5 off duty cops were at Ventura bar shooting...all unarmed.

And yet it is a factually correct assessment. It is why the united states federal government can get away with bribing the individual states to enforce the drinking age being twenty one, but could not implement the same approach with regards to the legal age of firearms ownership.

 

It most certainly is not. You falsely claimed that the Federal Government is currently Constitutionally empowered to ban alcoholic consumption when it required a Constitutional Amendment, since repealed.

That's a fair point.

 

Factually incorrect. What was stated was that alcoholic beverages and their related activities are not recognized as being constitutional rights, and as such can be subjected to more legal restrictions than firearms as a result of not being constitutionally protected. Such is not the same thing as the united states federal government being constitutionally empowered to engage in a specific activity.

 

If the US Constitution empowers the Federal government to ban the drinking of alcohol, why was a Constitutional Amendment required?

Because WE DO have a right to drink alcohol, even though it's not an enumerated right, like gun carrying.

Unenumerated rights are expressly protected against federal infringement by the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment and against state infringement by the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Despite this textual recognition, unenumerated rights have received inconsistent and hesitant protection ever since these provisions were enacted, and what protection they do receive is subject to intense criticism.

A separate question is why some are afraid to insist on the securing of unenumerated rights. The underlying concerns are basic assumptions about legislative sovereignty and the proper role of judges.

Aproper conception of constitutional legitimacy requires that unenumerated rights be protected. It is acknowledged that all liberty may be reasonably regulated (as opposed to prohibited), and that wrongful behavior may be prohibited altogether where it violates the rights of others.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/840/

 

Why is the consumption of alcoholic beverages regarded as being a right?

 

Because we are Free Citizens and if we want to drink alcohol we are free to do so. I personally do not drink and I exercise my Liberty by not drinking.

 

Your point is that a concealed gun would have been better? The killer knew who to go after first.

 

How is such an outlook different from the outlook of the fiance of McGlockton, who believed she had a right to park a motor vehicle wherever she pleased, including in a spot designated exclusively for those that are handicapped?

Simply because something is believed to be a right, does not actually make it a right.

 

Which does not mean anything of significance. Those who are in uniform are obviously going to pose a risk, and televise that fact with their very appearance.

 

It is my understanding that an 18 year old can only buy long guns like rifles and shotguns but not hand guns where they have to be 21 to purchase or own. I think that is federal law but I know for sure it is Arkansas law where I live. Personally I think we should raise the legal age for everything to 21 even driving, voting and military service, maybe by then they will have matured somewhat.

 

Agreed!

 

How about consent to sex? Would you raise the legal age of consent to 21 as well? Just curious.

 

Under such a proposal, what would become of those under the age of twenty one who already legally own firearms? Would they be exempted from such age requirements and allowed to keep their legally owned firearms? Or would they be forced to surrender their legal property after the fact, and faced with the threat of arrest for noncompliance?

 

Yes. I think the law should make it the same age for everything. Either you’re an adult or not.

 

She violated the rights of the handicapped, which is why we have regulation and enforcement, to secure our individual rights. I'm sure the woman you speak of was held to account, those parking fees are fairly steep.

Our government was formed to secure our rights, that is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence. If we want to do something we have the right to do it. Government has a regulatory role when the exercise of our rights infringes on others, otherwise, we have Freedom and Liberty.

We have Constitutions and Charters that list what Government is empowered to regulate, and what government is prohibited from doing. The default position is OUR freedom and Liberty.

 

Age, maturity and intelligence are not the same thing. Some people are mature, and intelligent at 18. Others do not qualify at 80. Do you feel that someone who is 30 and still living with his or her parents is mature and competent enough to own a weapon? I am of the opinion that you should prove yourself before you are granted privileges.

 

I know age does not necessarily mean mature but it does give them more time to mature. As for someone still living with parents it depends on the reason they are still there. There are some cases where the parents need physical or financial help and it makes sense for the child to stay there. Personally I didn't mature until after I was forced by the draft to join the military where I matured rapidly. I also believe we should reinstate the draft or require everyone to serve at least 2 years in the military after leaving school.

 

If they were born after 1997 they have to be 21 to own firearms. It has been done before when age limits have changed on other things.

 

Yes, I would. I was 21 before I had sex for the first time and it didn't damage me.

 

21 damn I'd have gone to see a hooker before that lol.

 

Such was not the question presented to yourself. Try again.

Under such a proposal, what would become of those under the age of twenty one who already legally own firearms? Would they be exempted from such age requirements and allowed to keep their legally owned firearms? Or would they be forced to surrender their legal property after the fact, and faced with the threat of arrest for noncompliance?

 

I did answer "If they were born after 1997 they have to be 21 to own firearms. It has been done before when age limits have changed on other things." Any guns they own now can be turned over to anyone in the household who is of legal age without paperwork until they are legal age. There are a already an abundance of weapons that are not able to be tracked by the government and are allowed to be sold privately between neighbors and friends. In my state of Arkansas and many others we are allowed to buy and sell guns privately owned from individuals. I have owned and sold plenty of guns where no paperwork was filed. None of this matters because nothing is going to change anyway.

 

That's what I did when I turned 21. In my day and age where I lived in Arkansas hookers were not very prevalent. The 60's and 70's were a different age in small towns in Arkansas.

 

Good answer, I keep thinking every person is 40 on here like me or 12 lol.

Possibly at the same time

 

Then ultimately what is being supported on yourself is confiscation and forced disarmament after the fact, relying on an ex post facto approach to the matter to support depriving individuals of their legally owned, legally acquired property, without the benefit of due process of law.