How about just raising the age to 21 for certain types of guns?

Correct. Nobody has shown me why it's not.

 

In your opinion

 

I already own a gun, negating the supposed need to make me wait before I can get another.

Like every other firearm in common use for traditionally lawful purposes, they are "bearable arms" and thus protected by the Constitution.
The exercise of a right in not subject to a demonstration of "need".

Two orders of magnitude less so than handguns, which cannot be banned.

 

How about just raise the legal age of adulthood to 21? Pretty much everything someone has to wait until 18 to do now, would be moved to 21? Buy a gun, enter into a binding legal contract, get married, join the military, etc?

 

Nothing will appease gun control proponents. What do you think will happen if they get their new anti gun laws in place and then another mass school shooting takes place? They will then push for even more anti gun legislation.

 

No, because your circumstances may have changed after the first purchase.
Does the 2nd amendment allow you to bear any kind of arms? I think that it is a matter of interpretation.
The 2nd amendment was written so that the states could form militias rather than the country having a standing army and supported the right to bear arms for that purpose. I have no objection to gun ownership and I do object to the ownership of certain weaponry and hopefully our lawmakers will agree, but I doubt it because money talks and common sense walks.

 

I believe that there will be mass shootings, but we can't just sit back. I agree that teachers generally know which students may be problems and they can alert the administration.

 

I still have the gun, so no. Feel free to argue otherwise

Indeed -- and apparently know you cannot devise a sound argument to counter mine, as you did not bother to even try.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

If you purchase another gun, another background check. I also believe that guns should be reregistered every so often, like cars.
Your interpretation of the right to possess to protect within the home is correct, and it was written for the states to form militias rather than the country to have a standing army. Relative to your 'indeed' statement, the interpretation may be made by an entity other than me, and I don't know what that argument would be. What I do know is that common sense is out the window with gun advocates--there is no give on anything and I think it is a mistake. No compromise which is a part of the problem and public opinion may come back and bite you in the butt.

 

The issue is your idea of waiting periods. I have a gun - why should I have to wait for another?

As you don't have to register a car to buy it, own it, keep it on your property or use in on private property, I really doubt that.
Further, there's no sound argument that the state needs to have on record the owner of each of the 360,000,000 gun in the US
And, of course, the fact a gun in registered non no way means it cannot be used to commit a crime

Your attempt to the the right to keep and bear arms to the militia will fail, every time. The SCotUS says so.

"Common sense" necessitates a sound argument. Let me know when you can present one.

Compromise is predicated on both sides giving something so they can get what they want.
What does the anti-gun side offer in return for the restrictions it seeks?

 

One, Scalia said "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. ". In the home is only an example of the lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment.

You used the word "compromise". What are the GCAs offering as a compromise to the new restrictions that they want?

 

Well since nobody here intends on ever owning a gun in Saint Olaff's Sweden, you should be happy, no ?

 

Where the XXXX
DOES ANY part of the Second Amendment talk about
in the home ?

 

Scalia mentions it in Heller.

 

When providing a "such as" example of the point.

 

Scalia is not the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, it would be like saying Free Speech, in the confines of the home.

 

You realize "..., such as in the home" is just one example of "use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes". The right isn't limited to the home. Scalia referenced the home because of the particulars of the case DC v Heller.

 

In your opinions onion.

 

Meanwhile, a 19-year old drone pilot for the Military can bomb a school to get a "terrorist" and leftists will be silent about it.

It's ok when their Holy Government does it.

 

The in the home garbage is being used against us as gun control, even Pro Gun people have been brain washed by it.

Just as the Right to bear Arms ending at a State line, just another method of Gun Control.

 

My guess is that they would like to have much stiffer restrictions and are accepting what little they may get.

 

Pretty much every teacher I know (and I'm married to one, so I meet a lot of teachers), has an informal list of kids they are afraid will be school shooters. Most agree on which ones. That said, my wife has taught 19 years, and while she has had probably 30 potential school shooters on that informal list, none of them have actually done so. That said, she reports unusual things about kids to other teachers/counselors/principal, just so that everybody is aware.

 

Well, if you are into common sense and give, then we can pass a number of things. The Right very much wants CCW reciprocity throughout the US.

Remember when you demand "compromise" that you are speaking about an enumerated Constitutional Right to lethal self-defense, something many politicians and wealthy people that can afford body guards already have. The rest of us, if we want it, we have to supply it on our own dime.

But, so long as you want common sense compromise on Constitutional rights. how about:

Common sense abortion?
Abortion would be performed only with the written consent of the baby.

Why not common sense press control?
Anonymous sources can only be used if they use their names. This way we can hold them accountable.

Why not common sense equal pay control?
Instead of raising the pay of women to what men receive, reduce the pay of the men. Obviously, they are being paid too much if women are willing to work doing the same thing for less money.

And finally, why not common sense on term limits?
Everyone else gets two terms, Donald Trump gets four.

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/03/common-sense-gun-control.html#more

 

You live in Sweden, it says so on your profile page you had me blocked from recently for some odd reason, anyway, why Dither on so much for Gun Control in America ?
Since you don't live here........

Why ? Why ? Why ?

 

How about common sense with gun possession? The 2nd amendment gives the right to own a gun, but not any type of gun. I support
a gun in the home.
Common sense press control? We already have it, because the anonymous must remain as is because the source may be in a sensitive position and we would not have the info at all if the source must be exposed.
If the rest of your common sense ideas are not a joke, then I understand why you have your position on gun possession. What I mean
is that you are totally lacking in common sense, just like Trump.