Walmart and two other companies raise age limit for buying Guns

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It’s illegal to not let an 8 year old buy a gun by himself?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It’s illegal to not let an 8 year old buy a gun by himself?

Why would you bother asking this?

I wonder what would happen and how people would feel if Planned Parenthood said no abortions till you are 21 because you are not mature enough to make that decision? Or if the state government said that?

This is dumb. Grandstanding. I believe Dicks did this after Sandy Hook also. This will be great for small businesses.

a reply to: CB328

Unfortunately, it needs to be passed with legislation not company policy as long as it's legal for people under twenty one to buy, the companies that sell the guns will have to sell to them, otherwise they open themselves to age discrimination lawsuits.

Jaden

a reply to: Lagomorphe

What if don't like hunting and i want it for home defense?
Is there training for that?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Just pointing out the absurdity of the whole concept. It is illegal for an 8 year old to purchase a gun, but not for an 18 year old? It’s ageism to not let an 18 year old purchase a gun, but it’s not ageism to not let an 8 year old buy a gun? It’s not ageism to deny an 18 year old a drink at a bar, but it is ageism to deny an 18 year a long gun?

In looking up the legality of what Walmart/Dick’s is doing, looks like federal laws don’t apply, so it depends on the state/local laws. Some have laws banning discrimination of 18-20; some have laws banning discrimination of anyone over 21 (but not under 21). Talk about arbitrary.

Same with selling wedding cakes to gays. Only certain states have made discrimination against sexual orientation in public accommodations against the law. In other states, it’s perfectly legal to refuse a gay couple.

The difference between selling wedding cakes and selling guns in my mind, is, it’s a safety issue with guns - it’s just a “gays getting married is icky to me personally” issue with the wedding cakes. I’m okay with the safety reason, not so much with the icky reason.

a reply to: CB328

Discrimination based on age is against the law.

You cheer for injustice.



btw the difference between an 8yo and an 18yo buying a gun is... ability to bare the arm

ability is the only acceptable limit to the second

allow for under 21 purchases with military id/ co-signer attesting to ones ability

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Lagomorphe

What if don't like hunting and i want it for home defense?
Is there training for that?

As far as I know, over here in France owning a gun at home for self defense or having a permit to carry is only given to certain people that have high risk related jobs and they are strictly vetted by the French interior ministry before eventually having a permit.

Nothing stops people from buying flashballs, airguns, pepper spray etc as long as you are over the age of 18.

ETA : I forgot to mention : People who have passed their hunting exam and have not renewed their yearly hunting permit can still keep their shotguns, rifles, arcs etc at home so these can be used in legitimate self defense, but they need their yearly permit to purchase ammunition.

Also, many people have family heirloom shotguns and firearms handed down through the family. If said firearms are not classified as military grade weapons they can keep them... however, they will have a hell of a job trying to purchase ammunition without a hunters permit or shooting club membership.

All legally purchased firearms and ammunition are carefully monitored and noted over here.

Warmest respects

Lags

a reply to: kaylaluv

I was wondering when someone would try to compare this to the plight of the gay cake.

100 years ago people got married and had kids before turning 18. 200 years ago it was the norm. It is not about age....you know that. It is simply posturing and pandering to the anti-gun lobby.

Raising the age limit on rifles to 21 will do NOTHING to stop crime or future violence.

If there is going to be an age limit for exercising a right, then voting should be done at 21.

N'est ce pas?

originally posted by: CB328
It's about damn time for this very common sense change to happen in our society. Too bad it took so many hundreds of lives lost for business people to give a damn. No, teenagers are not trustworthy with assault rifles, or any other weapons. Science has proven that young men are too emotional and impulsive well into their 20's to be responsible. I wonder why the legions of gun worshippers here haven't said a peep about this? I guess they're in mourning.

www.nytimes.com...

It shows how clueless you really are about guns. Walmart and other sporting goods stores do not sell Assault Rifles PERIOD. They sell semi-auto rifles. There's a BIG difference between semi-auto rifle and a assault rifle.

Semi-auto fires one bullet per trigger pull
Assault Rifle has more than one type of firing mode Semi-auto or full-auto

It's time to raise the age before they can join the military. It's fine for 18yr old's to go off and die for this country but not allowed to buy a rifle.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If there is going to be an age limit for exercising a right, then voting should be done at 21.

N'est ce pas?

