This ruling is outrageous and without precedent. Americans have the right to enact strong laws to protect their families and communities from gun violence, and the Second Amendment was never intended to force us all to live in the gun lobby’s guns-for-everyone-and-everywhere dystopia.
It is not unreasonable for California to decide that teenagers who can’t legally buy a Michelob or a martini should not be able to buy a Glock or a Beretta. States have the authority, and the responsibility, to reasonably regulate the sale and use of firearms, including age-based restrictions on gun sales.
The fact that young adults used guns in well-regulated revolutionary armies, as the Court noted, does not mean that 21-year-olds in 2022 have a Second Amendment right to purchase a semiautomatic weapon to use as they see fit.
— Jonathan Lowy in Brady Decries Decision in 9th Circuit, Striking Down California’s Age-Based Firearm Sale Law
All I heard was blah, blah, blah! Probably one of the idiots who believes capital punishment doesn’t work!!
Gun hating Gun Control zealots like jonathan lowy attached the word violence to guns like the kkk attached the n-word to Black Americans. And even though quack doctors and two bit politicians say there is gun-violence there is no such thing as gun-violence. There is only the criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc.
People like jonathon lowy disdain citizens owning firearms. If successful his goal of denying young adults their Second Amendment Right is a step towards denying aging adults their Second Amendment Right and then onto those in between young and old.
Rest assured control-freaks who have a problem with firearms in the hands of the citizenry see firearms as obstacles to what they really want like child molesters see armed Moms and Dads as obstacles.
So true. Somehting ELSE these eedjits fail to take into account: its not the law abiding “youth” who would go and purchse their firearms through an authorised licensed regulated dealer complying with ALL the ridiculous laws that are doing the drie by killings, muggings, armed robberies and carjackings in their “pweshus” state. Nope. Its the dirtbag lawbreakrs doing all that. Now not only do they want to continue to DO NOTHING to reduce this travesty upon civilisation, they want the few millions in the 18 to 12 year old range to contue to be froced to go about their daily lives UNARMED agaisnt the violence these lawmakers not only do nothing to stop, but aid and abet and coddle tse perp at every opportunity.
Time the “well regulated militia” in California once again include thise 18 t 21 years of age. We NEED them to hep keep the peace. government refuse to.
Go see Cool Breeze down to the projects. He ain’t got no forms to fill out, and be takin food stamps too. Just check dem boolits he be given you, dey ain’t always match da gat
You really want the same government that does all the things we don’t like to decide who lives or dies? That’s my issue with the death penalty. The state and it’s little dog the court system screw us every day. And you want to give them life and death decision making power?
After all of the people who have been exonerated of wrongful convictions since DNA became functional?
After the central park 5 got let off but the prosecutors tried to throw the book at St. Kyle of Kenosha and Zimmerman?
After the prosecutors suborned perjury in the Zimmerman trial?
After all the BLM race rioters got a pass but the January 6 protesters are being treated like violent revolutionaries?
With Soros back prosecutors letting violent felons back on the streets before the arresting officers can finish the paperwork?
Sure, sounds great. What could possibly go wrong.
“You really want the same government that does all the things we don’t like to decide who lives or dies?”
A few years back, I read John Grisham’s “The Innocent Man”; changed my view on the death penalty. Not opposed entirely, but the “proof” should be severe, and unmistakable (a challenge in itself).
Grisham detailed a case where even the prosecution finally agreed they convicted the wrong man. It was a fascinating look into not only “the system”, but the unreliability of witnesses and investigators.
The upshot was not only did the wrong person get convicted, those “officials” who prosecuted the case eventually agreed to making a mistake, yet never forgave the defense attorney for being compelled to admit their mistakes.
The problem with the death penalty as a punitive criminal justice solution is that it has the sub-conscious effect of establishing killing as an acceptable remedy outside of a universally corrupted, broken, and incompetent court system, for anybody as an easier, long lasting end to their problems with someone.
Hey if the G can do it, why can’t I have the same option?
This watering down of the value of life causes an already barely solvent commodity in today’s world to be more diminished in being worth even less than nothing in reality.
Factoring in all agenda based or incompetent prosecutions, wrongul arrests (I’ve seen more than my share) in constant commission and climbing as it is technologically becoming easier to Surveile, charge, prosecute, and force an unjust plea bargain, through the arbitrary and feckless threats of extreme time opposed to no time, and you have a deteriorating situation where humanity has no chance to reach higher enlightenment to save itself from imminent self-immolation.
I agree with Sam, I am
jfkjr: Capitol punishment has been practiced by governments as far back as our history, or recreation of unwritten histories, can reach back. Every society on earth has practiced it at one time or another, and in fact few exist today that do not outside of Europe.
I would agree with everything you said here Sam, and would add I just don’t think the state should have the power of life and death – it smells of the old system of divine royalty’s infallibility. You can’t take it back if you’re wrong. The automatic appeals process and years if not decades on death row is cruel to everyone involved, and detaches the crime from the punishment – justice delayed. Not to mention execution is just . . . cold-blooded.
Easy enough to describe, surely more difficult to implement; for the death penalty, the standard should be “beyond ANY doubt”. With the penalty then decided by the jury, not the government.
how, exactly, does government execution of citizens “work?”
“how, exactly, does government execution of citizens “work?””
It’s called the ‘Legal System’.
The government charges you with a crime that has a death penalty, they convict you, and keep you in prison before they strap you to a gurney and inject you with chemicals that kill you.
Is that a clear enough explanation for you?
Acceptible explainatiion of how it is done, but does not address how it “works”. In that regard, it is a total failure as government no longer DO it when theyshould, thus the benefiial effects of execution are not conferred upon society.
“…thus the benefiial effects of execution are not conferred upon society.”
I fully agree.
TTAG’s Jon Wayne Taylor has convinced me, who used to be pro-death penalty, to be against it.
A government must *never* be in the business of killing its citizens…
The recidivism rate among those who have been subjected to the death penalty is 0%.
True, but the chance of not killing the right person is no longer a risk I’m willing to make.
Throw them in a cell for 70+ years, there’s no walking back screwing up and killing the wrong person…
Boy am I dumb.
Both of my solutions is a death penalty.
Just one has more mental anguish.
Ask a Clinton.
All I heard was Whaa Waa WHAAA. Probably one of those people who refuse to Execute Guilty Murderers. Yet have No issue with Murdering Innocent Babies in the Womb.
Capital punishment by the state has been shown to be a poor deterrent.
Capital punishment at the hands of an intended victim, on the other hand, is effective!
“Capital punishment by the state has been shown to be a poor deterrent.”
Kinda depends on the level of deterrence intended/expected. A dead convict is forever deterred from committing another crime. No law deters a person determined to commit a crime.
“The fact that young adults used guns in well-regulated revolutionary armies, as the Court noted, does not mean that 21-year-olds in 2022 have a Second Amendment right to purchase a semiautomatic weapon to use as they see fit.” What does this have to do with “teenagers” buying long guns? Wasn’t that what the court decided? Absolutely nothing to do with handguns.
Aw cMON, Parnell. You can’t expect a whinging infant like this lout to be accurate OR complete, let alone make any sense? S’matterwidyoo ennyway?
Back when I still LIVED in that infernal infested “state” I bought my first long gun. It was a BSA hnunting rifle chambered in twhat was then called the .30/06, now called the 7.62 x 51. I was nineteen if memory serves, I walked right into a gun shop, decided whcih one I wanted, pulled out a wad of cash and paid for it, got a cash register ticket indicating “someone” purchased “something” for the price of $125, and tax at I think it ws five percent on that amount, on whatever the date was.
I could have bought that when I was sixteen, but still lived with myparents, did not have much “discretioinary income”, and Mum did not like guns. (thakfully THAT phobia was not passed along down the gene line). So I waited till I had my own mad mone, and lived elsewhere.
I did have a .22 bolt gun Dad gave me for ny16th birthday (he wanted to give it me on my 12th, but Mum would not have it, so he did not). At sixteen I could walk into any Western Auto or Sears or Ace Hardware and buy a box of fifty rounds of .22 long rifle for about a dollar ninety five wiht no more fuss or concern that if I’d bought a pack of Fleers baseball bubble gum. Yet I don’t remember any legislators or “pawl a TISH uns getting their knickers all in a wad.
Two words for creeps like this: GROW UP Makes me wonder WHO is paying off this creep.
Pretty sure you meant…7.62 x 63.
“At sixteen I could walk into any Western Auto or Sears or Ace Hardware and buy a box of fifty rounds of .22 long rifle for about a dollar ninety five wiht no more fuss or concern that if I’d bought a pack of Fleers baseball bubble gum.”
The .22lr 50 cents a box and stacked up right by the register at the corner store when I was a kid in the early 70s…
$.50/box of 50 LR, L or S at the corner store when I was 12 in 1958. I had, still have it, a Savage Model of 1914 pump and would buy a couple of boxes with my allowance. Then hit the woods to shoot squirrels.
The price was the same until the 70s when they began to creep up.
” to use as they see fit.”
In that short phrase low(y)est lumped all into the instant criminal basket due to their purchase of gun.
Anyone regardless of age the low(y)est followers don’t want to have a gun instantly become criminals when they fight for their right to bear arms.
The definition of hypocrisy:
An 18 year old can go to war and die for our country, but he can’t have a gun at home to protect his family.
Agreed. If they aren’t old enough to own a gun they shouldn’t be old enough to go to war and get killed or maimed or so twisted up from the grisly scenes they are forced to see that it ruins them to the extent that suicide looks like the only choice in life.
The joy of that comment is how often we also hear the 2nd should only apply to muskets, since that’s how it was back then.
