Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner
21 - 40 of 117 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,976 Posts
If you can find any precedent for that, please share.
To my knowledge it doesn't exist.
Like I said, it's a consistency issue. The fact that children remain children into their late teens nowadays is a symptom.
Precedent? For moving the age?

IF you are referring to removing rights, when was the last time you read the Constitution? They have been steadily removing rights for years. Rights to privacy? Take a look. They have been stripping those rights for decades. They are nearly none existent now. The first amendment? That too has been being stripped for decades. Now they have the ministry of truth. Yes, the original whack job was removed. BUT they're installing a new head that will be more low-key about it.

If I missed something here, let me know.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
Precedent? For moving the age?

IF you are referring to removing rights, when was the last time you read the Constitution? They have been steadily removing rights for years. Rights to privacy? Take a look. They have been stripping those rights for decades. They are nearly none existent now. The first amendment? That too has been being stripped for decades. Now they have the ministry of truth. Yes, the original whack job was removed. BUT they're installing a new head that will be more low-key about it.

If I missed something here, let me know.
When you first brought up the slippery slope of raising to other ages, I asked for any examples where those ages have been applied differentially, such as we currently do with ages 18 and 21.
I'm asking for any precedent for those ages. Because it feels like you're reaching for an extreme with no precedent.

However, we currently have two tiers of "adult" in our society.
At 18 you can legally do a lot of things. But certain things you still can't legally do until 21.
So if 21 is the age when society agrees (or maybe doesn't, but legally has accepted) that a person can partake in ALL legal activities, why do we still have a division?
I'm asking for consistency in the law, and in our exercising of rights.
Which do you believe is the more likely solution to be culturally accepted?
Reducing the legal age of all legal activities to 18, or raising them to 21?

I'm not referring to removing rights.
In my proposal, nobody loses any rights.
We just move the bar to exercise the full scope of them up 3 years for all who are not presently 18+, to bring consistency to the current societal division between what an 18yo can do, and what a 21yo can do.

I'm still open to hearing opinions about why my specific proposal is a bad idea. Maybe 21 is too high? I just picked it because of the legal drinking and handgun purchase ages. It's an easier sell than a whole new age debate of 19 or 20 for all rights and privileges.
Thus far, I've only seen replies which steer the conversation into other areas. Areas which I think we all agree on, such as correcting the path of our society.
However, I can all but guarantee that in the 60 years it will take to change society, we will absolutely lose most if not all of our 2nd amendment protected rights, if not the amendment itself outright.
Consider my proposal as a "stop-gap" to prevent that from happening for just a bit longer. Buying time, as it were.
I'm not compromising any rights to get it, mind you. That's unacceptable in my view. You don't feed the gator a few fingers so that he takes his time devouring you.
We know their goal. The slow roll of history reveals that they will eventually achieve it, and with every tragedy they exploit, their pace increases.
I won't compromise to stave it off, but I will still work to delay it by other means.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,976 Posts
But if the age hard cap was increased by raising the age of adulthood, it would prevent the LEGAL purchase of rifles by, let's face it, grown children.
This is what I was replying to. You are correct, this is a slippery slope. Once you start raising the ages, the precedent is there. So you can keep moving the marker.

When you first brought up the slippery slope of raising to other ages, I asked for any examples where those ages have been applied differentially, such as we currently do with ages 18 and 21.
I'm asking for any precedent for those ages. Because it feels like you're reaching for an extreme with no precedent.
There are no precedents for what's happening now. IF they decided to raise the age of adulthood, what's to stop them from doing it again? It's just another step in overall control. Society decided on the ages a long time ago, now you want the govt to step in and change things. Our Founding Fathers believed in God given rights. Now the govt is deciding what rights we are allowed to have.

We are living in unprecedented times. Never before has a govt surveilled its population like they do today. They can turn on your phone and record whatever they choose and you would have no idea it even happened. Govt's in the past have tried to control the citizens, and at no time has it ever turned out well.

As to precedents, there are many about what is transpiring today. Rome being a good example. This country was founded on morals.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Well we are kicking that to the curb.

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ― James Madison

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.” ― James Madison
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Many more folks are shot each year by gangs. The shooters are almost always using illegally procured weapons. Most of the shooters are under 18, some as young as 12. I'm pretty sure that gun laws are irrelevant to these thugs.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,976 Posts
Last I heard, the scumbag in Texas broke 49 laws. Another one won't make one dámned bit of difference.
Most scumbags break multiple laws on a regular basis.

There are now so many laws on the books, it's impossible to know them all. It's been said that the average law abiding citizen breaks about 3 laws a day and aren't even aware they exist. Yet they keep adding new laws all the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,070 Posts
Most scumbags break multiple laws on a regular basis.

