Before I start, I'm an independent, formerly registered Democrat, and but now support the Conservatives. Big change, I know, but I like to consider myself as seeing the "light".
Anyway. Why can Americans enlist in the Military or be a Police Officer, but they cannot carry or transport a handgun until the age of 21?
I know police officers who cannot legally purchase recreational handgun ammo, due to the fact that they are not 21, and they must request it from the department.
Can anyone point me in the bill that was passed that made this such a ridiculous law? Who presented this idea? Etc.
Thanks!
2007-07-16 08:02:58 · 7 answers · asked by Gump023 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You have your former buddies, the Demacracks to thank for this, along with Form 4473, and the death of 'mail-order' firearms purchases, among many other ineffective 'gun controls' foisted on law-abiding Americans!
It all came about with the enactment of the Draconian "Gun Control Act of 1968", passed by Bobby Kennedy's cronies in the wake of his 'assassination' previously that year.
Ain't it strange that an 18 year-old soldier can be ordered to carry an automatic weapon and kill people with it, but he can't even purchase a pistol or ammo for it, legally? ! ! !
P.S: SOMEBODY could really use a few lessons in the U.S. Constitution and it's TRUE meanings! !LOL! ! !
2007-07-16 14:14:04 · answer #1 · answered by Grizzly II 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 2nd amendment was intended to give the nation a standing militia during peacetime. It in no way implies that weapons should be allowed to be carried around by people at all times (like concealed carry laws).
The 2nd amendment is regarding defense of the nation, not of the individual. The supreme court has been clear on this. We live in a time that we no longer need a standing militia, as such, we should not strive to have an armed society, it only leads to more needless killings in the name of "safety". Which is an illusion at best.
2007-07-16 15:11:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Gun laws are determined by the state.
Enlisting in the military is federal, so it's unrelated.
Being a police officer subjects you to significant supervision and training, much more than private ownership.
So just like teenagers may be allowed to drive in a car with an adult, but not on their own, people may be allowed to use guns when serving in law enforcement or the state national guard (under supervision) but not on their own.
Each state has its own laws. If you don't like the laws, lobby to get them changed.
2007-07-16 18:18:48 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This has the same logic as not being able to drink until 21. However, I don't support lowering the drinking age. Not having someone under 21 carrying a weapon, well that may fall into the same category as letting them drink.
2007-07-16 15:22:37 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think its because there is too much testosterone in the 18-21 age group. This goes along with the same reason why the drinking age will not be brought back down to 18 again. Just too many deaths.
2007-07-16 15:07:00 · answer #5 · answered by GoGo Girls 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I dont know who it was because it's been in effect for a very long time. If you need a current person to blame, Clinton's about as good as any. lol
2007-07-16 15:10:59 · answer #6 · answered by Mamapie2u 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know but blame Bill Clinton , he gets the blame for everything a Republican doesn't like about the Con, party.
2007-07-16 15:07:30 · answer #7 · answered by Nicki 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