View Full Version : Repubs considering waiting period for 18- to 20-year-olds purchasing guns
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/us/five-things-june-7-trnd/index.html
Leading Republican senators involved in gun talks on Capitol Hill have signaled that it's unlikely Congress will raise the age requirement for purchasing semi-automatic firearms from 18 to 21, instead saying they are looking at changing the criminal background check system. GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina yesterday said officials are considering a waiting period of sorts for 18- to 20-year-olds purchasing semi-automatic guns, which he said could be "two to three weeks minimally" potentially to scour juvenile records. But he added Senate negotiators are looking at ways for gun purchasers to appeal for expedited processes. Separately, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- the Senate's most conservative Democrat -- voiced his support yesterday for raising the age to 21 for purchasing semi-automatic weapons and questioned why individuals need to own high-powered AR-15-style guns.
I agree, 18 year olds aren't responsible enough to buy/own an AR-15. They also aren't responsible to enlist in the military, or vote and those ages should be raised accordingly as well.
Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
I agree, 18 year olds aren't responsible enough to buy/own an AR-15. They also aren't responsible to enlist in the military, or vote and those ages should be raised accordingly as well.
Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
What about consent for sex?if a 21 YO taps a 18 YO? Statutory?
SomeOtherGuy
06-07-22, 08:22
I agree, 18 year olds aren't responsible enough to buy/own an AR-15. They also aren't responsible to enlist in the military, or vote and those ages should be raised accordingly as well.
How many votes would Dems lose if the voting age was raised to 21?
What if we add mandatory education, training, and vote-storage requirements too?
Asking for a friend.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/us/five-things-june-7-trnd/index.html
Leading Republican senators involved in gun talks on Capitol Hill have signaled that it's unlikely Congress will raise the age requirement for purchasing semi-automatic firearms from 18 to 21, instead saying they are looking at changing the criminal background check system. GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina yesterday said officials are considering a waiting period of sorts for 18- to 20-year-olds purchasing semi-automatic guns, which he said could be "two to three weeks minimally" potentially to scour juvenile records. But he added Senate negotiators are looking at ways for gun purchasers to appeal for expedited processes. Separately, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- the Senate's most conservative Democrat -- voiced his support yesterday for raising the age to 21 for purchasing semi-automatic weapons and questioned why individuals need to own high-powered AR-15-style guns.
I don't vote for any party that supports Gun Control. Proceed at your own peril Repubs.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/us/five-things-june-7-trnd/index.html
Leading Republican senators involved in gun talks on Capitol Hill have signaled that it's unlikely Congress will raise the age requirement for purchasing semi-automatic firearms from 18 to 21, instead saying they are looking at changing the criminal background check system. GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina yesterday said officials are considering a waiting period of sorts for 18- to 20-year-olds purchasing semi-automatic guns, which he said could be "two to three weeks minimally" potentially to scour juvenile records. But he added Senate negotiators are looking at ways for gun purchasers to appeal for expedited processes. Separately, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- the Senate's most conservative Democrat -- voiced his support yesterday for raising the age to 21 for purchasing semi-automatic weapons and questioned why individuals need to own high-powered AR-15-style guns.
LOL, yeah right. This is just smoke and mirrors to give the RINO cucks cover for voting against the Constitution, because this doesn't put money in their pockets. Manchin and Toomey are chomping at the bit to get their pet anti-gun legislation passed. We can all cheer Manchin when he's blocking Biden, but this isn't one of those cases. :(
How many votes would Dems lose if the voting age was raised to 21?
What if we add mandatory education, training, and vote-storage requirements too?
Asking for a friend.
^^^This, we should move everything up if 18 year olds are not old enough, if we give an age for one right in the constitution we need to give the same age to them all
Inkslinger
06-07-22, 11:09
If they really cared about kids, they would raise the age to use social media to 21.
If they really cared about kids, they would raise the age to use social media to 21.
Agreed. Someone in Colion Noir's comment section brought up a good point: They're going to try and sue DD for this kid having their rifle, but why not sue the government for them passing a background check.
teufelhund1918
06-07-22, 11:37
I agree, 18 year olds aren't responsible enough to buy/own an AR-15. They also aren't responsible to enlist in the military, or vote and those ages should be raised accordingly as well.
Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
"Them" say that, but then say that infants are mature enough to determine if they want a sex/gender change. Freakin' world is getting turned up side down.
teufelhund1918
06-07-22, 11:39
How many votes would Dems lose if the voting age was raised to 21?
What if we add mandatory education, training, and vote-storage requirements too?
Asking for a friend.
I seem to recall that at one point in history, you weren't allowed to vote unless you were a property owner. That would change some minds too I believe....
SomeOtherGuy
06-07-22, 11:50
I seem to recall that at one point in history, you weren't allowed to vote unless you were a property owner. That would change some minds too I believe....
Curiously enough, it was Democrats who most recently supported those requirements! As well as - um - historical literacy and fluency in English as requirements to vote.
But we don't talk about that. Pepperidge Farms remembers, but the DNC and news media don't.
A background check on an 18 year old in Illinois is virtually worthless. Juvenile arrest records are purged after one year. We don't fingerprint juveniles anymore. Unless they kill someone or commit a very high-level felony everything is wiped in one year.
Since we are using an arbitrary number for stuff, why not make 20 the official number for everything “adult”. Military, voting, tobacco, alcohol, driving, guns, legal age of consent, taxes, alien abductions etc. EVERYTHING.
How many votes would Dems lose if the voting age was raised to 21?
Which is why they have been floating the idea of lowering the voting age to 16
I’d trade 21 to buy a gun for 21 to vote all day long.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-07-22, 14:15
I'll give them points for 'creativity' and stretching 'something'.
If they really cared about kids, they would raise the age to use social media to 21.
We need to stop calling them mass shooters and start calling them "Anti-social Media Killers". Why did mass shootings start to rise supposedly in 2010? How about the rise of social media? The technology that changed wasn't guns, it was social media.
Agreed. Someone in Colion Noir's comment section brought up a good point: They're going to try and sue DD for this kid having their rifle, but why not sue the government for them passing a background check.
On the note above, how about suing the people that had foreknowledge of the attack and didn't do anything.
I get why they are trying this idea, you could see where it might work, but outside of the substantial Constitutional issues, there is the fact that the data isn't in there to stop these guys. Plus, what I see is a system where these buyers are subject to 'outing'. They'll call your school and work, maybe your family. Funny how you don't need that for an abortion?
The issue is that these sickest of the sick, like the Parkland killer- like the person in Buffalo and TX- we need to find them and treat them WAY before we have to do a 'goal-line defense' of keeping them from a gun. The same problem with 'Red Flag Laws' - you've now alerted someone with the capacity for mass murder that they are on your radar when you take their guns. And the person is the dangerous part, not the gun.
I get why they are trying this idea, you could see where it might work, but outside of the substantial Constitutional issues, there is the fact that the data isn't in there to stop these guys. Plus, what I see is a system where these buyers are subject to 'outing'. They'll call your school and work, maybe your family. Funny how you don't need that for an abortion?
The issue is that these sickest of the sick, like the Parkland killer- like the person in Buffalo and TX- we need to find them and treat them WAY before we have to do a 'goal-line defense' of keeping them from a gun. The same problem with 'Red Flag Laws' - you've now alerted someone with the capacity for mass murder that they are on your radar when you take their guns. And the person is the dangerous part, not the gun.
But this is why I carry, laws are only a deterrent not a prohibitive measure, if someone wants to do something horrible like this then its up to you to defend yourself, Texas has only emphasized that. The only way to stop a mass shooter is to put them down, or put them in a place where they kill themselves. We've got the data on this, but a law is easier to pass and makes people feel good, while won't really prevent this from happening again.
titsonritz
06-07-22, 14:51
OK, fine I'm good with with that as long as the same goes for voting and registration with Selective Service, with exception to 18-20 year old in LE and the military.
I seem to recall that at one point in history, you weren't allowed to vote unless you were a property owner. That would change some minds too I believe....
Make ownership of real property a requirement to own a firearm and I’m pretty sure most mass shootings magically go away. That’s hyperbole, but…is it? It doesn’t preclude someone stealing his mom’s gun, or upset teens’ their parents’. But it would eliminate a stack…
It would also have disparate impact, so racist.