But as soon as you say “Back then teenagers had guns.”, suddenly it’s different because we’re in 2022 now.
ACTUALLY they “decided” that 18-21 had to get a HUNTING license. Which has shitall to do with ANYTHING. What you going to hunt in cesspool Komifornia cities? The progs won’t allow removing of the trash.
Looks like ‘Full Metal Jackets’ Gomer Pyle.
Looks like he’s been crying, too.
Tim, that character was a bit more intelligent than this one.
“…..teenagers who can’t legally buy a Michelob or a martini should not be able to buy a Glock or a Beretta.”
But they can be drafted to go fight & die in your progressive wars, can’t they?
Since male teenagers as a group are viscous and sadistic Neanderthals and easily brainwashed they make prime cannon fodder for the super rich who become more wealthy through wars of rape, pillage and conquest but for this very reason the teenager should be banned from possessing deadly weapons or drinking any kind of alcohol which only tends to enhance their propensity towards extreme violence, rape and murder. Age 25 should be the lowest age before they are allowed access to guns or alcohol as science has proven they do not mature until at least age 25.
The naked male ape has been proven to behave far more erratically and far more dangerous than the male gorilla.
The only way around letting the naked male ape under 25 possess a deadly weapon would be the severe style of Japanese vetting to purchase a weapon
“Age 25 should be the lowest age before they are allowed access to guns or alcohol as science has proven they do not mature until at least age 25.”
Should the age of voting be raised as well? What about the age of consent? Or does this theory only apply to firearms?
Neither voting or age of consent result in maniacs walking into your schools and shopping centers every other day and mowing down hundreds of people in a pool of blood and carnage. But that is way over your head Storm Trooper.
So everyone under the age of 25 are “walking into your schools and shopping centers every other day and mowing down hundreds of people in a pool of blood and carnage”
Howe many males under the age of 25 are there in our Country? How many males under the age of 25 are committing these atrocities?
Your astute education in psychology, sociology (or was it basket weaving?), would let you understand the maturity required for any responsible act such as voting or consenting is all related. If you believe a 10 year old could give consent and a 16 year could vote, the your trope that anyone under 25 is too immature to own a firearm is not a logical conclusion.
Enough of the intellectual dishonesty, you should really step up and prove your maturity and claimed education level. You are really hurting your cause.
dacian the stupid,
The stupid continues to roll out of you like diarrhea from a giardia sufferer, dunnit? If you are ACTUALLY arguing that allowing these “viscous and sadistic Neanderthals and easily brainwashed” (easily brainwashed?? Right up your alley, dacian the stupid) to VOTE is less dangerous than allowing them to own guns or drink alcohol is simply further proof of your towering stupidity. A stupid vote can kill far more people than a stupid kid with a gun, and over a far wider area (cf., Hitler was elected, Stalin was “elected” (in a vote as pure as the “election” of Senile Joe). PolPot was elected, Pinochet was elected, Daniel Ortega was elected, and Senile Joe was supposedly “elected”, Fidel Casto was “elected”, Mao Zedong was “elected”.
You really, truly are too stupid to insult. And you appear to be getting stupider by the day. Perhaps return to your circle jerk, before you hurt yourself. Oh, and go pound salt in your @$$.
Voting doesn’t “result in maniacs”.
Congrats dacian…. that is the dumbest thing said on the web this week.
Maybe you were a Sadistic and Viscious Neanderthal, but at 21, I was married, expecting my first born, working a Full Time and Part Time Jobs to make ends meet and generally contributing to the community’s welfare. I was also a Gun Owner, and bought my first pistol, a S&W Model 66 (no dash), at 21. Hunted Big and Small Game, Hiked the length of the Rainbow Trail the year before, and went to church every Sunday.
Here’s the real kicker, all of my friends the same age, were doing the same thing. Might be different jobs, marital/parent status, and differing hobbies/church attendance, but all were just as responsible community members.
Age had little to do with it. How we were all raised in similar situations had everything to do with it. Two parent homes, Blue Collar Middle Class families.
Don’t pick on dacian the stupid, Berserker – he can’t help it if he’s ugly, stupid, uneducated, useless, ignorant, his mother doesn’t love him, and he never knew his father. That’s his “culture”, being the Leftist/fascist that he is.
He probably believes that 16 years-old is mature enough to vote.
He probably believes that a 9 year old is mature enough to decide to have him/herself castrated so he/she can spend a lifetime pretending to be a different gender.
Looking back I think I should have had my youngest son castrated and it has nothing to do with gender.
What, you ended up with more grandkids than you knew what to do with????
He is correct. Either you are an adult with all rights/responsibilities, or you aren’t. 18 to fight and die but 21 to drink and purchase handguns is BS.
