The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".

[Blues Man]

The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.

In your subjective opinion.

As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.

Where is that written?

Why would you expect him to answer that when you ignore me when I asked you the exact same question?! Don’t be a hypocrite

I answered your question, dumbass. Several other people did as well.

Calling me a troll is not an answer. How about if I make it a yes or no question. Does the constitution give the government the right to take away a 12 year olds god given right to buy and keep a gun? Yes or no

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

 

[Slade3200]

In your subjective opinion.

As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.

Where is that written?

Why would you expect him to answer that when you ignore me when I asked you the exact same question?! Don’t be a hypocrite

I answered your question, dumbass. Several other people did as well.

Calling me a troll is not an answer. How about if I make it a yes or no question. Does the constitution give the government the right to take away a 12 year olds god given right to buy and keep a gun? Yes or no

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

 

[2aguy]

The Supreme Court already ruled on this and Alito followed up Heller with Caetano v Massachusetts...followed by Heller, and Scalia stating the AR-15 is a protected rifle in Friedman v Deerfield..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Wrong.

The case concerned stun guns, not AR 15s; the Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR platform rifles and carbines.

And the Supreme Court refused to hear Friedman v Highland Park challenging the constitutionality of AR bans.

Someone typed on a thread something else.........You want to get rid of the guns. And Trump is a NAZI to you. In human history, figure out what happens when you do that then.

This makes no sense.

You are really stupid and a liar....the Caetano ruling directly addresses the "Dangerous and Unusual" argument you asshats make for semi-automatic rifles......

That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

You're the only one being stupid and a liar.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating ARs, it has never struck down an AWB.

That you don't like or agree with these facts of law is irrelevant.

It did so in Heller, and Alito addressed "Dangerous and Unusual" in Caetano v Massachusetts, and Scalia specifically stated that these rifles, and the AR-15 by name, are protected by the 2nd Amendment....... so you are just wrong or lying.

 

[Slade3200]

Wrong.

The case concerned stun guns, not AR 15s; the Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR platform rifles and carbines.

And the Supreme Court refused to hear Friedman v Highland Park challenging the constitutionality of AR bans.

Someone typed on a thread something else.........You want to get rid of the guns. And Trump is a NAZI to you. In human history, figure out what happens when you do that then.

This makes no sense.

You are really stupid and a liar....the Caetano ruling directly addresses the "Dangerous and Unusual" argument you asshats make for semi-automatic rifles......

That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

You're the only one being stupid and a liar.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating ARs, it has never struck down an AWB.

That you don't like or agree with these facts of law is irrelevant.

It did so in Heller, and Alito addressed "Dangerous and Unusual" in Caetano v Massachusetts, and Scalia specifically stated that these rifles, and the AR-15 by name, are protected by the 2nd Amendment....... so you are just wrong or lying.

I know you are a pretty die hard supporter of the 2nd... what element of the constitution do you think allows for the kinds of regulations that you support? Background checks, minimum age of purchase etc...

 

[2aguy]

Someone typed on a thread something else.........You want to get rid of the guns. And Trump is a NAZI to you. In human history, figure out what happens when you do that then.

This makes no sense.

You are really stupid and a liar....the Caetano ruling directly addresses the "Dangerous and Unusual" argument you asshats make for semi-automatic rifles......

That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

You're the only one being stupid and a liar.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating ARs, it has never struck down an AWB.

That you don't like or agree with these facts of law is irrelevant.

It did so in Heller, and Alito addressed "Dangerous and Unusual" in Caetano v Massachusetts, and Scalia specifically stated that these rifles, and the AR-15 by name, are protected by the 2nd Amendment....... so you are just wrong or lying.

I know you are a pretty die hard supporter of the 2nd... what element of the constitution do you think allows for the kinds of regulations that you support? Background checks, minimum age of purchase etc...

I don't support Background Checks.....I think the minimum age should be whatever age you become eligible for the draft......if you can carry a gun to kill for your country, you can carry that same weapon to protect your family at home.

Murder, rape, and robbery as well as other crimes violate the Rights of other citizens......so the Constitution allows due process to arrest and lock up people who do those crimes...... if you use a gun for any of them, you should get a life sentence, if you are a criminal who isn't allowed by due process to buy, own or carry a gun, and you are caught with a gun, 15 years....

Do those two things and the rest of the silly laws can be ended......

We don't have a problem catching gun criminals...we have a problem with democrats letting them out of jail on bond...and out of prison in under 3 years.

 

[Slade3200]

This makes no sense.

You are really stupid and a liar....the Caetano ruling directly addresses the "Dangerous and Unusual" argument you asshats make for semi-automatic rifles......

That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

You're the only one being stupid and a liar.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating ARs, it has never struck down an AWB.

That you don't like or agree with these facts of law is irrelevant.

It did so in Heller, and Alito addressed "Dangerous and Unusual" in Caetano v Massachusetts, and Scalia specifically stated that these rifles, and the AR-15 by name, are protected by the 2nd Amendment....... so you are just wrong or lying.

I know you are a pretty die hard supporter of the 2nd... what element of the constitution do you think allows for the kinds of regulations that you support? Background checks, minimum age of purchase etc...

I don't support Background Checks.....I think the minimum age should be whatever age you become eligible for the draft......if you can carry a gun to kill for your country, you can carry that same weapon to protect your family at home.

Murder, rape, and robbery as well as other crimes violate the Rights of other citizens......so the Constitution allows due process to arrest and lock up people who do those crimes...... if you use a gun for any of them, you should get a life sentence, if you are a criminal who isn't allowed by due process to buy, own or carry a gun, and you are caught with a gun, 15 years....

Do those two things and the rest of the silly laws can be ended......

We don't have a problem catching gun criminals...we have a problem with democrats letting them out of jail on bond...and out of prison in under 3 years.

It doesn’t state anywhere in the constitution that the right to bare arms should be the same age as military service eligibility does it? If that’s the way we want to go would we need an amendment for it? Or would you say that states rights, SCOTUS precedent, a congressional bill or another legal mechanism can be used to regulate that?

 

[2aguy]

You are really stupid and a liar....the Caetano ruling directly addresses the "Dangerous and Unusual" argument you asshats make for semi-automatic rifles......

That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

You're the only one being stupid and a liar.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating ARs, it has never struck down an AWB.

That you don't like or agree with these facts of law is irrelevant.

It did so in Heller, and Alito addressed "Dangerous and Unusual" in Caetano v Massachusetts, and Scalia specifically stated that these rifles, and the AR-15 by name, are protected by the 2nd Amendment....... so you are just wrong or lying.

I know you are a pretty die hard supporter of the 2nd... what element of the constitution do you think allows for the kinds of regulations that you support? Background checks, minimum age of purchase etc...

I don't support Background Checks.....I think the minimum age should be whatever age you become eligible for the draft......if you can carry a gun to kill for your country, you can carry that same weapon to protect your family at home.

Murder, rape, and robbery as well as other crimes violate the Rights of other citizens......so the Constitution allows due process to arrest and lock up people who do those crimes...... if you use a gun for any of them, you should get a life sentence, if you are a criminal who isn't allowed by due process to buy, own or carry a gun, and you are caught with a gun, 15 years....

Do those two things and the rest of the silly laws can be ended......

We don't have a problem catching gun criminals...we have a problem with democrats letting them out of jail on bond...and out of prison in under 3 years.

It doesn’t state anywhere in the constitution that the right to bare arms should be the same age as military service eligibility does it? If that’s the way we want to go would we need an amendment for it? Or would you say that states rights, SCOTUS precedent, a congressional bill or another legal mechanism can be used to regulate that?

Rights attach at certain ages....I am not a Constitutional Scholar, but a child does not have the same Rights as an adult....until they reach the Age of Majority....then they have all of those Rights.

 

[Slade3200]

You're the only one being stupid and a liar.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating ARs, it has never struck down an AWB.

That you don't like or agree with these facts of law is irrelevant.

It did so in Heller, and Alito addressed "Dangerous and Unusual" in Caetano v Massachusetts, and Scalia specifically stated that these rifles, and the AR-15 by name, are protected by the 2nd Amendment....... so you are just wrong or lying.

I know you are a pretty die hard supporter of the 2nd... what element of the constitution do you think allows for the kinds of regulations that you support? Background checks, minimum age of purchase etc...

I don't support Background Checks.....I think the minimum age should be whatever age you become eligible for the draft......if you can carry a gun to kill for your country, you can carry that same weapon to protect your family at home.

Murder, rape, and robbery as well as other crimes violate the Rights of other citizens......so the Constitution allows due process to arrest and lock up people who do those crimes...... if you use a gun for any of them, you should get a life sentence, if you are a criminal who isn't allowed by due process to buy, own or carry a gun, and you are caught with a gun, 15 years....

Do those two things and the rest of the silly laws can be ended......

We don't have a problem catching gun criminals...we have a problem with democrats letting them out of jail on bond...and out of prison in under 3 years.

It doesn’t state anywhere in the constitution that the right to bare arms should be the same age as military service eligibility does it? If that’s the way we want to go would we need an amendment for it? Or would you say that states rights, SCOTUS precedent, a congressional bill or another legal mechanism can be used to regulate that?