OK, fine I'm good with with that as long as the same goes for voting and registration with Selective Service, with exception to 18-20 year old in LE and the military.
Nope! No exceptions! All or nothing! :mad:
I seem to recall that at one point in history, you weren't allowed to vote unless you were a property owner. That would change some minds too I believe....
With Black Rock and Gates buying up land left and right, you probably won't have to worry about that.
If we up the age of firearm ownership to 21, or just bump the age for everything to 21, I think the cons would greatly outweigh the pros.
These new laws would give young people an excuse to not grow up and extend responsibility out three more years at a minimum. You'd also be opening the door to allow freeloaders to get three more years worth of child tax credits for spitting out kids. On top of that, it wouldn't be long before new laws are passed requiring an additional three years of public "education". I don't know about you guys, but I think the last thing we need is kids getting three more years of brainwashing.
teufelhund1918
06-08-22, 05:09
With Black Rock and Gates buying up land left and right, you probably won't have to worry about that.
If we up the age of firearm ownership to 21, or just bump the age for everything to 21, I think the cons would greatly outweigh the pros.
These new laws would give young people an excuse to not grow up and extend responsibility out three more years at a minimum. You'd also be opening the door to allow freeloaders to get three more years worth of child tax credits for spitting out kids. On top of that, it wouldn't be long before new laws are passed requiring an additional three years of public "education". I don't know about you guys, but I think the last thing we need is kids getting three more years of brainwashing.
Opps, my post makes it seem like I was saying it was something good to do. It was more of a historical reflection on what use to be required to vote. Every legal, tax paying citizen of this country should have a vote and that should be an honest vote... good luck with that right???
That said, you hit the nail on the head with the one word>>> responsibility<<< That idea seems to be a bygone personal characteristic not taught or practiced at home or out in society.
The_War_Wagon
06-08-22, 07:09
I wanna know if the unelected popess of New Yawk is gonna raise the age of enlistment in the New Yawk state NG to 21. She looks & sounds that STOOOPID.
https://news.yahoo.com/matthew-mc-conaughey-makes-powerful-appeal-for-gun-control-at-white-house-192942920.html
Here comes Hollywood to weigh in, he was so popular he thought about running for Governor but it turns out he's not alright, not alright, not alright
SomeOtherGuy
06-08-22, 08:52
Here comes Hollywood to weigh in, he was so popular he thought about running for Governor but it turns out he's not alright, not alright, not alright
The fact that people in the US even give the time of day to Hollywood "actors" is pathetic and a sign of our decay.
Next time you hear someone mention what ABC actor says, reply "Oh, I should care about the stated views of someone who is paid to lie for a living, and has zero expertise in XYZ topic?"
The fact that people in the US even give the time of day to Hollywood "actors" is pathetic and a sign of our decay.
Next time you hear someone mention what ABC actor says, reply "Oh, I should care about the stated views of someone who is paid to lie for a living, and has zero expertise in XYZ topic?"
Unfortunately many hang on their every word. One could present decades in the making scientific study to these people and 99% of them wont even give it a first glance let alone a second, but if Harry Styles, Bad Bunny, or Olivia Rodrigo says one syllable... multiple tens of millions of Americans hold their breath waiting to listen. Just one of the many reasons our nation is dying.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/us/five-things-june-7-trnd/index.html
Leading Republican senators involved in gun talks on Capitol Hill have signaled that it's unlikely Congress will raise the age requirement for purchasing semi-automatic firearms from 18 to 21, instead saying they are looking at changing the criminal background check system. GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina yesterday said officials are considering a waiting period of sorts for 18- to 20-year-olds purchasing semi-automatic guns, which he said could be "two to three weeks minimally" potentially to scour juvenile records. But he added Senate negotiators are looking at ways for gun purchasers to appeal for expedited processes. Separately, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- the Senate's most conservative Democrat -- voiced his support yesterday for raising the age to 21 for purchasing semi-automatic weapons and questioned why individuals need to own high-powered AR-15-style guns.
How about this. Scour those records NOW and if there is somebody who is so damn dangerous they aren't eligible to purchase a firearm, put them into some kind of supervised facility because they are also going to be dangerous without a firearm.
I seem to recall that at one point in history, you weren't allowed to vote unless you were a property owner. That would change some minds too I believe....
That would have prevented me from voting for the first 30 years of my life as I worked hard to save up to buy a house. Would have also been the reason I would have never found a house because if owning property was a requirement to vote, people would have that privilege locked up and no ordinary person would have the means to buy a home.
This isn't 1850 where they were handing out land for free to homesteaders.
To think, when my Dad gave me a Luger in the 4th grade (and the ammo to go with it) and when I legally drank beer at 15 when I was in Germany...the entire world was on the brink of disaster.
I'm so glad that having access to a Luger and beer didn't make me kill everyone in my school. Pretty scary when you think about it. I also drove a car, man it's amazing anyone survived.
How in THE hell did we not shoot up every school campus when we had multiple shotguns and rifles in our vehicles during hunting season??
But yeah, OK, raise the age of EVERYTHING to 21.
Inkslinger
06-08-22, 13:51
How in THE hell did we not shoot up every school campus when we had multiple shotguns and rifles in our vehicles during hunting season??
But yeah, OK, raise the age of EVERYTHING to 21.
People are different today. We as children/young adults were way different then our great grandparents at the same age. Nature and nurture and all that jazz. My only hope is that we don’t have future generations follow this downward trend.
How in THE hell did we not shoot up every school campus when we had multiple shotguns and rifles in our vehicles during hunting season??
But yeah, OK, raise the age of EVERYTHING to 21.
We didn’t have facebook, twitter and all the BS that comes with them.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-08-22, 15:51
How about this. Scour those records NOW and if there is somebody who is so damn dangerous they aren't eligible to purchase a firearm, put them into some kind of supervised facility because they are also going to be dangerous without a firearm.
I’ll see your idea on that, and raise you to actually looking at 12 to 16-year-olds with disturbing behaviors before they get to the brink of being a mass killer. Doing these goal line stands of trying to keep a fully delusional person from shooting up a school is not as good as intervening and fixing the kids earlier. For some reason we have plenty of money to find out if they’re queer.
We didn’t have facebook, twitter and all the BS that comes with them.
These are not active shooters, or school shooters, they are anti-social media killers. It is amazing how the focus is on the guns, but no interest really on the media platforms where people actually know that these things are going to happen.
And don’t get me started on the absolute lack of discussion of this guy‘s family life.
Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens. They are so stupid.
PB
Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens. They are so stupid.
Yeah, in theory.....:rolleyes:
My only hope is that we don’t have future generations follow this downward trend.
I couldn't possibly begin to describe how, but I suspect it will just get "progressively" worse.
In the 20th century we've only walked it back twice in terms of majority population. Following prohibition gangsters, people cheering bank robbers and cop killers and practicing socialism to the point where we were medically sterilizing "undesirables" somehow those completely worthless f's gave rise to the greatest generation. Sure there were problems then too, FDR decided it was ok to make "Jap camps", useless whores wrote "Dear John" letters to guys serving in some of the worst places in the world because they were "lonely" and people back at home were crying about ration cards and shit like that. But most people stood up and did more than what was ever required of them.
Then somehow we made it through the commie 60s and the self absorbed 70s and actually straightened the country out for almost 6 full years, it was a short window but it was nice. Nothing perfect there either, religious fundamentalists took the conservative movement as justification to worry about nonsense like Playboys in full view at 7-11 and even got them removed for a time, this and other idiocy of course led to a backlash of liberalism that eventually gave us Bill Clinton.
We had a Trump opportunity, but rather than do anything meaningful with it, most GOP members instead jumped on the "Stop Trump" bandwagon. Trump gave us some balance in the Supreme Court but didn't accomplish much more other than stroking out people on Twitter.
I couldn't possibly begin to describe how, but I suspect it will just get "progressively" worse.
In the 20th century we've only walked it back twice in terms of majority population.
While the keep front is depressing the bear front is reason for optimism?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to_Carry%2C_timeline.gif
I’d trade 21 to buy a gun for 21 to vote all day long.
Don’t forget ID requirement equity.
While the keep front is depressing the bear front is reason for optimism?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to_Carry%2C_timeline.gif
True. One of the few areas we have been making progress. With all of the goblins running the street more than a few Dems even have CWPs.
Was always bizarre to me when I'd meet someone at the school board, back when I worked for them, with a CWP who actually carried because they worried about the high crime environment of Ft Lauderdale after dark and then every 4 years would vote for the people mostly likely to restrict their right to do so.
And they ALL said they same thing "But when they talk about gun control, they don't mean ME." Usually I didn't even bother, but when I did, it was "No Dorothy...they mean YOU also." Gun control has never been about getting guns away from criminals. That would be too easy, just keep the criminals in jail.
I knew a smaller group who had CWPs and still voted D, and when pressed they said "Yeah, but Republicans want to take away the other half of my rights." And honestly they were usually right.
For a long time it's been Vote A to retain these rights or Vote B to retain these rights. Party A represents half of your beliefs, Party B represents the other half.
P2Vaircrewman
06-09-22, 09:42
Y'all remember this.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/appeals-court-dealers-sell-handguns-18-year-olds-78826920
BoringGuy45
06-09-22, 10:10
Y'all remember this.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/appeals-court-dealers-sell-handguns-18-year-olds-78826920
If they were to actually pass a law that raises the age to buy a semiautomatic rifle to 21 and the SCOTUS were to overturn it and cite this case, that would, in effect, strike down all "assault weapons" bans. They would rule that it is an 18 to 20 year person's right to purchase and own a semiauto rifle, and thus, semiautomatic rifles, logically, are protected under the 2nd Amendment.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-09-22, 10:42
If they were to actually pass a law that raises the age to buy a semiautomatic rifle to 21 and the SCOTUS were to overturn it and cite this case, that would, in effect, strike down all "assault weapons" bans. They would rule that it is an 18 to 20 year person's right to purchase and own a semiauto rifle, and thus, semiautomatic rifles, logically, are protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Exactly. A federal 21yo limit would take it straight to the SCOTUS. The problem is that having been in place for 50 years, the 21yo limit for handguns hasn’t really ever been a major talking point among gun-rights groups. Maybe because they never thought it would be on the table for legislation or something that we can get court cases won on. (What law firm got this win?).
Because of that, SCOTUS might take view that since it has held for so long and there were no real complaints about it, and even Scalia (in dicta) said that there are restrictions that are acceptable (I’d like to throttle the law clerk that either added that or didn’t get it squashed), that limiting SAs to over 21 is kosher.
Not saying that is right, just saying that Roberts would try to push that and try to get even the lefties on-board. Now, whether or not is 18 or 21, would any decision validate a right to the firearms, I don’t know? Either way, I know if the tables were turned, the left would use the opportunity to sanctify it. Roberts is all about incrementalism, until you get something like Gay Marriage, when they went full retard in one fell swoop.
Per the commies at Yahoo news.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/sen-chris-murphy-says-raising-134555506.html
From the article:
"Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut confirmed to CNN on Thursday morning that raising the federal age to purchase AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles to 21 is off the table in Senate gun-control talks."
"I think that we can put together a package that will get more than 10 Republican votes, and the reason for that is the demand from their constituents," Murphy said. "I've never been part of a negotiation that was this serious."
But the Connecticut Senator hedged his optimism.
"I still think there are more paths to failure than there are to success," Murphy said."
Keep the pressure on these rats and let your reps know where you stand.
Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
06-09-22, 11:12
Exactly. A federal 21yo limit would take it straight to the SCOTUS. The problem is that having been in place for 50 years, the 21yo limit for handguns hasn’t really ever been a major talking point among gun-rights groups. Maybe because they never thought it would be on the table for legislation or something that we can get court cases won on. (What law firm got this win?).
Because of that, SCOTUS might take view that since it has held for so long and there were no real complaints about it, and even Scalia (in dicta) said that there are restrictions that are acceptable (I’d like to throttle the law clerk that either added that or didn’t get it squashed), that limiting SAs to over 21 is kosher.
Not saying that is right, just saying that Roberts would try to push that and try to get even the lefties on-board. Now, whether or not is 18 or 21, would any decision validate a right to the firearms, I don’t know? Either way, I know if the tables were turned, the left would use the opportunity to sanctify it. Roberts is all about incrementalism, until you get something like Gay Marriage, when they went full retard in one fell swoop.
That is a legit concern. However, because there is now a case that ruled this restriction as unconstitutional, I think it would be harder to fall back on the idea that "nobody had a problem with it for years, so it must be okay."
