Old enough to vote, old enough to fight…but forget about protecting yourself

29 Oct
Old enough to vote, old enough to fight…but forget about protecting yourself

That is the verdict that was rendered by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals last week.  The verdict states that the Federal Government can continue to ban the sale of handguns to 18-20 year olds.  A loophole does exist stating that a parent can gift such a weapon to their children.  And in open carry states that do not require a permit or constitutional carry states, that 18-20 year old can carry said weapon.

Let’s put aside that little loophole and I say loophole in the best possible way since I feel this ruling is completely unconstitutional.

Things you can do before you are 21:

  • You can legally drive a 2 ton vehicle that can go over 100 miles per hour that statistically kills more people than firearms by a rate of 2 to 1.
  • You can legally vote.  A vote which may elect politicians who send this country off to war, into a depression, who invalidate rights, who raise taxes and cripples the middle class.
  • You can go off to war, where the Government is only too happy to put a gun in your hand to go and kill at their discretion.

But when you come home…well buddy, thanks for protecting the Country but don’t you even think about a handgun to protect yourself.

In it’s ruling the Court said that since the aforementioned loophole exists they do not have to apply “strict scrutiny” in regards to the matter and that a “eh, this works” ruling would suffice (note that “eh, this works” ruling is a rougher personal translation of “rational review”).

So instead of defending the enumerable rights of those who are otherwise given the rights of a citzen, the court decides to regurgitate the gun controls line that 18-20 year olds are too young, immature and prone to violence to purchase firearms.

The presiding judge, Edward Prado wrote in regards to the 1968 prohibition:

“Congress was focused on a particular problem: young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns”.

I find it ironic that in 1968 things were really heating up in Vietnam and Congress didn’t have a problem given thousands upon thousands of 18-20 year olds weapons in order to go a killin’ in the foreign land.

Do I think 18-20 year olds always make the best decisions?  No.  But that doesn’t matter.

Either they are citizens or they’re not.  Congress and the courts shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which Constitutional right applies to whom and at what time.


Posted by on October 29, 2012 in Uncategorized


8 responses to “Old enough to vote, old enough to fight…but forget about protecting yourself

  1. GreenCrawfish

    October 29, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Why is it the government legislates that we cannot discriminate by age? Why is it the government feels free to do it whenever it wants?

  2. ceadderman

    October 29, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Agreed. I served my country and while I was never on the front lines in the literal sense of the term, the possibility is always there. I don’t see the problem with giving citizens their full rights when they become of legal age to go to a rated R movie and vote. The problem with America is that we have all these hoops to jump through before you hit 21. Yet we tell our kids they have to be responsible about their choices, but don’t give them any responsibility before they are adults.

    In many countries it is legal to drink at any age. They think nothing of serving wine or beer to every family member around the table. They have less underage drinking issues as a result and a lower rate of DUI arrests and convictions as a result. Imagine how many lives could be spared in this country if more families did so. Imagine how much more responsible the 18-20 demographic could be when you give them responsibility.

    I am more than aware that there are some teens that will always be immature. But there are laws that are set up on the books to deal with them in that event. They are the same laws that apply to every person in this country. The age limit will not stop them from being immature or stupid and there are ways of getting a gun illegally anyway. How many kids in this country who are under the age of 18 have a gun that someone they know who is not a family member gave them to shoot other kids who got theirs in a similar manner? The age limit didn’t stop THEM from getting their hands on a gun, did it.

    This country needs to get back in line with the days of teaching kids to respect these things. They are not “cool, hip, dope, the bees knees”, guns, cars and alcohol are to be respected. But kids don’t respect them because they are not taught in their formative years to do so. Teach them to do so and there should be less Gun violence at the hand of a kid. Don’t teach them respect and discipline and it will only get worse.

  3. Al DeMatteo

    October 29, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    I don’t understand the rationale. There are millions of “citizens” who do not enjoy certain rights due to age restrictions. I personally cannot understand how anyone under the age of 21 can buy alcohol, vote, go to war or carry a gun. People at this age level are some of the worst decision makers in our society. With rights come responsibility. I enthusiastically support the 2nd Amendment and I have a CCP, but I think the age restrictions are a good idea, not a bad idea.

  4. Cody

    October 29, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    If you have not figured this out, rational does not mean reasonable. They made a rationalized decision, not a reasonable one. Check out the meaning of reasonable in Blacks Law Dictionary. You will discover you are correct. Then read the definintion of “rationalization”. You will then understand the “logic” behind their ruling.

    Is it reasonable that US citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights? No, since they are intended for all Americans, regardless of citizenship.

    Is it rational for US citizens to be deprived of the protections of the Bill of Rights? Yes. There is no Bill of Rights in the 14th Amendment.

    The answer to the conundrum is either to abolish the 14th Amendment of incorporate the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment.

    I know that sounds pretty far out but, unless you understand the ruling in Twining vs. New Jersey, 211 US 78 none of the reigning madness in the court system will make any sense.

  5. Ryan B

    October 29, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Instead of age based, they should make it intelligence based. I.Q. tests for weapons. If you cant get a 70, you cant get a firearm. (Terman’s Classification)

  6. Indiana Man

    October 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    From personal experience, 29 years ago; I was 18 at the time, now 47. The government granted me an FFL and business licence (state also). I could buy and sell firearms and military surplus items (federal / state regs). The firearms and some surplus I could not sell to those under 21 (more regs). I could get a CCP/OCP from the state, but “I” could not “sell, myself” a handgun. I do have to say that I agree with Indiana law that employers cannot prevent employee’s from carrying to and from work (weapon left in vehicle) if they are legally licenced.

  7. cavmedic

    October 29, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    I say to the “supreme court”, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you some more!

  8. mjguthrie2003

    October 30, 2012 at 8:34 am

    I think it should be that WHEN you join the MIlitary,you HAVE the right too any and ALL RIGHT’s afforded by the Const.When your old enough too vote,go to WAR,go to work and are a NATUREL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,then you should be able to vote,get drunk and by a gun too DEFIND THOSE RIGHTS…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: