Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: How the repeal of all gun laws will free America

  1. #1
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Part One. http://www.newswithviews.com/Longenecker/john113.htm


    HOW THE REPEAL OF ALL GUN LAWS WILL FREE AMERICA


    By John Longenecker
    August 19, 2009
    NewsWithViews.com


    Most Americans do not make the connection between American Gun Control and today's scandals of bank bailouts, corporate takeovers, immense failures, government intrusion and indifference, massive disrespect for the electorate, and other harassment of the sovereign. There is a connection.

    For a long time, I have urged the repeal of all gun laws. Since the very inception of gun control in this country, abuses of powers has served the public servants more than the electorate, and few of the promises have ever come true. The fears of liberty purists have all come true, right on schedule it seems. All of this goes without saying, but how do we find our way back home again to a nation of Independence from our own servants?

    Gun laws - more than 20,000 of them - serve officials by unwinding natural values and rights of armed defense of the person and permit massive transfers of our wealth to others little by little. How gun control is related to modern crises is in how experiments and trials tested and proven on gun bans, restrictions and regulations give valuable feedback to social engineers as to how far they can go against the electorate. It's not enough to say that citizens must be disarmed first before any tyranny, it is more: it is a feature-rich test which surrenders up valuable information.

    The idea -- the experiment - gauges how America's most vociferous defenders of liberty (gun owners) are actually very tolerant thanks to their respect for due process and faith in the law. This is used against them (and everyone else) in pushing back the borders of how far government can go in
    unreasonableness against protest. Get it past gun owners first, and the rest of the nation is easy prey. This is what we are seeing now in scandals seemingly unrelated to gun control. All of the fighting we see in newsmedia every day now between indifferent, stubborn officials and their resentful
    constituents is gleaned from what is learned from gun control. They have a very high confidence level in how far they can go thanks to what they know about how far they have been able to go in gun control.

    Gun control is Number One on the list of these tests and abuses because it yields up that sort of social engineering information: how far can you push the American people on an issue that means so much to, say, oh.. 80 million? What can you learn about dividing Americans?

    This makes it the pressure point to push in unwinding these by the ton. Imagine how neighborhoods will someday soon embrace and thank the average armed citizen for not only helping to regain control of their neighborhoods, but to once again have high expectations of public service and integrity of law enforcement, self-policing and professional integrity in office, and perhaps, just perhaps, fewer laws passed. Much of this would come from respect, respect which the official does not give the electorate at this time.

    This is one of the best rewards of the repeal of all gun laws: the idea that so many anti-crime programs costing billions are simply not needed when the citizenry is armed. So many costly programs thrive because they know how little attention non-gun owners will pay and ignore bigger government is a veritable gold mine of data up to now. As it stands today, tens of millions are aroused as some officials have gone too far and aroused the sleeping giant.

    After all, they also know form their data that some of the loudest complainers aren't even registered to vote.

    Alright, so the sleeping giant is awake. But, then, what do we do next? How do we get our independence back again?

    I write often that the armed citizen does not fight tyranny in eventual shoot-outs with our own American troops, but by every day impeaching the need for so many policies which, themselves tyrannize Americans. Americans are tyrannized by coercive rules and penalties, by sweeping mandates, by takings, by taxations, by abuses of powers, by bankruptcy in defending those cases, by education content, by zero-tolerance in school and workplace, and other paradigms of many who never consult the parent or citizen, but so-called experts. All of these are groomed for success by a blueprint of what is learned from Gun Control. All of these speak only to factions of America such that one cannot count on understanding and support from other Americans. All of these can be unwound for all by the repeal of all gun laws.

    What's the payoff for the social engineers? How do officials gain from the tragedy of seemingly intractable violent crime? Moving America from a values system and personal dignity of Independence into a nation of utter dependency with all exits closed is the payday for officials. It is the old Hegelian model of governance in presiding over continuing crisis instead of presiding over prosperity and independence from servants, and nothing rouses cooperation better than violence.

