[inceptor]

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.

You moved this from obtaining adult age, to adults and now to children.

The govt has decided that a 10 year old has the right to a sex change transition and operation. So there ya go. It's been decided.

It won't matter soon because TPTB are very close to letting you know your God given rights no longer exist. Ask Klaus Schwab and his assistant.

 

[Kauboy]

You moved this from obtaining adult age, to adults and now to children.

The govt has decided that a 10 year old has the right to a sex change transition and operation. So there ya go. It's been decided.

It won't matter soon because TPTB are very close to letting you know your God given rights no longer exist. Ask Klaus Schwab and his assistant.

Nothing's been moved. And you didn't answer the questions.
I said a 17 year old who currently can't vote, smoke, drink, or buy a gun loses nothing when they still can't do those things until 21.
BPH disagreed, so I posed the example of a 10 year old and he took the extreme position of claiming that 10 year olds lost their rights.
I simply showed, with the list above, that they never actually had those rights and we all agree on that by how we treat them.
You claimed my position was that rights are given. My claim was simple. Humans know that certain rights are not to be exercised by children. This has been true since before governments existed. Children have NEVER enjoyed equal status and rights with adults. They enjoy basic human rights, such as the right to life and others. But they've never enjoyed the full spectrum such as bodily autonomy and self-governance. It might not be something everyone has considered before, but it's certainly not a surprise to anyone. Any of us with children know we don't treat them as we treat adults, and for good reason.

You've already taken the position that governments do not grant rights, so no, the government didn't grant any rights to the child wanting transition surgery.
They took rights away from parents to hold complete dominion over their non-adult children.

You said it yourself. "Society" decided the age of adulthood. It was later codified into law.
Society needs to reassess the decision.

 

[Steve40th]

I think an age restriction is just that, another restriction.
Kids are brought up by their sphere of influence, whomever or whatever that may be.
Go back to a time when you were brought up, and look at what made you respect other peoples lives.
Upbringing is the key here. We need to make that a priority in our teachings and raising of our children.

I know I digressed a bit, but laws make no difference to someone with intent. If Dad/Mom/Grandparents have a weapon in the house, the kid will figure a way to get it. Or, he will go out and get it. Or use something else. The internet, movies, can you show you all kinds of way murders happen, and have happened. Even teach you how to get away with it..

 

[Chipper]

Buddy of mine is a gun dealer buys and sells guns every weekend there is a gun show. Travels many miles across the state and attends all 3 days. Setting up 5-6 tables or more of guns. If you have the cash it's yours. Unless you look like your 12. All week long he hits sales both online and off. Trying to get more guns to sell. IMHO it's clearly a business. However he has no license, FFL of any kind. It's cash and carry, no paperwork of any kind.

Of course he calls it his collection. Ever changing collection but it's his "private collection". So he can sell whatever to whomever. It's his "right". He's the one playing the gun show loophole to it's fullest.

How does this work for your age related laws?? You can't control who gets a gun. You need to deal with the fact everybody may and can get a weapon.

 

[Steve40th]

Buddy of mine is a gun dealer buys and sells guns every weekend there is a gun show. Travels many miles across the state and attends all 3 days. Setting up 5-6 tables or more of guns. If you have the cash it's yours. Unless you look like your 12. All week long he hits sales both online and off. Trying to get more guns to sell. IMHO it's clearly a business. However he has no license, FFL of any kind. It's cash and carry, no paperwork of any kind.

Of course he calls it his collection. Ever changing collection but it's his "private collection". So he can sell whatever to whomever. It's his "right". He's the one playing the gun show loophole to it's fullest.

How does this work for your age related laws?? You can't control who gets a gun. You need to deal with the fact everybody may and can get a weapon.

He is no different than many people that do private sales. And that is what he does.
Dems, and many Pubs, dont want you to be able to sell privately..
And its not a loophole. He pays for a booth, laydown area to sell his personal items.. He cant sell ATF items, but he can sell anything legal at those tables.

 

[Back Pack Hack]

Ok, consistency test, both of you.
Does a 10 year old have a right to keep an bear "all bearable arms" (SCOTUS term)?

They did once. But that's been taken away. One point for me.

Does a 10 year old have a right to choose their leaders? (an offshoot of one's right to self-governance)

Not relevant to the issue at hand.

