No booze or cigarettes, but guns are totally cool.
Tobacco use isn’t in the Constitution. Any state can have a drinking age of 18, perfectly legal. They just get their federal highway funds yanked.
So it’s tough to tell someone, “Yeah, it’s a right for other adults, just not you.”
If I had my druthers, I’d raise the national age to 21 when brains are a good bit more developed.
2A even has the term “well regulated” in it.
They only care about the second half.
unless black people are owning guns then they’ll be all for gun control… like when the black panthers armed themselves.
unless black people are owning guns then they’ll be all for gun control
Red states tend to have some of the most free firearms laws in the country. And many of those states, particularly in the south, have large black populations. In fact, many of them have explicitly killed policies that were used to discriminate based on race, namely may-issue permitting laws.
Pretty sure the above commenter was referencing the origins of California’s strict gun laws.
One of the most liberal states in the Union?
A well regulated watch is a watch in proper working order. ‘Well regulated’ does not mean ‘to pass regulations’ in this context.
Example sentences from online:
“regulate one’s habits”
“regulate the pressure of a tire”
Now do militia.
Any way you cut it, the point was to have an armed citizenry capable of defending the country, and the 2nd was plainly defined in that context, so it makes perfect sense that the minimum requirement for bearing arms is being able to do so effectively: so where’s the training? Where’s the free gun after you prove yourself capable enough to be part of the national defense?
As it turns out, we have all that, it’s called the U.S. Military, an all volunteer force for the defence of the nation. (They don’t let you keep your gun anymore).
Want to do it part time, on an on-call basis? National Guard.
Id love it if we moved to the swiss model of mandatory training for everyone when they’re old enough, issuing them a firearm, and telling them to stay trained just in case, that would be awesome. Instead we have “buy it at Walmart, figure it out”, and zero part of that is run well.
so where’s the training
For civilians? Hunter safety, otherwise you’re paying for a private tutor.
I’m all down for more training, so long as it’s free. We should not gatekeep civil liberties behind fees.
Would you be okay with people having to pay $200 for a training class on how to vote before you were allowed to vote? Of course not. The same is true for the right to own a firearm.
Funny because you do have to pay for documents like a birth certificate and ID in order to vote in some places. When I got my ID renewed years ago my original birth certificate from the '80s was somehow no longer valid so I had to buy a new one for $60 from some government records company.
Both the Federalist papers, the militia acts, and current government code confirm that everyone not part of the standing military or national guard as the militia. The militia doesn’t get free guns, they were expected to bring their own privately owned guns and ammunition when called upon. I would not mind free guns though.
Training should be part of the public education system, but gun/hunters safety and shooting sports have been removed because it’s not kosher to expose kids/teens to guns. Due to the prevalence of guns in the US it just makes sense, because treating guns like abstinence only sex ed will have the same shitty results.
The “buy it at Walmart and figure it out” is because you can’t lock rights behind hoops to jump through, so adopting a Swiss model and making fun education/training part of compulsory education is definitely a good minimum.
Almost removed. I was shocked to learn that the dude who just winged trump was not accepted to his school’s fucking rifle team for being a shit shot. I’ll repeat that because someone reading this may be old and remember it like I do, and as shocked as I was that that means his school had an active rifle team in like 2022. What the dick?! In my area those ended at columbine and I lived in The goddamn South. That was actually the wildest part of the whole thing to me!
Still though I agree with you entirely, I just thought that was wild lol.
Then maybe we should make sure it’s in proper working order. Because selling an 18 year old a handgun at Walmart with no training ain’t that.
I agree. Schools need to teach kids practical skills. Firearms handling and use among them. Other good ones would be how to file taxes, how credit cards/loans work, how to repair basic items around the house, how to cook basic meals, etc. It doesn’t need to dominate schooling, a class or two covering the above in highschool would be plenty. Most of those topics are pretty short, but very important for life.
You must not be American. There are literally no Walmarts that sell handguns, and if they did, it wouldn’t be legal to sell them to 18 year olds.
There are Indeed Walmarts that sell handguns (Alaska). And while there are no Walmarts that will sell a handgun to an 18yo, there are legal ways for an 18yo to both purchase and possess a handgun.
As of when? Jw, all Walmart locations at least in the continental US ceased sales of handguns, “assault rifles,” and the rounds for them (excepting when they are also commonly a rifle rnd, .22lr to be exact), they no longer stock 9mm, .45, .357, 5.56 (still have .223 though lol), etc, after Parkland specifically.
And yes I miss my cheap and accessible ammo.
I specifically said Alaska.
Which is why I specified that my information pertains to the entire continental US at least, as the statement they made after Parkland said all stores. And again I ask, when is the last time you verified that they still had them? Did you see them 10yr ago or did you double check on Tuesday? Do you possibly have outdated info? Can you possibly read what I said instead of just dismissing my question?
But they will sell you a long rifle at 16.
No they won’t, they’ll sell it to your parents who can legally transfer it to you. No 16yo is passing a NICs check.
a militia in the constitution was similar to firefighters - you were expected to come help people and the failure to do so could result in losing your 2nd amendment rights.
The idea that a militia = a consumer is a modern rewrite.
Good thing we aren’t watches and there’s a definition that fits better.
You don’t want to play the game of “we can apply modern definitions” to the Constitution.
Hopefully this elucidates why that’s a bad idea:
Art 4 sect 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
It’s not modern. Or at least 1792 English was a lot more modern than the gun lobby wants people to think. It absolutely included rules and regulations.
Also, which state isn’t a republic? Point it out. Or are you trying to threaten us with twisting language even further to benefit a political party?
It is decidedly not the one used in that context given the history of America under the articles of confederation and the revolution.
I don’t know who “us” is but I decidedly not threatening anyone. My point was that taking law to mean anything but what it meant is lunacy and will simply lead to people misreading it to achieve political goals defying the legislative process. Changes in law should be done via the legislature.
You can deny it all you want. The Etymology is clear. If they wanted to write it as “healthy” or “well oiled” they would have. Instead they used the word that meant to control by rules since the Roman Empire.
They also could have written “limited” but they didn’t. The people at the time widely understood it to refer to a militia attended to, to ensure it efficacious. The regulations they had at the time were there to ensure they were well trained and armed. See the militia acts of 1792 & 1795 or for example or any of the other many acts from the period like 1786 N.H. Laws 409-10, An Act for Forming and Regulating the Militia within this State,. Which provided:
[E]very non-commissioned officer and soldier, both in the alarm list and training band, shall be provided, and have constantly in readiness, a good musket, and a bayonet fitted thereto, with a good scabbard and belt, a worm, priming-wire and brush, a cartridge-box that will hold at least twenty-four rounds, six flints, and a pound of powder, forty leaden balls fitted to his gun, a knap sack, a blanket, and a canteen that will hold one quart.
When they wanted their militias well regulated they meant this.
Well Regulated meaning in working order and properly armed.
Militias don’t exist anymore, accept as a term for a cosplaying gun club.
Remember, when this was written people thought a permanent military would be used against the citizens, so they thought it better to not have one.
No, When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn’t be able to put down without a local militia. That needs to be remembered every time this argument comes up. The Second Amendment exists because because they were afraid of slave rebellions. Patrick Henry in particular in this case.
Can you provide any reputable evidence or citations to back this up?
The idea that militias were solely for suppressing slave rebellions is patently wrong. If that was the case why would Vermont (a state that never allowed slavery) have had a militia.
The Federalist Papers clearly painted their purpose.
When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn’t be able to put down without a local militia
You’re thinking of cops. And yes, cops are not well regulated.
Where do you think cops came from? They largely grew out of slave catcher Patrols. State organized groups of armed men, ie exactly what Patrick Henry wanted.
That doesn’t even really matter to the point I was making.
The 2nd amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to explicitly state the reason for it. And organized state militias don’t exist anymore. So it really doesn’t need to either.
And damn were they almost right a few times, and 100% were right if you count cops under that term.
