NRA asks Supreme Court to lift ban on handgun sales to teens

[BainsBane]

The National Rifle Association is asking the Supreme Court to strike down decades-old regulations prohibiting the sales of handguns to those under the age of 21.

The powerful gun lobby is challenging a lower federal court’s October ruling that upheld the ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the current regulations are consistent with a long-held view that young adults between the ages of 18 and 20 “tend to be relatively immature and that denying them easy access to handguns would deter violent crime.”

“As with felons and the mentally ill, categorically restricting the presumptive Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds does not violate the central concern of the Second Amendment,” the court found.

The court noted it is legal for adults under the age of 21 to buy other types of guns, including rifles and shotguns. Further, parents or guardians can give their 18 to 20-year-olds handguns as a gift, and there are no laws barring either the possession or use of a handgun by adults younger than 21.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/court-battles/315989-nra-asks-supreme-court-to-lift-ban-on-handgun-sales-to-teens#ixzz2bmN5u6et
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook



Just what we need: moar guns.

[juxtaposed]

1. give a gun to a baby!

If you are born in the US and as you are born you should receive a gun while exiting the whom.

[Politicalboi]

3. You're right

I think every baby who leaves the hospital should have a gun. You never know if a kidnapper is just waiting outside the hospital to take your baby. No one would ever suspect a baby to shoot a criminal. I like it.

[Jenoch]

2. DUP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014559921

[ellisonz]

47. That's not a dupe in this group.

[billh58]

4. Have you noticed

the not-so-subtle invasion of Gungeon gun nuts into this Group? They must be getting nervous about the national mood swing that is taking place over the obscene proliferation of lethal weapons in this country.

[BainsBane]

5. I have noticed

and I've written two of the hosts and have had no response.

[tumtum]

6. Honest question for you, and I'm not trying to start an argument.

An 18 yo can be sent off to war with a fully auto M-4/M-16 with a grenade launcher, grenades, anti tank missiles, handgun, all at 18 years old.

So, my question is, if they're trusted to handle these weapons in the military at 18, then why not as a civilian?

18 is considered to be an adult, 18 yo's can buy long guns from dealers, so why not handguns?
I'm very interested in hearing your reasons why this is a bad idea. I might even agree with you.
Thanks.

[BainsBane]

7. Why can't he be allowed to drink?

If it were up to me, 18 yr olds would not be sent off to war.

[tumtum]

8. In the military, 18 yo's are allowed to drink, at least when I was in the Army

we were, on base.
I'm in agreement, 18 yo's shouldn't be allowed to be sent off to war, but they are, so, my question stands.
Thanks.

[billh58]

9. Case in point...

[BainsBane]

10. Ironic, isn't it?

[tumtum]

12. Ironic? Why?

I was just trying to get your reasons for not allowing 18 yo's to be able to buy a gun from a dealer, when they can be outfitted with the latest weapons this country has to offer in the military, sent off to a foreign land, (ugh), and use them against our so called enemies.
You may very well have legitimate reasons that I would agree with.

[BainsBane]

14. You responded to a post about the invasion of pro-gun proponents into this group

which has an SOP, the terms of which you fight against daily.

[tumtum]

16. You're right, I did.

So please, consider it a question directed towards the OP, which is you.
I really would like to hear your reasons for not allowing it.

[BainsBane]

18. science shows that judgment at a young age is impaired

Their brains are not mature and they have far less self control. They also have a greater propensity toward violence (which is probably why the military is so keen on them). As data from driving records and police reports show, they are more dangerous. Allowing free access to guns to people that age, and young men in particular, will invariably lead to a greater increase in homicide and other violent use of guns.

More guns is the last thing this country needs. We already have the highest homicide rate in the first world.

[tumtum]

22. That's a darn good point.

One which I agree with, the difference between a civilian 18yo and an 18yo in the military is the military teach weapons handling, safety, extensively, while in the civilian world, it's up to the civilian to get that kind of training, and most 18yo's won't do that.

Thank you for a clear, concise answer.

[billh58]

17. It seems that your

continuing misunderstanding about this Group, is that you assume that anyone cares whether or not you agree with anything. Being a Gungeoneer you have no credibility in this Group whatsoever.

[tumtum]

19. I read the SOP, I clearly understand what this group is about,

and I'm not pushing any thing here, I'm just asking a pertinent question of the OP, why is that a problem?

I have my own reasons why I think 18yo's shouldn't be allowed to, but I just wanted to here the OP's reasons.

[billh58]

21. Again Slick,

no one cares what you believe, think, or say. Your only reason for being here is to disrupt, and it's very obvious.

[tumtum]

23. I disagree with you,

but that's your POV, however wrong it is.

[tumtum]

11. Case in point what?

I thought I was asking a pertinent question, and I did it respectfully.

[billh58]

13. Your Gungeon MO

is noted and seen for what it really is. A few of us remember you from your last incarnation, and are not fooled by your "new" persona.

[tumtum]

15. Last persona?

What does that even mean? I've only been here for a month or so, but that's not the question here, care to answer my question?

[BainsBane]

20. let's not play

your self deletes in that other thread were tantamount to a confession.

[tumtum]

24. My self deletes were because someone took umbrage at what I wrote

and I'll readily admit that I did go over the top with you, and for that, I will say I'm sorry and I won't do it again.
Fair?

[BainsBane]

25. Thank you

Part of the reason I was sure you were a returnee is that you displayed such anger toward me and insisted you knew all about my ability to present an argument. I appreciate your taking a more civil tone here.

[tumtum]

26. No, I'm not a returnee, I'm just a sometimes cranky old man

who sometimes let's mouth go before brain kicks in.

I did agree with your point on why 18yo shouldn't be allowed to purchase a handgun from a dealer, unfortunately, they are allowed to buy one from a private seller, which needs to be addressed, perhaps a rider to the universal background check bill that's bound to come back up in the Legislature.

[billh58]

62. Of course he was a returnee

as evidenced by the "previously banned" tag explaining his most recent PPR. They are very persistent, these trolls...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

45. Weapons and ammunition are very tightly controlled in the branches.

You know that.

Except for very specific training, weapons and ammo are prohibited out of their lock-up. The only people that routinely handle weapons are, surprise, The Military Police..

I noticed you said "off to war" - are you going to conflate war zones with the rest of the military? Surely, you aren't saying we should treat the US as a war zone as it relates to 18 year olds???

[tumtum]

48. Yes I know that very well.

When I say off to war, of course I mean off to other countries to fight.
Very few places in the US I would label as war zones, places like Chicago, Baltimore, East LA, and that doesn't involve our military forces, that's civilian police.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. So your point about giving a pistol to an 18 year old in The US...

.... because he can handle one in a war zone is silly.

[tumtum]

53. That's not the point I'm making at all.

I don't believe that a civilian 18 yo should be able to own a handgun, I agree with BainsBane in post #18

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624036#post18
as I stated and also, as I stated in post #22, another reason for prohibiting 18 yo to own handguns.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624036#post22

All I did was ask the OP a question and I then basically agreed with the answer.

[billh58]

27. Well, at least

the Gungeoneers who come here to disrupt kick the threads for wider reading, while showing their disregard for the death and destruction caused by their precious guns.

[tumtum]

28. I'm sorry that you think I'm here to disrupt,

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2013, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

but you couldn't be further from the truth, if you noticed, I agreed with BainsBane on why 18yo shouldn't be allowed to buy handguns from dealers.
I haven't even attempted to disrupt, be disrespectful, argumentative, unpleasant in any way, I asked a question, and received a very good answer.

[Kingofalldems]

29. I just read the SOP and don't think you are in compliance.

Read it and see.