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)

Not relevant to the issue at hand.

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.)

Not relevant to the issue at hand.

Does a 10 year old have the right to travel among the many states without reason or permission?

Not relevant to the issue at hand.

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.)

Not relevant to the issue at hand.

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

You're the one making the argument as such by tossing in all this other crap.

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.

Given the admitted pettiness, I'm not addressing it.

 

[inceptor]

Most know the cartels also deal in guns. No background checks, no ID requirements. Speculation in Uvalde (yeah I'm on a board with someone who lives there) is that this kid bought his stuff from the cartels.

All more gun control issues will do is make the cartels more money as they will be expanding their business.

 

[Real Old Man]

Like the rest of you, I've been reading and engaging with others on the aftermath of the latest school shooting.
While reading about the details of the case, as they are currently known, I read about how this person acquired the rifle used in the shooting.
This person passed the background check and bought the rifle legally. He then went on to commit numerous acts of cowardly murder.
The response has been overwhelming, as expected.
But one thing did jump out at me.
Anti-gun activists and proponents often cite that the age to buy a rifle is 18 years old, while the age to buy a handgun is 21. These are federal restrictions imposed under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Since most of the shooters who employ a rifle are under the age of 21, maybe we should bump the age.
So it struck me that we should consider raising the age of buy a rifle to 21.
But that caused an internal conflict. "If they are old enough to be sent to war to die for their country, they're old enough to do all the other things an adult can do."

That's when I had the idea to raise the legal age of adulthood itself. It's not a new idea, but maybe one we should start pushing harder for.
Think of the ramifications of raising the legally recognized age of adulthood to 21.
Cigarettes, military service, rifles, and even voting.... all would be impacted by this, and maybe for the better.
Knowing I'm prone to "blind spots", I wanted to start a discussion to get feedback and hear concerns.

Obviously this would have a detrimental effect on our military recruiting efforts. Perhaps active military service would pre-empt this "adulthood" restriction, allowing any active duty 18+ individual to enjoy full adult status. I dunno, that might be impractical. Just brainstorming.

I know I'd welcome the effect this would have on voting.
High school kids voting based on which politician can promise them the biggest reward seems like a bad way to choose leaders.
Let them see more of the real world first. Their voting patterns would likely change.

It doesn't violate due process rights, as red-flag laws would. (I can't believe I used to think those were a good idea, and not ripe for abuse)
It doesn't violate current law that restricts gun registration, as any "universal background check" system would require.
It doesn't violate a person's constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, which SCOTUS has ruled encompasses "all bearable arms" and those in "common use". (two different cases)
It could have a temporary limitation where current 18-20 year olds, as of some date, would retain their adult status.

Nobody looses any rights, and we further restrict immature children from participating in objectively dangerous activities.
Thoughts?

Like the rest of you, I've been reading and engaging with others on the aftermath of the latest school shooting.
While reading about the details of the case, as they are currently known, I read about how this person acquired the rifle used in the shooting.
This person passed the background check and bought the rifle legally. He then went on to commit numerous acts of cowardly murder.
The response has been overwhelming, as expected.
But one thing did jump out at me.
Anti-gun activists and proponents often cite that the age to buy a rifle is 18 years old, while the age to buy a handgun is 21. These are federal restrictions imposed under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Since most of the shooters who employ a rifle are under the age of 21, maybe we should bump the age.
So it struck me that we should consider raising the age of buy a rifle to 21.
But that caused an internal conflict. "If they are old enough to be sent to war to die for their country, they're old enough to do all the other things an adult can do."

That's when I had the idea to raise the legal age of adulthood itself. It's not a new idea, but maybe one we should start pushing harder for.
Think of the ramifications of raising the legally recognized age of adulthood to 21.
Cigarettes, military service, rifles, and even voting.... all would be impacted by this, and maybe for the better.
Knowing I'm prone to "blind spots", I wanted to start a discussion to get feedback and hear concerns.

Obviously this would have a detrimental effect on our military recruiting efforts. Perhaps active military service would pre-empt this "adulthood" restriction, allowing any active duty 18+ individual to enjoy full adult status. I dunno, that might be impractical. Just brainstorming.

