Are these 'infringements'?

Its not changing the subject. If adults need to have adult supervision, then they arent adults.

The notion that its only OK for 'adults' to have guns with the supervision of the govt is just as asinine as sending minors off to war. When is an adult an adult? 18 or 21? Im OK with either, just not 'both'.

 

There is a saying, something to the effect a hawk and a chicken are both birds. The comparison ends there.
A soldier, be she 18, 21 or 30, has firearm training and its use is supervised by the chain of command. The civilian has none of that, making the situation, that you don't recognize, completely different. In that unsupervised, untrained situation maturity is a positive factor in avoiding error. Who is more mature an 18 year old or 21 year old?

 

Forgot to hit reply above

 

A 21 year old is mature. 18 is not, not physically anyway. The brain isn't fully developed at 18. I don't think 'supervision' in the military chain of cammand is the same 'supervision' you think gun owners ought to be subject to... but perhaps you'd care to clarify what you think is necessary.

If the civilian has no training like the military does, its because the govt isn't interested in providing it. A 'well regulated militia' means a well trained (and well supplied) militia. Are there any leaders in the gun control movement calling to provide training? All I've seen are calls to simply require it without any provision of increased resources that actually provide it. The military PROVIDES training.

If I agreed to accepting the requirement of 'training' as a prerequisite to firearm ownership, would you agree to the govt being responsible for providing that training as an elective in the public school curriculum?

 

Still having trouble with this? An 18 year old, apparently, can do a soldier's job. At least I've heard no complaints from the generals. A civilian's job is not to shoot and kill whomever the chain of command says is the enemy. That is why a little mature decision making is order. 9 states require training to own a gun and 13 states require handgun owners to be 21.

And yes. gun control advocates are advocating for other states to follow suit.

 

No state requires training just to own (or even carry) firearms. Some states require training to get a permit to conceal a firearm, which means those who dont have a permit must carry any arms openly and visibly. The logic being that one can both 'keep' and 'bear' arms without concealing arms, thus concealment can be constitutionally restricted. Similarly, an 18 year old adult can still 'keep and bear' rifles or shotguns if they are barred from owning handguns. I don't agree with that interpretation, but that is how the interpretation is currently made. No state requires training as a prerequisite to own all firearms.

I notice you didn't answer my question- If I agreed to accepting the requirement of 'training' as a prerequisite to firearm ownership, would you agree that the govt should be responsible for providing that training free of charge and without restriction, such as in public school curriculum?

 

And I notice you didn't address the difference between an armed 18 year old soldier and civilian.
Sure, why not offer an elective certification for seniors.

 

I did. The difference is training. If I agreed to accepting the requirement of 'training' as a prerequisite to firearm ownership, would you agree that the govt should be responsible for providing that training free of charge and without restriction, such as in public school curriculum?

 

Sure why not, but if the age to own a firearm was 21, then they couldn't take the test for certification until they are 21.

 

Why not? Part of providing training is providing the necessary materials. Cops, military and professional security provide weapons for recruits that are required to be trained in their use. Any required public training should do the same.

 

Supreme Court Upholds Full Access to Mifepristone Abortion Pill
Source: Bloomberg Law

June 13, 2024, 10:03 AM EDT
Supreme Court Upholds Full Access to Mifepristone Abortion Pill

Greg Stohr
Bloomberg News

The US Supreme Court preserved full access to a widely used abortion pill in a case that carried major stakes for reproductive rights and election-year politics.

The court unanimously overturned a federal appeals ruling that would have barred mail-order prescriptions for mifepristone, the drug now used in more than half of US abortions. The lower court ruling would have reduced abortion access even in states where reproductive rights have broad support.

The court stopped short of affirming Food and Drug Administration decisions to loosen restrictions on mifepristone starting in 2016. The majority instead said the anti-abortion doctors and organizations that sued lacked legal "standing" because they aren't directly affected by the FDA's actions.'



Read more: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharm...lds-full-access-to-mifepristone-abortion-pill

 

Let's start with a defining clarification about the word, "infringement":

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

in·fringe·ment
/inˈfrinjm(ə)nt/
noun

1. 1.
   the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
   "copyright infringement"
   
   Similar:
   contravention
   
   violation
   in violation of UN resolutions" data-hw="violation" data-lb="" data-tae="true" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?sca_esv=09054e7a388018cf&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1058US1058&sxsrf=ADLYWIKdocXAkn-HN1GCWIwAY4BW7PMF0g:1718556743414&q=define+violation&si=ACC90nytWkp8tIhRuqKAL6XWXX-NY-9lrZRIZaEx926mRI5K3XwalvbbAiPGGpplz0vEZAec83Ly-XCXo_8ixKzfw5S_MeQABJXMUFYAr3rl8Yw-lD11Cas%3D">
   transgression
   
   breach
   
   breaking
   
   nonobservance
   
   noncompliance
   noncompliance with the formal requirements" data-hw="noncompliance" data-lb="" data-tae="true" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?sca_esv=09054e7a388018cf&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1058US1058&sxsrf=ADLYWIKdocXAkn-HN1GCWIwAY4BW7PMF0g:1718556743414&q=define+noncompliance&si=ACC90nyj24cUGopiOVnGD91130XTVukVnuAjKHXB95VshGIRk0SMDg-_BjauIuI9ZOTjn_3gCsHgswj7y9DKusSKMFWX9lX3L7FGgYSf9mG5ymcSdvdwLYFbLwkL7FXD16rfY_p2ShNR">
   neglect
   
   dereliction
   
   failure to observe
   infraction
   
   delict
   
   undermining
   
   erosion
   
   weakening
   
   compromise
   
   limitation
   limitations on water use" data-hw="limitation" data-lb="" data-tae="true" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?sca_esv=09054e7a388018cf&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1058US1058&sxsrf=ADLYWIKdocXAkn-HN1GCWIwAY4BW7PMF0g:1718556743414&q=define+limitation&si=ACC90nyOnVY18Aw7zUtkWPYo5mTnx-jZ-XslkVzWGf5PQ6B7gPT0bmJrBBATArPizsmJ1cQ2b6v1gpcw19ai-hime8BE_cPl_pyP1vd_wWi0bNBX9tL4Qug%3D">
   curb
   
   check
   
   encroachment
   
   disruption
   
   disturbance
   
   
   Opposite:
   compliance
   
   preservation
   
   strengthening
   
   
2. 2.
   the action of limiting or undermining something.
   "the infringement of the right to privacy"

 

if they aren't old enough to own a firearm, they aren't old enough to vote, be drafted or subject to adult criminal court jurisdiction

 

It's been a long time since I had to worry about it, but it still seems to be true that what we used to refer to in this country as a "man" can be drafted into military service at age 18. Not sure today if that has any bearing on buying, possessing, or using a firearm, but it was always the justification for the lower age that if you were old enough to die for your country, you were old enough to possess a firearm. I'm sure that some old, outmoded idea like that has long since been discarded.

 

My father bought me my first firearm at age 10. It was a 20 ga. single shot shotgun that I used when I accompanied him on a duck hunt. The problem isn't age. The problem is mental stability.

 

Yes, mental stability, and, criminality! I've said it for years, we need to lock up "criminals and crazies", and KEEP them locked up! Nobody commits crimes of any kind, including mass murders, when they're safely locked up!

 

My parents had differing politics. My father was a republican-hard core-save for social issues where he was agnostic. My mother was a fervent pro choice republican who ended up being a Hillary delegate. Both campaigned for the amendment allowing 18 year olds to vote. I was aim grade school at the time. I asked my father why. He noted his late brother (KIA Pacific Theater, summer of 45) was trusted enough to fly an airplane that could allow someone to destroy a city block in less than a minute, yet he wasn't old enough to vote. He noted lots of guys he grew up with were killed serving the USA but they weren't able to vote. He thought that was wrong. he was right

 

The acts of voting and the acts required of military service are two different things, so the functions can't be compared based on age; just because a few 10 year olds are capable of going to college doesn't mean all 10 year olds are. In any case, literacy and civics tests should be required for being allowed to vote.

The reasons for literacy tests being waived or declared illegal in the past are long gone, and in any case were originally covered by sunset laws in the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts; they weren't applicable to all states and set to expire. It wasn't until the Nixon Administration made them permanent and applicable to all 50 states.Many states outside the South kept their literacy tests, including New York and California. New York's Harlem districts had voting levels on a par with Mississippi's, yet they and many other states were exempted from forced compliance of the Voting Rights Acts.

 

We used to walk to the lake with our rifles on Saturdays when I was 10. and stop by a convenience store on the way to buy a box of ammo; nobody freaked out and fainted seeing a group of kids walking down the streets carrying firearms then. These days SWAT teams would come flying in on helicopters if we did that now.

But, operating a toaster is not in the same category as knowing what one is doing while voting. Any 10 year old can handle sticking a slice of bread into a toaster. Not many 10 year olds can handle voting responsibly or know what they're voting for or against.

 

Too late to edit the above post so I will include a link here.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-section-5-voting-rights-act

Many parts of the Civil Rights Acts were only enforced on a handful of states, clearly discriminatory and shallow, but all those enlightened liberal states like New York would never have voted for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts if they themselves were forced to comply with them.

See also Hugh Davis Graham's excellent history of that era, The Civil Rights Era.

https://glasp.co/books/p/the-civil-rights-era-origins-and-development-of-national-policy-1960-1972

 

!8 year olds are chosen for military service because of their physical advantages. Not much in military training required education and intelligence in the past, unlike responsible voting. The military also had developed a very effective means of training new recruits, so they had methods wherein they could even train a potato to many jobs, so it didn't require any great level of education for most military jobs.

 

An activity I took up in college was fast draw. I was going to practice right after class so I wore the hogleg to class. The instructor asked why I had it and I answered. Then he asked if he could join me. Imagine that today.

 

In any case, people can amuse themselves looking up the stats on how many draftees even saw combat; it's not nearly as many as you think. Forget the stupid Hollywood doper movies.

 

Wisdom doesn't necessarily come with age. I've known teenage guys with more common sense than some men I've known in their 'old age'. A lot depends on 'life-experiences', but, even much more depends on education -- factual, useful, practical, comprehensive education. Sadly, our public school systems essentially stopped providing that kind of education nearly 40 years ago. Now we've got two generations of 'adult children' who are essentially as helpless as they are useless -- even to themselves.