I too, obviously, take issue with Scalia's wording that 2A is not "unlimited." I suppose he meant that, in the way that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect religions that practice human sacrifice, or speech such as libel or fraud, the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the right to behave dangerously with one's weapons. But, of course, the left has taken "not unlimited" to mean "we can limit it to almost non-existence."
teufelhund1918
06-09-22, 11:15
This is just another sign of the times. You don't want kids to have guns, but it is ok for them to get inside a ring and pound the hell out of themselves. And yes, I think that MMA is completely different from other types of martial arts. Teach them violence like this and you'll have violent kids:
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2022/06/08/the-rise-of-youth-cage-fighting/
My only hope is that we don’t have future generations follow this downward trend.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
I'm a twenty-something and most of the people around my age are useless idiots, so much so that I find it difficult to find quality people to associate with in my range. I've kept track of people I went to school with and its surprising to see how poorly most are doing, even ones with somewhat useful degrees just do not seem to have the motivation to do, well... anything. I have FB and a few other social media accounts that I mainly use to just see what people are up to, which is to cry and complain constantly about pretty much anything, then whine when they don't get what they want out of life. Most also seem to make babies they cannot afford while in unstable and even destructive relationships.
Last year I was reading an update from someone I once thought might actually go places in life, after school he got in to a pretty good company but has been BMWing about all the hours he has to work as a junior, to which I said I had to work grunt jobs to get where I am, so suck it up and press on. I recently found out he quit what would have one day become a lucrative career, he quickly lost his place, had to move in with mommy & daddy and start doing Uber & food delivery. Now he says he wants to create a YouTube channel and "get rich" sitting in front of a computer, to which I said "Yea you and 50+ million others".
I earned a degree, worked my butt off to get through a flight school, then spent years flying the crappiest low paying jobs I could get just to build flight hours. It was so low paying that I always had to have roommates and work extra jobs just to afford a place to live while building time, but it paid off as I'm now in my 2nd year flying EMS in a AW109, my dream job. Meanwhile many of my peers are still working dead end jobs and scratching their heads wondering why.
This is just another sign of the times. You don't want kids to have guns, but it is ok for them to get inside a ring and pound the hell out of themselves. And yes, I think that MMA is completely different from other types of martial arts. Teach them violence like this and you'll have violent kids:
I don't have a problem with it, at least they are learning fitness, discipline, skills, respect, etc.
Much better than learning that boys can be girls and girls can be boys.
I don't have a problem with it, at least they are learning fitness, discipline, skills, respect, etc.
Much better than learning that boys can be girls and girls can be boys.
How is beating someone into submission teaching respect. Learning self defense skills doesn't require blooding your opponent, fitness can be had in many other ways. But then I think beating people for prize money is bad, so what do I know.
If they were to actually pass a law that raises the age to buy a semiautomatic rifle to 21 and the SCOTUS were to overturn it and cite this case, that would, in effect, strike down all "assault weapons" bans. They would rule that it is an 18 to 20 year person's right to purchase and own a semiauto rifle, and thus, semiautomatic rifles, logically, are protected under the 2nd Amendment.
You said "logically" which is a fatal flaw. Law has nothing to do with logic.
This is just another sign of the times. You don't want kids to have guns, but it is ok for them to get inside a ring and pound the hell out of themselves. And yes, I think that MMA is completely different from other types of martial arts. Teach them violence like this and you'll have violent kids:
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2022/06/08/the-rise-of-youth-cage-fighting/
Don't forget video games, and rap and Beavis and Butthead.
There is a better argument that hunting (because you learn to actually KILL living things) contributes to this kind of behavior more than anything. But I doubt anyone here is gonna buy that one.
Much like MMA, rap music and hunting, there are normal people who can watch MMA, listen to rap and go deer hunting without becoming violent sociopaths and that is because they aren't violent sociopaths. But if you are a violent sociopath you might be attracted to MMA, violent video games, rap lyrics espousing violence and hunting because it appeals to shitbags who are murderers.
Quit blaming "things" for the actions of "people."
How is beating someone into submission teaching respect. Learning self defense skills doesn't require blooding your opponent, fitness can be had in many other ways. But then I think beating people for prize money is bad, so what do I know.
