In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Guns from Vending Machines - Kids
Matchshot
Member Posts: 452 ✭✭✭
As a libertarian, I am for the strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Since the beginning of the republic, however, there have been a minimum age requirements to vote and enter into contracts. We have a juvenile justice system because it is recognized that a 10 year old does not have the same comprehension of the world that (most) 25 year olds do.
Should there be a minimum age for buying (not owning) firearms?
In the interest of full disclosure I am buying my 10 year old a 20 gauge pump that he will use to qualify for his first hunting license and to hunt with.
Should there be a minimum age for buying (not owning) firearms?
In the interest of full disclosure I am buying my 10 year old a 20 gauge pump that he will use to qualify for his first hunting license and to hunt with.
Comments
if the parent says fine, then fine.
the parent should be held responsible for any trouble their kid causes.
as i said, tho...
i advocate keeping the vending machines in bars.
Unless emancipated by a court, are not parents "RESPONSIBLE" ((legally)) for a child, until they reach the age of majority? (18)
Responsible both in support of them, as well as in their behavior?
Haven't the parents ALWAYS had this responsibility?
That being said....
Lets take a look at the 2nd amendment.
quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note the word "Militia"
The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The "Second Militia Act of 1792" defined the militia as "every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."
Earlier definitions had the starting age at 15 years old.
Now lets look at....."the right of the people"
Exactly what "people" was this referring to, if not.....the militia?
Wouldn't you expect a man to already be proficient with said firearm, if he is going to be part of a militia? Doesn't being proficient require practice? Or do some expect that once a person reaches 18, to miraculously already BE proficient? Or is it more reasonable that one would expect parents to be RESPONSIBLE enough to have taught that child BEFORE he was 18, how to safely and effectively use a firearm? Which could go hand in hand with that child having their own firearm.
Hmmmmmm........
My #1 son was shooting, and had his own rifle under the age of 10. Of course, there was a bit of "parental responsibility" going on then.
First, lets put out a short simple phrase...."parental responsibility"
Unless emancipated by a court, are not parents "RESPONSIBLE" ((legally)) for a child, until they reach the age of majority? (18)
Responsible both in support of them, as well as in their behavior?
Haven't the parents ALWAYS had this responsibility?
That being said....
Lets take a look at the 2nd amendment.
quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note the word "Militia"
The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The "Second Militia Act of 1792" defined the militia as "every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."
Earlier definitions had the starting age at 15 years old.
Now lets look at....."the right of the people"
Exactly what "people" was this referring to, if not.....the militia?
Wouldn't you expect a man to already be proficient with said firearm, if he is going to be part of a militia? Doesn't being proficient require practice? Or do some expect that once a person reaches 18, to miraculously already BE proficient? Or is it more reasonable that one would expect parents to be RESPONSIBLE enough to have taught that child BEFORE he was 18, how to safely and effectively use a firearm? Which could go hand in hand with that child having their own firearm.
Hmmmmmm........
My #1 son was shooting, and had his own rifle under the age of 10. Of course, there was a bit of "parental responsibility" going on then.
Thank you Pickenup, that was a great explanation and I really learned something.
My dad grew up in Amarillo TX and talks about going out as a young kid hunting jackrabbits with friends after school. I still have the rifle. I wish we had those times...
As stated, there is a different set of rules for minors. Until of legal age, although we all feel our children are usually the exception, we choose an age for all to become legally responsible,hopefully meaning educated and experienced enough. My son has had what we consider to be "his firearms" since age 9 this helps teach him the feeling responsibility and ownership which is what should be expected at legal age hopefully followed by accountability. Being a responsible parent and role model will help solidify their character when coming of age. This said yes there should be a minimum age for purchasing firearms.
The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The "Second Militia Act of 1792" defined the militia as "every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state.
So by those who call the Constitution a living document interpret this to mean only those sponsored by the state are militias and therefore not every citizen is a member of the state militia... and the second amendment does not apply to the general citizen.
Equally, does this mean to the literalist, that you can only have guns until you're 45-years old?
More fodder for the discussion.
Note the word "Militia"
The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The "Second Militia Act of 1792" defined the militia as "every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state.
So by those who call the Constitution a living document interpret this to mean only those sponsored by the state are militias and therefore not every citizen is a member of the state militia... and the second amendment does not apply to the general citizen.
Equally, does this mean to the literalist, that you can only have guns until you're 45-years old?
More fodder for the discussion.
Fodder? Not really. The operative clause of the 2nd makes no mention of a militia, rather the right is guarenteed to the people, be they members of the militia or not.
Worrying about the definition of militia not only provides sustenance those that would infringe, it twists the conversation away from principle.
Scalia, before going off on his 'registration, licensing, and regulation' idiocy started well in 'Heller' (linked below)
A few high points:
1:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law ?585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists' Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814-821 (1998).
2:
a. "Right of the People." The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a "right of the people." The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment 's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment 's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
3:
Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
We know, of course, that the decision went on to contradict the concept of a right, and distorted how any reasonable person would define 'infringe'. Those flaws, however, do not distract from a fairly concise description of how the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Brad Steele
Your citation was right on point.
I think one of the most important references Scalia made was in his relationship statement, specifically:
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.
It puts into perspective how the 2nd is a right guaranteed to the people specifically to enable them to protect themselves their freedoms from their own government.
Brad Steele
Thanks, Gregg.
I think one of the most important references Scalia made was in his relationship statement, specifically:
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.
It puts into perspective how the 2nd is a right guaranteed to the people specifically to enable them to protect themselves their freedoms from their own government.
I totally agree with the above. But that does not mean that society must gleefully hand out firearms to individuals whose past behavior has proven they can not be relied upon not to misuse those firearms.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Thanks, Gregg.
I think one of the most important references Scalia made was in his relationship statement, specifically:
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.
It puts into perspective how the 2nd is a right guaranteed to the people specifically to enable them to protect themselves their freedoms from their own government.
I totally agree with the above. But that does not mean that society must gleefully hand out firearms to individuals whose past behavior has proven they can not be relied upon not to misuse those firearms.
May I suggest that your agreement is less than total?
Hint: The answer lies in the entity that is defining the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Brad Steele
Be that as it may, many were ready to replace King George with yet another King George desiring Washington as their own king. We tend to harbor comfort in the habits or demons we know rather than risk the unknown.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Thanks, Gregg.
I think one of the most important references Scalia made was in his relationship statement, specifically:
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.
It puts into perspective how the 2nd is a right guaranteed to the people specifically to enable them to protect themselves their freedoms from their own government.
I totally agree with the above. But that does not mean that society must gleefully hand out firearms to individuals whose past behavior has proven they can not be relied upon not to misuse those firearms.
May I suggest that your agreement is less than total?
Hint: The answer lies in the entity that is defining the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
So..........you are taking the position that society, because of the constitution, MUST gleefully hand out firearms to people that have a violent felony conviction?
So..........you are taking the position that society, because of the constitution, MUST gleefully hand out firearms to people that have a violent felony conviction?
Yes, though I would suggest that it would be more a respectful acknowledgment of the rights of free men, than gleefully handing out firearms.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Thanks, Gregg.
I think one of the most important references Scalia made was in his relationship statement, specifically:
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.
It puts into perspective how the 2nd is a right guaranteed to the people specifically to enable them to protect themselves their freedoms from their own government.
I totally agree with the above. But that does not mean that society must gleefully hand out firearms to individuals whose past behavior has proven they can not be relied upon not to misuse those firearms.
Those not responsible enough to be in society should not be in society...tr.