General Discussion

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)

11. The NRA position is not logical then if age is a factor...

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 05:33 PM

Mar 2012

I really don't know how young too young is, but I seriously doubt there is a huge gap in responsibility between 17 and 18. So, if it is good for an 18 year old to carry a 17 year old should be as well. They really should be exploring getting children to carry. Not, that I agree with that, but they should find out the lowest age of responsibility and push for that if they really believe guns are good.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Notice that conservatives aren't arguing that Trayvon should've been packing? I wonder why..." [View all] phantom power Mar 2012 OP

+ 1000 Resident DU gun fans...where are you? CanonRay Mar 2012 #1

*crickets* ellisonz Mar 2012 #61

Very good point. GodlessBiker Mar 2012 #2

Excellent point. nt Lucky Luciano Mar 2012 #3

Actually, I've had several say precisely that to me. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2012 #4

Those who advocate for open-carry never think about what people should do who are under-age, JDPriestly Mar 2012 #24

Obviously assisted devices are the answer quakerboy Mar 2012 #55

Thanks, as a near-sighted senior, I feel truly reassured. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #56

If you post on DU, you probably don't have racist friends. That's the difference. yardwork Mar 2012 #33

I'm waiting to hear you speak up...hello? Is this mike on? Let me try again...hello? CTyankee Mar 2012 #5

The silence is telling... DetlefK Mar 2012 #6

Because he was a minor, aged 17. krispos42 Mar 2012 #7

I think there is a good point being made here. yardwork Mar 2012 #35

But, if 19-year-olds could carry guns, but 17-year-olds couldn't, JDPriestly Mar 2012 #58

Were you responding to my post? I am not in favor of carrying firearms. yardwork Mar 2012 #59

I agree. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #60

Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend he was 18. Skinner Mar 2012 #36

How dare you get logical boss man? You take all the fun out of it. TheMadMonk Mar 2012 #46

Well, he certainly wouldn't be any worse off. krispos42 Mar 2012 #47

+1,000,000 ellisonz Mar 2012 #62

"Packing" would have made Trayvon a criminal slackmaster Mar 2012 #8

Seems somehow ironic. Martin wasnt legally able to defend himself with a weapon rhett o rick Mar 2012 #14

Of course he wasn't, he was UNDERAGED. Bladian Mar 2012 #25

Of course, you are arguing against noone. Do you support Zimmerman's actions or not? rhett o rick Mar 2012 #38

The 26th Amendment gave 18-year-olds the right to vote, but nothing else. slackmaster Mar 2012 #30

Wow, all I said was that it is ironic that the kook got to carry a gun to defend himself rhett o rick Mar 2012 #37

"Piss on his memory"? Skinner Mar 2012 #39

I consider the possibility of Trayvon carrying a firearm to be a moot question. slackmaster Mar 2012 #40

Doesn't add anything of value... Skinner Mar 2012 #41

Nice Catch, Markos. Kicked. (n/t) Paladin Mar 2012 #9

Umm, because he was 17 years old?!? (ie, not eligible for an FL CWP) X_Digger Mar 2012 #10

So All Of A Sudden, You Gun Enthusiasts Are Backing Firearms Laws. Imagine That. Paladin Mar 2012 #16

There are plenty of laws, I back. Have any proof otherwise? X_Digger Mar 2012 #18

The NRA position is not logical then if age is a factor... Kalidurga Mar 2012 #11

Minimum age to qualify for a concealed firearm permit in Florida is 21 slackmaster Mar 2012 #13

You are dead on. . . daligirl519 Mar 2012 #12

Actually, I've heard that twice. Zax2me Mar 2012 #15

Because Trayvon was 17 and thus ineligible to own a gun TeamsterDem Mar 2012 #17

Excellent observation, Markos. Major Hogwash Mar 2012 #19

Here's why. lonestarnot Mar 2012 #20

They do that when an INNOCENT person gets gunned down. Mariana Mar 2012 #21

The NRA position actual Iliyah Mar 2012 #22

Because they are Sick Racist Fuckheads fascisthunter Mar 2012 #23

Ohh...I notice and I wish the kid was in a position to defend himself. TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #26

Sadly, if he shot the asshole he would have been in a world of hurt tularetom Mar 2012 #27

The day conservatives want to arm young black men . . . . proud2BlibKansan Mar 2012 #28

You realize of course... -..__... Mar 2012 #29

??? marshall gaines Mar 2012 #31

Omygod is that a great point! Thanks! ScottLand Mar 2012 #32

Because he is a minor and I guess they aren't prepared yet to argue that minors should LisaL Mar 2012 #34

If a white minor was stalked, hunted and killed by a black guy twice his size... Cali_Democrat Mar 2012 #43

Yes, that is absolutely what would have happened.... Pachamama Mar 2012 #44

+1 arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #49

THANK YOU. klook Mar 2012 #50

Hell, they probably advocate Zimmerman carrying a "throw down" weapon McCamy Taylor Mar 2012 #42

The uncomfortable squirming in this thread that this question invoked is delicious to see. Number23 Mar 2012 #45

I would say... sarisataka Mar 2012 #48

The PTB don't like armed black men, see what they did to the Black Panthers. Odin2005 Mar 2012 #51

Because it against the law for a minor to carry a gun in public? nt hack89 Mar 2012 #52

remember the million man march? graham4anything Mar 2012 #53

Because he was black. They want guns to protect white people only. Kablooie Mar 2012 #54

And we aren't hearing much about "victim's rights" these days either. HMMMMM JDPriestly Mar 2012 #57