That’s right. It was once an often stated aphorism when comparing world fighting forces in the military that ‘the most dangerous soldier in the world is an American 19 year old Army infantryman!” And now these Marxist Racist Disarmament zealots are saying that persons younger than 21 who are allowed to fly sophisticated aircraft, drive highly fragile or valuable cargos, and operate extremely powerful machinery cannot have their own semii-auto firearms for their own protection to defend themselves in Marxist caused deteriorating society?
Well I got breaking info for you Mo FOs. Count down to Y’ALL getting fired in six months. And hopefully then indicted for Conspiracy to Deprive a person of their 2nd/A rights under 18-241-242!
He says “It is not unreasonable for California to decide that teenagers who can’t legally buy a Michelob or a martini ”
And, that is a problem, in and of itself. If 18 is the age of majority, then alcohol should also be legal.
I’ll go a step further. The age at which sexual consent can be given should entitle teens to purchase guns, as well as to drink. Our screwed up Victorian attitudes toward alcohol create more alcoholics than all of the industry’s advertising.
What’s worse is the zealous enforcement of alcohol laws has made it cheaper and easier for teens to get drugs than beer.
Gov., you are not wrong.
Ever since Mankind climbed down from the trees, or up from the Seas, or was created (depending upon one’s religious views), he’s sought to alter his consciousness. Eating this plant/fungus, fermenting this fruit, or licking this toad, mankind has done it all, long before we gathered into larger and larger groups. Substance Abuse goes hand in hand with Mankind’s ascendancy to the dominant species on the planet. The sooner we accept that this problem has existed from the beginnings, the better we can guard against it.
Enforced Sobriety/Prohibition doesn’t work. The Substance Abuser will always find some other Substance to abuse. The only way someone quits is if they make the decision not to let whatever substances ruin/rule their life. Neither the government, you or I can make the decision for them.
I agree with you. These Draconian laws don’t do a damn bit of good.
I suspect an awful lot of Leftist Scum ™ will be bitterly unhappy at the prospect of being forced to work on their (obviously lacking) coping skills in the very near future.
I predict it will be a lot like the utterly un-hinged behavior after Trump was elected.
And that puts a spring in my step, a smile on my face, a *snicker* on my lips, and makes me giggle like an 8 year-old schoolgirl at the very thought of watching that meltdown in real time… 🙂
you paint a VERY fine word video……… it IS so much fun to watch pupported “adults” in their meltdown phases, pretending to be SOOOO grown up. But their crocodile tears do not impress any intelligent sentient being.
guys like this seem to be living in a Peter Pan world all their own.
question for this piece of work: do YOU go about everywhere, on your own, without a paid armed security detail shadowing you?
“do YOU go about everywhere, on your own, without a paid armed security detail shadowing you?”
Ever since I started carrying, I am far more cautious as to the areas I go armed, since I *really* don’t want the hassle and extreme legal expense (even with carry insurance) a defensive gun use entails.
I am all I have backing me up.
But yes, I do love imagining watching Leftist Scum ™ in full melt-down mode… 🙂
For those snowflake progs who CAN’T cope, there should be a convenient (gov’t provided) method of permanently relieving their “pain”. DOD should have a pile of surplus M9 available but I suppose a 9mm pill would not be palatable.
So if their age-based restrictions some day prohibit gun sales to anyone under 50, that’s OK as well?
Really that is not a bad idea.
That would exclude YOU, dacian the stupid, so maybe it’s wouldn’t be a bad idea . . . except that most of us aren’t Leftist/fascists, like you.
“The fact that young adults used guns in well-regulated revolutionary armies, as the Court noted, does not mean that 21-year-olds in 2022 have a Second Amendment right to purchase a semiautomatic weapon to use as they see fit”.
Lol. So the mask is off and they’re back to using the old implication of “Well Regulated Militia” to mean that it’s only the police and military who can own guns, and of course, Leftist Government Bureaucrats.
F*** these gun-ban scum!!
what he FAILS to comrehend is that those “youngsters” back in the days of our fight to kick the Brits off our land had, for years, already been carrying about and using firearms for gathering food, for defending their homes and villages from marauding indians aond bears, etc. So, when that same “kid” who’d been caryring hisown musket (and often handgun,s, too) about wherever he went “just in cse” became part of his town’s militia simply because he LIVED there, no one ever thought twice about it. Drill on Tues nights, to include target practice and relading drills, was as normal as church on Sundays.. and those same “yoot” also, per existing laws, carried their GUNS along with them on the walk to the churchhouse. Normal ife. guns WERE a part of that young man’s life and had been for years.
One ting, though.. a fifteen year old back then was NOT the same creature as today’s denizens of the gummit skewlz. Marriage and family responsibllities at 14 and 15 were not unusual. A man was a man when he began to ACT like one, whichincluded carring the responsibilities and burdens of a MAN, The number of trips he’d made round the sun was no issue. What was his mettle? And this politician on his whnge would certainly NOT have passed muster at 16, and probably would be rejuected from ilitia service today. Children in adult bodies are NOT mature enough to nandle adult responsibilities.