    But there is more to freedom that waiting for government to chase away thugs. Superb data works both ways: Lynch v. NC DOJ remarked that "Police have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others." Lynch went on to say that their duties lie elsewhere in keeping the peace, in
    enforcement of the law. This means after-the-fact, friends. Dependency is a terrible thing.

    How many have to die before the sleeping giant has his coffee and make the connection of gun control to dependency on our servants?

    Repeal all gun laws as the beginning of getting out from under bigger government and away from dependency on our very own public servants.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  2. #2
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Part Two. http://www.newswithviews.com/Longenecker/john114.htm


    HOW THE REPEAL OF ALL GUN LAWS WILL FREE AMERICA


    By John Longenecker
    August 23, 2009
    NewsWithViews.com



    What would happen if we repealed all gun laws in 2010?

    In the last edition, I posted how 20,000 gun laws and other programs cloned from American Gun Control have furnished valuable information as to how far officials can push all Americans. I wrote how armed citizens do not fight tyranny with a gun directly, but how armed citizens impeach those abusive, costly anti-crime programs which, themselves tyrannize Americans. There is a difference. Disarm America and abusive programs are made to seem necessary. Restore the second amendment, and dozens of programs are proven to be utterly worthless boondoggles.

    Modern America’s experience of abuses of process which crescendoed in 2008 and 2009, national scandals and takings right down to verbal abuses of the electorate from officials in town hall meetings were made possible and emboldened purely by what is learned from gun control: American tolerance and patience to a fault. Chief among the targets is citizen sovereign authority over officials which has been forgotten, insulted and vexed, more likely erased from American education. The moment we try to assert our rights over servants, the servants are taken by surprise, offended and baffled.

    The very idea of quarreling with the electorate is an exquisite betrayal of intent to go against the electorate. They have a high confidence in how far they can go from what they have learned from gun bans and other gun control.

    The question was: Despite what servants think they know about how far they can push the electorate, how do we recapture our independence out from under our own public servants?

    I advocate the repeal of all gun laws as the very first item on the agenda of Conservatives, Libertarians and Independents who will run for public office in 2010. The Republicans aren’t going to do it, are they? For them, the concept of an armed electorate as integral to fighting crime is uncouth, bad taste, and unseemly. Like spoiled kids, they have no knowledge of everyday problems, no knowledge of the most straightforward solutions for meeting violent crime and respecting the voter. They have no comprehension as to our legal authority to act when confronted by violence. They have no knowledge that each citizen may stop a crime in progress and do so more than Police do. They do have knowledge, however, as to how being disarmed makes predatory political programs sound necessary. That, they know.

    But what would happen if new freshmen Senators and U.S. Representatives began to repeal unreasonable gun laws? A lot would change in favor of the electorate and no longer in favor of the public servants. There would not be change because some servant feels they have a gun to their head — there would be change in the name of propriety, oath, and loyalty to the republic. It would be a lot easier with a selection of candidates who understand the authority we all have to fight crime without any need for those programs which for decades tied our hands in fighting crime. And which transferred our wealth out of our hands.

    Example: crime is lower in states where concealed carry of handguns is affirmed throughout the state, but crime is higher and more vicious in their major cities where gun rights are frustrated and ignored. I’d say to do the math, but it’s already been done.

    These candidates would have to run on the understanding that they do not go to Congress or any other office to get rich in retirement or special privilege, but to serve, and that would mean smaller government, perhaps even soon talking themselves out of a job. That would be public service.

    And if they are made to know that they have a constituency of registered voters in Libertarian, Conservative and Independents along with all sorts of other support, then it will more likely become a you-build-it-and-they-will-come. Voter turnout would be critical to the success of a due process retaking of the United States from her servants back to the sovereign.

    Gun laws go against the interests of the United States, but what would change if we repealed this adverse, predatory practice?

    Americans would have a higher confidence in government overall; trust of the electorate would replace the morbid insistence that the electorate trust officials. Courts would be less choked. Police would be less burdened, funding would go further, boondoggles would diminish, crime would come more under the control of the victim, and crazy anti-crime programs such as excessive electronic surveillance would be more obviously discredited.

    One of the greatest benefits would be in how the government perceives the citizen. At this time, not only do 20,000 gun laws abuse all taxpayers, but dozens and dozens of programs and policies consider the citizen a pest, a nuisance to the ‘governance’ work of officials. Look at how officials are treating constituents in the health care reform town halls: the liberals are attacking the constituents and the conservatives are so even-handed, you’d think they were holding their coats for them. Oh, well, go along to get along, I guess.

    This is why we need a whole new generation of candidates and the constituency to summon them. With the right constituency – Libertarians, Independents and Conservatives registering to vote and voting – the right candidates will have a chance of winning. The best chance of winning office would be to make the repeal of gun laws a plank on their liberty platform, and to announce it early. It would begin with consulting liberty purists on the subject. I’m available.

    This house-cleaning — along with the repeal of gun laws — would reverse the attitude of officials about families, privacy, private property, education content and liberty in general. It could change the entire complexion of the United States back. Repeal all gun laws, and the rest of those abuses of the sovereign would take care of themselves, because they are based on defective theories of fighting crime and hate. In the end, they don’t fight anybody but the citizen.

    What else would happen if we got rid of all gun laws?

    Independence. Independence is more than a sense of freedom, freedom is different. Independence is to be officially recognized as the sovereign over the servant and to be anything but dependent on the servant. That doesn’t mean we ignore laws, it means fewer laws. That means no more force against the citizen. No more bold hostility to constituents. No more disrespect and defiance of the electorate.

    It would mean a return to more guts, courage and freer critical thought, and an abandonment of a personal sense of futility and helplessness of the electorate. It would mean a return to personal dignity in both personal success and personal failure in no longer having your choices made for you by drones who guarantee failure and dependency. It would mean an outright rejection and replacement of PC thought as self-destructive, if not predatory. Removing the use of force to make people PC compliant would be an independence in itself, wouldn’t it? Gun control has facilitated the entire paradigm of who should have the monopoly on force over to officials to get just that one result: intimidation and discouragement.

    More to come.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  3. #3
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Part Three. http://www.newswithviews.com/Longenecker/john115.htm

    HOW THE REPEAL OF ALL GUN LAWS WILL FREE AMERICA


    By John Longenecker
    September4, 2009
    NewsWithViews.com



    Equilibrium

    I wrote in Parts I and II that the repeal of all gun laws will: a) unwind many of the seemingly unrelated frauds and boondoggles which tyrannize all taxpayers, gun owner or not, and; b) will restore Independence from our public servants by a continual reminder of how little they are really needed, especially for anti-violence-based programs.

    The armed citizen fights tyranny not with a gun directly, but directly impeaches the need for programs which, themselves, tyrannize taxpayers as if they were needed. People are sold on the necessity for many costly programs because gun control has left a void of meeting crime head-on by America's fist line of defense, the target.

    The ubiquity of the armed citizen shows that such costly programs are not needed on their face. The entire purpose of gun control was to create that void and to pave the way for a host of new programs alleged to fight crime, including zero-tolerance, National ID Card, various electronic surveillances, and Political Correctness, to name the better-known ones.

    Alright, so we see the repeal of all gun laws in 2010 thanks to a new generation of libertarian, conservative, and independent candidates who say so on their platforms.
    They are elected to office thanks to a constituency who made itself known to them. Call it a mandate for smaller government. I would. They keep their word the moment they take their oath of office, getting right down to work to affirm the Second Amendment by the repeal of nearly 20,000 gun laws. We still leave a few in place, such as prohibited persons, no legal possession for minors, and maybe one more very reasonable gun law, making a total of three gun laws. These descend from the first gun law which is, of course, the Second Amendment, and this new generation of officials never forgets it. The criminalization of the honest citizen as 'crisis management' is in the past, and a whole new concept of public service emerges in patriotic loyalty to the people.

    This, then, paves the way to discredit programs built on the void of millions who are - were - disarmed and barred from the spirit of fighting back.

    What happens next? How does it unfold in real terms for households?

