Another 2A win

[M14 Shooter]

17 year olds get tried as adults in court.

A statement completely irrelevant to what I said.

 

[candycorn]

A statement completely irrelevant to what I said.

lol..whatever

 

[Jarlaxle]

I was channeling a gun nut and I produced the best representation

This, class, is a perfect example of someone this stupid actually thinking he is smart. Corny actually thinks that is a clever retort.

 

[M14 Shooter]

lol..whatever

As always - you can't handle the truth.

 

[candycorn]

This, class, is a perfect example of someone this stupid actually thinking he is smart. Corny actually thinks that is a clever retort.

Well you’re the one who brought up bowel movements.

 

[westwall]

So there is an age limit. Cool.

Not for you. You are clearly too stupid to ever be allowed to vote, own guns, drink, smoke, or breed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

17 year olds get tried as adults in court.

not automatically

 

[Blues Man]

So there is an age limit. Cool.

Are you really that dumb that you think a 10 year old is a legal adult?

 

[Blues Man]

17 year olds get tried as adults in court.

On a case by case basis not all the time

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It seems kinda silly that they can buy guns but not nicotine.

or alcohol

There is no explicitly-stated, nor strongly-implied Constitutional right to nicotine nor alcohol, as there is for arms.

 

[Blues Man]

There is no explicitly-stated, nor strongly-implied Constitutional right to nicotine nor alcohol, as there is for arms.

Either you are an adult or you are not.

If you can enter into a contract at age 18 you can decide if you want a beer or not.

And you seem to forget that the Constitution also clearly states that not ALL rights of the people are enumerated in the Constitution

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Either you are an adult or you are not.
If you can enter into a contract at age 18 you can decide if you want a beer or not.

With regard to rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution, I would agree that there ought to be a singular age of adulthood, above which, one cannot be denied these rights on the basis of age.

I've come to wonder if eighteen is too young.

In any event, I do not see the abuse of harmful drugs, including nicotine or alcohol, as anything that should be considered a Constitutional right.

And you seem to forget that the Constitution also clearly states that not ALL rights of the people are enumerated in the Constitution

By a great stretch, it can be argued that these harmful drugs are covered under the Ninth Amendment. But if you win that argument, then you've opened the door for the abuse of any drug to be established as such a right. If using tobacco or alcohol is a Constitutional right, then why not methamphetamines or opiates?

 

[Blues Man]

With regard to rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution, I would agree that there ought to be a singular age of adulthood, above which, one cannot be denied these rights on the basis of age.

I've come to wonder if eighteen is too young.

In any event, I do not see the abuse of harmful drugs, including nicotine or alcohol, as anything that should be considered a Constitutional right.




By a great stretch, it can be argued that these harmful drugs are covered under the Ninth Amendment. But if you win that argument, then you've opened the door for the abuse of any drug to be established as such a right. If using tobacco or alcohol is a Constitutional right, then why not methamphetamines or opiates?

It doesn;t matter if one is considered an adult at age X then that person is 100% in charge of his own life upon the attainment of age X and all his decisions are his to make even the ones you don't like.

 

[Lord-Humungus]

17 year olds get tried as adults in court.

Don’t break the law then. Problem solved

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It doesn't matter if one is considered an adult at age X then that person is 100% in charge of his own life upon the attainment of age X and all his decisions are his to make even the ones you don't like.

As it is, there are different trappings of adulthood that appear at different ages. In most states, you have to be sixteen to get a driver's license. (It used to be fourteen in some states, but I don't know if it still is in any state.) Eighteen to vote, and in most senses, one is considered to be an adult by that age. Twenty-one to gamble, use alcohol, or (in states where that is legal) marijuana. Twenty-five to be considered an adult, by most automobile insurance companies, in order to get lower rates on the presumption that you are old enough and wise enough not to be as reckless and inexperienced as younger drivers. Also twenty-five to serve in the House of Representatives. Thirty to be a Senator. Thirty-five to be President.

The Jewish Bar Mitzvah tradition refers back to a time when a boy was considered an adult at the age of thirteen, ready to take on the responsibilities of adulthood.

It does not seem unreasonable to me, that different responsibilities begin at different ages.

Voting is now established as a Constitutional right, and eighteen established at the age at which one gets this right. By extension, this suggests eighteen as an age at which all explicit Constitutional rights should apply, unless otherwise stated in the Constitution, (such as the age requirements to serve in Congress or as President).

For privileges that are associated with adulthood, but which are not established as Constitutional rights, I see nothing wrong with setting different ages for those privileges.

 

[candycorn]

The 2nd amendment won.

America lost.

 

[Blues Man]

As it is, there are different trappings of adulthood that appear at different ages. In most states, you have to be sixteen to get a driver's license. (It used to be fourteen in some states, but I don't know if it still is in any state.) Eighteen to vote, and in most senses, one is considered to be an adult by that age. Twenty-one to gamble, use alcohol, or (in states where that is legal) marijuana. Twenty-five to be considered an adult, by most automobile insurance companies, in order to get lower rates on the presumption that you are old enough and wise enough not to be as reckless and inexperienced as younger drivers. Also twenty-five to serve in the House of Representatives. Thirty to be a Senator. Thirty-five to be President.

The Jewish Bar Mitzvah tradition refers back to a time when a boy was considered an adult at the age of thirteen, ready to take on the responsibilities of adulthood.

It does not seem unreasonable to me, that different responsibilities begin at different ages.

Voting is now established as a Constitutional right, and eighteen established at the age at which one gets this right. By extension, this suggests eighteen as an age at which all explicit Constitutional rights should apply, unless otherwise stated in the Constitution, (such as the age requirements to serve in Congress or as President).

For privileges that are associated with adulthood, but which are not established as Constitutional rights, I see nothing wrong with setting different ages for those privileges.

The age of majority is what makes you an adult not a driver's license

Driving is a privilege granted by the state and has nothing to do with the US Constitution but that still does not negate the fact that there are rights the people possess that are not enumerated in the Constitution

 

[Jarlaxle]

With regard to rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution, I would agree that there ought to be a singular age of adulthood, above which, one cannot be denied these rights on the basis of age.

I've come to wonder if eighteen is too young.

In any event, I do not see the abuse of harmful drugs, including nicotine or alcohol, as anything that should be considered a Constitutional right.




By a great stretch, it can be argued that these harmful drugs are covered under the Ninth Amendment. But if you win that argument, then you've opened the door for the abuse of any drug to be established as such a right. If using tobacco or alcohol is a Constitutional right, then why not methamphetamines or opiates?

As it should be.