Question: Is it constitutional to deprive an American citizen of his Second Amendment rights solely on the basis of age?

(03-04-2018 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here’s why I see the slippery slope problem. Suppose your ultimate objective is confiscating all guns. What would be your ideal first step? Something that a) involved taking at least some guns, to validate the premise, but b) would not have a material impact on the carnage, to justify continued calls for further action. I give you exhibit 1) an “assault weapons ban,” which perfectly fulfills both. Now suppose I could give you the perfect next big step? How about something that a) does not call for outlawing any guns, so you can pay lip service to complying with the 2nd Amendment, but b) increases the hassle of gun ownership to a level where law abiding gun owners simply give up, while c) still failing to have a material impact on gun violence, so you can still argue for total confiscation. I give you exhibit 2) gun registration. And once all guns are registered, then the only thing left—confiscation—will be easy. At least for the legal guns. So now you have a situation where only cops, robbers, and the army have guns. Name your favorite banana republic.

What protects us from that scenario? The good will and honesty of such politicians as Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. In other words, nothing.

What could protect is? How about what if the other side put together a solid defense in depth plan that would achieve significant reduction in the violence, particularly mass shootings, while infringing as little as possible on those rights that the 2nd Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” Unfortunately, that seems well beyond the capability of this group of republicans. I just hope some of them grow spines—and brains—before it’s too late.

If you see things differently, feel free to point out where and how this scenario does not play out.

Bottom line: say we pass an “assault weapons ban.” Gun deaths go down from 35,000 to 34,900 (as far as they can possibly go down by eliminating all “assault weapons” killings). We have another Columbine (just like we had the last time we had an “assault weapons ban”). How do we avoid the slippery slope?

Bump. Any answer to my question?

I know you were being sarcastic, but there are plenty of things that would prevent any slide down the slippery slope, including the judiciary, most Republicans, and many Democrats (particularly the ones from rural, or at least less urban, states). It isn't like Pelosi and Schumer are co-dictators. They are minority leaders and there are many people in their respective caucuses who would push back against them on various kinds of gun-related restrictions.

(03-05-2018 11:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question: Is it constitutional to deprive an American citizen of his Second Amendment rights solely on the basis of age?

Maybe we'll find out.

http://kstp.com/business/oregon-man-file...s/4814617/

(03-06-2018 10:00 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question: Is it constitutional to deprive an American citizen of his Second Amendment rights solely on the basis of age?

Maybe we'll find out.

http://kstp.com/business/oregon-man-file...s/4814617/

Just a matter of time before a suit was filed.

I wonder if we could restrict the right to peaceably assemble to people 21 and older.

Or 36 and older?

I guess those would be steps down the slippery slope to autocracy

(03-06-2018 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:00 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question: Is it constitutional to deprive an American citizen of his Second Amendment rights solely on the basis of age?

Maybe we'll find out.

http://kstp.com/business/oregon-man-file...s/4814617/

Just a matter of time before a suit was filed.

I wonder if we could restrict the right to peaceably assemble to people 21 and older.

Or 36 and older?

I guess those would be steps down the slippery slope to autocracy

I think the right to require warrants for searches should exclude anyone under 30. Same use of the word 'people' in that Amendment.

I really dont see how a law to limit sales based on an age anything less than 18 is viable. Interplay of the 2nd Amendment and the 26th will be a bugaboo. Especially with the congressional record for the 26th, and the congressional record for the passage of the law by Congress granting the franchise to 18 year old for Federal elections.

I guess it is fine to say that by force of law an 18 year old can be drafted and forced to fight for his country and is ostensibly a adult with sufficient maturity to do so, but is too immature to actually purchase a gun unless one is forcibly shoved into his hands (by conscription, which would entail 18 year olds if revived),or he is mature enough to volunteer to fight and have that gun.

Have to love lawmakers.....

(03-06-2018 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:00 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question: Is it constitutional to deprive an American citizen of his Second Amendment rights solely on the basis of age?

Maybe we'll find out.

http://kstp.com/business/oregon-man-file...s/4814617/

Just a matter of time before a suit was filed.

I wonder if we could restrict the right to peaceably assemble to people 21 and older.

Or 36 and older?

