Yes, 13 yr olds should be banned from shooting ARs. Why? For the same reason every constitutional right is applied with the rest of society in mind, and it not good to have 13 yr olds carrying around Aks, or vote, or have the power to keep all police out of their homes no matter what is contained in them that is illegal , or what dangerous or violent an activity may be transpiring there -all of this under the guise of the 4th Amendment. They also will have the right in a few years to run for public office, but that does not give one of them the right to be a 13 yr old President this year. Nor would it be OK for the newspapers the 13 yr old reads to fabricate a damaging story about his parents and print it on the front page because the paper felt like it since the press is free and they can write complete lies that are known to be lies.
. Gun Control is not Gun Banning, and the 2nd Amendment statement of rights to arms is true and necessary, but at the same time can be regulated according to circumstances like all other regulated basic-rights. Those wanting regulations, controls, oversight for any general right -including those specifically applying to guns - are not evil government officials. It is the larger part of society that voted to elect certain officials and who want these principles applied in ways that do not damage everyone else. That is what they want. So, blame your fellow citizens who most definitely know they would be quite unsafe if everyone who felt like it -- no matter what their past violence, current addictions, or whether they were adults or children -- were walking down the street with ARs.
. The right to vote exists with regulations. You can't vote twice, live in Alabama and vote for the Mayor of New York or just walk in with no ID and pull some levers on Voting Day.
. You have protection against unreasonable search and seizure in your homes, but not when a crime is being committed inisde your house.
. Having the freedom of equal due process under the law, but not the freedom to ignore the summons when it comes, is self-evident.
. And while your right to trial by a jury of peers is guaranteed, who those peers are and how that word is defined is not solely your call, but the courts under advisement by both sides of a criminal proceeding.
. And this is true of very right. None are black and white orders from 1790. That is not the history of their being developed and written:
. The job of the constitutional convention was exactly to find a middle ground (the same middle ground despised by some on these pages) between two recent swaths of history our new country had just passed through. One was the Articles of Confederation, which as a system of government, of stability, of logic and reason, was an abject failure. Disparate segments of society, disparate states dancing to a plethora of different drums. Before that, we had the exact opposite experience, ONE Man, ONE KING, One Foriegn Voice, exerting a super-abundance of control: tyranny. So the contitution and Bill of Rights were written to orient our nation between absolute freedom/anarchy and absolute control/tyranny. The arms questions are therefore grist for the same mill, of freedom with safeguards, which was the founders enduring blueprint.
. Everytime the average person who does favor the freedom to own and carry guns, hears of some ridiculous, ranting diatribe against any form of the most modest safeguard - the Brady Bill for example - that reasonable person is lost. And when you lose the middle, you lose your end of the spectrum as well.
. So, I just applied for a CCW permit, I am responsible and believe I will get one - and I will carry a weapon when danger necessitiates, but I don't want they guy next to me on the street who's had four violent assualt convictions to have a weapon, I don't want to walk down the street and see large groups of people - god knows who they are or what their past - carrying assualt rifles. Nor do I want my neigbor's 12 year old to carry around his AR in his trunk, or have several grenades in his belt. I also don't want the police in my city - which included two of my family - to regularly be killed as armor piercing rounds whistle through their chest, and the killers chalk up not just civilian deaths but police as well. I want NONE of this, because none of it will increase my safety, my friends' safety, or children's safety, none of it is good, none of it is logical and not allowing all of the above does nothing to disallow the rest of us to "bear arms" who have the maturity, ethics, and soundness of judgement to undertake the resposibilities of that and other constitutional rights.
. This is what I WANT, and I VOTE. The government is ME and Millions upon Millions who also are the middle-ground. You want us in - or out? If the latter, just ask, those of you who are the screamers can have your own small, pure-ideological group, extreme and self-congratulatory, increasingly self-referential and rabid, a tribe. If you want us in, use reason as one member of a 300,000,000 person society. Leave religous zealotry to God
Best
Jery
. Gun Control is not Gun Banning, and the 2nd Amendment statement of rights to arms is true and necessary, but at the same time can be regulated according to circumstances like all other regulated basic-rights. Those wanting regulations, controls, oversight for any general right -including those specifically applying to guns - are not evil government officials. It is the larger part of society that voted to elect certain officials and who want these principles applied in ways that do not damage everyone else. That is what they want. So, blame your fellow citizens who most definitely know they would be quite unsafe if everyone who felt like it -- no matter what their past violence, current addictions, or whether they were adults or children -- were walking down the street with ARs.
. The right to vote exists with regulations. You can't vote twice, live in Alabama and vote for the Mayor of New York or just walk in with no ID and pull some levers on Voting Day.
. You have protection against unreasonable search and seizure in your homes, but not when a crime is being committed inisde your house.
. Having the freedom of equal due process under the law, but not the freedom to ignore the summons when it comes, is self-evident.
. And while your right to trial by a jury of peers is guaranteed, who those peers are and how that word is defined is not solely your call, but the courts under advisement by both sides of a criminal proceeding.
. And this is true of very right. None are black and white orders from 1790. That is not the history of their being developed and written:
. The job of the constitutional convention was exactly to find a middle ground (the same middle ground despised by some on these pages) between two recent swaths of history our new country had just passed through. One was the Articles of Confederation, which as a system of government, of stability, of logic and reason, was an abject failure. Disparate segments of society, disparate states dancing to a plethora of different drums. Before that, we had the exact opposite experience, ONE Man, ONE KING, One Foriegn Voice, exerting a super-abundance of control: tyranny. So the contitution and Bill of Rights were written to orient our nation between absolute freedom/anarchy and absolute control/tyranny. The arms questions are therefore grist for the same mill, of freedom with safeguards, which was the founders enduring blueprint.
. Everytime the average person who does favor the freedom to own and carry guns, hears of some ridiculous, ranting diatribe against any form of the most modest safeguard - the Brady Bill for example - that reasonable person is lost. And when you lose the middle, you lose your end of the spectrum as well.
. So, I just applied for a CCW permit, I am responsible and believe I will get one - and I will carry a weapon when danger necessitiates, but I don't want they guy next to me on the street who's had four violent assualt convictions to have a weapon, I don't want to walk down the street and see large groups of people - god knows who they are or what their past - carrying assualt rifles. Nor do I want my neigbor's 12 year old to carry around his AR in his trunk, or have several grenades in his belt. I also don't want the police in my city - which included two of my family - to regularly be killed as armor piercing rounds whistle through their chest, and the killers chalk up not just civilian deaths but police as well. I want NONE of this, because none of it will increase my safety, my friends' safety, or children's safety, none of it is good, none of it is logical and not allowing all of the above does nothing to disallow the rest of us to "bear arms" who have the maturity, ethics, and soundness of judgement to undertake the resposibilities of that and other constitutional rights.
. This is what I WANT, and I VOTE. The government is ME and Millions upon Millions who also are the middle-ground. You want us in - or out? If the latter, just ask, those of you who are the screamers can have your own small, pure-ideological group, extreme and self-congratulatory, increasingly self-referential and rabid, a tribe. If you want us in, use reason as one member of a 300,000,000 person society. Leave religous zealotry to God
Best
Jery
Last edited:
:barf: I, for one, consider safety and security of my weapons to be PARAMOUNT to my duty as a well-armed citizen. Where is the duty for the parents to own their guns RESPONSIBLY???
), and this is a scary proposition. BUT, Columbine, Colorado, Canada,... these are all just SYMPTOMS of the real problem: That parents are not taking any responsibility/diligence for how their children are raised. I think this responsibility should be imposed.
