Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many of our rights as citizens apply only to adults.
So, if 18 is an adult, then 18 should be the age that you gain access to EVERYTHING that applies only to adults.
That's not how the framer's intended the Constitution to be interpreted and that the Supreme Court has never interpreted the Constitution that way. Indeed, the framers almost certainly didn't think they were doing away with the entire colonial structure/English common law when they ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has regularly allowed for laws discriminating on the basis of age to be enforced.
To be fair, there are arguments against such an interpretation of the Constitution (those who favor an interpretation that changes with the times/society). Your argument makes sense under a more open interpretative posture of the Constitution.
That's not how the framer's intended the Constitution to be interpreted and that the Supreme Court has never interpreted the Constitution that way. Indeed, the framers almost certainly didn't think they were doing away with the entire colonial structure/English common law when they ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has regularly allowed for laws discriminating on the basis of age to be enforced.
To be fair, there are arguments against such an interpretation of the Constitution (those who favor an interpretation that changes with the times/society). Your argument makes sense under a more open interpretative posture of the Constitution.
Do you recall it being okay for toddlers to go into stores and buy guns... ever?
No. And what people considered to be "old enough" back in ye "olden days" was certainly at a point when society would have deemed kids as either "becoming women and men" or very nearly so.
Now, we live in a world where we use things like birth certificates, drivers licenses, social security numbers, and the like to determine the ability to purchase things like alcohol, cars, and guns.
So, if we have to set 18 as an age, then it should be the age for all the "adult" things.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Do you recall it being okay for toddlers to go into stores and buy guns... ever?
No. And what people considered to be "old enough" back in ye "olden days" was certainly at a point when society would have deemed kids as either "becoming women and men" or very nearly so.
Now, we live in a world where we use things like birth certificates, drivers licenses, social security numbers, and the like to determine the ability to purchase things like alcohol, cars, and guns.
So, if we have to set 18 as an age, then it should be the age for all the "adult" things.
No, but then again I explicitly noted that at the time of our founding, there were laws that discriminated on the basis of age. The Framers of our Constitution didn't think they were doing away with such a structure when they ratified the document.
And, sure, the age that one was considered an adult at the time of the founding surely differed by jurisdiction/circumstance, but states still discriminated via age on what they considered to be legal adults. For instance, the right to vote was not extended to male children, but to adult males who fit certain other categories.
If you are old enough to volunteer or be drafted to get shot at you are old enough to vote, drink alcohol, own a gun or any of the other things afforded adults.
If California can take away 2nd amendment rights from people 18-21 years old, then any state should be allowed to take away the voting rights based on age.
Maybe this isn't so bad after all, but let's limit voting rights to anyone over age 30 or 35.
Do you recall it being okay for toddlers to go into stores and buy guns... ever?
No. And what people considered to be "old enough" back in ye "olden days" was certainly at a point when society would have deemed kids as either "becoming women and men" or very nearly so.
Now, we live in a world where we use things like birth certificates, drivers licenses, social security numbers, and the like to determine the ability to purchase things like alcohol, cars, and guns.
So, if we have to set 18 as an age, then it should be the age for all the "adult" things.
I bought my first gun at 16 with my paper route money.No I could not buy alcohol but I could drive my 57 T bird the only right I got at 18 was being drafted and I wasn't even old enough to vote.
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (drafted militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed.
BUT if you consented, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
I would like you and all others to read the quote you posted as to what Washington said.
In all the things I have read pro and con, concerning the 2nd amendment, that particular quote backs up what I have said for years, that being, when the right to bear arms was written into the constitution, it was meant that the people of the militia be regulated, and armed, not the general public, and this quote by Washington backs up that claim.
If you had ever read the U.S. Constitution, you would know that it contains the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to get stoned and drunk.
It doesn't have to "contain" the right to get stoned and drunk.
It has an amendment (#10) that says the Fed govt can only exercise powers expressly given it in the Constitution and its amendments. The rest are reserved for the"states and people" if they want to exercise them.
And another amendment (#9) that says the People have MORE rights than just the ones expressly named in the Constitution.
There's no language in the Const that says the Fed can regulate MJ, alcohol, etc. Not even penicillin, meth, LSD or heroin. So in fact the Fed govt has NO authority to regulate any of those things. Some people might not like that, the WANT the Fed govt to regulate those things. Nonetheless, the Constitution says they can't.
In case you wondered, the 10th amendment is the most-violated of all the amendments. More than even the 2nd.
The states CAN make laws regulating maryjane etc.
But they can't make laws regulating guns. Such a law is expressly forbidden by the Const (2nd am.).
Yep, that gets violated a lot, too. But that doesn't change what the Constitution says.
It doesn't have to "contain" the right to get stoned and drunk.
It has an amendment (#10) that says the Fed govt can only exercise powers expressly given it in the Constitution and its amendments. The rest are reserved for the"states and people" if they want to exercise them.
And another amendment (#9) that says the People have MORE rights than just the ones expressly named in the Constitution.
There's no language in the Const that says the Fed can regulate MJ, alcohol, etc. Not even penicillin, meth, LSD or heroin. So in fact the Fed govt has NO authority to regulate any of those things. Some people might not like that, the WANT the Fed govt to regulate those things. Nonetheless, the Constitution says they can't.
In case you wondered, the 10th amendment is the most-violated of all the amendments. More than even the 2nd.
The states CAN make laws regulating maryjane etc.
But they can't make laws regulating guns. Such a law is expressly forbidden by the Const (2nd am.).
Yep, that gets violated a lot, too. But that doesn't change what the Constitution says.
Right, Ive mentioned this many times on here, the US did not have the constitutional right to create or enforce ANY drug laws....and people SHOULD NOT be complying with these laws.
Same goes for any unconstitutional law or regulation, as Americans, it is our duty to disobey!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
