if charged with a firearm violation, those charges are likely going to be felonies. These are also now going to be potentially upped to Federal vs municipal level prosecutions.

ATF doesn't like firearms falling into the wrong hands especially if the transfer of a firearm was done in a criminal setting, in which a 17 y/o getting an AR would most certainly be.

"Apples to Oranges" on the booze > firearm analogy.....

[vwbug72501]

So here's a question. If the firearms/ammo sale age is upped to 21, what is the status of those who join the military at 18 and are trained and go off to defend our freedoms?