I assume those “revolutionary armies” the twit mentioned would be the Continental Army and the various state militia units. Not all that well “regulated” for most of the war.
And how it was unorganized guerrilla warfare that won the Revolution.
What is up with these gun control freaks?
When I was in High School in the 60’s we had a school rifle team that competed against other schools in our area. We took our single shot .22’s to school and practiced on the school grounds at a mini range that was set up. We kept our .22 LR rifles in our lockers or cars til we met up on the range next to the football field. No one got hurt, no one broke any laws. The events were sponsored by the NRA! We were 15, 16, 17 years old!
Many of us hunted in those years. We brought our guns in our cars everywhere we went. In gun racks or in our glove compartments or trunks. All loaded and ready to go! We kept extra clips and ammo in the car/truck at all times. We could have guns in our cars at our parking at the High School and College and no one ever questioned that! There were NO places we could not have our guns!
I was a camp counselor for both the YMCA and the Boy Scouts in 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966 at Big Bear Lake CA. We taught all of our campers the use of guns, safety courses offered by the NRA, Boy Scouts and YMCA! We shot .22 rifles on outdoor ranges with kids from 8 years old to 18 years old. No problems. Teaching gun safety and knowing the rules saves lives! It was a normal part of growing up in California!
Joined the Navy when I was 19 and had basic military gun training – no issues. These were NOT .22 rifles!! On my MP patrols I carried a .45 caliber M1911. Never had to draw my weapon!
After getting out of the military in 1972 I lived in San Diego CA and regularly brought my guns to the San Diego Police Department gun range to practice. I had at least 10 guns at that time and used them all to keep up to date on my training and accuracy.
My first job after I got out of the Navy in 1972 was as a Security Guard in Long Beach, CA. I carried a .38 revolver on my job and never ever even had to pull it out of the holster. I did have to threaten a few kids who were trying to destroy some construction work on a medical facility that was being built – they tore up the drywall that was being installed. I showed up with my gun on my side! I was asked if I would use the gun to protect the property and I said, “Of Course” and they left and never came back! My employer (the Security Company) told me if anyone gave me any crap just shoot them! I told my supervisor that is not how it works, we are responsible gun owners and will only shoot when absolutely necessary to preserve life not property!
Moved to North Carolina in 1992 and brought all my guns with me. Got my CCW permit and updated my NRA membership. I owned apartments in the “bad part of town” and had very good minority family tenants. I wanted to protect my tenants from the drug and gang activity and whenever I went to the apartments I would always carry my .45 M1911. Fortunately never had to use it. But I was always glad to have it at my side.
Many of my Military buddies from Vietnam had guns when they were 8 – 12 years old and never had any issues. To this day they ALL celebrate the 2nd Amendment.
In America you are an Adult at 18 with full legal responsibilities and liabilities. You should be able to have any weapons of choice so long as you are law abiding! If you are a minor living with your parents you should have access to any weapon of choice, subject to your parent’s supervision.
The issue is control. The far left wing radical socialists/communists do not want Citizens armed! They are concerned that it would interfere with their take over of America. We will NOT let that happen!
Join the NRA, take the safety and hunting classes, get your CCW permit in your own community. Be armed, be safe, don’t be sorry!
MAGA, God Bless America and remember: Let’s go Brandon!
Maybe he’ll get so upset that he’ll go find a tall building or a piece of rope and a tree.
They’re okay with 18 y/o’s and younger:
voting, dying in globalist wars, undertaking medical procedures in an attempt to placate mental illness, using drugs, being lectured to by pervert groomers in positions of authority, signing on to tens of thousands in debt to fund worthless degrees. And plenty more.
But owning a gun? Naaaaaahhh. Can’t have that. That’d just be crazy!
So, he doesn’t want to live in a gun lobby dystopia. I suggest he head on over to the nearest airport and buy a one way ticket to Jspan or England.
He won’t be very happy in Japan, when he discovers being white means he can’t go into a whole lot of places, like good restaurants.
The Japanese are proudly racist when it comes to ‘Gaijin’ like him…
Whut? Where are these places in Japan that I can’t visit?
Certain high-end restaurants, for example. If you show up at the front door, you will be told no seating is available.
Geoff, that has never been my experience when traveling there.
Maybe because I was always accompanied by my Japanese wife.
But I seriously doubt that what you’ve said is true.
Have you ever been to Japan?
Can also try dressing up like a marine in Okinawa and see how many doors that opens for you. They are usually polite in their racism (think upper class northeast USA) but it is a bit more prevalent than anything anyone under 60 ever experienced here.
