They have them as police and military as early as 16. Early education and exposure, at a proper age to be determined by the individuals capacity and responsabiliy, is paramount to gun safety.

@jayneonacobb I understand that there is proposed legislation to raise the age for purchase of an AR-15 to 21 years of age. I have no problem with that or of those under that age shooting one under complete supervision of the police.

@cava police aren't competent. They don't even require a degree to become one. You would face palm your self to death if you saw some of the ways I've seen many cops handle firearms. My 10 year old niece handles firearms better than most cops that I've met.

@Crimson67 maybe in your state, but here with parental consent you can go to basic training at 16, my friend did. It's called special dispensation. Jrotc starts much younger than that. Police academies can start at age 16. You don't know anything about how the military or police work.

@Crimson67 thank you for your service. he enlisted at 16 and entered into basic at 17. Your terminology is accurate. There are jr police programs that start at 16. Blanks or not they have access to guns. They learn how to handle them redponsibly. You misunderstand my point, but you made it quite well for me. Thanks.

The bill of rights might be amendable, but the rights expressed there in are not. Just because a law is passed and enforced doesn't make it legal.

@jayneonacobb You are right. You don't have to follow the laws. So the whole Constitution thing is a sham. We don't need government. Let's be more like Somalia! Warlords forever!

@jeffy thats not what i said at all. There was a govenor in ohio I believe who mandated certain mudflaps to be used in his state. His brother was the only one who made them. That law was enforced. It was found to be an illegal law and as such was stricken from the books. You're always so flippant.

@jayneonacobb So your argument is natural law takes precedent over the Constitution and it is your determination the founding fathers ignored this?

@jeffy you apparently didn't read the example I provided above. My position is rights are not granted by the bill of rights, they are expressed in the bill of rights. You can not alienate or abridge any right recognized in the bill of rights.

@jayneonacobb Rights are a legal commodity. A precedence is necessary. This is fundamental conservative principle. Even Sovereign Citizens defer to Natural Law.

@jeffy so comodities are inherently bad?

@jayneonacobb No, the point is your statement, "Just because a law is passed and enforced doesn't make it legal." lacks precedence and therefore is specious.

@jeffy what? I just gave you a real example of how passing and enforcing a law can be illegal. Your dismissal of my example is just you sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala, I can't hear you!"

@jayneonacobb You were using that argument to justify a claim that any regulation of firearms as allowed by the Second Amendment would be illegal. That's funny, because the reverse of that situation is happening with the regulation of guns - a corrupt government is not taking effective action to control unnecessary death and injury due to a profit motive, just as in your example.

@jeffy or is this violence a result of poorly enforced mental health laws? I prefer to give credit where it is due. Inanimate objects don't have agency, people do.

@jayneonacobb Doesn't matter - the government does nothing or superficial things because they are paid off. Corruption is and corruption does. The majority want something done. Other countries have taken necessary actions and no one is the worse off for it.

@jeffy how does that not matter? If guns don't have agency, they can't kill people. People kill people using tools. Any thing used to assault or kill someone is a weapon. If you get stabbed with a pencil it's still assault. Ban doctors if you're worried about what kills people frequently despite having a positive application. See, it's a stupid idea, gun control.

@jayneonacobb That's a silly argument - people can't have agency for mass killings without guns because explosives are illegal making that unlikely. The only rational action is to prevent mass killings is to restrict the availability of rapid fire weapons with high capacity magazines. There is no argument for self protection - a shotgun will do just as well as an AR with less chance of collateral damage from errant shots. There is also a necessity for better background checks, and truthful nationwide statics on gun use and misuse to actually understand what is going on factually. The problem is, these things will be bad for business, so nothing gets adopted.

@jeffy I'm done with you. You clearly don't value facts.

Thank you for your service. I'm calling out actual gun grabbers here, no one else.

You don't live in a democracy. You live in a constitutional republic. Yes, the bill of rights has and can be changed. The rights contained there in can not be alienated or abridged. The militia is defined as any one eligible for service. The other two definitions are an armed force who support a military force. A military is comprised of professional, meaning paid soldiers. Like you were and my friends in the guard/reserves are. The second amendment was created by people who were opposing what they thought to be a tyrannical government. They were specifically arming citizens and an army with military grade weapons of the time. Are you afraid that an AR is going to load it's self and go on its own killing spree? No? So then why are you afraid of them doing that. You know that an M-40 will do far more damage than an M-4. You should, those are both weapons of the Marine Corps. I never said anything about arming teachers. Your feelings on the atrocities that have occurred is not relevant to the facts. We all feel bad for those victims and their families. Some of us don't let it keep us from being objective about the gun control debate. Guns stop crimes 80 times more often than they are used to commit them. That's a factor of 80, not a percentage. That's about 2.5 million times a gun was used in the US to stop crimes and save lives. A vast majority of those firearms are privately owned.

As far as the don't like it, move comment. Most of the people I've heard pushing for gun control have also been people who once claimed that if Trump won they would move to Canada.

The NRA still lobbies for a right recognized in the bill of rights as inalienable and unabridgable rights.

@jayneonacobb "Guns stop crimes 80 times more often than they are used to commit them. " Cite please.

@ScottAHurst www.fbi.gov their 2016 crime report.

@jayneonacobb In that case, it isn't true. I cite Google.

Dude, try harder than that.

@ScottAHurst why is the data that all gun control arguments are based on not true in your opinion? Where do you think your facts and figures come from? They come from crime reports. Are you saying that the FBI is not a reliable source of crime statistics?

@jayneonacobb Did you go to school on the fucking short bus? I know I don't have to be mean about this, but damn man.

That "www.fbi.gov their 2016 crime report." is not a "cite", is the point. Where in that crime report did you find that information? Where is the "2016 Crime Report"? As far as I know, no such document even exists as such. I am aware of their crime reporting database has 2016 data in it, but that doesn't really qualify as "crime report."

When you were in school did your footnotes merely read "Encyclopedia Britannica" and nothing further? FFS.

Your performance in argument is so bad that it makes me suspect it is deliberate (that is you might be trolling). If you don't start showing some effort, you'll soon be the first person I put on the block list.

@ScottAHurst the data is reported and stored in the data base. A citation requires listing the source of the material. In 2016 the FBI released their data regarding crime to the public per US law. Providing a link isn't required to cite a source. I supplied the website and the category in which you will find the data that I am referring to you have the internet, you can do your own research. I find doing research for my self is a valuable learning experience.

How do you think the middle East is doing so well that they made a war almost old enough to vote? They pretty much rely on small arms and improvised explosive devices. They are less armed than the American people are. I'm in no way advocating any violence here, I'm just pointing out a fact. The japanese never attempted a ground assault on US soil because "behind every blade of grass there is a rifle."

@sticks48 The purpose of the second amendment is for the citizens to have the ability to protect their rights against tyranny. That includes our own government. Why should the government be allowed to control guns in the hands of private citizens if the purpose of the amendment is to oppose the government, if the need arises? It's like saying that only the home team is allowed to touch the ball.

@jayneonacobb

@Sticks48 was there a response you wanted to make, or are you just not able to read mine? Sometimes they don't show up for a few minutes after the notification.

@jayneonacobb Exactly where is it written in the Constitution the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for armed revolution against the government?

@jeffy it is written in the federalist papers, by the men who wrote the document in question. Also context clues from why and how the bill of rights was written tell us a great deal about their meaning. The focus was very militaristic which is exemplified in the nature of the document. Those are rights because they are what allowed our founders to escape tyranny. As such they are recognized as the right of the citizens, we the people, in order to fight the threat of tyranny from all threats, both foreign and domestic. That includes militaries.

That's a liberally biased source with only a few stats that were cherry picked to support only one side. Here's some facts about both sides. You'll find that guns aren't the real problem here. It's the broken system as a whole. [dailycaller.com]

@jayneonacobb Yours is one sided website, the Daily Caller, really? Your side lost the right to be taken seriously when it began to defend guns over Americans, and kids no less. I didn't hear any sincere condolences just jumped right to the defense of guns.

@Ktcyan you didn't hear any condolences because this isn't a debate about who feels worse about what. You're conflating the issues. This is a debate on gun control. I don't include my feelings in any matter that effects anyone other than myself. That way I can remain objective in my interpretation of the data. Your feelings are negating your objectivity on this matter if you're basing your argument off of them.

Have you seriously considered all the data? If not you are ill prepared for the debate. I bet I can argue your side better than you because I learned all of the arguments supporting your position. Can you say the same? If not are you really engaging rationally and objectively?

