Either adjust the age for voting, selective service, military service, drinking, and firearm ownership across the board, or you are a advocating for group of second class citizens with all the responsibilities but not all the rights.I understand your frustration but IMO the issue is with the age of consent. Who is considered 'an adult.'
IMO it should be consistent, whatever it is. If you can die for your country you should be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol.
I understand the 'practical' reasoning but should that overrule someone's rights?
Edit: and when it comes to practical reasoning, isnt the consensus that the male brain isnt mature until 25? (approx across the range of individuals of course).
I understand your frustration but IMO the issue is with the age of consent. Who is considered 'an adult.'
IMO it should be consistent, whatever it is. If you can die for your country you should be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol.
I understand the 'practical' reasoning but should that overrule someone's rights?
Edit: and when it comes to practical reasoning, isnt the consensus that the male brain isnt mature until 25? (approx across the range of individuals of course).
Totally agree with both you guys. Need to find the sarcasm emoji on this site, LOL.Either adjust the age for voting, selective service, military service, drinking, and firearm ownership across the board, or you are a advocating for group of second class citizens with all the responsibilities but not all the rights.
Everyone has inherent rights upon their birth, and only lose them when they die. That includes the right to keep and bear arms. As minors the parents/guardians of the children get to determine when their child may exercise their inherent rights and to what extent. When those children reach their majority, however, they may make their own decisions with regard to their inherent rights. The government does not get to make those decisions.Either adjust the age for voting, selective service, military service, drinking, and firearm ownership across the board, or you are a advocating for group of second class citizens with all the responsibilities but not all the rights.
All inherent rights began at birth, by definition.Totally agree with both you guys. Need to find the sarcasm emoji on this site, LOL.
I personally agree. If we consider 18 years old to be adult, then all rights should start at that age.
All inherent rights began at birth, by definition.
Illegal for non-residents to purchase firearms in the United States.Truth be told I shouldn't even be warning Americans of the flaws of their gun rights. If I get a flight to America and buy a sniper over there then I could go to any upper class neighbourhood and easily steal a million bucks! Americans could be at grave risk of foreign criminals because short-term tourist visas are very easy to acquire.
Illegal for non-residents to purchase firearms in the United States.
Guess you could buy one from a criminal but you would probably end up with a Hi-Point vice a “sniper” rifle. Maybe there are still some Provos hanging around in Boston?
Not true. Legal aliens may purchase firearms in the US. The Second Amendment protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, not just US citizens or legal residents.Illegal for non-residents to purchase firearms in the United States.
Guess you could buy one from a criminal but you would probably end up with a Hi-Point vice a “sniper” rifle. Maybe there are still some Provos hanging around in Boston?
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking just US citizens and resident aliens (green card). My bad.Not true. Legal aliens may purchase firearms in the US. The Second Amendment protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, not just US citizens or legal residents.
"An alien legally in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922y(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit." - BATFE
Not true. Legal aliens may purchase firearms in the US. The Second Amendment protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, not just US citizens or legal residents.
In Alaska we get a lot of foreign hunters. Most bring their own firearms, but some do buy them while they are in Alaska. Whether or not they are allowed to bring those firearms home with them after they are done hunting is another story.Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking just US citizens and resident aliens (green card). My bad.
Democracy is ethical only if you are a complete idiot. Even a child can comprehend when you have a democracy with "two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner" it is not a good basis for making decisions. In order to preserve and protect the individual rights of everyone, democracy can never be used. Those who seek to violate the rights of everyone have always found democracy to be a convenient vehicle. So the more you push democracy, the more you make yourself the enemy of individual rights.Democracy is ethical because amoral people can gravitate to ethics if ethical people are vocal enough to persuade them. Yet if an entire population is on a spectrum of evil then dictatorship isn’t very evil. That is to say evil people aren’t owed a vote. Ethical people don’t have to treat evil people as being equal. Monarchy is a gamble meaning that a virtuous king could theoretically be heroic in restraining an entire evil population. Yet monarchy would only be a lesser evil if the world were so extreme that the risk of genocidal monarchs could be tolerated. Anyway the dilemma with America is that they root for democracy even if they don’t care about the evil of mass shooters being tolerated by voters. Democracy isn’t an absolute concept in the metaphysics of an ethical system. For example as an Irish citizen I don’t care about England’s symbolic monarchy so long as they don’t impose colonialism on other countries.
This is why the leftist filth push so strongly for a democracy, they hate the concept of individual rights and want to see them all abolished. Only a democracy can achieve this.
Violent sex translation: Casual gun-carry can symbolise heteroflexibility in a misogynistic way because anyone can like nude men from a distance without loving them bisexually if they're all viewed as really violent to women. In a gun zone you cannot love a fellow gun-owner knowing that you could be violent to each other's spouses while still being able to admire each other so as not to feel too bad about it in case it ever happens! The irony of heterosexual porn is that it ends up being heteroflexible because the man in background gradually becomes more noticeable on the woman no matter the excuses of focusing on the woman! We forget that a woman who likes men can watch the exact same video the other way round such that porn is holistically bisexual!
In Alaska we get a lot of foreign hunters. Most bring their own firearms, but some do buy them while they are in Alaska. Whether or not they are allowed to bring those firearms home with them after they are done hunting is another story.
A government established to preserve and protect individual rights will never be a democracy. They will only be a republic of some sort, where the people have absolutely no say over the rights of others. Like the US.
Democracy is ethical only if you are a complete idiot. Even a child can comprehend when you have a democracy with "two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner" it is not a good basis for making decisions. In order to preserve and protect the individual rights of everyone, democracy can never be used. Those who seek to violate the rights of everyone have always found democracy to be a convenient vehicle. So the more you push democracy, the more you make yourself the enemy of individual rights.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?