|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Nov 9, 2013 17:48:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Nov 9, 2013 18:31:23 GMT
So, I expect a little flaming for this post....
I really don't want 6 year old child standing behind a SAW. The second amendment never gives reference to an age. During the revolutionary war, children as young as 12 fought, but that was a different time when children were monitored and taught about firearms. Now-a-days, many parents are not parents in that they sit their child in front of the baby sitter (aka TV) and go about their lives.
So should a 10 year old be able to walk into Wally World and drop the cash on the counter and buy a AK? Without regulations, yes they would be allowed to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Nov 10, 2013 0:05:59 GMT
Well, the constitution when it refers to the militia says all men from 18-45. Taken with today's equality, it would be all people 18-45. In reality i sort of agree, 6 year old shouldn't have unfettered access to SAW. Here's my take a 6yo can buy a car, bus, airplane and any knife off the shelf. Why the special attention to guns? This is a conversation I'd like to have and we can do it without flames.  |
|
|
|
Post by redeyes on Nov 10, 2013 1:59:36 GMT
So, I expect a little flaming for this post.... I really don't want 6 year old child standing behind a SAW. The second amendment never gives reference to an age. During the revolutionary war, children as young as 12 fought, but that was a different time when children were monitored and taught about firearms. Now-a-days, many parents are not parents in that they sit their child in front of the baby sitter (aka TV) and go about their lives. So should a 10 year old be able to walk into Wally World and drop the cash on the counter and buy a AK? Without regulations, yes they would be allowed to do it. In your middle paragraph you have hit at the root of the problem. The question is, do we want Government making up for the failures of parents? If yes, we are ok with Gov. intrusion in our lives. If no, we have to be ok with people exercising freedom and maybe hurting themselves or others. |
|
|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Nov 10, 2013 12:36:06 GMT
From: www.ask.com/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution?o=2801&qsrc=999snippet:
"On May 8, 1792, Congress passed an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."
This is another piece of the puzzle. There have already been pieces of legislation already passed and are still there. This act is obviously dated to the time in which firearms weren't as advanced and slaves were not permitted to serve since it only references "white" men. It was most likely not what the founding fathers intended. It was probably drawn up so that people would have a list of items they needed to have when forming up a militia and perform their duties. Its like in Good Will Hunting where he quote the Horse and Carriage Law to get out of a auto theft charge. It's an outdated piece of legislature that is still officially on the books that needs to be update/removed due to changes in society and technology.
Nov 9, 2013 20:59:36 GMT -5 redeyes said:
In your middle paragraph you have hit at the root of the problem. The question is, do we want Government making up for the failures of parents? If yes, we are ok with Gov. intrusion in our lives. If no, we have to be ok with people exercising freedom and maybe hurting themselves or others.
Now, let's take this a step futher: Child soldiers in Africa. Parents have no control of their children since the parents are dead and have been forced into service to some local drug lord or warlord. By setting and age limit, these types of scenarios are less likely in the US. A LEO sees a 12 year old with an AK, they can step in to stop it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Nov 10, 2013 14:11:42 GMT
2 items that stand out to me. It should not be the federal govt passing these laws or regulations because they are bound by the constitution. States may pass laws for their states in order to "control" age limits on guns. Furthering the age limits idea, there are many state prohibitions with regards to age such as voting, driving etc. If a state has issue with underage youth with guns then the state has the right to address the issue, not the federal govt.
Imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by redeyes on Nov 10, 2013 15:34:24 GMT
We already have child gang members in America. Usually in places where guns are tightly restricted and there is a bunch of poverty.
Looking at firearms laws in African countries, they are generally more restrictive than US laws. Many of them prohibit certain weapons, require licenses for others and to be a certain age, but they have problems with child soldiers utilizing weapons not legally available to their citizens? What do we conclude from that? Their main issue is poverty. The parents and relations and friends could not afford weapons and munitions to defend themselves from the bad guys who wanted their stuff and children for recruits. I don't believe laws will stop gangs, democratic peoples armies, etc. from creating child soldiers, armed villages will.
|
|
|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Nov 10, 2013 16:28:58 GMT
Since I'm being tag-teamed... lol...
GBM:
The preamble of the constitution states:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So imo they do have the ability to pass laws which regulate a national militia (not state militias) and a standing army in order to defend the country. States also have the right to regulate themselves but most comply with federal legislation to have a standard law in order to avoid confusion when dealing with interstate compliance. Montana is currently manufacturing firearms which state something to the effect of "For use in Montana State, not for transfer outside of the state". These firearms are not applicable to federal law, but state law. So, yea it can be done. Of course the feds are fighting this. Also anyone taking one of these firearms out of state are subject to federal law once they cross the state's border, which they'd probably have smuggling charges added on to their list of violations.
You used the age of militia but not the whole act which dictates the type of firearm. No picking and choosing GBM! lol
RE:
Yes there are young gang members with firearms and when they get caught they are additionally charge with possession. Africa has ignored laws for so long since they get changed or ignored by the warlords in charge, so child soldiers do NOT get charged no matter what the laws say on the books. You many think the main reason is poverty, but the truth is the main problem is power. Those who want to usurp power ignore the laws. For those in power, control the food, weapons, and the life or death of the country's population. Not from my tribe? Die.
|
|
|
|
Post by redeyes on Nov 11, 2013 0:32:34 GMT
Yeah exactly, the laws don't work because the people with the money/resources/weapons don't follow them, because they don't have to. The people who are preyed upon for those resources and recruits are also the same people who would follow the law if they could. Unfortunately they don't have the weapons and munitions to resist the local warlords. They are kept poor through raids and infrastructure destruction so they can be easily preyed upon and made to do what the warlords want. The government is corrupt, and doesn't really give a crap as long as it doesn't happen to them and they get a kickback. What are we arguing about again? |
|
|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Nov 11, 2013 3:04:14 GMT
Yeah exactly, the laws don't work because the people with the money/resources/weapons don't follow them, because they don't have to. The people who are preyed upon for those resources and recruits are also the same people who would follow the law if they could. Unfortunately they don't have the weapons and munitions to resist the local warlords. They are kept poor through raids and infrastructure destruction so they can be easily preyed upon and made to do what the warlords want. The government is corrupt, and doesn't really give a crap as long as it doesn't happen to them and they get a kickback. What are we arguing about again? A minimum age to purchase/own a firearm...lol |
|