Most people who practice mixed martial arts practice for the sake of mixed martial arts and never get near prize money or championship fights. I've been blooded more than a few times, to get a black belt in the old Kodokan style of Judo you had to be choked out at least once (this is so you understand what it does and how to correctly apply it). I have been force submitted more than a few times by people who were simply better than me. It taught me to train harder.
Now I have zero interest, even if I was still anywhere near peak condition, in participating the UFCs, K1s or Sabaaki challenges for two reasons. First I train to improve myself, not to prove anything to anyone else and two the risk potential for serious / permanent injury is just too high and without any benefit that means anything to me. I'd rather work for a living to pay the mortgage.
But even MMA at that level is really no different from people who play professional football or other serious contact sports for monetary reward and will do anything to anyone to make more money and increase their fame. I have little or no respect for any of them, but I don't think the NFL is creating school shooters either. It's just something of an asshole magnet.
Inkslinger
06-09-22, 18:12
Don't forget video games, and rap and Beavis and Butthead.
There is a better argument that hunting (because you learn to actually KILL living things) contributes to this kind of behavior more than anything. But I doubt anyone here is gonna buy that one.
Much like MMA, rap music and hunting, there are normal people who can watch MMA, listen to rap and go deer hunting without becoming violent sociopaths and that is because they aren't violent sociopaths. But if you are a violent sociopath you might be attracted to MMA, violent video games, rap lyrics espousing violence and hunting because it appeals to shitbags who are murderers.
Quit blaming "things" for the actions of "people."
I do think rap music plays a big role in the actions of inner city youth. They emulate it to build their resume for their future aspirations of being a rapper. You get out of the cities, then yeah not going to have a big effect. I started listening to hip hop in the 80’s and I have yet to bust a cap in someone or sling a rock. That can’t be said as easily for all the kids stuck in the hood today…
Most people who practice mixed martial arts practice for the sake of mixed martial arts and never get near prize money or championship fights. I've been blooded more than a few times, to get a black belt in the old Kodokan style of Judo you had to be choked out at least once (this is so you understand what it does and how to correctly apply it). I have been force submitted more than a few times by people who were simply better than me. It taught me to train harder.
Now I have zero interest, even if I was still anywhere near peak condition, in participating the UFCs, K1s or Sabaaki challenges for two reasons. First I train to improve myself, not to prove anything to anyone else and two the risk potential for serious / permanent injury is just too high and without any benefit that means anything to me. I'd rather work for a living to pay the mortgage.
But even MMA at that level is really no different from people who play professional football or other serious contact sports for monetary reward and will do anything to anyone to make more money and increase their fame. I have little or no respect for any of them, but I don't think the NFL is creating school shooters either. It's just something of an asshole magnet.
I don't have a strong view against the physicality of any martial art. My understanding of it, is that injury is incidental and not purposed, the same with football. Even the idea of trying to get your opponent to submit is only a temporary exercise without malice. I shoot guns in competition, there is always a chance of injury. As an RO I've had loaded guns pointed at me when someone has lost control in a stage. Because of the principles I try to uphold, beating and/or purposely trying to hurt someone, which even a kid is trying to do when he's pummeling some other kid, isn't a good thing.
I do think rap music plays a big role in the actions of inner city youth. They emulate it to build their resume for their future aspirations of being a rapper. You get out of the cities, then yeah not going to have a big effect. I started listening to hip hop in the 80’s and I have yet to bust a cap in someone or sling a rock. That can’t be said as easily for all the kids stuck in the hood today…
I think if you 100% removed rap music, those kids would still be gang banger f ups. Christ NY had massive street gang problems in the 70s and they had to listen to the bee gees.
All rap music did, was allow a very small talent pool of kids who would otherwise be bangers to make records instead. And not not rap is gangsta rap, Run DMC and several other groups actually put very positive messages in their music, of course that didn't appeal to the shit bags quite as much as NWA, Ice T and the like.
I've only been aware of a single incident where music actually influenced crime. There was a discount store in a bad part of Ft. Lauderdale and the owner was completely frustrated with the drug dealers who would congregate in front of his store, drive away business and then steal from him whenever he wasn't looking.