I know I'd welcome the effect this would have on voting.
High school kids voting based on which politician can promise them the biggest reward seems like a bad way to choose leaders.
Let them see more of the real world first. Their voting patterns would likely change.

It doesn't violate due process rights, as red-flag laws would. (I can't believe I used to think those were a good idea, and not ripe for abuse)
It doesn't violate current law that restricts gun registration, as any "universal background check" system would require.
It doesn't violate a person's constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, which SCOTUS has ruled encompasses "all bearable arms" and those in "common use". (two different cases)
It could have a temporary limitation where current 18-20 year olds, as of some date, would retain their adult status.

Nobody looses any rights, and we further restrict immature children from participating in objectively dangerous activities.
Thoughts?

Makes no sense. If they can serve in the military at 18 ,then they should have full rights as a citizen. Almost all states agree that at 18 their citizens are adults. But who's to say that some day someone will get a wild hair and say well that didn't work let's make the age at 45.

 

[Back Pack Hack]

Doesn't matter what number you put into the law. Evil will do evil things.

 

[Kauboy]

How does this work for your age related laws?? You can't control who gets a gun. You need to deal with the fact everybody may and can get a weapon.

What you're describing has never been the method that most, if any, of these shooters are using. We know it's possible. We also know that many of these shooters acquire their arms legally.
If we can make it harder to do so while still retaining all rights of adults, why not?

They did once. But that's been taken away. One point for me.
Not relevant to the issue at hand.
Not relevant to the issue at hand.
Not relevant to the issue at hand.
Not relevant to the issue at hand.
Not relevant to the issue at hand.
You're the one making the argument as such by tossing in all this other crap.
Given the admitted pettiness, I'm not addressing it.

Provide evidence that children once had the right to keep and bear all bearable arms. Show me any legal precedent for this.
Children do not enjoy all rights. This is well known, obvious, and universally accepted.
Your failure to address the other issues is a tacit acceptance that you know I'm right.
Feel free to keep whatever scores makes you feel good. This is just a discussion, not a competition.🙄

Makes no sense. If they can serve in the military at 18 ,then they should have full rights as a citizen. Almost all states agree that at 18 their citizens are adults. But who's to say that some day someone will get a wild hair and say well that didn't work let's make the age at 45.

You've clearly not read through most of my posts...
These were all addressed.


It's clear that this solution is not one this audience is willing to consider, or even read through thoroughly for some.
So, aside from the blanket "let's fix society" wishful thinking, are there any other ways to retain all rights and delay the inevitable?
If the only answer we have is to wait it out and see, that's exactly the answer TPTB want from us. Their appeals to emotion via fear and sorrow will eventually win out.
This country is currently a powder keg. A few more of these high profile tragedies in close proximity, and we can kiss our rights goodbye.
It won't be done legally. It won't be done gently. And it will be far more than just the 2nd.
Maybe they'll send us their "thoughts and prayers" while they do it.

 

[Kauboy]

Doesn't matter what number you put into the law. Evil will do evil things.

Yes.
Would that boy have been able to buy a gun the way the past two shooters, and many others, legally did?
No.
Why?
The law with a number in it.

Doesn't mean he couldn't go about it another way.
But not that way, because he's a child.

 

[Kauboy]

Doing some more scrounging for historical context, I've discovered that at the time of the founding, and specifically when the constitution was written, anyone under the age of 21 was legally considered an infant, and was fully known to not possess all rights as an adult did.

This is found to be true in The American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Garland and McGeehee, 1900.
Carrying over from English common law in Institutes of the Lawes of England, 1628 to 1644.

So no, "infants" (what we now call minors) never enjoyed a right to arms, just as they didn't enjoy a right to vote, marry, or enter into contracts... until they reached 21.

It's high time we restored the age of majority back to 21. Centuries of history support it, and so do I.

 

[Annie]

Changing the legal age will do nothing, imho. We need to put prayer back in the schools. We've removed their protection--which is Our Lord--and so the enemy is able to just come on in, and it's doing so in more ways than one. All this leftist thought that's poisoning the minds of our children is also from the enemy.

