Guns and kids

[Savage]

Trees, that is different. Most parents let their kid use guns in things like hunting/shooting range, but keep the guns locked up after. I think what people were asking about was: the matter of giving your kids a gun like a toy=something they own and can use as they please in a sense.

@furball I agree: is a bit too young, plus no need for it. I understand hunting/shooting at 10-13, but there is a reason we wait till 18 at the minimum to actually own a gun.

[whatifidogetcaught?]

Trees, that is different. Most parents let their kid use guns in things like hunting/shooting range, but keep the guns locked up after. I think what people were asking about was: the matter of giving your kids a gun like a toy=something they own and can use as they please in a sense.

That's simply a matter of teaching your kids gun safety, like OldTrees said. A responsible parent will teach their kid that the gun is NOT a toy. That is the key. Guns can be used for anything, a tool of destruction, a tool for justice, a tool for evil, a tool for survival. When you teach a kid how to use it the right way, not treat it as a toy, then they will not use it improperly. As far as I am concerned, 4-5 is irresponsible, because everything is a toy regardless of parents at that point. 8 and up would be my range for teaching children how to hunt and shoot.

[OldTrees]

Plus, why would a kid need a real gun...to defend itself? Yeah, see how that works lol.

To teach them gun safety. To teach them how to hunt. Or even to teach them how to defend themselves for when they leave the nest.

Even if you believe that, isn't 4 or 5 too young? If the kid was 9 or 10 that could be understandable, but giving a 4 year old a gun is just irresponsible, even if you're watching him or her.

As I said before, 4 or 5 is way too young. I would personally wait until a child has the mental maturity of at least a 15 year old. (Physical age might be as low as 10)

[Savage]

See, I agree at 10, letting a kid shoot is fine, but at what age are you guys honestly okay with in terms with letting someone own a gun? Owning=/=using. American government clearly states 18 to own.

In other words, @Trees: if you had a kid age 10 with age 15 maturity, would you honestly trust them owning a gun?

[OldTrees]

See, I agree at 10, letting a kid shoot is fine, but at what age are you guys honestly okay with in terms with letting someone own a gun? Owning=/=using. American government clearly states 18 to own.

In other words, @Trees: if you had a kid age 10 with age 15 maturity, would you honestly trust them owning a gun?

I would trust them owning a gun that they could only access/have ammunition for at a firing range or out hunting. Both cases involving adult supervision.
By age 20 maturity I would trust them as an adult regardless of their physical age.
(Not 20 year olds that have the maturity of a 15 year old.)

[Savage]

Ok, then I think we agree then on this topic.

[memimemi]

'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.' (United States Constitution, Second Amendment).

Unless 5-year-olds are now inductees in State Militias, there is no reason for them to have firearms.  Of course, at 5, if *I'd* been offered the role of IRL GI Joe - well, the consequences wouldn't have been too pretty for the neighbourhood cats.

This can also, note, be extended to adults: the right to bear arms (not necessarily FIREarms) is directly linked to being active in a State Militia.  Basically, anyone who agrees with both the statement 'Support our Troops,' and Heston's famous 'from my cold, dead, hands,' is, at best, schizophrenic in hir understanding of Constitutional law.  <<--- not relevant, I know, but puttin' it out there...

[OldTrees]

'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.' (United States Constitution, Second Amendment).

Unless 5-year-olds are now inductees in State Militias, there is no reason for them to have firearms.  Of course, at 5, if *I'd* been offered the role of IRL GI Joe - well, the consequences wouldn't have been too pretty for the neighbourhood cats.

This can also, note, be extended to adults: the right to bear arms (not necessarily FIREarms) is directly linked to being active in a State Militia.  Basically, anyone who agrees with both the statement 'Support our Troops,' and Heston's famous 'from my cold, dead, hands,' is, at best, schizophrenic in hir understanding of Constitutional law.  <<--- not relevant, I know, but puttin' it out there...

You do realize that the writers had just used a militia to fight off their previous government. I do not think you understand what they mean by the first clause:
('A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state')
Additionally the second clause ('the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.') is more general than the first clause. Notice the change from the word militia to the word people.

So
1) Militia does not necessarily mean the State Militia since those are merely an extension of the government's army.
2) The second clause includes people outside of whatever Militia referred to.
Therefore your conclusion (the second amendment only refers to the arming of the state militia) is mistaken.

[Savage]

I think that amendment is really there so the local people of the area can help protect it as well as protect themselves. By that, I think we can also assume they were talking about adults.

[OldTrees]

I think that amendment is really there so the local people of the area can help protect it as well as protect themselves. By that, I think we can also assume they were talking about adults.

Based on what "people" meant at the time (white male land owners), a modern expansion of the term would be adults.

[memimemi]

You do realize that the writers had just used a militia to fight off their previous government. I do not think you understand what they mean by the first clause:
('A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state')
Additionally the second clause ('the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.') is more general than the first clause. Notice the change from the word militia to the word people.

Actually, the word is 'the People' - not any individual.  IE, a militia run by 'the people' of the States individually, as opposed to a standing army under command of the United States.

So
1) Militia does not necessarily mean the State Militia since those are merely an extension of the government's army.
2) The second clause includes people outside of whatever Militia referred to.
Therefore your conclusion (the second amendment only refers to the arming of the state militia) is mistaken.

The State Militia is in direct opposition to the concept of a standing army commanded by the larger superorganism of the USA.

The second clause includes 'the people,' not 'people.'  Or 'persons,' if you prefer.

Of course, the real fun comes when you remind the NRA that they're quoting from the Second *Amendment* to the constitution - as in, an edit to the original.  Which can be re-edited, as the zeitgeist dictates.

[OldTrees]

You do realize that the writers had just used a militia to fight off their previous government. I do not think you understand what they mean by the first clause:
('A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state')
Additionally the second clause ('the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.') is more general than the first clause. Notice the change from the word militia to the word people.

Actually, the word is 'the People' - not any individual.  IE, a militia run by 'the people' of the States individually, as opposed to a standing army under command of the United States.

"of the people by the people for the people"
With this quote in mind, do you really think the term the people was used at the time to mean the state governments? Or do you interpret it to mean the citizens of the states

So
1) Militia does not necessarily mean the State Militia since those are merely an extension of the government's army.
2) The second clause includes people outside of whatever Militia referred to.
Therefore your conclusion (the second amendment only refers to the arming of the state militia) is mistaken.

The State Militia is in direct opposition to the concept of a standing army commanded by the larger superorganism of the USA.

The second clause includes 'the people,' not 'people.'  Or 'persons,' if you prefer.

Of course, the real fun comes when you remind the NRA that they're quoting from the Second *Amendment* to the constitution - as in, an edit to the original.  Which can be re-edited, as the zeitgeist dictates.

If you consider the state militia as a direct opposition to the forces commanded by the federal government then you need to start complaining about federal abuses of power. The federal government has taken command of the state militias before.

Fun fact: Did you know the initially 10 amendments were not edits but rather a list of rights that one side did not think needed to be explicitly mentioned but the other side thought needed to be explicitly mentioned? In the framers' minds these rights did not change the rest of the document.

However you are correct that the constitution was made editable. If the zeitgeist wants it edited then the zeitgeist should edit it rather than pretend it is already edited.