I guess those would be steps down the slippery slope to autocracy

I think the right to require warrants for searches should exclude anyone under 30. Same use of the word 'people' in that Amendment.

I really dont see how a law to limit sales based on an age anything less than 18 is viable. Interplay of the 2nd Amendment and the 26th will be a bugaboo. Especially with the congressional record for the 26th, and the congressional record for the passage of the law by Congress granting the franchise to 18 year old for Federal elections.

I guess it is fine to say that by force of law an 18 year old can be drafted and forced to fight for his country and is ostensibly a adult with sufficient maturity to do so, but is too immature to actually purchase a gun unless one is forcibly shoved into his hands (by conscription, which would entail 18 year olds if revived),or he is mature enough to volunteer to fight and have that gun.

Have to love lawmakers.....

In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

So would requiring a training/licensing program be completed first should someone be between ages X and Y, be appropriate?

I find your argument compelling, as it's similar to my thought on the drinking age being 21, but I think it's a bit different, if only because the 18 to 20 year olds who join the military receive a decent amount of training.

(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:00 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question: Is it constitutional to deprive an American citizen of his Second Amendment rights solely on the basis of age?

Maybe we'll find out.

http://kstp.com/business/oregon-man-file...s/4814617/

Just a matter of time before a suit was filed.

I wonder if we could restrict the right to peaceably assemble to people 21 and older.

Or 36 and older?

I guess those would be steps down the slippery slope to autocracy

I think the right to require warrants for searches should exclude anyone under 30. Same use of the word 'people' in that Amendment.

I really dont see how a law to limit sales based on an age anything less than 18 is viable. Interplay of the 2nd Amendment and the 26th will be a bugaboo. Especially with the congressional record for the 26th, and the congressional record for the passage of the law by Congress granting the franchise to 18 year old for Federal elections.

I guess it is fine to say that by force of law an 18 year old can be drafted and forced to fight for his country and is ostensibly a adult with sufficient maturity to do so, but is too immature to actually purchase a gun unless one is forcibly shoved into his hands (by conscription, which would entail 18 year olds if revived),or he is mature enough to volunteer to fight and have that gun.

Have to love lawmakers.....

In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

So would requiring a training/licensing program be completed first should someone be between ages X and Y, be appropriate?

I find your argument compelling, as it's similar to my thought on the drinking age being 21, but I think it's a bit different, if only because the 18 to 20 year olds who join the military receive a decent amount of training.

Has anyone < 21 ever challenged the drinking age?

(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:00 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question: Is it constitutional to deprive an American citizen of his Second Amendment rights solely on the basis of age?

Maybe we'll find out.
http://kstp.com/business/oregon-man-file...s/4814617/

Just a matter of time before a suit was filed.
I wonder if we could restrict the right to peaceably assemble to people 21 and older.
Or 36 and older?
I guess those would be steps down the slippery slope to autocracy

I think the right to require warrants for searches should exclude anyone under 30. Same use of the word 'people' in that Amendment.
I really dont see how a law to limit sales based on an age anything less than 18 is viable. Interplay of the 2nd Amendment and the 26th will be a bugaboo. Especially with the congressional record for the 26th, and the congressional record for the passage of the law by Congress granting the franchise to 18 year old for Federal elections.
I guess it is fine to say that by force of law an 18 year old can be drafted and forced to fight for his country and is ostensibly a adult with sufficient maturity to do so, but is too immature to actually purchase a gun unless one is forcibly shoved into his hands (by conscription, which would entail 18 year olds if revived),or he is mature enough to volunteer to fight and have that gun.
Have to love lawmakers.....

In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?
So would requiring a training/licensing program be completed first should someone be between ages X and Y, be appropriate?
I find your argument compelling, as it's similar to my thought on the drinking age being 21, but I think it's a bit different, if only because the 18 to 20 year olds who join the military receive a decent amount of training.

As most of you probably know, I have supported some kind of a gun license, similar to a driver's license, that you'd need to buy or possess guns or ammo, and that would be tied to the criminal database, so that running the card through a reader, or calling a toll-free number, would serve as an immediate background check.

