Democrats are growing more radical than ever. What they just announced proves it.
Because U.S. Senate Democrats have revealed an absolutely moronic bill to rewrite the constitution.
U.S. Senate Democrats Introduce Bill To Limit Second Amendment Rights
A new bill introduced by Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and 18 other Senate colleagues, predominantly Democrats, aims to increase the minimum age for purchasing so-called ‘assault-style’ weapons from 18 to 21. The legislation, dubbed the Age 21 Act, seeks to restrict access to these firearms for younger individuals in an effort to curb gun violence. However, this bill raises significant questions about its potential effectiveness and the implications for Second Amendment rights in America.
The bill comes amid ongoing debates about the regulation of firearms and public safety. If passed, it would align federal law with existing regulations on handgun purchases, which currently require buyers to be at least 21 years old. Supporters of the bill argue that restricting access to ‘assault-style’ weapons for young buyers is a necessary step to reduce gun violence, a sentiment echoed by Senator Kaine himself. “Everyone in America should be able to live free from the fear of injury or death caused by a firearm,” he said in a statement. “One of many commonsense steps we can take to reduce that risk is limiting young people’s access to assault weapons—just like we already limit their access to handguns.”
While Kaine and his supporters paint this bill as a common-sense measure, it is worth considering whether the approach will actually address the root causes of gun violence. In theory, the law would close what many see as a dangerous loophole, restricting young adults from purchasing “assault weapons.” However, the bill does not address the real, more pressing issue of the mental health crisis that many experts believe plays a significant role in gun violence. Additionally, even if this bill were to pass, there is no guarantee that it would lead to meaningful reductions in violent incidents, especially considering that many of the most notorious mass shootings in recent years have been carried out by individuals under 21 using legally purchased assault rifles.
Supporters of the bill argue that individuals under 21 are more likely to commit violent acts, pointing to high-profile mass shootings in Buffalo, Uvalde, and Parkland, all of which involved 18-year-old shooters using legally purchased assault rifles. Alexa Browning, Policy Manager at March For Our Lives, said, “Six of the deadliest mass shootings since 2018 were committed by individuals 21 and under. The Age 21 Act could have saved lives then, and will continue to do so if passed into law.” While these statistics certainly make a compelling case for restricting access to firearms, they do not fully account for the complexities of gun violence. The fact remains that violent acts are often fueled by deeper social and mental health issues, which this bill does not address.
Moreover, research from organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety suggests that mass shootings involving assault weapons result in more casualties than those committed with other firearms. Yet, this information leaves out a crucial element: mass shootings, while tragic, represent only a fraction of overall gun violence. According to some critics, focusing too heavily on “assault-style” weapons may not be the most effective strategy for reducing gun-related deaths across the country, especially when other firearms are involved in a significant portion of shootings.
Several states, including Florida, California, and Washington, have already passed laws raising the minimum age for purchasing “assault-style” weapons to 21. However, these laws have faced legal challenges, with some rulings being contested. In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s law, but other challenges to similar laws remain unresolved. This legal uncertainty raises the question of whether such restrictions will hold up in courts across the country, especially given the history of successful challenges to gun control measures.
In Virginia, where lawmakers previously attempted to pass a similar bill, the effort was blocked by Governor Glenn Youngkin. House Bill 2, which sought to prevent anyone under 21 from purchasing, possessing, or transferring “assault” firearms, was vetoed by Youngkin, who expressed concerns that the legislation would unfairly penalize law-abiding gun owners rather than violent criminals. In a statement, Youngkin argued that Virginia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and emphasized the importance of addressing issues like the state’s behavioral health system as a more effective way to combat gun violence.
Opponents of the Age 21 Act argue that the proposed legislation goes too far in restricting the rights of legal adults under 21. The Firearms Policy Coalition, which is challenging similar age restrictions in court, maintains that such laws violate the constitutional rights of young Americans. The group warns that setting a precedent of restricting legal access to firearms for certain groups based on age could lead to broader and more sweeping gun control measures in the future, potentially eroding Second Amendment protections. There’s also the looming issue of the U.S. Supreme Court for Democrats, which has recently been more favorable to protecting Americans and their Second Amendment rights.
🚨 NEW GUN CONTROL BILL 🚨
It's called the "AGE 21 ACT" pic.twitter.com/XCvE0X11QC
— American Firearms Association (@2A_Freedom) February 19, 2025
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has reinforced its commitment to upholding the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment, which grants Americans the right to keep and bear arms. These rulings have emphasized the importance of protecting individual freedoms and have sparked conversations around the balance between public safety and constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) marked a landmark ruling that solidified the traditional view of the Second Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down New York’s restrictive concealed carry law, ruling that the state’s requirement for individuals to demonstrate a special need for self-defense violated the Constitution. The Court’s decision reinforced the idea that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry firearms in public for self-defense without excessive government interference.
This ruling affirmed the principle that the right to bear arms is not contingent upon an individual’s specific need, but rather a fundamental right that is deeply rooted in American history. The Court’s interpretation stresses that the Second Amendment applies to the individual, protecting citizens from arbitrary governmental restrictions on firearms.
Jurisdiction by jurisdiction, no gun ban will survive.
You’re next, Massachusetts. pic.twitter.com/Aum48bPEbv
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 17, 2025
The Conservative Column will update you on any major developments as this bill progresses.
