Gun ownership will not mean a thing once the federal government puts us on a digital currency blockchain. They give gun owners the ultimatum: it's your gun or your digital currency/bank account! Look what Canada did to the truckers. This will be all part of the social credit score and the excuse for the safety of the kids.
Deny an 18 year old gun a gun permit is stupid. They can join the military and learn how to use automatic weapons. According to the Constitution, any male of the age of 18 is considered a part of the militia.
The Fifth Circuit decision is correct, unlikely to be appealed by the Trump administration (although Bondi is not as 2A friendly as I'd like). I don't believe there is a big maturity difference between 18 and 21. At 18, you can get married (who will protect your wife?), drive a car (a 3000-5000 lb. weapon), or join the military (where you must fire firearms). Basically, unless you're a left wing nut who doesn't want anybody to own guns, there is no reason to deny 18 year olds the right to keep and bear arms. "... shall not be infringed."
Once again, the attempted correction ( restrict purchase by 28-20 yr olds ) is one of abusing citizens Rights. The correct action should be to return our citizenry to a culture of morals and personal accountability and responsibilities - but that's not quick and easy enuf. My personal ( and professional - as a retired LEO )opinion is that a vast majority of young people should not own or possess firearms, for now obvious known reasons - crime and mental. But, refer back to my stated corrective action suggestion -
So you would leave everyone under 29 years old without rights or the ability to even have them, presumably including the 18 & 19 year olds in that decision. Damn bright of you!
uh, negatory red ryder ( which was a popular BB gun back in my day ) big fingers, small keypad. Should read " 18-20 yr olds " which were the restricted purchase ages listed in the appeal
OK, I'll spell it out, a citizen has an unalienable, God Given, Constitutionally protected right to bear arms, REGARDLESS of what "my personal opinion " might be. Yes there are restrictions defined within. Bottom line, dont mess with our rights, proper action is to take those actions that would return all of us to a more morale and responsible society. If you think 18-20 yr olds fall short of the standards, make changes to their standards, not their rights. Teach them responsibility ( from a young age ) and hold them to it. Serious violation of personal responsibility leads to loss of rights. It's called rules of society, or laws. "They" try to take the easy road by screwing with a personal right instead of making needed societal change....a one way street chosen to restrict individuals and protect their right of governance. This advice and your $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.
This case deserves further study, Jonathan Turley's website.
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/31/fifth-circuit-declares-federal-age-limits-on-adult-gun-ownership-unconstitutional/#more-228268
Jonathan Turley can be a reasonable guy , despite teaching at GW .
Gun ownership will not mean a thing once the federal government puts us on a digital currency blockchain. They give gun owners the ultimatum: it's your gun or your digital currency/bank account! Look what Canada did to the truckers. This will be all part of the social credit score and the excuse for the safety of the kids.
Agree
Probably true, probably.
Deny an 18 year old gun a gun permit is stupid. They can join the military and learn how to use automatic weapons. According to the Constitution, any male of the age of 18 is considered a part of the militia.
The Fifth Circuit decision is correct, unlikely to be appealed by the Trump administration (although Bondi is not as 2A friendly as I'd like). I don't believe there is a big maturity difference between 18 and 21. At 18, you can get married (who will protect your wife?), drive a car (a 3000-5000 lb. weapon), or join the military (where you must fire firearms). Basically, unless you're a left wing nut who doesn't want anybody to own guns, there is no reason to deny 18 year olds the right to keep and bear arms. "... shall not be infringed."
“registration”
🖕
Screw Bloomy.
Once again, the attempted correction ( restrict purchase by 28-20 yr olds ) is one of abusing citizens Rights. The correct action should be to return our citizenry to a culture of morals and personal accountability and responsibilities - but that's not quick and easy enuf. My personal ( and professional - as a retired LEO )opinion is that a vast majority of young people should not own or possess firearms, for now obvious known reasons - crime and mental. But, refer back to my stated corrective action suggestion -
So you would leave everyone under 29 years old without rights or the ability to even have them, presumably including the 18 & 19 year olds in that decision. Damn bright of you!
Ask how old was the average Revolutionary War Soldiers.
AI ANSWER
Key points about Revolutionary War soldier ages:
Age range: While soldiers of all ages served, the majority fell within the 15-40 age range.
Continental Army: Most soldiers in the Continental Army were between 15 and 30 years old.
Militia service: All military-aged males (16-45) were required to serve in the militia.
uh, negatory red ryder ( which was a popular BB gun back in my day ) big fingers, small keypad. Should read " 18-20 yr olds " which were the restricted purchase ages listed in the appeal
Oh, well that explains everything! Not!
OK, I'll spell it out, a citizen has an unalienable, God Given, Constitutionally protected right to bear arms, REGARDLESS of what "my personal opinion " might be. Yes there are restrictions defined within. Bottom line, dont mess with our rights, proper action is to take those actions that would return all of us to a more morale and responsible society. If you think 18-20 yr olds fall short of the standards, make changes to their standards, not their rights. Teach them responsibility ( from a young age ) and hold them to it. Serious violation of personal responsibility leads to loss of rights. It's called rules of society, or laws. "They" try to take the easy road by screwing with a personal right instead of making needed societal change....a one way street chosen to restrict individuals and protect their right of governance. This advice and your $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.
Thanks for the restack, Gbill7.