Posted on 03/06/2019 12:47:56 PM PST by rktman
H.R. 1, a massive voting rights/election security/campaign finance/ethics bill now making its way through the House of Representatives, would make "significant changes to the operation of federal elections by states," according to a summary produced by the Congressional Budget Office.
The bill does not allow 16-year-olds to vote, but Democrats are offering amendments that would do just that.
Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) introduced their amendments Tuesday night before the House Rules Committee. Both lawmakers pointed to the activism of young gun control advocates as one of the reasons for lowering the voting age:
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I think you need to be more specific.
Pretty much everybody in a sales tax state pays taxes.
What happened to the gun control protesters, they just kinda all disappeared after their 15 minutes was up.
Might have been. But at the end of the movie the 10 year-olds had it out for the twenty somethings.
Add to that, the voting age and CVS eligibility age should be the same. If one is too immature to be trusted with a gun in public, then he’s too immature to vote.
Demoncrats would have babies in the womb vote but they would rather abort/kill their constituents.
Part of the demolibs “common sense” plan.
not sure what correlation drinking has to do with the others.
Let me share my opinion on the matter.
If a person is old enough to be taken by force into the military and given the responsibility to possess and use a deadly weapon, shouldn't that person also be responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote?
If a person is old enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon, and to exercise his franchise, isn't that person also responsible enough to drink?
Not directly a governmental function, other than enforcement thereof in government courts, but is not an 18 year old mature enough to enter into binding contracts? If so, then s/he is mature enough to vote, serve his/her country, and drink.
The only “owner “ of land is the govt.
So, maybe troops under 21 won’t be allowed weapons then? /S
agreed....21 years old.
Not quite sure what a CVS is, but I'm assuming it's the same as a CPL or CCW.
So then, what age should a person be able to purchase a handgun from a Federally-licensed dealer?
Personally, I'm in favor of 18 for each and every one.
I could legally drink when I was 18, I served in the military when I was 18, and I voted when I was 18.
But I had to wait until I was 21 to purchase a handgun, and I waited until I was 54 to get a CPL.
If 16-year-olds are old enough to vote then they are old enough to make porn movies.
Somehow, I don’t think that idea will fly with these hypocrites.
It auto corrected CCW to CVS (as in the pharmacy chain)
The younger people are, the more likely they find adults to not know what they’re doing. Thus Democrats.
It’s a maturity thing.
If you are not mature enough for the lesser responsibilities of marching to war and drinking then you certainly are not mature enough for the far greater responsibility of voting on who should lead your country.
Nobody who can’t handle booze has any business ever bearing the responsibility of holding another troops back in combat.
“If a person is old enough to be taken by force into the military and given the responsibility to possess and use a deadly weapon, shouldn’t that person also be responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote?”
Everyone seems to forget or not know that in the military the younger folks are under the command and control of (theoretically) older, more seasoned, more mature people who don’t allow them access to those deadly weapons except under controlled conditions.
If there is a question as to trying a 16 year old for a violent crime because of their youth and inexperience, then that same question has to be there allowing them to help determine what that crime and punishment is.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-york-age-criminal-responsibility
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3943187&page=1
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/17/how-raise-age-laws-might-reduce-recidivism/400065001/
See a pattern here? Everyone of these is a liberal stronghold for voting needs for the liberal candidates. Try finding a conservative voice on this topic in agreement with the above.
I firmly believe that this whole topic has lost its course. The only people that can absolutely stop a crime from happening is the perpetrator.
And until these “children” are taught that if you do what is wrong, you will be punished, it isn’t going to change. Telling them they will get leniency and not be punished very much and then released with a sponged record like it never happened, is like ringing the dinner bell for Pavlov’s dogs. This is why so many crimes by gangs are accomplished by under age members. The older ones get hard time. The younger ones get a wrist slap.
rwood
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.