Rights attach at certain ages....I am not a Constitutional Scholar, but a child does not have the same Rights as an adult....until they reach the Age of Majority....then they have all of those Rights.

My understanding has it that the right to vote is defined at 18 and the right to serve in public office also has minimum age requirements. Other than that the constitution doesn’t say anything about Age of Majority or a minimum age to purchase a firearm. That is determined by other federal and state laws depending on the topic. That’s how we’ve operated for over 100 years.

Do you you agree that our system of law creation has been a legal process or that it’s been an illegal process for all these years when it comes to things like age minimums to buy guns?

 

[Blues Man]

Where is that written?

Why would you expect him to answer that when you ignore me when I asked you the exact same question?! Don’t be a hypocrite

I answered your question, dumbass. Several other people did as well.

Calling me a troll is not an answer. How about if I make it a yes or no question. Does the constitution give the government the right to take away a 12 year olds god given right to buy and keep a gun? Yes or no

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

 

[Slade3200]

Why would you expect him to answer that when you ignore me when I asked you the exact same question?! Don’t be a hypocrite

I answered your question, dumbass. Several other people did as well.

Calling me a troll is not an answer. How about if I make it a yes or no question. Does the constitution give the government the right to take away a 12 year olds god given right to buy and keep a gun? Yes or no

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

 

[Blues Man]

I answered your question, dumbass. Several other people did as well.

Calling me a troll is not an answer. How about if I make it a yes or no question. Does the constitution give the government the right to take away a 12 year olds god given right to buy and keep a gun? Yes or no

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

If the age of majority was 12 you might have an argument but it's not and it has never been

We already have plenty of common sense gun laws. If you disagree then tell me which of the thousands of federal and/or state gun laws that are currently on the books aren't common sense.

 

[Slade3200]

Calling me a troll is not an answer. How about if I make it a yes or no question. Does the constitution give the government the right to take away a 12 year olds god given right to buy and keep a gun? Yes or no

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

If the age of majority was 12 you might have an argument but it's not and it has never been

We already have plenty of common sense gun laws. If you disagree then tell me which of the thousands of federal and/or state gun laws that are currently on the books aren't common sense.

Where does the constitution talk about the age of majority?

 

[Slade3200]

Calling me a troll is not an answer. How about if I make it a yes or no question. Does the constitution give the government the right to take away a 12 year olds god given right to buy and keep a gun? Yes or no

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

If the age of majority was 12 you might have an argument but it's not and it has never been

We already have plenty of common sense gun laws. If you disagree then tell me which of the thousands of federal and/or state gun laws that are currently on the books aren't common sense.

I’m not arguing against current gun laws... I’m arguing against those who call those laws unconstitutional because they infringe on our right to bare arms. I started the convo with bripat9643 and Rustic both of whom called gun laws unconstitutional and then refused to answer my question about age and have since ran away.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

If the age of majority was 12 you might have an argument but it's not and it has never been

We already have plenty of common sense gun laws. If you disagree then tell me which of the thousands of federal and/or state gun laws that are currently on the books aren't common sense.

I’m not arguing against current gun laws... I’m arguing against those who call those laws unconstitutional because they infringe on our right to bare arms. I started the convo with bripat9643 and Rustic both of whom called gun laws unconstitutional and then refused to answer my question about age and have since ran away.

Age 12 is your target number? ok at age 12 you have limited rights you cannot consent on anything. There are you satisfied?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

If the age of majority was 12 you might have an argument but it's not and it has never been

We already have plenty of common sense gun laws. If you disagree then tell me which of the thousands of federal and/or state gun laws that are currently on the books aren't common sense.

I’m not arguing against current gun laws... I’m arguing against those who call those laws unconstitutional because they infringe on our right to bare arms. I started the convo with bripat9643 and Rustic both of whom called gun laws unconstitutional and then refused to answer my question about age and have since ran away.

The biggest problem with selling to minors is the obligations of a contract. Sales can be rescinded if minors have no legal capacity to contract. Furthermore, that could add to the liability of the seller if he sells to a minor who misuses the firearm and harms someone else. An adult is presumed to know how to use a firearm safely.

.

 

[Blues Man]

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

If the age of majority was 12 you might have an argument but it's not and it has never been

We already have plenty of common sense gun laws. If you disagree then tell me which of the thousands of federal and/or state gun laws that are currently on the books aren't common sense.

Where does the constitution talk about the age of majority?

You have to be 18 to vote so to be considered an adult and responsible enough to vote you must be 18

 

[Blues Man]

A 12 year old has never been considered an adult.

The Constitution in the 26th amendment states the age of 18 must be attained before one can participate in the vote.