I could see this working like a driver's license, at some age you get a learner's permit, and at some later age you get a full license, with endorsements available for things like CCL, open carry, and particular weapons like semi-automatics. Say at about 14 you could have a learner's permit that let you have a gun when hunting or at a range, accompanied by an adult. At some later age you get a full license for basic weapons, then you could augment with additional training and qualifications to move up to more powerful and sophisticated stuff.

Some gun owners say this is tantamount to gun registration. A lot of those gun owners already have CCLs or something similar, so they are already on the list.

This is one thing that has actually accomplished about a 20% reduction in gun violence in some places where it has been implemented. That's a better record than most of the stuff the left is peddling. And I think it's time for those of us who feel that without the 2nd Amendment, the rest are worthless, to step up with some ideas.

One other thought I have is that I wonder why the NRA isn't onboard with this. There is a ton of money to be made with all the certification training, and guess who is in primo postion to pull down some major bucks.

(03-06-2018 11:04 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:00 AM)JSA Wrote:  Maybe we'll find out.

http://kstp.com/business/oregon-man-file...s/4814617/

Just a matter of time before a suit was filed.

I wonder if we could restrict the right to peaceably assemble to people 21 and older.

Or 36 and older?

I guess those would be steps down the slippery slope to autocracy

I think the right to require warrants for searches should exclude anyone under 30. Same use of the word 'people' in that Amendment.

I really dont see how a law to limit sales based on an age anything less than 18 is viable. Interplay of the 2nd Amendment and the 26th will be a bugaboo. Especially with the congressional record for the 26th, and the congressional record for the passage of the law by Congress granting the franchise to 18 year old for Federal elections.

I guess it is fine to say that by force of law an 18 year old can be drafted and forced to fight for his country and is ostensibly a adult with sufficient maturity to do so, but is too immature to actually purchase a gun unless one is forcibly shoved into his hands (by conscription, which would entail 18 year olds if revived),or he is mature enough to volunteer to fight and have that gun.

Have to love lawmakers.....

In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

So would requiring a training/licensing program be completed first should someone be between ages X and Y, be appropriate?

I find your argument compelling, as it's similar to my thought on the drinking age being 21, but I think it's a bit different, if only because the 18 to 20 year olds who join the military receive a decent amount of training.

Has anyone < 21 ever challenged the drinking age?

Drinking is not a Constitutional right.

(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

Never heard of anybody, volunteer or draftee, flunking basic training because they were unable to handle a firearm.

(03-06-2018 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 11:04 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just a matter of time before a suit was filed.

I wonder if we could restrict the right to peaceably assemble to people 21 and older.

Or 36 and older?

I guess those would be steps down the slippery slope to autocracy

I think the right to require warrants for searches should exclude anyone under 30. Same use of the word 'people' in that Amendment.

I really dont see how a law to limit sales based on an age anything less than 18 is viable. Interplay of the 2nd Amendment and the 26th will be a bugaboo. Especially with the congressional record for the 26th, and the congressional record for the passage of the law by Congress granting the franchise to 18 year old for Federal elections.

I guess it is fine to say that by force of law an 18 year old can be drafted and forced to fight for his country and is ostensibly a adult with sufficient maturity to do so, but is too immature to actually purchase a gun unless one is forcibly shoved into his hands (by conscription, which would entail 18 year olds if revived),or he is mature enough to volunteer to fight and have that gun.

Have to love lawmakers.....

In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

So would requiring a training/licensing program be completed first should someone be between ages X and Y, be appropriate?

I find your argument compelling, as it's similar to my thought on the drinking age being 21, but I think it's a bit different, if only because the 18 to 20 year olds who join the military receive a decent amount of training.

Has anyone < 21 ever challenged the drinking age?

Drinking is not a Constitutional right.

Touché.

Sometimes I wish it had been 21 when I was younger.

(03-06-2018 11:29 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 11:04 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the right to require warrants for searches should exclude anyone under 30. Same use of the word 'people' in that Amendment.

I really dont see how a law to limit sales based on an age anything less than 18 is viable. Interplay of the 2nd Amendment and the 26th will be a bugaboo. Especially with the congressional record for the 26th, and the congressional record for the passage of the law by Congress granting the franchise to 18 year old for Federal elections.