    Policies and programs built on allegations of fighting crime are repealed as no longer needed, their expense no longer justified, their harassment of the honest no longer a tool. Agents and staff find new work in lateral movement to other law enforcement agencies without skipping a beat. Many of these are still needed, but no longer is the very resentful stalking our own citizens their mission. Their value as assets is in respecting the sovereignty of the citizen, not in questioning it, and from reports, I believe many officers and staff would secretly look forward to this change. Most beat officers support the armed citizen, they do not oppose them, and it's not fair to lump all officers together when we know they are not; what is fair is to change their mission.

    More revenues freed up means no more early release under the excuse to crowding or cutbacks. America has enough money to run the country if boondoggles and frauds weren't propagandized on the American people as a form of governance. Crime is a major culprit in each of these crises, and engineered to fill the void of intentional defenselessness of the citizen in every major city.

    As I say often, our freedom is not in ignoring laws, but in having fewer laws.

    Equilibrium comes. It is a process. This is both a settling in restoring the official recognition of our sovereignty and the stabilization which maintains it all from now on.

    You can be sure there will be a lot of political fighting.

    As America approaches her equilibrium, crime will change as gun laws disappear. Crimes can be expected to be lesser crimes and even less violent as they are more likely interrupted and de-escalated. [Armed citizens effectively de-escalate crimes more than 2.5 million times each year, so we know it works!] Burglaries with the potential for becoming violent can be stopped while they are still break-ins. Thousands of rapes that would-have-been are stopped while they are still on the stalking approach. Predators of all sorts will no longer find legislatures doing their advance work in disarming targets of crime and find themselves taking bigger chances of not only being stopped, but of being caught. Or worse.

    Sentencing will change. Education content will change to reflect more the parental wishes over those of 'experts'. Media content and attitude will likely change for the better, and America will be safer. Critical thinking will grow as essential to personal dignity. Perhaps even the divorce rate will change. People will drink more milk. Allocations of funds will take on new, more understandable, more reasonable purposes, and people will have a new respect for government. This will come only from government's respect for us first.

    And that's only the beginning.

    Most of all, there will be a realization of what the people will not tolerate, including stealth propositions and mistaken notions of our consent. It will be the formula for safer streets and smaller government.

    A whole host of things will change in the favor of the electorate once again, and that means your homes and your kids' homes as the U.S. swings back to its natural equilibrium of who is the sovereign and who has the monopoly on lethal force in this country.

    2010 Candidates, call your office.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    A few of those laws are needed. And serious serious swift thunderous pusishment for the offenders.

    The rest may be disposed of.





  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Taylorsville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    chillidogs wrote:
    A few of those laws are needed. And serious serious swift thunderous pusishment for the offenders.

    The rest may be disposed of.
    Longenecker suggests leaving a few and recommends that they be "prohibited persons, no legal possession for minors," and another unspecified law. What laws would you keep?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Francis Marion wrote:
    chillidogs wrote:
    A few of those laws are needed. And serious serious swift thunderous pusishment for the offenders.

    The rest may be disposed of.
    Longenecker suggests leaving a few and recommends that they be "prohibited persons, no legal possession for minors," and another unspecified law. What laws would you keep?
    I think that 21 is a good age to own or possess any handgun.

    I think that the regulations is school zones are difficult to understand and enforce so should be repealed.

    I think that all conclealed permits be eliminated( dont kill me yet). So many states that honor this or that...makes it tough to understand. I am not sure what the best answer is but the easiest is to eliminate them all. If you are 21 get a federal permit that works all places except for "secure" areas. I dont fancy the idea of the feds having this power but it seems like a fair answer to a confusing issue.

    With these changes also comes more responsibility. Threat or brandish conviction is taken very serious and you loose the right. However the laws need to be understandable, enforceable and reasonable.

    Use of firearm in a crime is jail time. Simple as that. Too bad so sad.



    last one:

    every single person that OC to get attention kicks his own ass! Of course this is in the town square while chanting "I am a *****, I am a *****".

    Hey now dont get all bent, there are a few of you that do this and you know who you are.