“Despite domestic constitutional provisions and international treaty promises, Japan has no law against racial discrimination. Consequently, businesses around Japan display “Japanese Only” signs, denying entry to all ‘foreigners’ on sight. Employers and landlords routinely refuse jobs and apartments to foreign applicants. Japanese police racially profile ‘foreign-looking’ bystanders for invasive questioning on the street. Legislators, administrators, and pundits portray foreigners as a national security threat and call for their segregation and expulsion. Nevertheless, Japan’s government and media claim there is no discrimination by race in Japan, therefore no laws are necessary.”
But yeah, you just keep right on believing racism against ‘Gaijin’ doesn’t exist in Japan.
I suspect you never saw it *because* of your Japanese wife. They were likely extending her a courtesy, so you never saw it…
Your original comment:
“He won’t be very happy in Japan, when he discovers being white means he can’t go into a whole lot of places, like good restaurants.”
I responded that hasn’t been my experience — I’ve never been denied entry into any Japanese business or accommodation, and I’ve traveled the country a fair bit. My wife’s hometown is a small city where racism should be rampant, moreso than in the large cities that welcome gaijin. Her grandmother had told her when she was little, not to marry a white man because he would kill and eat her. But she didn’t meet us at the door with a pitchfork when I visited; in fact I was warmly welcomed into her home.
IF you believe that I didn’t experience it because my wife was with me, consider: if the Japanese culture is as blatantly racist as you say, then she would be even more unwelcome and would have experienced much MORE rejection due to the fact of her marrying outside of her race and bringing a dirty foreigner into their culture.
I asked if you have ever been to Japan, expecting that maybe you personally experienced such as you described. You responded with a book synopsis, which you know proves nothing except promoting the author’s viewpoint.
“But yeah, you just keep right on believing racism against ‘Gaijin’ doesn’t exist in Japan.”
Don’t be dishonest — I never said any such thing.
Being a Korean in Japan can be even worse.
“Being a Korean in Japan can be even worse.”
Or….being Japanese in Korea, China.
“…..teenagers who can’t legally buy a Michelob or a martini should not be able to buy a Glock or a Beretta.”
But in his sick mind at the age of five they can choose to have gender reassignment surgery.
Well yes depopulation is the fad of late.
Prog infanticide is largely “medical care” for progs. But is primarily a eugenics program for the “black/brown” community that the dems OWN. So if you look hard enough something of a silver lining.
It is fascinating that the Brown/Sharpton/etc cabal has no problem with the dems killing millions of their “community” and then importing (illegally) millions of adult Central Americans/Mexicans as replacements.
So, maybe brigades of open-carry advocates, waving flags and placards, shouting pro-war slogans should converge around the homes of these anti-Constitution nit-whiners. Let’s see how they react when their tactics are turned against them.
Not really. Intimidation is not an ethical response. I’m just blowing-off steam.
These democrats have absolutely no problem showing their hypocrisy. If I were to stand out in front of the “wise latina’s” home with a bullhorn and scream for our 2nd Amendment rights without saying anything threatening you can bet I’d be arrested within ten minutes. Ripping a child in the womb limb from limb good. Fighting for the God given right to protect ourselves with a firearm bad.
Be careful, bullhorns usually have a “trigger” to activate them…from a distance they could look like a large blunderbuss pistol…you could be shot for aiming a potentially-lethal “device” towards a
godjudge…your survivors would be legally hosed because it’s her inviolate word against your (deceased) perceived “actions”…
There there there, poor sweet baby. It’ll be alright. Just take your binkie and blankie and watch Tele-Tubbies. I’ll fix a snack for you.
I see this guys face and I think, kiddie diddler.
My first thought was leftie lobbiest but………
Wait a minute…wait a minute…
Okay, I just checked and just as I thought there is no part of the Second Amendment that says, “…shall not be infringed unless the person is under the age of 21.”
Since in other parts of the Constitution the Founders were not shy about announcing their belief that certain age restrictions were important: 25 for Congress, 35 for president/VP, it seems likely they would have included the same limitations in the 2A if they thought it had value.
Now hold on one cotton-pickin minute (is that term racist?).
If you want the 2nd Amendment to not be age based, than you have to request a Constitutional Convention and get an Amendment passed that specifically says that the 2nd Amendment does not have an age limit.
Cliff, that’s a damn good point! One if never heard put forth. Thanks for another arrow in my quiver.
Well even a nine year old should be able to shoot dinner or a redcoat for that matter.
I have read a number of accounts where “children” as hyong as SIX used the family’s lawfully owned firearms to STOP various crimes in progress. M two faves are the six year old grabbed his Dad’s handgun and steadfastly pointed it at the home invader ordering him to LEAVE. (he did…..) and the elven year old, when a creep busted into the home, grabbed a kitchen knife (this was NOT in england, sothey could have them) and grabbed Mom, shoving her up agaisnt the kitchen conter and making foul demands of her, the eleven year old ran upstairs grabbed his LOADED Daisey BB gun, ran back downstairs and began peppering the perp in his FACE with round after round, until he gave up and ran out the front door. Mum called the cops, they caught the guy at a local hosital looking for some medical “attention” for his badly peppered nd bleeding face. Coppers took him into custody before he left.