[tumtum]

30. I have read it, extensively, and my opinion is that I'm in compliance with it.

I'm not promoting firearms, I'm engaging in a conversation by asking pertinent questions, and, I'm doing so in a respectful way.
If I'm in violation of the SOP's, then I expect the hosts to take action, but until then, I'll participate in an important issue concerning firearms control.

Thanks for the concern though.

[Kingofalldems]

31. Concern eh?

Ironic.

[tumtum]

32. Yeah.

[billh58]

35. Irony indeed.

The "extensive" reading of the SOP and the use of that knowledge to disrupt while using phrases dripping with honey is a tried and true Guneoneer tactic. They still manage to interject NRA/Gungeon talking points while posing as innocent casual posters. The veiled challenge for the hosts to take action if the letter of the TOS is not followed is another dead giveaway.

Resurrected former Gungeoneers are so transparent...

[tumtum]

42. It this is what you want to believe, then there's nothing more for us to say to each other.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to have conversations with the more reasonable members here, of which there are plenty.

[billh58]

46. I have no doubt that

you will persist in posting veiled NRA talking points in this Group, but rest assured that I am not the only one here who recognizes the tactics.

[tumtum]

50. You're making accusations of veiled NRA talking points in this Group,

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2013, 11:04 AM - Edit history (1)

please point them out to me, if you would and I'll address them.
If I were, I believe that the hosts would have already taken action.
So far, I've not spouted ANY NRA talking points, why would I? I detest that organization, plus it's against the SOP, and I won't sully this Group with that nonsense.

As I stated, I'm here to discuss ways to bring sensible gun control into law that won't infringe on citizens 2A right.
Surely you can agree with that, even our President agrees that the 2A is an individual right, but with that right comes some level of restriction and responsibility.

[billh58]

57. You're very good

at dancing around the SOP, and very mindful of the "Hosts." Your in-your-face postings are duly noted.

[tumtum]

58. Once again, you're making accusations without posting any proof.

If you have any proof, then please post it and I'll address it.

[billh58]

59. Not an accusation,

but an observation. I've been around this and other boards for years as both a moderator and a poster, and like Justice Potter Stewart I know it when I see it. Your approach to disrupting this Group is neither original, nor particularly novel, but please carry on because in your own way you are entertaining to many of us who are on to you.

You may now have the last word (as is your habit) and carry on with your "plan."

[tumtum]

60. When you make statements like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624036#post46

that's an accusation, now, please, if I'm making veiled NRA talking points in this Group, then please post them and I will be more than willing to address them.

[GP6971]

33. I wonder if the NRA petition cites

historical fact as another justification to strike down the prohibition.....that many members of the original militias were under 18. I wouldn't put it past those scum.

[BainsBane]

34. and another one

[billh58]

36. Yep, they're

swarming.

[BainsBane]

37. He thought he was being clever too

[billh58]

40. It seems that they all

believe that they are being clever, when the correct terms would be clumsy and transparent.

[GP6971]

39. and another what?

[billh58]

41. Got it right

on the first guess...

[BainsBane]

44. No, it was the content of your post that gave you away

as not being a supporter of gun control.

[Turbineguy]

51. Advice for young people trying to choose a career:

Two words: Mortuary Science.

[bowens43]

52. The NRA is a terrorist orginization and it and it's members should be treated as such.

[atreides1]

56. I disagree

The NRA is nothing more then a front for gun manufaturers...they don't have the brains to be a terrorist organization!

[billh58]

61. And like most

cults, the NRA has its True Believers who infest the Internet, including DU. Even though they have a "protected zone" in the Gungeon, they feel the need to spread their manifesto to the rest of DU, including this Group. The good news is that they are easy to spot.

[no_hypocrisy]

54. Hormones, underage drinking, male posturing, and weapons.

What could possibly go wrong

[tumtum]

55. More good reasons why an 18yo civilian shouldn't own a handgun.