Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: California violated the Second Amendment with semiautomatic rifle age restriction, court finds Read [View all]maxsolomon
(37,454 posts)35. No one's taking anyone's guns in either of our lifetimes.
There has been no "gun grabbing", despite the anguished fantasies of SOME gun CONTROL advocates. All efforts, even modest ones, at CONTROLLING rampant gun violence in this nation have failed utterly, and you know it. gun laws are only being liberalized.
You should realize when your side has won. Gloating is a bad look.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

California violated the Second Amendment with semiautomatic rifle age restriction, court finds Read [View all]
ripcord
May 2022
OP
So we don't think they're responsible enough to drink alcohol at 18, but a deadly weapon, no problem
onecaliberal
May 2022
#3
Well, they're considered to be responsible enough to join the military at 18. n/t
OnlinePoker
May 2022
#6
This is an interesting question. I know you can join at 17 (as were some of my West Point
24601
May 2022
#40
2nd amendment protected individual rights to own what was essentially the accepted state-or-the-art
24601
May 2022
#42
Also at that time 13 year old girls were getting married to much older men.
SmittyWerben
May 2022
#7
Why can't semi-automatic and other high assault weapons be banned. That bars no one from owning
Samrob
May 2022
#9
Dred Scott was 7-2 which proves a super majority court is not always right either.
cstanleytech
May 2022
#45
Firearms training and the requirement to securely store all firearms away when not on your person.
cstanleytech
May 2022
#25
Yup but it could be argued that any such age limitations imposed upon a person
cstanleytech
May 2022
#44
Well, it sorta is, cause prohibition was done by constitutional amendment ...
Hugh_Lebowski
May 2022
#47
stupid repug judges. they may also bring us back to a time when children under 10 could be married
samsingh
May 2022
#31
Clearly this is a prelude to overturning state AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions.
J_William_Ryan
May 2022
#49