    The rest are having a good giggle right now. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA:celebrate

  7. #7
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    chillidogs wrote:
    I think that 21 is a good age to own or possess any handgun.
    ...lame. :?

    chillidogs wrote:
    I think that the regulations is school zones are difficult to understand and enforce so should be repealed.
    Nice.

    chillidogs wrote:
    I think that all conclealed permits be eliminated( dont kill me yet). So many states that honor this or that...makes it tough to understand. I am not sure what the best answer is but the easiest is to eliminate them all. If you are 21 get a federal permit that works all places except for "secure" areas. I dont fancy the idea of the feds having this power but it seems like a fair answer to a confusing issue.
    I aggreed with your statement, until I realized that you still wanted conceald carry to be illegal, and regulated by da gubment. I say just decriminalize the practice altogether. Problem fixed.

    [flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/q-4jqZSEo0Q&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

    chillidogs wrote:
    With these changes also comes more responsibility. Threat or brandish conviction is taken very serious and you loose the right. However the laws need to be understandable, enforceable and reasonable.
    I don't know about "lose the right". If in jail, yes. If out of jail, no.

    chillidogs wrote:
    Use of firearm in a crime is jail time. Simple as that. Too bad so sad.
    Every crime? Like the infraction of carrying in an LDS church? Violent crimes, yes.

    chillidogs wrote:
    last one:

    every single person that OC to get attention kicks his own ass! Of course this is in the town square while chanting "I am a *****, I am a *****".

    Hey now dont get all bent, there are a few of you that do this and you know who you are.

    The rest are having a good giggle right now. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA:celebrate
    ...weak. :X
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  8. #8
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    What the hell is the major difference between an 18 and a 21 year old?

    Nothing appreciable IMHO.

    Why restrict handguns further than rifles? Rifles tend to be more powerful, and can kill from a much longer range.

    I know I know, concealable. Right, we've had this discussion before. Criminals are criminals. So the point of these laws?

    Of course I feel "constitutional carry" is best.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    18 years plus 3 =more experience. And three years of experience on your own hopefully= huge amount of maturity I would hope.

    I dont think it is fair to take the right to own and possess a firearm away from someone who does something stupid at 18 years all of the time. Circumstances change....wait three more years, then hold em accountable.

  10. #10
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    So, why handguns and not rifles? You seem to have avoided addressing that.

    Age limits are arbitrary, I know a few 16 year olds I would trust my life to, and some over 35 who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw.

    18 year olds who commit crimes aren't waiting till they're 21 to legally buy a firearm to commit a crime.

    And with them able to buy rifles already, what's to stop them from using the rifle in a crime. Nothing.

    Laws do nothing except put forth penalties for actions, they make nobody safer.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Taylorsville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    Once again, cars kill many times more people than guns do but we trust 2-4 tons of flying steel in the hands of a 15 yr old under parent supervision and a 16 yr old unsupervised but not a gun for someone until 21?

  12. #12
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    Francis Marion wrote:
    Once again, cars kill many times more people than guns do but we trust 2-4 tons of flying steel in the hands of a 15 yr old under parent supervision and a 16 yr old unsupervised but not a gun for someone until 21?
    Yup, I like how you think. Also, hundreds of thousands die of smoke-related diseases every year, but you don't see the tobacco companies being held responsible for marketing a lethal product to the masses. More people are killed every year from automobile accidents, smoke-related diseases and heart disease than guns by a huge margin. In fact, gun-related deaths rank near the bottom of the list of killers, including malpractice by doctors and hospital staff. It's always a political and control issue with guns. Sheeple and ignorant self-righteous politicians piss me off. They run the world but have no idea how it really works outside of their little box they grew up in and base everything they do on their ivy-league education and the lobbyists who sell us down the river. They are so out of touch with their constituents and reality, it's maddening.

    Statistical Sources:
    http://www.lawcore.com/car-accident/statistics.html
    http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/smoking/deaths.htm
    http://www.cdc.gov/heartDisease/statistics.htm
    http://www.resource4surgicalaccident...ticestats.html
    http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/guns.htm

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    chillidogs wrote:
    I think that 21 is a good age to own or possess any handgun.
    Thanks for thinking that my 19 year old daughter, all 5'2" of her, should be denied any means of self defense more lethal than pepper spray and a fistful of car keys.

