Should we put age restrictions on Guns like Alcohol (racism, school, compare)

[Crashj007]

Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid

I agree there is a significant "gap" in being consistent in what we determine the ages of consent/responsibility are.
Driving. 16
Join the military 17
Voting 18
Tobacco 18
Long guns 18
Handguns 21
Alcohol 21
This doesn't make sense. It's very inconsistent.

So is the age for having sex. It's a state thing. All your examples require different skills and control. YMMV. In Louisiana in 1956 driving was 13. I have not had to take a test since then, so my only driver ed was with mom and my test was with a fireman driving around the block.
Let each State decide, that's how it works in the USA.
It only seems like we should move the age for a rifle up because of current events. A lot more kids get killed in cars every year, so should we move that up to 21 too? Personally, I think 25 would be much safer.
Many of the States that allow rifles for youngsters require them to take a safety test and they can have the rifle only at the range or hunting and must be with an adult at all times.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Regulate doesn't mean "control"? I'd say that's exactly what regulate means. A speed limit controls the speed at which traffic is allowed to proceed along a highway. Those who disobey the law can be punished. Take a look at this dictionary definition. "Regulate" does mean control.



https://www.google.com/search?q=regu...hrome&ie=UTF-8


Who is to determine whether commerce is "regular" or not? I'd say commerce is irregular when someone purchases a gun for an illegal purpose. If I purchase a gun to target shoot, sit in a drawer to protect my home, or to hunt than those actions are legal. If I purchase a gun to shoot another person--not in self defense--than that action is illegal or irregular. The courts get to interpret the law and say what is regulation of commerce among the states and they have multitudinous times upheld these kinds of statutes. Its what modern federalism is predicated on.

If someone makes their own gun and doesn't sell it another state I would say that interstate commerce is not involved. That happens in about one out of every 50,000 illegal shootings I'm guessing.

Finally, gun rights activists are fond of trying to claim that when the Constitution was written in 1789 that it meant "one thing". That isn't necessarily true at all. I submit the founding fathers used vague phrases like "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment because they wanted to give the courts some room for interpretation. Otherwise, the Second Amendment would be lengthy and more specific. Nor, is my reasoning limited to the Second Amendment. I see this all throughout the Constitution. Its a good thing too. Otherwise, we would have ended up having to totally rewrite the Constitution to account for the needs of a growing nation.

Nonsense. That goes against all accepted maxims of the "rules of construction". It is assumed that all laws enacted mean exactly what they say....because the authors have the full and complete ability and responsibility to do so. The principle of "void for vagueness" is a reflection of the sober responsibility of accurately phrased law, and a caution against the excessive "delegation" to which you refer.

Unless a term of art is used, words have their common and ordinary meaning. Regulated just meant well-trained and disciplined so as to be able to provide a sufficient militia response. The "regulars" of any military force, for example, were the ones who were professionally attached to the military..hence the militia must by necessity be responsible for itself, composed as it were from the male civilians of age.

Thus a "well-regulated militia" would be, as Hamilton describes the militia in Federalist 29, "a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights"

*Them refers to the government's REGULAR forces (ie, military)

Besides, 2A isn't about the militia. That's just a prefatory clause. It is stating what the government's compelling state interest in NOT infringing on the RKBA of the people is. It isn't establishing the RKBA itself. It just acknowledges that right, and prohibits it from being infringed, because the government has a compelling state interest (the security of a free state) in doing so.

Very simple, IF you can read properly.

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

Nonsense. That goes against all accepted maxims of the "rules of construction". It is assumed that all laws enacted mean exactly what they say....because the authors have the full and complete ability and responsibility to do so. The principle of "void for vagueness" is a reflection of the sober responsibility of accurately phrased law, and a caution against the excessive "delegation" to which you refer.

Unless a term of art is used, words have their common and ordinary meaning. Regulated just meant well-trained and disciplined so as to be able to provide a sufficient militia response. The "regulars" of any military force, for example, were the ones who were professionally attached to the military..hence the militia must by necessity be responsible for itself, composed as it were from the male citizens of age.

Thus a "well-regulated militia" would be, as Hamilton describes the militia in Federalist 29, "a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights"

*Them refers to the government's REGULAR forces (ie, military)

I've got a great idea. You go to law school and take a course in statutory construction like I did. Than you get back to me.

If every provision of the Constitution is interpreted exactly the way it was in 1789, we'd have needed about ten new Constitutions over the course of American history simply to function. The great genius of the Constitution was its use of broad phrases and the ability of the courts to give meaning to those phrases in different contexts over time. "The plain meaning rule" is not always used by courts. It depends on circumstances. It depends on the legislative history.

I can read talking points from the NRA all I want too. Doesn't mean that is what the Second Amendment means. Doesn't mean the courts would interpret it that way either.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

I
The legal drinking age is 21.

Explain to me how many of my high school friends were always in possession of alcohol.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid

I agree there is a significant "gap" in being consistent in what we determine the ages of consent/responsibility are.

