|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Defending an Under-21 Firearm Ban Under the Second Amendment Two Step
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Although no absolute, under-21 firearm ban was at issue in those decisions, an advocate for such a ban should avail herself of the premises underlying their holdings. The decisions present historical evidence that, according to the Framers, only those with adequate “civic virtue” are worthy of wielding lethal weapons, and one’s capacity for virtue grows with age. The decisions also translate the Framers’ intuition into modern terms of criminology and neuropsychology, presenting evidence that 18-to-20-year-olds are disproportionately responsible for violent gun crimes, and that their minds house immature impulse-control structures. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(4/26/2018)
|
| If you can't be trusted with a firearm, then you can't be trusted with a vote, with a car, or alone with another person. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/26/2018)
|
"unlicensed dealer"
There is no such thing. Per federal law, all dealers must be licensed.
This dubious term exists for one reason only; to obfuscate the truthful term "private seller". |
| Comment by:
lucky5eddie
(4/27/2018)
|
| Sadly the article's 2nd reference is from the "Giffords L. Ctr. to Prevent Gun Violence". I cannot think of a better way to destroy the credibility of the article than to use "data" from a blatantly anti-gun organization. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