A 12 year old has no legal standing as he is still under the guardianship of his parents

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

If the age of majority was 12 you might have an argument but it's not and it has never been

We already have plenty of common sense gun laws. If you disagree then tell me which of the thousands of federal and/or state gun laws that are currently on the books aren't common sense.

I’m not arguing against current gun laws... I’m arguing against those who call those laws unconstitutional because they infringe on our right to bare arms. I started the convo with bripat9643 and Rustic both of whom called gun laws unconstitutional and then refused to answer my question about age and have since ran away.

Children have no rights they never have there has not been a time in this country where a 12 year old was considered to be an adult

 

[Slade3200]

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

If the age of majority was 12 you might have an argument but it's not and it has never been

We already have plenty of common sense gun laws. If you disagree then tell me which of the thousands of federal and/or state gun laws that are currently on the books aren't common sense.

Where does the constitution talk about the age of majority?

You have to be 18 to vote so to be considered an adult and responsible enough to vote you must be 18

True and that is specifically laid out in the constitution for voting rights. We also have the right to life and liberty. I hear the life right used for the unborn all the time. And certainly you agree that babies and children are provided constitutional rights... so the right to bare arms is considered by many as a god given right. Nowhere in the constitution does it say adult or set a minimum age to have this right. These are state laws that set these requirements. Are those laws legit or unconstitutional. You tell me

 

[Slade3200]

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

If the age of majority was 12 you might have an argument but it's not and it has never been

We already have plenty of common sense gun laws. If you disagree then tell me which of the thousands of federal and/or state gun laws that are currently on the books aren't common sense.

I’m not arguing against current gun laws... I’m arguing against those who call those laws unconstitutional because they infringe on our right to bare arms. I started the convo with bripat9643 and Rustic both of whom called gun laws unconstitutional and then refused to answer my question about age and have since ran away.

Age 12 is your target number? ok at age 12 you have limited rights you cannot consent on anything. There are you satisfied?

Where does the constitution say that?

 

[Slade3200]

Thank you for being the first to give a direct answer and a reference. The 26th does point out a voting age and covers an Americans right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about the second amendment and our legal right to bare arms. Federal legislatures and states have further defined gun regulations according to what they think is right but many hardliners consider all those rules unconstitutional which is why I’m asking their thoughts about laws against selling guns to 12 year olds.

it is the age where one can participate in the government.

It just doesn't seem like a serious question.

You know that no one here has ever said anything about a 12 year old buying a firearm.

the laws of the states are in consensus that no one under 18 may purchase any firearm and not one pro second amendment poster here has ever said that is unconstitutional

Many people call gun control regulations unconstitutional because it is infringing on our god given right to protect ourselves. They say that the constitution is there to define exactly what the government is allowed to do and anything that goes beyond that scope is unconstitutional.

I realize selling guns to 12 year olds isn’t an issue that people have brought up. That’s because it is common sense and both sides agree that 12 year olds should not be able to go buy guns. But when using the constitutional argument you don’t see an age defined like you do with voting age. The age requirements for gun purchasing are state and external laws. The same type of laws that gun advocates call unconstitutional.

I bring up the subject to highlight the law making process and explore what we think is acceptable and what we think is illegal. We are either a republic where states are allowed to make laws to keep the order and benefit the welfare of their people or we have been an unconstitutional republic for many many years.

I’m making the argument that if you are going to point to the constitution to say that gun rights shall not be infringed making all gun control measures illegal then you’d have to agree that by the constitution 12 year olds should be able to go buy guns with no questions asked. Otherwise you’d have to agree that states and lawmakers have the right to legislate regulations like a minimum age of purchase, background checks, auto bans etc.

If the age of majority was 12 you might have an argument but it's not and it has never been

We already have plenty of common sense gun laws. If you disagree then tell me which of the thousands of federal and/or state gun laws that are currently on the books aren't common sense.

I’m not arguing against current gun laws... I’m arguing against those who call those laws unconstitutional because they infringe on our right to bare arms. I started the convo with bripat9643 and Rustic both of whom called gun laws unconstitutional and then refused to answer my question about age and have since ran away.

The biggest problem with selling to minors is the obligations of a contract. Sales can be rescinded if minors have no legal capacity to contract. Furthermore, that could add to the liability of the seller if he sells to a minor who misuses the firearm and harms someone else. An adult is presumed to know how to use a firearm safely.

.

I agree, to me the regulations are justified. But to those who believe that gun regulations are unconstitutional per the 2nd amendment I present this argument. I’m guessing you support the regulation of gun sales to minors even though it’s not stated in the constitution, so you’d also have to be open to other regulations that are made using the same legal process. Agreed?