I'm fine with not considering someone a legal adult until they are 21. If I ran things, I would make it 25, because we know the brain doesn't fully develop until then.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Just pointing out the absurdity of the whole concept. It is illegal for an 8 year old to purchase a gun, but not for an 18 year old? It’s ageism to not let an 18 year old purchase a gun, but it’s not ageism to not let an 8 year old buy a gun? It’s not ageism to deny an 18 year old a drink at a bar, but it is ageism to deny an 18 year a long gun?

The law is what defines your limits. It is illegal to sell a firearm to anyone under 18. Thus, anyone choosing to include additional caveats (like saying that only white people can buy a gun, or that we won't sell to people over 65) could potentially violate peoples civil rights.

Its not like this is a foreign concept to you, Kayla. Ageism is well established as being wrong. Its just that its more often applied to elderly people, not young people.

Were the law to change for when you can purchase a rifle, and it were to withstand court challenge, then it would not violate the civil rights of people. Remember: civil rights are not inalienable, and can be taken away by the government legally by amending the civil rights act.

In looking up the legality of what Walmart/Dick’s is doing, looks like federal laws don’t apply, so it depends on the state/local laws. Some have laws banning discrimination of 18-20; some have laws banning discrimination of anyone over 21 (but not under 21). Talk about arbitrary.

Same with selling wedding cakes to gays. Only certain states have made discrimination against sexual orientation in public accommodations against the law. In other states, it’s perfectly legal to refuse a gay couple.

The difference between selling wedding cakes and selling guns in my mind, is, it’s a safety issue with guns - it’s just a “gays getting married is icky to me personally” issue with the wedding cakes. I’m okay with the safety reason, not so much with the icky reason.

The key difference in my mind is that sexuality is not a federally protected class. Age is. All its going to take is someone to pursue the case in civil court.

a reply to: matafuchs

Raising the age limit on rifles to 21 will do NOTHING to stop crime or future violence.

Yep
I wonder if the criminals will have to get a license to hunt 18-21 yo's or will there be no season on them like the hog huntin is.
If we are going to not let them protect themselves then we should at least set bag limits and sell licenses.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You're right, it will probably be challenged. What I hope happens is that it's ruled a safety issue - not a discrimination issue - to ban teens from buying all guns.

a reply to: Lagomorphe

I see. First class citizens get to defend themselves and second class citizens can get shot and wait for the police. sounds like freedom to me

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You're right, it will probably be challenged. What I hope happens is that it's ruled a safety issue - not a discrimination issue - to ban teens from buying all guns.

Then it'll need to be changed at the legislative level.

Logic would dictate, however, that you are incorrect. We have decades of evidence that calls that assertion into question. I'll repeat what i've said before: if we aren't going to even try to find out "what changed", then I cannot justify giving up any more 2nd amendment rights. Compromise, to me, lies within that statement and nowhere else.

I can only get behind this with a repeal of Ammendment XXVI. Anyone too immature to be able to consume alcohol or own firearms really has no business participating in the political process. So if you want to raise the age on firearms, you might as well make all privileges and responsibilities of adulthood vest at 21 instead of 18. This would be include enlisting in military, owning property, working around dangerous machinery,and signing contracts ( like student loans),. Parents would be responsible for their children until 21.

I joined the Army at 18. I've rather enjoyed my freedom as an adult since then, but it's pretty obvious this generation isn't ready for it at 18. Pretty much the only reason 18 year old got the right to vote is their being drafted to fight in Vietnam. Not an issue today, we have a professional,volunteer military and could hold off selective service registration until 21.

21 still sound good? Be careful what you wish for.

This 21 for rifle purchases discriminates particularly harshly against rural hunters. Lots of men and women in rural areas hunt. If I were one of them I'd not do any other business with any organization that refuses to allow me a legal purchase.

a reply to: jefwane

I mean...lowering the bar is definitely one way to do this.

I think it brings up a bigger question: why have we regressed in how we raise our children? Why do we seem to be turning out bigger morons who do enough really stupid stuff that we have to raise the age of consent? Why are we not preparing people to act thoughtfully from an earlier age?

Again...what changed? It seems there is a symptom of a much larger issue here that is being ignored in favor of a political football.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Lots of stuff has changed. It isn't any one thing. Violent video games, increasingly more violent movies, 24/7 cable/internet news glorifying all the violent acts because it raises ratings, the popularity of stupid stuff (like eating Tide pods) going viral on facebook and you tube, etc. Good luck stopping all that. That cat's out of the bag. We keep giving stupid teens more and more opportunities to do more and more stupid things.

Used to be you give a kid a rifle and he only thinks about shooting squirrels-- now you give a kid a rifle and he thinks about shooting people. The ante has been raised.

We just don't live in the 1950's anymore - and we never will again.