Driving. 16
Join the military 17
Voting 18
Tobacco 18
Long guns 18
Handguns 21
Alcohol 21


This doesn't make sense. It's very inconsistent.

In Canada, the legal drinking age is 19.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid

Should car salesmen be punished if they sell a car to a guy who later kills someone in a DUI?

Or if they kill someone while not under the influence.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by Bette

It is harder to buy beer than to buy this type of gun (AR-15) which the recent high school shooter used.

No it is not. I had friends drinking beer at 15.

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by ram2

No it is not. I had friends drinking beer at 15.

I agree, when i was a teenager in the 90s, it was very easy to buy alcohol. We all knew which stores would sell it without asking for ID.

Id say with social media and everyone being so connected, (information being so widely shared), its probably much much easier for the underage to buy today.

[runswithscissors]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

but raising the age to 21 before a young person can buy what could be used as a deadly weapon will lower the risk of one of these youngsters going off the deep end over a perceived slight.

Not a single episode of these "mass murders" were committed in the name of a "perceived slight".

This argument is getting weaker by the moment.

Don't facts matter any more?

Wanna know what will work?

Send ALL these people to jail:

The MOTHER/FAMILY (first and formost)
The SCHOOL
The SCHOOL DISTRICT
The local COPS - 39 VISITS? Seriously? Then you HID while letting Coral Springs cops go in?
The MENTAL HEALTH people treating him
The DOPES who let him live with them knowing about the guns
The Liberal Google YOUTUBE subsidiary
The FBI - ALL LEVELS from the HQ to the field offices

And the students dont get off scot free either.

THEY KNEW and THEY ALSO KNEW that access to the school was not being enforced at ALL.

Sun Sentinial:

ive school years. Seven schools. Here is a look at how Nikolas Cruz moved through the Broward County Public Schools.

Jan. 23, 2002 – Nikolas Cruz, at three years old, is diagnosed as developmentally delayed.

Feb. 5, 2014 -- At age 15, Nikolas leaves Westglades Middle School in Parkland.

Feb. 6, 2014 – Nikolas starts at Cross Creek, a school in Pompano Beach for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.

June 1, 2015 — A school report says Nikolas is at times distracted by inappropriate conversations by classmates if the discussion is about guns, people being killed, or the armed forces.

Aug. 24, 2015 — Nikolas returns to Cross Creek, but attends Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School two periods a day, Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie said.

Jan. 11, 2016 – Nikolas, now 17, stops attending Cross Creek school.

Jan. 13, 2016 -- He starts attending Stoneman Douglas High full time, Runcie said.

Feb, 5, 2016 — The Broward Sheriff’s Office receives a report from a neighbor that Cruz posted on Instagram that he plans to shoot up the school. Police determined he has knives and a BB gun and passed the information along to the school resource officer, who is a sheriff’s deputy on campus.

August 22, 2016 — After the summer break, Nikolas returns to Stoneman Douglas High.

Sept. 20, 2016 — Nikolas is suspended for fighting.

Sept. 24, 2016 – Nikolas turns 18.

Sept. 28, 2016 – Florida child welfare workers investigate after Nikolas cuts himself while on Snapchat.

Nov. 12, 2016 – Child welfare investigation is closed.

November 2016 — Educational specialists recommend Nikolas transfer back to Cross Creek but he doesn’t want to. Now 18 and legally an adult, Nikolas also refuses to receive further mental health and other services.

Jan. 12, 2017 – Lynda Cruz, Nikolas’ mother, sells the longtime family home at 6166 NW 80th Terrace in Parkland.

Jan 19, 2017 — Nikolas receives an internal one-day suspension for an assault. The school asks the district to conduct a threat assessment on him.

Feb. 8, 2017 – Nikolas is banished from Stoneman Douglas, according to a discipline file.

Feb. 11, 2017 —He buys the AR-15 rifle that he will use one year later in the Stoneman Douglas massacre.

For the next calendar year, Nikolas bounces between various alternative schools for at-risk youth: The Off Campus Learning Centers, the Henry D. Perry Education Center, and the Dave Thomas Education Center. Runcie said his attendance was poor.

Nov. 1, 2017 – Cruz’s mother dies of pneumonia at age 68.

Nov. 30, 2017 — The Broward Sheriff’s Office receives a warning that Nikolas is collecting guns and knives and could be a “school shooter in the making.” The caller notes that Nikolas has moved to Palm Beach County and the deputy refers the caller to the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. That agency said it has no record of any such incident or threat.

Feb. 14, 2018 – Armed with the AR-15 rifle, Cruz, age 19, goes on a shooting rampage at Stoneman Douglas High, killing 17. He flees the building undetected and is later caught wandering around a residential neighborhood.

And you think that after all this PROVEN governmental incompetence, that law abiding citizens are going to give up their God Given Freedoms?

No.

[runswithscissors]

Originally Posted by Bette View Post
It is harder to buy beer than to buy this type of gun (AR-15) which the recent high school shooter used.

I don't understand this argument.

Not only was the shooter NOT a "high school student" just because he used to attend there and did the shooting there...but he is an ADULT.