Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

No, Democratic State gov. has no monopoly though they are offenders. Both mainstream US political parties are responsible for destroying the family and the notion of personal responsibility. Support for status quo public (government) education is bipartisan and central to the destruction of personal responsibility.

Not in the absence of family and personal responsibility. There is only one thing that works and nobody is interested in it. So we are left with band aids on arterial bleeds.

 

I just don't see how "family and personal responsibility" is a guarantee of a crime-free society, which seems to be what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Exactly, "IF a kid has access to firearms already." What if they don't?

 

There will never be a crime free society. But there are paths to societies with more crime and paths to societies with less crime.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arms-unlimited.581062/page-53#post-1072329789

 

Well that’s why we are after personal responsibility and family influence as foundations. Let’s say two kids (kid #1 and kid #2) don’t have access to firearms. They both develop an interest firearms (many do, especially boys).

Kid #1 has two parents who have live the example of valuing human life. They teach kid #1 there are consequences (often long lasting negative) to actions taken. They have an open relationship with the kid where the kid feels comfortable asking questions and sharing feelings. They have an ordered household where the kid knows boundaries on what’s allowed to occur in the household and why.

Kid #2 has one parent who’s too busy making a living, dating, or being high to have a healthy relationship with kid #2. Kid # 2 gets his beliefs on value of human life and violence as a reaction to conflict from television, video games, and other cultural influences like popular music etc. Kid #2 doesn’t understand long term consequences of actions because the above influences all focus on instant gratification without consequence. The parent of Kid #2 either doesn’t care about boundaries and enforcement of accepted behavior in the home or don’t have time/energy to address the issue. Behavior issues result in problems at school which results in medication to address school behavior.

Which kid do you “fear” having the ability to purchase a firearm?

 

Kid #2 obviously, but what does this have to do with the argument against a minimum age for gun purchasing?

 

Why do you care if a kid buys a gun before a certain age?

 

A kid like 'kid #2?'

 

Sure. Or any kid. Why does it matter if a 10 year old buys a bunch of guns?

 

Something to do with them maybe killing people.

 

Ok. So remove the desire to kill people as well as the incompetence allowing unintentional harm, and what’s left to fear from the possibility of a “minor” buying a gun?

 

Nothing, but how do "remove" that?

 

You remove murderous tendencies and incompetence from society by raising individuals without those traits.

It takes time. It takes dedication. It takes guts. Unfortunately we don’t see value in the things it takes to achieve the goal or the goal itself. We want to decouple YOLO from the concept of delayed gratification in every area of child rearing. That has severe negative consequences that compound generationally.

 

Okay, so until we remove that, there should be an age limitation on gun purchase, no?

 

I’m pragmatic enough to accept the compromise I referred to earlier. I understand society needs the cathartic effect of law that is a band aid on arterial bleeds.

But as a thinking exercise, what might the effect of removing all age restrictions for minor purchase of firearms be? Would an abusive or neglectful parent reconsider their parenting style if they knew little angry/confused Johnny could go buy a Hi-Point and off the abuser at will? Would society clean up its act corporately if it had to deal with consequences of screwing up kids earlier (before age 21) rather than later (after age 21)? Wouldn’t society be better off in the long run if forced to deal with the consequences of producing substandard citizens before those citizens reach “age of accountability“ at which point society conveniently absolves itself of deserved blame?

People are so conditioned now to believe law is the answer to societal problems few will even give serious thought to the immediately preceding paragraph. Everyone wants problems they helped create to be addressed by third party authoritarianism. And no, that’s not how I think it should be.

 

The solution is simple,just pass laws prohibiting noting using firearms for violence; I am sure everyone will comply.

 

"Noting?"

 

Sorry.... noting... not useing

 

Yeah, you said "noting!"

 

Arms are limited to personal weapons only. Arms does not and never did include crew-served weapons and weapons platforms.

Also, it was understood by everyone from time immemorial that the mentally ill and common criminals who could not be trusted were never to be given weapons or allowed to be part of a militia.

Having said that, the State must comply with Due Process, meaning the State must notify an individual of the loss of that right and provide a forum for them and the State to present evidence why the individual should or should not be allowed to own a firearm due to mental defect.

 

How is "personal" defined?

 

"Arms", as the term is used in the 2nd, are, at the very least, firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
One can have a conversation as to what other weapons fall under that definition and what weapons do not, but the result of that conversation does not affect the fact stated above.

 

Well you obviously don't limit it to that!

 

When I look back to the late 1700’a, early 1800’s, I can’t think of a weapon in the US’s armory that couldn’t be purchased and owned privately, including, arguable, the largest, most destructive one the US had in its federal inventory, a fully armed warship, with as many cannon that could be safely outfitted aboard.
What arms were forbidden to own at the time by the federal government?