There are now so many laws on the books, it's impossible to know them all. It's been said that the average law abiding citizen breaks about 3 laws a day and aren't even aware they exist. Yet they keep adding new laws all the time.
Someone ought to write a book.


Oh, wait...............

 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
I'm not seeing solutions.
I'm seeing a lot of talking points that our side has been hashing about for decades, but nothing new.
Meanwhile, our opposition is building and they will eventually steamroll us. It's inevitable. Tyranny always gains power, and must be forced out later.
We can sit on our hands and just let it happen, or we can propose ideas that stave it off and don't restrict rights.

@inceptor, There is no precedent for any legal activity that is restricted until any age higher than 21.
Your generation allowed that age to become the new standard with the GCA of '68. So there was an acceptance that this age was important.
I'm not seeing the outrage, nor legislative efforts, to roll that back and grant 18 year olds the legal right to purchase handguns.
Why? If it's true that "society decided on the ages a long time ago", what happened in '68 and why has it not been reversed?

I've also not seen anyone take up my question about why we shouldn't roll the age of adulthood back to 15. If there's an objective reason that doesn't completely support my idea of raising it to 21, let's hear it.
We've already covered the fact that society is different now. Inceptor rightly claimed we're living in "unprecedented times". Why then, do we not consider the same to be true for the age of adulthood? It is my opinion that it should be different now too, to keep up with the times.

The idea that it will become a slippery slope ignores the consequences of my specifically chosen solution.
I don't want the age to purchase a firearm to go up. I want the age of legal adulthood to go up. There's a built-in safety mechanism in this idea.
Does anyone here actually believe that our opposition wants the legal age of voting to increase to 25, or 30?
Does anyone believe that our opposition wants the legal drinking or smoking age to go that high? No, it won't stop people from breaking the law, but it will make more people law-breakers worthy of punishment, and thus a detractor for advancing the age even higher.
Would our opposition really give up younger voters for the sake of only allowing 30 year olds to buy a gun? Unconscionable!
Tying so many legal activities in our society to adulthood is what prevents this from being abused.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Last I heard, the scumbag in Texas broke 49 laws. Another one won't make one dámned bit of difference.
But would it have made it more difficult? Would an unemployed burger flipper have been able to acquire a rifle, had this idea been in place? Maybe, but not with the ease with which he did.
The proposals from the anti-gun side always claim they want to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, but their horrible suggestions always have the affect of restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens in the process, and to a much greater degree.
But with my idea, the law-abiding sees no change in rights AND it becomes more difficult for people younger than 21 to get a gun. This would have directly affected both the Buffalo and Uvalde shooters.
I'm not claiming it would have stopped them. God only knows. But it could have, and won't affect the rights of law-abiding people.
That's the golden goose in this whole mess, right? How do we make the commission of the crime not worth the effort while leaving the law-abiding alone?
Maybe they would have just waited another 3 years. Or maybe they get distracted with reality and never do it. If no rights are lost, what is the risk? (legitimately asking)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,270 Posts
Any of us old school cops will say home school is best and if they get sent off to indoctrination camp at least hire well armed old cops to be the teachers. that should work by cracky. In fact spent 12 years doing it with sixth grade DARE Students. Nobody was brave enough to shoot up my class..lol. The kids knew when I was a goner to grab the Sig and keep on trucking. lol
 

Attachments

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,976 Posts
I'm not seeing solutions.
That's because there is no solution. You can't fix stupid.

You teach kids that there are no consequences for their actions, and look what happens.

You can change the bar for adulthood all you wish. Set the bar where ever floats your boat, and it still won't change things. I know folks well over that age that I wouldn't consider adults, just overgrown kids that never grew up. We have been on a downhill slope for quite a while and it's only picking up steam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,070 Posts
......But with my idea, the law-abiding sees no change in rights ......
Um, yes they would. Especially if they're 18-20.

And you know what will be next? Upping the age for everything simply because 'they got away with it' once. Remember, the gun grabbers, despite claiming to want to 'meet us in the middle', will do it again and again and again and again until they cross our goal line and score a 6pack. Death by a thousand cuts.

We've spent the last 20-30 years doing nothing but make concessions. It's high time we stopped.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
That's because there is no solution. You can't fix stupid.

You teach kids that there are no consequences for their actions, and look what happens.

You can change the bar for adulthood all you wish. Set the bar where ever floats your boat, and it still won't change things. I know folks well over that age that I wouldn't consider adults, just overgrown kids that never grew up. We have been on a downhill slope for quite a while and it's only picking up steam.
You can't fix stupid. No argument there.
Is our only option to just wait to lose? Because that's what will happen.

Um, yes they would. Especially if they're 18-20.

And you know what will be next? Upping the age for everything simply because 'they got away with it' once. Remember, the gun grabbers, despite claiming to want to 'meet us in the middle', will do it again and again and again and again until they cross our goal line and score a 6pack. Death by a thousand cuts.