    Wait... did I say "thanks"? Sorry, I meant to say "Kiss my ass!"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Old enough to vote and fight and die for the country (18) = old enough to drink and carry a gun (though hopefully not at the same time :P)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    chillidogs wrote:
    I think that 21 is a good age to own or possess any handgun.
    Thanks for thinking that my 19 year old daughter, all 5'2" of her, should be denied any means of self defense more lethal than pepper spray and a fistful of car keys.

    Wait... did I say "thanks"? Sorry, I meant to say "Kiss my ass!"
    its an opinion dill hole!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    chillidogs wrote:
    I think that 21 is a good age to own or possess any handgun.
    Thanks for thinking that my 19 year old daughter, all 5'2" of her, should be denied any means of self defense more lethal than pepper spray and a fistful of car keys.

    Wait... did I say "thanks"? Sorry, I meant to say "Kiss my ass!"
    maybe YOU should teach your daughter to stay out of trouble, defend herself, and call for help.

    My grand kid is more helpless than your 19 year old....so she should pack a rig to kindergarten right. your logic sucks.

    My opinion is that at 19 most dont have the maturity to make life and death choices.

    We as a nation have become a bunch of chumps. Sorry that the truth offends. children in the mid teens had more life experience and work ethic one hundred years ago. That experience earns the maturity needed to carry a gun and decide who you may or may not shoot. Again my opinion. So pucker up and KISS MY ASS!

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    chillidogs wrote:
    KBCraig wrote:
    chillidogs wrote:
    I think that 21 is a good age to own or possess any handgun.
    Thanks for thinking that my 19 year old daughter, all 5'2" of her, should be denied any means of self defense more lethal than pepper spray and a fistful of car keys.

    Wait... did I say "thanks"? Sorry, I meant to say "Kiss my ass!"
    My opinion is that at 19 most dont have the maturity to make life and death choices.
    Your opinion is more stringent than the government, specifically the military. An adult is an adult is an adult. If anything, the age of majority should be lowered. We let 16 year olds use deadly weapons in the form of vehicles unsupervised... and I graduated when I was 16.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    that is complete crazy talk!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    ScottyT wrote:
    Old enough to vote and fight and die for the country (18) = old enough to drink and carry a gun (though hopefully not at the same time :P)
    that is just silly.





  20. #20
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Stop trolling and go away.

    It's fine to discuss, but stop with the personal attacks.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    I'm with THX; Fine to discuss, the juvenile personal attacks need to end.

    With that, let me point out a few things to consider about age of majority. Primarily we need to remember that this nation has a very long history of granting adult rights in a graduated fashion. As the most stark example, our Federal Constitution has always imposed a minimum age of 35 to serve as President, 30 to serve as federal Senator, and 25 to serve as a Congressman.

    Driving ages vary between 14 (or younger for farm equipment not needing a driver license) and 18 depending on jurisdiction.

    At one time voting was age 21 (and go back far enough was limited to property holding white males). Voting and the draft and buying tobacco is now set at 18 (19 for tobacco in Utah). 18 is the nationwide age of consent for sex and for signing contracts.

    Federal law is 18 to own a gun or to buy a long gun from a dealer, 21 to buy a handgun from a dealer. There are those here hold enough to remember when some States allowed alcohol sales at 18, some did not allow it until 21, and some allowed only weak beer at 18 and everything else at 21.

    While we might rationally argue over what rights ought to be extended at what age, or whether the current age limits for various rights make logical sense, I think the notion of graduated bestowal of rights makes good sense.

    Modern medical studies confirm the important brain development that takes place between 18 and 21 years of age. Those 18-21 are more likely to be both perpetrators of and victims of violent crime than are those older than 21. The drop that happens at 25 is quite significant.

    Sociological studies have confirmed the increased likelihood of binge drinking and eventual alcoholism among those who start drinking regularly prior to 21 vs those who wait until 21 years or older to start engaging in regular drinking. We might also consider the number of 18 year olds still in high school and the number of 18-20 year olds involved in the high school social scene. A drinking age of 21 often results in 18 year old college freshman having easy access to alcohol purhcased legally by classmates. A legal drinking age of 18 results in the same situation for 14 year old high school freshman.