You provided one site, I provided one with more data that is relevant to the debate. You can look up the facts on your own, I'm not going to try to link every website talking about this here. That would be impossible. Guns stop crimes more than they are used in commiting crimes by a factor of 80. That's 80 times more often. Knives, hammers and medical malpractice all individually account for more deaths every year than guns. The steak knife has long been the assault weapon of choice for Americans commiting assault. The fact is that guns in the hands of citizens have proven to be advantageous more often than they have been detrimental.

What's "reasonable"? As far as I can tell it is a subjective term.

@jayneonacobb It may seem subjective, but it is actually a legal term, as in 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

@pnullifidian you can't use the word in its defintion, well, by definition.

@jayneonacobb I understand what you're saying, and can agree to a point, but the fact remains 'reasonable' is a legal term used every day, and requires a judgement with which one may or may not agree. When a court finds that the police officer used 'reasonable force in gaining entry,' it's a judgement that may be open to dispute, but a judgement nonetheless.

@pnullifidian and therefore it is subjective to the judges interpretation what he considers to be reasonable given the situation which caused the use of force in this case. It may seem unreasonable within the confines of the same laws by a different judge and their interpretation of what is reasonable force.

@jayneonacobb Agreed, and every now and again, a case winds its way through the appeals process until it is considered by the Supreme Court--the law of the land. After that many decades, even centuries, may pass before the precedent is reconsidered. In a very real sense, having been made by fallible human beings, all laws and rulings are subjective--even our beloved Constitution.

@pnullifidian and every judge is human and therefore falliable, calling into question the validity of their ruling, adinfinium.

@jayneonacobb And so, although I might not choose the term 'valid,' we more or less agree. Executive orders, legislation and judicial rulings are, by their nature, the product of imperfect human beings, and we should always be free to call them into question. Let us attempt to do so in a thoughtful and reasonable manner. Assuming that we agree that there's a problem in this country, and that ignoring or accepting it is not an option, what might you recommend as a solution to mass shootings, or, more broadly, for the 15,000 deaths per year from gun violence?

@pnullifidian 80 times more often guns were used to stop crimes compared to crimes using a gun according to the data released by the FBI in 2016. Gun control isn't the answer here. Education is.

Im glad that you value your rights. Cops are pretty much useless in the matter of defense unless they happen to be there at that exact moment they are required, which is rare. I think if people want to strip me of my American rights, they have no right to be an American. All those trump haters, I'm no fan but I don't hate him, kept saying that if he won they would move. I support that.

I've explained this, look up the definition of militia, then look up the original militia laws. You obviously are arguing from your feelings and leftist propaganda.

Go read the constitution.

Yeah, I'll just mark that down as a Fail. You sound just like the Christian zealots "go read the bible", so cocksure about your dogma but you don't know what you're talking about. here's your opportunity - I am opening myself up to embarrassment if you can back up your assertion with a citation from the constitution or case law precedent.

Yeah, that is the most ignorant shit I've read in a while.

Anyone with a high school diploma should know better. This restriction on the amending process is complete fantasy.

Auto correct. No, you're the America haters who don't support peoples basic human rights you move if you hate it here so much. Your Liberal feelings don't matter against the facts.

I think the most irresponsible groups of people with weapons are governments, given the fact that so does everyone else given the data.

The definition of a militia is an armed citizenry. Technically, by old laws that still exist every person eligeable for the draft or voluntary service is a member of the militia. Thusly granting them, the people, access to arms. Arms means all weapons and armaments.

The founding fathers knew weapons technology would advance. They heard of mythical weapons of immense power from religion and other fiction. They could easily comprehend wielding the power of 1000 Sun's.

The bill of rights was established expressly to limit government. You can not remove an amendment unless it conflicts with a pre-existing one. As was the case with the 21st and 18TH amendments.

The bill of rights aknowldeges certain human rights. It does not grant them. A right is an inalienable and unabridgable need of a person.

I agree, just not about them being attacked. I know you're joking, I'm just not a person who has violence on my mind. There's enough of that in the world for me. I'm no pacifist though. Dont get me wrong, I just know what it's like to be shot and stabbed and beat up.

I'm not saying all liberals are gun grabbers, but all gun grabbers are liberals.

The bill of rights expressly exists to limit governmental power. Why the fuck would they be allowed to change it?