The 2nd Amendment and 18 yr olds

Notrighty said:

Be careful of any new laws ? When we pass one we cheer for small stuff. They complain the ban didn’t go far enough.

Click to expand...

Plus, the simple fact that any new law becomes part of the case law history, and the mere fact the damned thing gets past suggests it's constitutionally okay for any such laws to exist and for any such control to be within the purview of the reps.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 -- explicit, enumerated, limited list of partial authorities given by the people; the rest, the people hold.

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights -- expressly existing to disallow misconstruing the fact that the people hold the rights and that these explicitly-listed rights are most emphatically OFF the table and out of the purview of the hired help.

U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment -- explicit constraint on fiddling, removal of this area from the purview of Uncle (since applied to all states), even stating why it's so vital to ensure the citizens face no constraints in this area.

They'll never get it, the destroyers who come for what's ours. It's ours. That must frost the hell out of them, every waking moment.

The criminals: go after them, one felon at a time. That's "due process." Isn't that hard. And it's unquestionably constitutional and justifiable.

My problem is the age number with all this stuff. Either an adult is 18 or not. And if you're an adult you have the freedoms as adults

The number 18 is pretty arbitrary anyway. I guess you'd have to define what an adult is first then pick the age from there, not the other way around. I think it's stupid to be 18 to join the military, 21 to drink and smoke. I don't see why these dumb laws go to 21 if they are taking way rights in a passive aggressive way. They could just as easily say 25 or 30. Why not just 35 then? If you're old enough to run for president maybe you're old enough to have a gun. Just like you're not allowed to own certain weapons under any circumstance... oh that is unless you pay the government some money first. Maybe you can drink and smoke at 18 if you pay the government $200.

But if the constitution says at 18 you enjoy being covered by what the bill of rights has to offer, that includes everything in there because you are an adult and responsible for your own actions.

Higgy Baby said:

WHY.....do we have speed limits on the highway? There were no highways or automobiles when our constitution was drafted.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges, laws versus the structural pillars of who we are.

The individual constitutions of the states, most particularly the Constitution? They are about the underpinnings of this republic. Crafted for a primary purpose: that of protection of liberty and a free people, not subversion of it.

Statutes, on the other hand, are about holding people to account for specific bad actions and impacts upon others, as individuals. It has zero to do with the structural underpinnings, and has zero to do with the core protection of liberty. Indeed, in the case of the RKBA, it's THAT ability people have which protects us all ... from, of course, a nasty power-mongering and controlling hired staff.

Statutes are plenty sufficient for holding people to account. They can have plenty of "oomph" to get the job done. Little Johnny's wayward actions aren't structural, and statutes can easily handle it, state by state, which almost to a statute the nation has zero cause to get involved with. While leaving the Constitution's structure and foundation intact to retain its protections for the larger issues.

Comes down to the question of whether we want liberty and a free people to survive.

Decide accordingly. Beware what you wish for, if preferring to tear down any of the prohibitions against fiddling that are (along with the other structural elements) about the only thing that keeps the nasties from the gate.

In the end, nothing's going to keep a feloniously-minded person from acquiring tools to get the job done. Nothing's going to keep a mindless person from keeping his/her property safe from curious (or evil) kids in the house, if such a person wants to remain irresponsibly mindless.

Not until there's dire threat has anybody committed a crime. Gets hard to justify hold people to account for that which they've not (yet) committed. Operating a society via that level of fearful heavy-handedness simply isn't what this nation's about, not what a liberty-minded, liberty-protecting free people is about.

God help us all, if we weaken things to the point of breakage and end up with the leavings.

Higgy Baby said:

If you can be drafted and sent to Viet Nam when you are 18

Click to expand...

It's been awhile since we sent any 18-year-olds to Vietnam but I get your point.

TL/DR: I think 18 is too young to be allowed unrestricted access to firearms.

Okay I've read through the entire discussion.

I'm about to give you my opinion and I know it's going to piss some of you off. I also know that my opinion is really irrelevant because the world's not going to change because of what I think.

I am speaking in very broad and very general terms what I'm about to say may not have applied to you because you were working in a coal mine when you were 5 years old and had to grow up quick but in general I believe it's true.

The vast majority of 18 year olds are not old enough to be allowed unsupervised access to a firearm. They're also not old enough to be allowed unsupervised access to a voting booth but I'll go over that in a minute.

Yes, I'm well aware that 18 year olds can go to war and they can be drafted.

Like probably most of us here I went to basic training with a bunch of 18-year-olds (I was 22). The 18-year-olds that I was in basic training with and who I served with in the army had pretty much their entire life scripted and they were under adult supervision most of the time. Even off duty in the barracks there was usually a senior NCO there to keep an eye on things.

In today's Army a young private can't get married without going through his NCO Support Channel. He can't buy a car unless his first line supervisor takes a look at the contract. They can't take out a loan. When I was in the army even if you were 21 years old you were only permitted to have one six pack of beer per person in your room in the barracks and they did check.

I also recall that several of the units that I was in wouldn't even allow soldiers regardless of age or rank who lived in the barracks to have a fixed blade knife. If you had one it had to be stored in the unit Arms Room. Likewise, if you lived in the barracks regardless of age or rank and you owned firearms they also had to be stored in the unit Arms Room and you needed permission from the unit armor to get them out.

When I was stationed at Fort Carson in the late 90s the Commanding General of the fourth infantry division issued a post-wide order that any Soldier under the rank of SGT. was not permitted to own a firearm or to keep a firearm in their Quarters (on or off post) as long as they were assigned to that command.

When I was in the army most of my chain of
command spent most of their time trying to keep idiot 18-year-olds from ruining their (The commander's) careers

My point is, the idea that you're if you're old enough to go to War you're old enough to be trusted with a gun is patently false. The Army doesn't even believe that.

If it was up to me (and I'm well aware that it's not and it's never going to be). The age of full majority would be 21. At the age of 21 you can be drafted, you can vote, you can buy alcohol (and nowadays weed) and if you choose to you can purchase a firearm.

At the age of 18 I would allow partial majority to those who choose to enlist in the armed forces. If you're in the armed forces who's ever in office can have a direct impact on your life. You should be allowed to vote.

I still wouldn't give the Second Amendment to an 18 year old in the Army. Because if you're in the Army you don't have the Second Amendment anyway. You have whatever access to Firearms your chain of command allows you to have.

I would also start enforcing our existing laws. If a convicted felon or otherwise prohibited person is caught in possession of a firearm they're prosecuted to the full extent of the law, every time, no plea bargains.

I'm not going to go through everything that I would do to change our legal system because it's wasting my time to write it and your time to read it because it's never going to happen. But that's where I'm at with 18-year-olds and guns.