I guess it is fine to say that by force of law an 18 year old can be drafted and forced to fight for his country and is ostensibly a adult with sufficient maturity to do so, but is too immature to actually purchase a gun unless one is forcibly shoved into his hands (by conscription, which would entail 18 year olds if revived),or he is mature enough to volunteer to fight and have that gun.

Have to love lawmakers.....

In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

So would requiring a training/licensing program be completed first should someone be between ages X and Y, be appropriate?

I find your argument compelling, as it's similar to my thought on the drinking age being 21, but I think it's a bit different, if only because the 18 to 20 year olds who join the military receive a decent amount of training.

Has anyone < 21 ever challenged the drinking age?

Drinking is not a Constitutional right.

Touché.

I wish it had been 21 when I was younger.

Drinking and voting were both 21 when I was 18-20. Not too much problem finding booze. never tried to vote.

(03-05-2018 03:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here’s why I see the slippery slope problem. Suppose your ultimate objective is confiscating all guns. What would be your ideal first step? Something that a) involved taking at least some guns, to validate the premise, but b) would not have a material impact on the carnage, to justify continued calls for further action. I give you exhibit 1) an “assault weapons ban,” which perfectly fulfills both. Now suppose I could give you the perfect next big step? How about something that a) does not call for outlawing any guns, so you can pay lip service to complying with the 2nd Amendment, but b) increases the hassle of gun ownership to a level where law abiding gun owners simply give up, while c) still failing to have a material impact on gun violence, so you can still argue for total confiscation. I give you exhibit 2) gun registration. And once all guns are registered, then the only thing left—confiscation—will be easy. At least for the legal guns. So now you have a situation where only cops, robbers, and the army have guns. Name your favorite banana republic.

What protects us from that scenario? The good will and honesty of such politicians as Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. In other words, nothing.

What could protect is? How about what if the other side put together a solid defense in depth plan that would achieve significant reduction in the violence, particularly mass shootings, while infringing as little as possible on those rights that the 2nd Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” Unfortunately, that seems well beyond the capability of this group of republicans. I just hope some of them grow spines—and brains—before it’s too late.

If you see things differently, feel free to point out where and how this scenario does not play out.

Bottom line: say we pass an “assault weapons ban.” Gun deaths go down from 35,000 to 34,900 (as far as they can possibly go down by eliminating all “assault weapons” killings). We have another Columbine (just like we had the last time we had an “assault weapons ban”). How do we avoid the slippery slope?

Bump. Any answer to my question?

The broader issue is assault weapons (and rifles and shotguns) constitute less than 10% of all gun related deaths. Mass shootings grab the news media but really aren't as big of a deal as they are made to be. Much like terrorism - its a handful of high profile deaths that causes panic and ends up with things like the TSA. Out of the thousands of deaths in 2013 I believe 300 were from rifles (IIRC, quoting from memory from an article I read a while ago).

Assault weapons aren't the real problem. And banning them is going to merely, at best, drop gun deaths from 35,000 to 34,900 (to use your numbers).

Focusing on this issue only vs the broader issue is akin to mobilizing your army for a potential invasion by Canada.

I wanted to come back to this.

I see the your point, but it might be more accurate to say mass shootings are still relatively rare events. I think someone shooting 500 people is a BFD.

With regard to the other 30,000+ shootings, maybe the converse of what Stalin supposedly said is true. A mass shooting is a tragedy, a single shooting is a statistic.

Drinking and voting were 18 when I was 17. Just barely missed the 'legal in high school days'. Was legal for the vast majority of Rice days. I knew one guy pretty well (class behind me in Rice) who was legal for 2 weeks before he was deemed illegal. *That* would have sucked royally....

I was a proponent of lowering the ages for everything to 18. My logic, if you can call it that , was that if a person was deemed an adult at 18 can could enlist in the military and sign contracts, they should be considered adults at everything.

These days, I am leaning more toward raising the age for everything to 30.

(03-06-2018 11:39 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 03:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here’s why I see the slippery slope problem. Suppose your ultimate objective is confiscating all guns. What would be your ideal first step? Something that a) involved taking at least some guns, to validate the premise, but b) would not have a material impact on the carnage, to justify continued calls for further action. I give you exhibit 1) an “assault weapons ban,” which perfectly fulfills both. Now suppose I could give you the perfect next big step? How about something that a) does not call for outlawing any guns, so you can pay lip service to complying with the 2nd Amendment, but b) increases the hassle of gun ownership to a level where law abiding gun owners simply give up, while c) still failing to have a material impact on gun violence, so you can still argue for total confiscation. I give you exhibit 2) gun registration. And once all guns are registered, then the only thing left—confiscation—will be easy. At least for the legal guns. So now you have a situation where only cops, robbers, and the army have guns. Name your favorite banana republic.

What protects us from that scenario? The good will and honesty of such politicians as Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. In other words, nothing.

What could protect is? How about what if the other side put together a solid defense in depth plan that would achieve significant reduction in the violence, particularly mass shootings, while infringing as little as possible on those rights that the 2nd Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” Unfortunately, that seems well beyond the capability of this group of republicans. I just hope some of them grow spines—and brains—before it’s too late.

If you see things differently, feel free to point out where and how this scenario does not play out.

Bottom line: say we pass an “assault weapons ban.” Gun deaths go down from 35,000 to 34,900 (as far as they can possibly go down by eliminating all “assault weapons” killings). We have another Columbine (just like we had the last time we had an “assault weapons ban”). How do we avoid the slippery slope?

Bump. Any answer to my question?

The broader issue is assault weapons (and rifles and shotguns) constitute less than 10% of all gun related deaths. Mass shootings grab the news media but really aren't as big of a deal as they are made to be. Much like terrorism - its a handful of high profile deaths that causes panic and ends up with things like the TSA. Out of the thousands of deaths in 2013 I believe 300 were from rifles (IIRC, quoting from memory from an article I read a while ago).

Assault weapons aren't the real problem. And banning them is going to merely, at best, drop gun deaths from 35,000 to 34,900 (to use your numbers).

Focusing on this issue only vs the broader issue is akin to mobilizing your army for a potential invasion by Canada.

I wanted to come back to this.

I see the your point, but it might be more accurate to say mass shootings are still relatively rare events. I think someone shooting 500 people is a BFD.

With regard to the other 30,000+ shootings, maybe the converse of what Stalin supposedly said is true. A mass shooting is a tragedy, a single shooting is a statistic.

But there is a huge problem with your 30k number. Look at the statistics and tell us how many of that number are suicide. It always hovers close to 2/3 of the number on an annual basis. Sorry, the proper view of using a number to clamor for gun control (and for a discussion of the topic at hand) is the use of a firearm in an illegal or improper manner. or do we really want to make Cruz, Klebold, Roof, and about 1000 gangbangers the functional and moral equivalents of my neighbor in California who offed himself using a .38 revolver in the privacy of the house he lived alone in?

Places like the Brady Institute simply use the term 'gun violence' and throw everything into the pot. I find this practice disingenuous at best, and coldly calculating and a tad disgusting at worst.

?

(03-06-2018 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

Never heard of anybody, volunteer or draftee, flunking basic training because they were unable to handle a firearm.

How closely do you follow who tries to join our military?

(03-06-2018 12:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

Never heard of anybody, volunteer or draftee, flunking basic training because they were unable to handle a firearm.

How closely do you follow who tries to join our military?

How closely do I have to follow to make the statement that I have never heard of anybody being dismissed from basic because they were unable to handle a firearm?I haven't. It's a fact.

Do you have some anecdotes or stats that would demonstrate that people get dismissed from basic because they are not good with a gun? I am willing to listen.

(03-06-2018 01:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 12:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In this case, the 18 year old who is drafted or joins the military is trained and must be able to show they can competently handle a firearm before they are given one, right?

Never heard of anybody, volunteer or draftee, flunking basic training because they were unable to handle a firearm.

How closely do you follow who tries to join our military?

How closely do I have to follow to make the statement that I have never heard of anybody being dismissed from basic because they were unable to handle a firearm?I haven't. It's a fact.

Do you have some anecdotes or stats that would demonstrate that people get dismissed from basic because they are not good with a gun? I am willing to listen.

My father was a gunner on a B-24.

My brother told me this story.

The .45 sidearm was apparently a ***** to fire accurately.
So, during target practice for his basic training, he and his friend both fired at my father's target,
and then both fired at his friends. They both barely passed.