We've spent the last 20-30 years doing nothing but make concessions. It's high time we stopped.
No, they wouldn't. A right not yet allowed is not a right lost.
By that logic, you'd have to argue that 10 year olds have lost their rights.
As I mentioned, anyone who was between 18 and 20 at the time of the law passing would still be a legal adult and have all rights as a 21 year old. For three years, there'd be some confusion.
A 17 year old, never having the right to own a firearm, vote, drink, smoke, etc... would still not be able to until 21. No active rights lost.

Your other point seems to indicate that you didn't read what I wrote in post 30 above.
This isn't a change that only affects guns. It would affect all legal activities only an adult can do.
Would our opposition compromise on voting just for the sake of guns?
It's a poison pill idea intended to prevent abuse of raising the age further. They already want the legal voting age to be dropped to 16. They'd never want it increased to 30, even for gun control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 65mustang

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,270 Posts
Let us trust in the Lord and do what we can to be Prepared for most anything. Thats all I know to do or care about doing..so it must be universally applicable to all Born Again Bible Believing Christians huh? I do know the Back of the Book says the Good Guys/Gals win in the long run. As we was taught from watching thousands of old cowboy shows.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,976 Posts
ou can't fix stupid. No argument there.
Is our only option to just wait to lose? Because that's what is happening now.
FIFY

We are losing. We've been losing for a long time now. Children have been, and are being, indoctrinated for the new normal. TPTB have seen to this.

I picked the ages I did as an arbitrary number because, regardless, it will not matter. The goal post is being constantly moved, and the masses just go along with it. Most folks just want to be left alone and live their lives. They will do nothing about it until it's too late.

You saw an anomaly when Trump was elected. The people spoke.He got elected because TPTB didn't expect such a massive turn out. She wasn't supposed to lose. Sort of like Biden campaigning from his basement. The few times he did have a rally, maybe 20 people showed up. Yet he won by a 6% margin. TPTB were prepared this time. You can bet your last dollar that they won't lose again. It was seen on national tv that they were closely monitoring and adjusting as needed.

Frankly, I see this coming to a head soon. Global leaders are saying we are facing a global famine because of Ukraine. But, if you've been paying attention, the food supply has been quickly dwindling since the start of the plandemic. The railroads are limiting the shipping of diesel. Many oil fields and pipelines have been shut down. Food prices are raising at an alarming rate and empty shelves are now being viewed as normal.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,070 Posts
......By that logic, you'd have to argue that 10 year olds have lost their rights......
That's an easy argument to win. 10-year-olds HAVE lost that right.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,976 Posts
You can't fix stupid. No argument there.
Is our only option to just wait to lose? Because that's what will happen.
Pretty much. Unless you want to start it. I'm getting too damn old for this crap.

A right not yet allowed is not a right lost.
Ah, so rights are given. So the founding were wrong when they spoke of unalienable rights, hmmm? So our master are to tell us what, where and when?

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” ― Benjamin Franklin
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
That's an easy argument to win. 10-year-olds HAVE lost that right.
Ah, so rights are given. So the founding were wrong when they spoke of unalienable rights, hmmm? So our master are to tell us what, where and when?
Ok, consistency test, both of you.
Does a 10 year old have a right to keep an bear "all bearable arms" (SCOTUS term)?
Does a 10 year old have a right to choose their leaders? (an offshoot of one's right to self-governance)
Does a 10 year old have a right to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects without warrant? (a parent cannot simply give permission, if true)
Does a 10 year old have a right to do whatever they wish with their body, abusing it with alcohol, narcotics, and other such substances? (right of bodily autonomy) (Yes, I believe adults have this right and it is being infringed.)
Does a 10 year old have the right to travel among the many states without reason or permission?
Does a 10 year old have the right to traverse the public thoroughfares in the manner common for they day (driving a car)? (This is legal precedent allowing adults to drive cars without a license on public roads. Not kidding, Google Charlie Sprinkles.)

If the answer is "no" to any of these, then consistency fails, and the argument is hyperbolic.

The very fact that we identify children as belonging to their parents, and hold the parent's responsible for their actions, is because we all understand that they do NOT in fact possess all rights yet.
Otherwise it would be ILLEGAL to confine them to their rooms, or even houses, as all adults enjoy the right to freedom from the unjust ownership of others.

If either of you do believe that children should enjoy these rights, I'd love to see the last letter you wrote to your representative demanding these rights be restored.
I'll also accept a redacted copy of your membership card to any organization advocating for them.

Yeah, that seems petty. I'll admit. Still, you both made the claim. I'm looking for any evidence that reveals you actually believe it.
 
21 - 40 of 117 Posts
Top