Kids like that? Why should they be disarmed in public? Spmoe time training on use of deadly force and the law, and why NOT have such young patriots milling about in public with suitable arms? At least they’d not be robbing conveinience stores, carjacking folks,m
People like Lowy are the enemy to freedom loving Americans.
Lowy is upset. Wow.
Who the fck is Lowy?
I’m upset too, nobody gives a sht.
“It is not unreasonable for California to decide that teenagers who can’t legally buy a Michelob or a martini should not be able to buy a Glock or a Beretta.”
He seems to ignore that ….
1. Its only illegal for “teenagers” to buy “a Michelob or a martini” because the law says it is. Buying or consuming “a Michelob or a martini” is not a constitutional right.
3. In California a person who is 15½ years old can get a permit to operate a motor vehicle Drivers under the age of 25 have the most traffic accidents, and drivers or passengers or pedestrians under age 18 suffer over 1,000,000 injuries in car accidents, almost 100,000 under the age of 12, annually nationwide. Owning, driving, or being a passenger in, a car is not a constitutional right. But I don’t see him complaining about people under ages of 18 and 25, nationwide combined and collectively and in California too, causing the most accidents fatal and non-fatal and injuries due to being in possession of or using a ~2,000 lb chunk of metal and plastic that is and has been the most lethal and injurious thing, considering all in terms of accident and death and injury, in society that one can legally buy, own or use aside from tobacco products.
Well I’m sure the PTB are thinking hard about changing that constitutional right crap.
Its outdated dont’cha know.
Not just outdated, but racist, misogynist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, classist, white-supremacy-supporting evil . . . just ask dacian the stupid.
This is something I’ve argued with people about for years. At 18 you are considered an adult and are supposedly mature enough to sign contracts, in most states, buy an automobile, sign up for the military, vote, go off to college and take out loans to do so, and are able to make any number of life altering decisions. So, you are not considered old enough or mature enough to buy a firearm or consume alcohol?
How is it any more dangerous to do a tour of a combat zone in the military, but because you are not 21 when you get back home you can’t drink a beer with your squad mates?
If you can make the payments you can own a house, but can’t have the tools to protect it?
The next question would have to be if it is not legal for someone under 18, or 21 to purchase or own a firearm, why are a large percentage of the shooting in many major cities perpetrated by young males under those ages?
Could it be another useless feel good about themselves gun restriction that has no effect on the intended groups but does have a detrimental effect on the law abiding who are not the problem?
Jonathan Lowy makes a nonsensical fluff filled rebuttal using feelings and wants as a basis.
Americans don’t have the right to make laws that are in violation of law.
Lowy is right, the Second Amendment was never intended to force us all to live in the gun lobby’s guns-for-everyone-and-everywhere dystopia it never was and isn’t now!
It is not unreasonable for California to decide that teenagers who can’t legally buy a Michelob or a martini It IS unreasonable when it runs counter to established rights and law
States have the authority, and the responsibility, to reasonably regulate the sale and use of firearms, including age-based restrictions on gun sales. States don’t have UNLIMITED authority and is why courts routinely strike down laws as unconstitutional
The fact that young adults used guns in well-regulated revolutionary armies, as the Court noted, does not mean that 21-year-olds in 2022 have a Second Amendment right to purchase a semiautomatic weapon to use as they see fit. As they see fit is inconsequential and the court disagreed with Lowy.
If you are 21 why shouldn’t you be able to buy a semi auto rifle. Reckon that was a slip? I personally believe that if you are old enough to be in the military and to vote you are old enough to drink or buy whatever gun you want
Lots of stores choose not to sell AR 15 to under 21 but even here in NY it’s perfectly legal to buy and own…… even if they look like a sci-fi horror movie prop.
We need a zombie movie where the Founding Fathers comeback to life and go to town on clowns such as Lowy. That would be extremely entertaining.
I doubt George Washington would dirty his sword with this pansies blood.
You’re likely right, George Washington was 6’2, he’d likely just beat the shit out of him.
“…should not be able to buy a Glock or a Beretta.”
Jonathan Lowy, as an Attorney, you should strive for accuracy. Your comment is ingenuous and misleading*…18 – 21 yo people cannot legally purchase a handgun, whether it is single-shot, revolver or semi-automatic under Federal law. To the best of my knowledge Glock does not make rifles or shotguns.
*with this egregious of a lie from someone who is “licensed” to be factual and truthful, I recommend he be interviewed by O’Brien in Room 101 of the new Biden Ministry of Truth.
He should just move someplace that has all the gun laws he so loves, perhaps Chicago?
Lowry overlooks that the court accepted “certificates” (permission slips) are constitutionally valid. Also ignored the state is not prohibited from designating as many “sensitive places” as desired.