 

[NotTooProudToHide]

Like the rest of you, I've been reading and engaging with others on the aftermath of the latest school shooting.
While reading about the details of the case, as they are currently known, I read about how this person acquired the rifle used in the shooting.
This person passed the background check and bought the rifle legally. He then went on to commit numerous acts of cowardly murder.
The response has been overwhelming, as expected.
But one thing did jump out at me.
Anti-gun activists and proponents often cite that the age to buy a rifle is 18 years old, while the age to buy a handgun is 21. These are federal restrictions imposed under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Since most of the shooters who employ a rifle are under the age of 21, maybe we should bump the age.
So it struck me that we should consider raising the age of buy a rifle to 21.
But that caused an internal conflict. "If they are old enough to be sent to war to die for their country, they're old enough to do all the other things an adult can do."

That's when I had the idea to raise the legal age of adulthood itself. It's not a new idea, but maybe one we should start pushing harder for.
Think of the ramifications of raising the legally recognized age of adulthood to 21.
Cigarettes, military service, rifles, and even voting.... all would be impacted by this, and maybe for the better.
Knowing I'm prone to "blind spots", I wanted to start a discussion to get feedback and hear concerns.

Obviously this would have a detrimental effect on our military recruiting efforts. Perhaps active military service would pre-empt this "adulthood" restriction, allowing any active duty 18+ individual to enjoy full adult status. I dunno, that might be impractical. Just brainstorming.

I know I'd welcome the effect this would have on voting.
High school kids voting based on which politician can promise them the biggest reward seems like a bad way to choose leaders.
Let them see more of the real world first. Their voting patterns would likely change.

It doesn't violate due process rights, as red-flag laws would. (I can't believe I used to think those were a good idea, and not ripe for abuse)
It doesn't violate current law that restricts gun registration, as any "universal background check" system would require.
It doesn't violate a person's constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, which SCOTUS has ruled encompasses "all bearable arms" and those in "common use". (two different cases)
It could have a temporary limitation where current 18-20 year olds, as of some date, would retain their adult status.

Nobody looses any rights, and we further restrict immature children from participating in objectively dangerous activities.
Thoughts?

There is scientific evidence to support the idea that the human brain isn't fully developed until around age 25. Still, that will not fix the issues we are now facing as a society. The generational degradation of the nuclear family unit, teaching of ethics, morality, and values has lead to this latest generation of children that are reaching adulthood and have no value for human life, other peoples property etc. Honestly its a reap what you sow situation, what do you expect when you let the internet, tv, and video games raise your children along with zero consequences when they misbehave? A republic style government is a reflection of the people and people don't want to admit the harsh truth that we've lost our way morally and would rather restrict freedoms in an effort to fix something that will not be fixed with their solution. Its pretty darn sad.

 

[Steve40th]

Doing some more scrounging for historical context, I've discovered that at the time of the founding, and specifically when the constitution was written, anyone under the age of 21 was legally considered an infant, and was fully known to not possess all rights as an adult did.

This is found to be true in The American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Garland and McGeehee, 1900.
Carrying over from English common law in Institutes of the Lawes of England, 1628 to 1644.

So no, "infants" (what we now call minors) never enjoyed a right to arms, just as they didn't enjoy a right to vote, marry, or enter into contracts... until they reached 21.

It's high time we restored the age of majority back to 21. Centuries of history support it, and so do I.

Including voting age?

 

[Back Pack Hack]

....Provide evidence that children once had the right to keep and bear all bearable arms. ....

You can't be serious about this. Where in the Second is age mentioned?

Now look up the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I recall my grandfather, born in 1903, telling me about his first .22LR he bought in 1914.

Yes.
Would that boy have been able to buy a gun the way the past two shooters, and many others, legally did?
No.
Why?
The law with a number in it.

Doesn't mean he couldn't go about it another way.
But not that way, because he's a child.

He can still steal a gun, just like many others do.

Again, passing just one more law will not suddenly decide to quit their wrong-doing. They're not going to sit back, pause and say, "Well, dammit. This is just too much. That's the straw that broke this camels' back. I'm going straight now."

 

[Kauboy]

Including voting age?

I've mentioned a few times now, yes.
This would affect voting age.

 

[Kauboy]

You can't be serious about this. Where in the Second is age mentioned?

Now look up the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I recall my grandfather, born in 1903, telling me about his first .22LR he bought in 1914.