There were supporters of a standing army at the time notably George Washington President of the national when the Bill of Rights was enacted.
Yes. True. Everything had at least half a dozen reasons for and against, that were all debated exhaustively.
But this specific right, is the only one that actually describes a reason for its existence. And that reason no longer exists. That’s the important part.
6A) …to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I would argue that the militia still exists it’s just the government isn’t doing it’s duty to regulate the body of the people to be capable of common defense well. And to assume a right protected by the constitution could be outmoded by government inaction is self defeating logic.
Of course they are. It’s the whole military. More specificaly The National Guard. We have permanent professional soldiers who replaced the militia long ago.
The military and national guard aren’t militia, they are armies. A select militia is no militia at all. And professional soldiers can’t replace a militia as it is them who on rare occasion they are tasked with opposing.
At the siege of Boston the Connecticut militia along with the Green Mountain Boys, and the men of Massachusetts showed up to oppose the British regulars. The regulars were professional soldiers. The rest the militia.
Our professional army maybe our ally in liberty today but history has shown that may not always be the case.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So then only 17-45 year olds can legally own guns?
That includes rules. You guys want to ignore an entire part of the definition of the word.
Like the background checks and waiting periods already put onto gun purchases. No point in age restricting them to 21 as well until the government declares it to be the new adulthood age.
Oh so now rules are okay under the 2nd amendment, you just don’t like them?
They aren’t, I was making a point that the well regulated in your context is being met, but shall not be infringed means not denying it to legal adults due to age.
So why can’t the militia put an age floor in? What’s different about that rule as opposed to background checks?
As currently interpreted under law. A militia can be anyone legally able to aquire a firearm under federal law. Therefore, this person can start a one man militia and aquire a firearm.
SCOTUS pretty much shit canned the first half on the 2A a long time ago. Can’t remember the case, but they basically said a “well regulated militia” could be anyone.
ETA: as someone else pointed out, the case was DC v Heller.
Heller, 2008.
deleted by creator
Let me guess, you would “well regulate” all militias to be wealthy white people?
I think sometimes about if cars were a thing when the bill of rights was written, they might’ve had an amendment like "travel, being important to a free state, the right to drive an automobile shall not be infringed "
And then we’d have all sorts of problems where like six year olds would be driving , blind people would be driving, you wouldn’t have any safety standards or environmental standards, etc etc etc. And people would be jerking themselves raw about how it’s great , that freedom is great, they love when their car explodes.
And then we’d have all sorts of problems where like six year olds would be driving , blind people would be driving, you wouldn’t have any safety standards or environmental standards, etc etc etc. And people would be jerking themselves raw about how it’s great , that freedom is great, they love when their car explodes.
I have no agenda here. I just thought your comment was comical and then I saw all of these:
6 year olds… 😬
Blind… 😬
Car explodes… 😬
18 for everything. “various levels of adulthood” need to go away. Either you’re an adult or not.
Don’t like it? Prove you actually believe what you say you do and work to raise the draft age to 21.
18 is to young to be considered an adult. I think 21 is more fitting but we don’t mentally mature until late 20s.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know
At the same time we’re capable of adult level actions earlier than 18. We regularly have children, kill people, drive, have jobs, have bank accounts, make life altering decisions about sports and school credits… etc.
The argument for lowering the age of majority is far stronger than the argument for raising it.
It is a complicated subject. Medical decisions and voting is something that should be a lower age. However, there is a massive list that should not be pushed on younger people.
My point is adulthood comes for us whether the government wants it to or not. The list of things we do as teenagers that are adulting is far larger than the list of things we are mandated to wait for.
I understand that my point is the government should protect that class of people instead of exploiting. I think we both agree it is not good either way. It’s just another way we are failing younger people.
Well tbh if we send them to war to die why are we limiting their constitutional rights?
If 21 is the new age of adulthood, then society should start acting like it instead of doing this selective circle jerk. Otherwise, such regulations have no legal leg to stand on.
I agree with you. But, that’s not how things work.
