G'dale Mike
Member
What about 18 to vote, 21 to purchase firearms unless you are in the military? An added incentive to serve.
That part I agree with.I think voting is much more dangerous than firearms will ever be.
The next Supreme Court gun case, whether it deals with AWB's, age limits, etc., has to address the "militia" issue. Remember that Justice Scalia, in Heller, although he treated the Militia Clause as a nullity, did not explicitly overrule the Miller case. That has to be clarified. The pro-gun side needs to be honing its "militia" arguments. If we agree with the Founders that militia membership is universal, and that the militia should be as well armed as the standing army, that puts the 2nd Amendment RKBA in a whole new light. (You could not deny civilian ownership of machine guns, or set an age limit higher than the defined age for the militia, for example.)
(Congress could amend 10 U.S.C. 246 so that militia membership started at age 21, but that would mean that people younger than 21 could not be drafted, if and when the draft returned. Everything is interrelated.)
You still don’t get it. I just asked why. I never said I disagreed.
Yes, I made that mistake. But it still makes no sense for you to ask me to explain something I never said either?Stop deflecting.
YOU still dont get it.
You're quoting Aim1, not me. I didn't say it.
I don't owe you or anyone else a defense of what someone else said.
For example, legal age of contract in all the states is 18. For that reason, A state probably could not criminalize private consensual sex between those of 18 but below age of 21.
If you can vote at 18, than you should be able to purchase a gun at 18.
"To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each 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, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
The right to vote at 18 is enshrined in the Constitution (by the 26th Amendment). There is no age limit for owning a gun specified in the 2nd Amendment, so that detail is left up to legislation. Now, the "militia" is defined, in part (under 10 U. S. Code section 246), as consisting of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." If the 2nd Amendment was interpreted in such a way as to give due weight to the Militia Clause, then it could be argued that the RKBA extended to 17 year olds. Unfortunately, in the Heller decision, Justice Scalia gutted the Amendment by treating the Militia Clause as meaningless "prefatory material." This is just one more way in which we have come to regret the Heller decision.
For colonists and early states, if there was no standing army for protection from invasion, then some sort of alternative must be available which was a militia, voluntary or not, that could be called to serve for protection of society.
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)that requires
Yes, I made that mistake. But it still makes no sense for you to ask me to explain something I never said either?
Why are the two connected in any way? You are just drawing a false equivalence. Convenient, but still false. I don’t really care what the age is, but I know that 18 is no more sensible than 21.
boom boom (I am not quoting your post only for the sake of brevity):
In 1791, nobody disputed the individual right of armed self defense. Therefore, it was unnecessary to put it into the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment is all about a civic right: that the people (a collective made up of individuals) should be able to effectively resist the potential depredations of a standing army. (It also had a lot to do with the balance between the state and federal governments, and civilian control of the military.) The unavoidable implication is that civilians are to be as well armed as soldiers.
That's looking at it from the perspective of 1791, and the governing philosophy of the Founders. Obviously a lot of history has taken place since then, but if one is to be an "originalist," as Scalia claimed to be, one has to give priority to 1791 over later developments.
Why are the two connected in any way? You are just drawing a false equivalence. Convenient, but still false. I don’t really care what the age is, but I know that 18 is no more sensible than 21.
It appears, if I'm reading it correctly, in his article that he thinks the 21 year old age limit to purchase a rifle will withstand legal challenges.
What do you think?
Levy's a smart guy so it also suprised me when he also made the mistake in saying that adding a bump stock will turn a semi-automatic rifle into an illegal fully automatic one.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/opin...econd-amendment-wrong-levy-opinion/index.html
I'm asking for you to explain why you think its a false equivalence
That is something you said and I am quoting the right person, you.
If you cant explain or don't want to, just say so.
It wasn't exactly voluntary as you suggest it may have been. If that had been the case it would have been much like the military we have today. This is an important consideration. If you pass a law like this...
you are requiring an individual to keep and bear arms thru a congressional act.
Probably why many people feel that 2A does in fact regulate the purpose of bearing arms solely for the defense of the country.
I don't agree with that but the fact that the militia was even cited in 2A causes a lot of disagreement about why 2A even exists.
I think voting is much more dangerous than firearms will ever be. A quick glance of history shows great evils done by governments with leaders legally elected. So yeah I'm on board with tying voting and firearm ownership together among other things.
Sure, it’s easy. Voting and owning guns are not related in any way that would make the same age for both an obvious choice. Different knowledge bases required. Different education required. Different maturity required. Not the same. They are just two rights that you can confound with each other for no good reason.
When and where I was a teen, driving age was 15. I could have said that voting age should have been 15 too. But that would have been a similar false equivalence between driving and voting. It is false that they are equivalent, I.e. it is true that they are not the same.
the 21 year old age limit to purchase a rifle will withstand legal challenges