Posted on 05/27/2022 4:04:20 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
Even when I agreed with some part of this article, the smugness of the author's brilliance, made me gag.
I try to read all of an article before I comment, but in this case, I could not.
There's your problem. You should do as I do, and read NONE of the article before you comment.
There is no more term liberal. I see Democrat I hear Communist. The Communists would have you believe that the Bill of Rights were written for the government and that’s a lie. They were written for the people.
Age of majority is 18 everywhere in the US.
“Age of majority is 18 everywhere in the US.”
So? Are you saying it doesn’t constitute an infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” of those under the age of 18 if they can’t exercise the right to the extent those 18 and over can? Aren’t they people?
Are you saying “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” doesn’t apply to those who are under 18?
The are not of age to have agency.
“The are not of age to have agency.”
Again, so? The Second Amendment doesn’t mention “agency” as far as I know. Are you proposing that they are not people? What other rights do they not have?
Are you proposing that denying them the right to keep and bear arms is not an infringement because they don’t have agency?
Does this mean the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute or that is only absolute to those who have agency?
What is agency and who gets to decide who else has it?
When one reaches the age of legal responsibility, 18 in this country.
That is when they can vote.
“When one reaches the age of legal responsibility, 18 in this country.
That is when they can vote.”
So that means, if the age of legal responsibility is 18, those who are at least 18 have the right to keep and bear arms and those who aren’t do not.
That would mean that if they changed the age of legal responsibility to 16 those who did not have the right before would now have it and if they changed the age of legal responsibility to 21 some of those who had the right before would no longer have it. It would also mean that those legally granted their majority before the age of 18 would have the right while those of the same age would not.
It implies that the right to keep and bear arms is not just noted in the Constitution, being a preexisting right, but is
dependent on the legal system of a society for its existence. You didn’t actually say it, but it means the right is not absolute, and can be taken away without infringement.
Yes. Yes it would.
However, I suspect said 5-year-old would be spanked and have to stand on the naughty-step.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.