(Note: “democracy” only exists where government (including the court systems) ensures the anti-Americans will have their way.)
“. . . does not mean that 21-year-olds in 2022 have a Second Amendment right to purchase a semiautomatic weapon to use as they see fit.”
Somehow this doesn’t resonate with me. I have a clear and fond memory of the day, in 1964, when I (a 13 year-old) walked into my friendly neighborhood gun shop and told the dealer:
“I want that one!” pointing to a semiautomatic,
which I used as I saw fit 3 minutes after laying my hands on it.
Those were the days my friend; we thought they’d never end.
Haven’t had a negligent discharge in 57 years.
Conveniently, as soon as this judgment was passed, there has been a “mass shooting”.
I am no conspirationist, but the idea that somewhere there is someone who is grooming useful idiots begins to have some merits.
“I am no conspirationist, but the idea that somewhere there is someone who is grooming useful idiots begins to have some merits.”
Conspiracy isn’t necessary. Humans are evil at the core. Remove a sufficient numbers of restrictions on human behavior, and just gross numbers of the human population will result in increasing evil.
“Not to mention execution is just . . . cold-blooded.”
As it very well should be. “Justice” is simply a more cultured manner of revenge (“I will get revenge and pay them back at the time their foot slips; for the day of their disaster is near,”). “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
A person who unjustly (illegally) takes a life should forfeit theirs, for murder cannot be walked back. The difficulty is humans too often demand the state deliver revenge and payback, in the heat of anger and anguish (rush to judgement, if you like). Not to mention that legal and political reputations can be built off the propensity of the people (acting through the state).
So, this is why I mentioned that the death penalty should only apply where evidence of the crime is indisputable (i.e. no circumstantial evidence). Eye witness testimony is too unreliable. Even photographic evidence is often problematic (subject to manipulation). I don’t have a solution, but a means of establishing irrefutable evidence needs to be a significant project.
Barring near perfection of evidence, a person convicted of murder should face a life sentence in solitary confinement (which it seems is now being labeled “cruel and unusual”…as if murder is not cruel). Solitary confinement can be walked back,if a person is later found to be unjustly convicted.
“….for the death penalty, the standard should be “beyond ANY doubt”. ”
Not a bad recommendation. If we are to have a just (fair?) application of a death penalty, the standard of proof of murder must be unassailable.
When I was a pre-teen, the standard was “Better 10,000 guilty be free, than one innocent be punished.” The standard seems to have devolved into “whatever you can prove”.
“Americans have the right to enact strong laws to protect their families and communities from gun violence, and the Second Amendment was never intended to force us all to live in the gun lobby’s guns-for-everyone-and-everywhere dystopia.”
WRONG! “Americans” (their elected officials in particular) do NOT possess any such right! There is NO language in the Second Amendment (2A) that provides for the general or states’ governments to regulate “Arms” in any manner. To the contrary, 2A orders said governments NOT to infringe upon ‘the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry, possess on one’s person) Arms.’ Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires ALL states of this union to be bound by the “supreme Law” – of which 2A is a part. Therefore, any statute, ordinance, etc. is color of law (unconstitutional law) and is contrary to the mandates of 2A. It is thereby null and void (re: Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137). Furthermore, government(s) have NO affirmative duty ‘… to protect families and communities from domestic violence’ of any kind (re: DeShaney v Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 ).
The Constitution leaves the right of self-defense, with whatever weapon (or the lack of one if that is one’s choice) to the people. The lie that Law enforcement’s (LE’s) job is protect society has gotten Americans killed. LE’s job is simply to investigate the crime, clean up the mess and find the perp if possible.
Individual “Americans” do however have “the right” to choose NOT to exercise their 2A liberty and to forbid “Arms” on/in their own personal property or businesses, but constitutionally, government(s) possess NO such right.
“To the contrary, 2A orders said governments NOT to infringe upon ‘the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry, possess on one’s person) Arms.’ Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires ALL states of this union to be bound by the “supreme Law” – of which 2A is a part.”
You have a mishmash of things, here. Might want to sort it out, and re-submit.
Eff Cody Lowy and all other civilian disarmament proponents.
The Gun Industry Industry, as above described, aught to be booted in the behind every time they show their ugly, silly faces anywhere near a courtroom.
The fact that young adults used guns in well-regulated revolutionary armies, as the Court noted, does not mean that 21-year-olds in 2022 have a Second Amendment right to purchase a semiautomatic weapon to use as they see fit.
— Jonathan Lowy
One of the more damned fool statements I’ve read from this crowd in a while. Here’s a news flash for ya, Johnny Boy – no one, regardless of age, has that right if their intent is to bring harm to another person, short of justifiable self-defense. But for any legal use, well, yeah, actually they do.
By the way, when last I looked, 18 year olds, even in California, could enlist in The Military, where they will have both exposure and access to all manner of small arms and other weaponry.