He can still steal a gun, just like many others do.

Again, passing just one more law will not suddenly decide to quit their wrong-doing. They're not going to sit back, pause and say, "Well, dammit. This is just too much. That's the straw that broke this camels' back. I'm going straight now."

We're speaking about matters of law.
Therefore it is more than appropriate to expect your claim to be backed up by law.
Pretending this is unreasonable does not excuse the lack of support.
Anecdotal evidence from your grandfather does not make precedence.
You ignored my most recent post before this one.
Children have never enjoyed the right to arms since our founding. The 1960s and 70s saw a time when the age of majority was lowered for some legal activities. I believe this was erroneous and should be reversed.

Yes, the boy could steal a gun, assuming he had the ability.
The point of the law is to make criminal activity more risk than reward for the person thinking about committing the crime.
If a crime can be made more difficult to commit while all law-abiding citizens still retain all rights, there is no negative to doing it.
The positive is that we could see a reduction in these acts because it's become more difficult, and it holds off the eventual bans even longer.
The mantra of "we don't need more laws" only applies when those laws further restrict the law-abiding. This would not.

There are no negatives from what I can tell, only potential positives.

 

[Back Pack Hack]

We're speaking about matters of law.
Therefore it is more than appropriate to expect your claim to be backed up by law.
Pretending this is unreasonable does not excuse the lack of support.
Anecdotal evidence from your grandfather does not make precedence.
You ignored my most recent post before this one.
Children have never enjoyed the right to arms since our founding. The 1960s and 70s saw a time when the age of majority was lowered for some legal activities. I believe this was erroneous and should be reversed.

Yes, the boy could steal a gun, assuming he had the ability.
The point of the law is to make criminal activity more risk than reward for the person thinking about committing the crime.
If a crime can be made more difficult to commit while all law-abiding citizens still retain all rights, there is no negative to doing it.
The positive is that we could see a reduction in these acts because it's become more difficult, and it holds off the eventual bans even longer.
The mantra of "we don't need more laws" only applies when those laws further restrict the law-abiding. This would not.

There are no negatives from what I can tell, only potential positives.

OK, given there were no laws that prevented him from buying a gun, I guess it WAS a matter of law.

Simply put, there were no laws prohibiting minors from buying firearems on December 15, 1791. But they certainly have been enacted since then. Perhaps I should flip the question back on you and request you show me a law on the books back in 1791 that DID prevent minors from buying firearms.

The only issue is your proposal DOES affect the law-abiding. Criminals don't give a chit about laws. That's what makes them criminals. I sick of constantly conceding to the left, who claim to simply want to 'meet us in the middle' yet never give anything up. They keep coming back for more and more and more, and here you are discussing giving them something.

They wanted autos banned, they got it. Now they want 'assault' rifles (their term, not mine). They wanted high-cap mags (again; their term, not mine), they got it. Now they want barrel shrouds, grenade launchers, adjustable stocks, forward grips and 'shoulder things that go up'. They wanted bump stocks, they got them. Now they're after binary and frt triggers. They never concede... they simply advance with death by a thousand cuts. They wanted age limits, they got it. And now you're offering it up as a sacrifice?

If the point of a law is to "make criminal activity more risk than reward for the person thinking about committing the crime", all these laws are failing miserably. Today's catch-n-release judicial system puts them right back out on the streets. And there are cases of them committing the same crime later in the day.

We have enough laws. Laws that don't work. Adding one more in the vain hope that it will be effective... well, that day has come and gone. The laws are failing so bad that not only are the criminals ignoring them, they're prospering as a result. Creating 'gun-free zones' is simply making 'target-rich environments'.

 

[Steve40th]

Government restricts the right to own a gun.. Restriction by definition and through cost.
Hillary wanted to up the tax on ammo. There is a tax right now on ammo for conservation of animals. So, it would have been easy to raise it significantly through Congress..
You can buy automatics. Not cheap.
They had semi autos back in 1791, and Thomas Jefferson had two.. Air powered, 46 caliber, 800 fett/sec.
Malitia act defined age..
We can play the game, but what it comes down to is family.. Family couldnt stop him.. They didnt try.. Hell, many forums knew he was planning, ie Facebook and Instagram.. LEO did nothing.