We’ve neglected public education and mental health for roughly forty years. The establishment wants a complete monopoly on violence. And, laws are only enforced when convenient for the ruling class. The state has caused an issue - stupid unstable people with guns - and will now use it as an excuse to further monopolize use of violence as a means.
that’s not how things work.
I am not following this tbh
Society agrees with you. Government replies, “It’s Tuesday. Bend over.”
Modern governance is your oppressor, not your savior. That’s why it doesn’t make sense.
Thanks and touché
We’ve neglected public education and mental health for roughly forty years.
The state has caused an issue - stupid unstable people with guns
Then:
The state… will now use (stupid and unstable people with guns) as an excuse
Their means are:
laws are only enforced when convenient for the ruling class
Their goal is:
The establishment wants a complete monopoly on violence.
If the state threatens violence to get their way, then they don’t want to worry about violent self defense from the citizens with no other practical alternative.
For example, if a cop is beating an innocent person in the street then the state donesn’t want a radical revolutionary executing the cop and then making the body disappear, trusting strangers to see nothing, to remember nothing.
deleted by creator
There is zero logic in your comment. I don’t even know what “selective circle jerk” is supposed to be.
I think the implication is the disparity in the ages that people are allowed to do things.
Children can get married, you can drive at 16, go to war at 18, but can’t drink until 21. So at what point are you considered an adult?
Apparently whatever the political regime at the time of legislation needs.
Most recent and depraved example of this… “updates” to child labour laws so migrant kids can slave in slaughter houses while domsetic child slaves serve your shiti goyslop until 12am at MikieDs
Can we go any lower? Asking for a friend.
So there is logic in sending young adults armed to fight wars but at the same time limit their access to fire arms domestically based on ???
-
We aren’t sending them to war to die, there hasn’t been a draft in half a century
-
You can argue morally but legally there’s nothing in the constitution defining what an adult is except for the 26th amendment and that specifically talks about the right to vote. In the case of voting Oregon v Mitchell decided that it was unconstitutional to force states to lower there voting age to 18 for state and local elections without an amendment, which eventually was added. Barring another amendment passing why can’t states choose to decide what they define as adults for gun ownership?
Oh we’re not? Did we not just get out of 20 years of a war?
You’ll hand an 18 year old a belt fed machinegun and a mortar system that will damage their brain every time they fire it.
But god help us all if they have a pistol, beer, or cigarette?
Clearly because federal appeals court said so?
States can do as they please my point was more about how clown these rules look
-
But what about StATeS RiGhTs???!!
This is good. Now do the same with alcohol. You can be forced to die in a war at 18 but can’t drink and enjoy the full rights of an adult citizen.
Well, pretty sure we’ve got an amendment for that so that’ll take a bit more effort.
Nope, no amendment. Just a mafia style deal you can’t refuse. If a state lowers it’s drinking age they lose federal highway funding.
Come to think of it, I’m surprised one of these radical republican governors hasn’t done it yet.
Ahh, this is that one. Surprised Louisiana hasn’t considering it seems like they always have the worst highway roads.
I immediately thought the same thing, but unfortunately there’s no constitutionally guaranteed right to alcohol.
Yet.
Something something the right to beer arms
Funnily enough, we do have an amendment allowing it, though it does not prohibit state governments from regulating it. All it would take is a simple bill of congress to end the requirement that states set a 21+ law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Edit: oops this was meant to be a reply to the other comment
I think you’re reading a bit too much into that amendment. It doesn’t say anything about individual rights, or the government infringing on them. It simply repeals the 18th and all related laws.
Isn’t there a legitimate medical reason that’s not a thing?
No. Supposedly they raised the age to 21 because of drunk driving teens, though I’m not sure what effect it had. In my opinion, the better option regardless is to introduce teens to how to use alcohol responsibly and safely, rather than prohibit until it’s too late.
It didn’t have an effect, it was never the teenagers doing most of it. When they studied the fall off that happened it turned out that public awareness campaigns were far more effective than bans or punishment.
Don’t you just love how it’s all about states’ rights when it comes to things like abortion, but as soon as it’s gun control, the states’ rights don’t matter.
To be fair, gun rights are an actual constitutional right. I don’t think the democrats ever tried to make an amendment to include abortion rights. For them, the threat of losing it was a good campaign issue.
The idea that control over your own body and medical decisions can’t be sourced in the Constitution is ridiculous. If we don’t have the right to that then we don’t have the right to anything.
Correct. We also don’t have a right to privacy or many other things we all wish we had. A lot of what we rely on is just the court’s interpretation of laws and the constitution. We’ve recently seen how fragile those interpretations can be.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly in the Constitution. The Constitution supersedes state law.
Only when Republicans decide it does.
You forgot half the amendment. These 18 year olds are more than welcome to sign up for military service.
You forget that every adult (codes say male technically, so you could try disarming women and see what the supreme court says) not involved in military service is legally considered to be the unorganized militia, and only the national guard are considered the organized militia.
Oh so now it’s a normal law that we can change.
Tell me are we handing muskets out to the unorganized militia?
If called to arms by the President, they would be armed like/by the National Guard and/or requested to bring their own guns. The unorganized militia is also known as the reserve militia to the Guard. Hopefully there is never an invasion severe enough to call the entire country to arms, but it is 100% possible.
Everything is a law that can be changed, even the Constitution. It takes more to change certain laws, like the Constitution, and the Constitution prevents certain things from being part of laws. If you disagree with the 2nd, convince 75% of the country you are correct and we can change the law.
That isn’t a thing. The closest thing to that is the draft. The president has no authority to call random people to service.
And there’s still the issue of regulating this militia.
I hate to break it to you, but yes, the President does have that power as the Commander in Chief. Multiple States also have the same codified in State law, and the Governor can do so as well. There are prescriptions for both volunteer requests from the unorganized militia, as well as drafting them as well.
Meanwhile, the gun rights group Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which was among the organizations that challenged the law, cheered the decision.
“This is a resounding victory for 18-20-year-old adults who wish to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms,” Bryan Strawser, the group’s chairman, said in a statement.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Shouldn’t conservatives be outraged that they stopped at age 18? The text in the 2nd amendment doesn’t have an age limit. Aren’t toddlers “people”? Logically the fucked up conservative courts should be ruling that babies can buy any gun they want. Because in their stupid world, the “well regulated” words have no meaning.
Hey, what are you doing!?!?! Those aren’t your goal posts!
Only Americans can be so retarded to find something like unconstitutional. What a dumb country.
Damn, guess I should’ve chosen to be born somewhere else. Rookie mistake
You probably went and chose the wrong time period to be born in too !
The founding writers of the constitution never imagined people would fit hand cannons in their pants.
They absolutely imagined that.
The founding writers of the constitution never imagined people would fit hand cannons in their pants.
Hand cannons had been in use for hundreds of years (citation 1, citation 2) before the Constitution was written. Where do you get this idea they were not aware of their existence?
You sound dumb. No, they 100% imagined it, because they existed and were in mass production while they were alive.
Try walking around with an 18 inch pistol concealed in your pants. https://www.flintlocks.com/pistols.htm#:~:text=Overall Length%3A 18 5%2F8" Max. width of butt%3A,octagon barrel Breech%3A 7%2F8" Small%3A 3%2F4" Muzzle%3A 13%2F16"
The founding writers of the constitution never imagined people would fit hand cannons in their pants … Try walking around with an 18 inch pistol concealed in your pants.
Hand cannons for hundreds of years before the writing of the Constitution were smaller than that. Where do you get this idea hand cannons were always that large?:
In 1432, Joseon dynasty under the reign of Sejong the Great introduced the world’s first handgun named se-chongtong (세총통). Se-chongtong has a total length of 13.8 cm [5.4in] … Se-chongtong was used by both soldiers and civilians, including women and children, as a personal defense weapon
because conservatives get sexually aroused over school shootings and kids dying.
From now on, whether or not you are allowed to buy a gun will depend on which groups you check as possible victims for your killing spree.
