(08-04-2019 04:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: (08-04-2019 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (08-04-2019 03:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote: Without getting into the semantics of what a "military style rifle" means (please grant me this with the assumption that the lawmakers get it right when it comes to defining this when drafting the legislation)...
Would anybody have a problem with prohibiting ownership/use of this type of weapon for anybody under the age of 25? 21?
Thoughts?
Hate not to get into the semantics, but that is the core of it. "Military style rifle" means zero in functional terms.
Give me a specific function that is wished to limit and there can be a discussion.
A discussion on a nonsense term, is just that. Nonsense.
One might as well ask for a ban on meeflewumps style firearms.
I take it you do not know what the difference between a semi-automatic deer rifle and a 'military style weapon' is. That is actually healthy. I dont know the difference either. Much the same as I dont know the difference between a military style weapon and a meeflewumps style weapon.
You ask for a discussion on 'banning' ages from certain weapons --- I dont think anyone here would shirk from that discussion. Nor would they castigate another for a well delineated discussion. But in order to have a cogent discussion one has to understand what is delineated. Your (and every other call for this) does not do this in the slightest. Not meaning to be a prick, but that is the simple reality based on the choice of words.
Those are my thoughts.
OK... on vacation and thought I'd try to quickly participate in the discussion. I didn't have the time to go back through the posts to make sure I had the perfect definition of the weapon that was going to avoid generating the above response. I guess I'll wait for the next mass shooting when I return home (unfortunately I will likely not have long to wait) to revisit this proposal when I have more time to lay out a definition that can be discussed.
I am *so* sorry that I put your chosen emotionally-laden language bare.
Quote:Tanq, do you think that there are any styles of guns that would make sense to place age-restrictions on?
I think it is idiotic to consider age restrictions based on 'gun style', especially for two different reasons. One historical and functional factual, and another legal (Constitutional actually).
----
First, the modern semi-automatic firearm is functionally unchanged from about 1900. When one screams about military style or assault rifles, there is no difference from any plain jane semi-automatic.
They might be lighter because of polymers, or might be more robust (i.e. the AK that you can drop into mud and still fire), or might have a longer mean service time before failure (i.e. going through 1000 rounds as opposed to 200). But they are the same mechanical devices that have been readily available and around since 1900.
When you ask me to 'differentiate' on style -- I literally cannot do that. You are essentially asking one to differentiate between a 1983 Camaro and a 1981 Firebird. One of the problems is *not* the firearm style or function --- that has remained essentially static for the last 65 years. Yet everyone clamors for a ban based on 'style'. Hopefully this explanation helps cut through the liberalese that has prompted a rather large proportion of people (including presumably yourself) to clamor for a ban discriminated on 'style'. It is nonsensical to do that.
Yet when one does do that, the proverbial response is exemplified by yours:
Quote:I guess I'll wait for the next mass shooting when I return home (unfortunately I will likely not have long to wait) to revisit this proposal
----
Second, lets take your call for 'ban a gun with X (some functionality) for those under Y years'.
We arent talking about some random commercial object the Congress can ban (or order that everyone must purchase when they did so with respect to the ACA) as a matter of general course.
It is specifically a right granted in an explicitly independent and enumerated right.
So, in order to ban 'people under Y years' from using or operating the device, then the ban *has* to be proper for the population at large. What you are proposing (assuming that the 'military style weapon' is protected under the 2nd Amendment, whatever the fk the term means), would be exactly the same as a ban on abortions for anyone less that Y years of age. (and criminy, that one isnt even *in* the Constitution). Are you copacetic with that?
Or better yet, how about 'police dont need a warrant at all to search any person under 25 years age'? So the issue isnt an age one at all. The issue at hand *has* to deal with a subject *outside* the scope of a Constitutional right.
If you are prepared to put that rift into the Constitution in that manner, well that would not be my preference in the slightest.
Assuming that the 'military style' (again, whatever the fk that is) actually falls outside the ambit of the 2nd Amendment, that would allow one to distinguish the age discrimination aspect of it. But then, you run headlong into the 'functional' aspect of what makes a 'military style weapon' that falls into a class that fails to have such protection.
I think your avenue is extremely misguided, for at least those reasons.