rights aren't earned, they're god-given. imho anyway
rights aren't earned, they're god-given. imho anyway
well if we set the age at 18, it already appears they are not god given and you earn them by making to 18 and not doing anything to lose them.
well, you're not 'earning' them by making it to 18, you're merely assuming them when you reach the age of majority. before the age of majority, your parents have responsibility for you. When you are old enough to take legal responsibility, you assume your rights. before that, you simply are not of the legal capacity.
who decides that 18 is a good age? Why not 17, 14, or 25?
Pragmatism and mental development, i presume. Culture takes a part as well in that decision. I think 21 for all rights makes more sense than 18 in my opinion.
Red Herring. Raising the age to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer to 21, doesn't change the fact that it's still legal to purchase or possess long guns AND handguns at 18 (and even lower than 18 in some states that have strong hunting traditions). Change the age to 21 and you decimate the military. Remember, federal firearms laws apply to the DoD too.
Stupid liberals forget the law of unintended consequences when trying to pass knee-jerk legislation.
Stupid liberals forget the law of unintended consequences when trying to pass knee-jerk legislation.
I'm good with that, as a teacher I understand that brain development is not complete at 18.
I was just pointing out that Rights are not absolute, god given, even though I like to think they are, too. Just the fact that we set an age where you get your Rights disproves the absolute argument.
As an old man that works daily with 18 year olds, I am not sure they should be allowed to drive, much less own a gun or vote. We have created a society that prevents most of them from growing up until later in life.
However, at 17 I was a high school graduate and in the Army Reserves. At 18 my wife was still in high school when we got married, no she was not pregnant. At 19 I was on a team that assembled and fired tactical nuclear bombs. At 20, I was a section chief firing a 155mm howitzer.
I went to war with several guy that were 18-21, which were every bit as responsible and brave as I was.
So, I am not sure what the correct age is, but at some point I would lay money that says assault weapons will be the same at pistols.
My wife tells me that I cannot use myself as a yard stick to measure other men against, but I am not sure she is talking about Rights because I am rather impressive.
The thing about standards is that they don't always apply to unique situations. I've met men in their 30s who were just as irresponsible
But an adult is an adult. No right is absolute, I agree if you've been adjudicated mentally ill, convicted of a violent felony etc fine.
But we're talking about adults here. One is either an adult or not. I've met enough military folks to know that not all of them are paradigms of responsibility and trustworthiness.
If an 18 year old is responsible enough to die for our country or get executed for a crine, he's responsible enough to drink beer and exercise his/her or xe's second amendment rifgts.
Really those points (voting/drinking beer) have nothing to do with each other. Drinking laws aren't addressed by the Constitution and any linking of them is just an emotional red-herring not a logic based argument. I am not saying you shouldn't think it but rather that there is no inherent link beside you deciding there is one.
I have been out of school for many (many) years, bit I recall there was a lot of evidence that suggests the most emotion driven and easily manipulated voting group are under 21s, so I suppose one could conclude extending the right to vote to them was a bad decision or at least fraught with peril. Also, regarding military service, being eligible to serve is not the same as having served. I can see the utility of a tiered system with some age being the base for voting but with actual (not theoretical) military service causing there to be an "early entry" system?
Now as to gun ownership I am ambivalent. Without a doubt, young men in the post-pubescent group (16-19/20) are the ones most prone (or at least most arrested per FBI statistics) to fighting, violent behavior, gang activity, etc. BUT anyone who could be called up for militia duty should be able to "keep and bear arms".
Agree 100
Similar threads