    Sgt Jensen or others currently serving in the military can correct me if I'm wrong, but 18 year olds in the military are not simply handed guns or the keys to a tank. They are subjected to intensive and rigorous training, following which they no longer represent typical 18 year olds in the larger population. Even still, their access to weapons (and ammunition for those weapons) is tightly regulated and controlled. And they generally operate under the direction of officers and NCOs who a bit older than 18.

    As someone who matured mentally fairly early I was often offended by what I saw as arbitrary and sometimes seemingly irrational age limits to do certain things. As someone now solidly into middle age I can honestly look back and see how much even I matured and mellowed between 18 and 21 and even 21 and 30. Those who do not see any material differences between 18 and 21 year olds (and especially 18 and 21 year old males) may want to consider if they are yet far enough removed from those youthful days to have proper perspective.

    Now, that all said, I think any well behaved law abiding 14 year old ought to be perfectly free to carry his .22 or other hunting or target rifle or shotgun to school, stuff it in his locker for the day, and then do some hunting on the way home, or be involved in a competitive shooting team. I do not think those in high school ought to be carrying guns for self defense. And while I think 18 year olds who are graduated from high school ought to be allowed to have a gun for self defense if they desire it (as current law does allow to various degrees), I think most males 18-21 years of age are at a much higher risk of using the gun illegally or unnecessarily than are most females in that age range; and both men and women younger than 21 are more likely to act rashly than men and women older than 21. A little sexism on my part backed up by the difference in testosterone levels between men and women. There are, of course, individual exceptions. Some will read this. But some who read this and think they are they exception are less exceptional than they think; but nothing short of another 10 years of age will likely convince them of that so they should feel free to report back in a decade and let us know if and how their perspective has changed.

    Simply put, the old "old enough to vote/die in the army, old enough to do everything" makes for nice sound bites and bumper stickers. But when one examines the science, sociology, and history of our brains and nation, some forms of graduated bestowal of rights makes a lot of sense.

    Just some (mostly off topic) food for thought.

    Charles


    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  22. #22
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    Sgt Jensen or others currently serving in the military can correct me if I'm wrong, but 18 year olds in the military are not simply handed guns or the keys to a tank. They are subjected to intensive and rigorous training, following which they no longer represent typical 18 year olds in the larger population. Even still, their access to weapons (and ammunition for those weapons) is tightly regulated and controlled. And they generally operate under the direction of officers and NCOs who a bit older than 18.
    I am currently deployed in Iraq, on an Air Base. I am part of a Brigade Headquarters Company, where our commander is an O-6 Colonel. We have everyone from 60+ year old Lieutenants Colonel to fresh faced privates. All of us are required to carry our assigned weapon, but we are not issued ammunition.

    Yes, you read that correctly. hundreds of us in Iraq are carrying guns with no bullets. The enlisted Airmen here don't even carry weapons. The only personnel here with ammunition are security forces, and those who go "outside the wire". Even then, nobody is authorized to carry a loaded firearm. Most with ammo must carry "California Unloaded", and the rest must carry "Utah Unloaded.

    Those who are behind the trigger of larger weapons (tanks, mortars) must go through very specific training, and even then are at the mercy of someone with higher rank when using deadly force. Weapon possession and use of deadly force is very controlled here, and punishments for misuse are swift and severe. I would much rather have to defend myself at home, than over here.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    Stop trolling and go away.

    It's fine to discuss, but stop with the personal attacks.
    yeah I agree!

  24. #24
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    chillidogs wrote:
    thx997303 wrote:
    Stop trolling and go away.

    It's fine to discuss, but stop with the personal attacks.
    yeah I agree!
    If you agree than why haven't you left?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    chillidogs wrote:
    thx997303 wrote:
    Stop trolling and go away.

    It's fine to discuss, but stop with the personal attacks.
    yeah I agree!
    If you agree than why haven't you left?
    I as SURE they have been talking about you. Geeesh you are so dense sometimes.

    And its you preaching about personal attacks. Look in the mirror...chat away.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •