301
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 105 points 2 years ago

No booze or cigarettes, but guns are totally cool.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

Tobacco use isn't in the Constitution. Any state can have a drinking age of 18, perfectly legal. They just get their federal highway funds yanked.

So it's tough to tell someone, "Yeah, it's a right for other adults, just not you."

If I had my druthers, I'd raise the national age to 21 when brains are a good bit more developed.

[-] cybervseas@lemmy.world 77 points 2 years ago

2A even has the term "well regulated" in it.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago

They only care about the second half.

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago

unless black people are owning guns then they'll be all for gun control.. like when the black panthers armed themselves.

[-] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

unless black people are owning guns then they’ll be all for gun control

Red states tend to have some of the most free firearms laws in the country. And many of those states, particularly in the south, have large black populations. In fact, many of them have explicitly killed policies that were used to discriminate based on race, namely may-issue permitting laws.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

Pretty sure the above commenter was referencing the origins of California's strict gun laws.

[-] yeather@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

One of the most liberal states in the Union?

[-] d00phy@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

SCOTUS pretty much shit canned the first half on the 2A a long time ago. Can’t remember the case, but they basically said a “well regulated militia” could be anyone.

ETA: as someone else pointed out, the case was DC v Heller.

load more comments (72 replies)
[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 44 points 2 years ago

I think sometimes about if cars were a thing when the bill of rights was written, they might've had an amendment like "travel, being important to a free state, the right to drive an automobile shall not be infringed "

And then we'd have all sorts of problems where like six year olds would be driving , blind people would be driving, you wouldn't have any safety standards or environmental standards, etc etc etc. And people would be jerking themselves raw about how it's great , that freedom is great, they love when their car explodes.

[-] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

And then we'd have all sorts of problems where like six year olds would be driving , blind people would be driving, you wouldn't have any safety standards or environmental standards, etc etc etc. And people would be jerking themselves raw about how it's great , that freedom is great, they love when their car explodes.

I have no agenda here. I just thought your comment was comical and then I saw all of these:

6 year olds… 😬

Blind… 😬

Safety standards… 😬

Car explodes… 😬

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 35 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

18 for everything. "various levels of adulthood" need to go away. Either you're an adult or not.

Don't like it? Prove you actually believe what you say you do and work to raise the draft age to 21.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago

18 is to young to be considered an adult. I think 21 is more fitting but we don't mentally mature until late 20s.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

At the same time we're capable of adult level actions earlier than 18. We regularly have children, kill people, drive, have jobs, have bank accounts, make life altering decisions about sports and school credits... etc.

The argument for lowering the age of majority is far stronger than the argument for raising it.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago

It is a complicated subject. Medical decisions and voting is something that should be a lower age. However, there is a massive list that should not be pushed on younger people.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

My point is adulthood comes for us whether the government wants it to or not. The list of things we do as teenagers that are adulting is far larger than the list of things we are mandated to wait for.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 years ago

I understand that my point is the government should protect that class of people instead of exploiting. I think we both agree it is not good either way. It's just another way we are failing younger people.

[-] sunzu@kbin.run 24 points 2 years ago

Well tbh if we send them to war to die why are we limiting their constitutional rights?

If 21 is the new age of adulthood, then society should start acting like it instead of doing this selective circle jerk. Otherwise, such regulations have no legal leg to stand on.

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I agree with you. But, that's not how things work.

We've neglected public education and mental health for roughly forty years. The establishment wants a complete monopoly on violence. And, laws are only enforced when convenient for the ruling class. The state has caused an issue - stupid unstable people with guns - and will now use it as an excuse to further monopolize use of violence as a means.

[-] sunzu@kbin.run 6 points 2 years ago

that's not how things work.

I am not following this tbh

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Supermariofan67@programming.dev 15 points 2 years ago

This is good. Now do the same with alcohol. You can be forced to die in a war at 18 but can't drink and enjoy the full rights of an adult citizen.

[-] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Well, pretty sure we've got an amendment for that so that'll take a bit more effort.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] d00phy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I immediately thought the same thing, but unfortunately there’s no constitutionally guaranteed right to alcohol.

Yet.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] gascown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago

Only Americans can be so retarded to find something like unconstitutional. What a dumb country.

[-] 5redie8@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago

Damn, guess I should've chosen to be born somewhere else. Rookie mistake

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Meanwhile, the gun rights group Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which was among the organizations that challenged the law, cheered the decision.

“This is a resounding victory for 18-20-year-old adults who wish to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms,” Bryan Strawser, the group’s chairman, said in a statement.


Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
301 points (98.7% liked)

News

39217 readers
3490 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS