(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. Especially when the topic is on the efficacy of a ban.

Not meaning to be a prick, but that is the simple reality based on the choice of words.

And no, I cannot grant your assumption. They tried before. It was a 'it looks nasty' bill. Kind of the same thing as 'lets ban candy apple red cars' type delineation. That is a major problem, and assuming that 'they' can get it 'right' explicitly fails the actual real world time that they have actually done it.

You are better suited to simply ask if banning firearms from the age group is warranted. That actually has meaning.

Those are my thoughts.