So he began to play Barry Manilow on the store speaker system as loud as he was able. The drug dealers eventually moved on, unable to endure songs like Mandy.
I don't have a strong view against the physicality of any martial art. My understanding of it, is that injury is incidental and not purposed, the same with football. Even the idea of trying to get your opponent to submit is only a temporary exercise without malice. I shoot guns in competition, there is always a chance of injury. As an RO I've had loaded guns pointed at me when someone has lost control in a stage. Because of the principles I try to uphold, beating and/or purposely trying to hurt someone, which even a kid is trying to do when he's pummeling some other kid, isn't a good thing.
It can sometimes be a fine line distinction.
I had a teacher who if you got knocked down and were not back on your feet within 10 seconds would tell your opponent to "hit him again." The object lesson being "get your ass back in the fight or be at the mercy of the person who just hurt you." Not everyone would endorse that kind of training, few parents would allow their children to participate and many would be horrified to see it. But we understood. Want to win? Train harder, be able to take more hits than everyone else, stay in the game and the resulting mindset, mindset, mindset.
Other teachers told us this isn't a tournament, this is real life. Second place usually dies in the real world.
Another teacher stressed a level of unrestricted violence and potential for power that would allow us to bring most confrontations to an instantaneous conclusion. Then he added, sometimes you don't have to do anymore, a man who understands that he has completely lost (mentally, physically and psychologically) doesn't need to be harmed again and sometimes you have to do far less damage than if you drag it out. You can also get hurt dragging out of fight rather than bringing it to an immediate and violent conclusion.
When I teach, I stress that a fighter needs three skills.
1. The ability to hurt someone without any regard for that person and keep fighting.
2. The ability to get hurt, without getting emotionally involved and keep fighting.
3. The developed skills to do all of the above and refined above the level of most people who might wish to fight.
Most of our teachers were fine with any of us getting hurt, so long as nobody inflicted any kind of serious or permanent injury. It was all still controlled at some level or there would have been regular, very serious injuries all the time. I remember getting hit so damn hard one time that the shock of the pain really wasn't even there anymore, I was kind of marveling at how something could hurt so goddamn bad and still be kinda of funny at the same time. And then I heard my teacher count "6" and I knew I had four seconds left to get my shit together and get back on my feet. I did, but it was still a long day.
I put myself through these things not for money or tv spots, but to master something I seemed to have a talent for (because it certainly wasn't football where my natural abilities lie) and because I was soon able to do things that almost nobody else I knew could do and I didn't think I'd ever be able to do them. There were of course always people who were senior to me who had even greater skills but just concerned myself with myself.
Maybe that explains why some people train like they do, to an outsider it can seem unnecessarily brutal and without benefit. And even I have seen that, but that holds almost no interest or appeal to me.
ETA: I did miss the "without malice" part of your reply and I completely agree. With all my teachers, with all of my fellow students, actual "malice" was never tolerated. Lots of people got forever excused from training because they harbored an actual "malice" towards other students, that kind of thing is reserved for the bad people.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/us/five-things-june-7-trnd/index.html
Leading Republican senators involved in gun talks on Capitol Hill have signaled that it's unlikely Congress will raise the age requirement for purchasing semi-automatic firearms from 18 to 21, instead saying they are looking at changing the criminal background check system. GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina yesterday said officials are considering a waiting period of sorts for 18- to 20-year-olds purchasing semi-automatic guns, which he said could be "two to three weeks minimally" potentially to scour juvenile records. But he added Senate negotiators are looking at ways for gun purchasers to appeal for expedited processes. Separately, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- the Senate's most conservative Democrat -- voiced his support yesterday for raising the age to 21 for purchasing semi-automatic weapons and questioned why individuals need to own high-powered AR-15-style guns.
As so many parents don't seem too interested in parenting these days, I do get the knee jerk idea that perhaps teens buying firearms is not the best idea. However, when that has no impact on total # of events say, and the shooters either get their guns some other route, and or, are 22 and up, then what? We all know the answer, and it ends with more restrictions on Const Rights and nadda or impact on crime.
Gotta be honest, raising the voting age to 21 does not bother me. When many teens can't find the US on a world map today and deciding the leader of the free world, that's a problem. We can't do much about those over 21 who can't find the US on a world map, but one problem at a time...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.