Posted on 04/20/2007 4:04:44 AM PDT by Neville72
You said — “Driving an 18 wheeler - which I did as a 19 year old. I certainly could have plowed into a crowd and killed many.”
Well, you didn’t follow the post that I was answering. I wasn’t answering the question — “What are 18-year olds capable of doing?” And neither the question, “Are 18-year olds capable of killing a lot of people?”
That wasn’t the question posed in this series of questions and answers. Let’s follow it back to the beginning, so you can get the “drift”....
First item (post #6) — “Giving guns to 18 year old beer-swilling frat boys?!?!”, keep in mind that most places you need to be 21 to get a CCW.”
Second item (post #20) — “We give 18 year olds full autos in the military, and grenade launchers, SAMS, and artilery.”
And then, my post (post #68) — “That only comes with the — *full force and power of the military* — to make them do exactly what they say, when they say it and how they say it — with no room for deviation.”
So, if you get the drift now, you’ll see it has nothing to do with “How many people can 18-year olds kill if they wanted to?”
It has to do with the fact that someone posed that the *justification* for giving “18 year old beer-swilling frat boys” the ability to carry — was that they were “shooting it up” in the military.
And thus, my answer to that was — not without *extreme authority* over them — they’re not doing that. If they step out of line and disobey orders and/or do something serious — they’re going to end up in super big trouble (which may ruin the rest of their lives), especially if they’re fooling around with weapons.
Therefore, having 18-year olds in the military handling weapons (especially with all the training they get) — is *no justification* for allowing them to get these licenses in the “civilian arena” at 18 years old. in fact, it should *stay* at 21 years old. And if it isn’t at 21 in some places, it should be made to be 21.
So, if 18-wheelers has something to do with or connection to the extreme authority that the military wields over 18-years olds in maintaining *control* over them — let me know... I just don’t see it.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Under current federal law, 17-45 year olds are already members of the militia (btw this is has been pretty much the same since 1792). Training or not, experience or not, whether you like it or not, they are members of “the people” and have 2nd Amendment rights.
You said — “Under current federal law, 17-45 year olds are already members of the militia (btw this is has been pretty much the same since 1792). Training or not, experience or not, whether you like it or not, they are members of “the people” and have 2nd Amendment rights.”
Now, do the 18-wheelers fit in here somewhere, or did I miss something???
But, if 18-wheelers don’t enter into the discussion, then that’s fine. We’ll just put the 18-wheelers aside for the moment. We’ll just go to what you said...
The individual states can make the laws regarding the regulations controlling the use of “concealed carry” — and they do. They can say *no concealed carry* if they want. And they can make the regulations for who gets it, any-which-way they want (of course, all of this subject to the legislature, the governor, the people and the political process). There *is no guarantee* or Second Amendment Right — for *concealed carry* — period!
And so, if (and when) they set that concealed carry to 21 — that’s what it is, regardless of what you say in your reference. It has absolutely *no bearing* on the concealed carry laws.
Furthermore — it should be that way in all states, with it being 21 years old and not 18 for that concealed carry.
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — Oh..., and please note (before we get off-track on this discussion) what the article above was talking about that generated this whole discussion, especially with the post #6, which referenced post #1 — and this line is the pertinent line — “Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons.” And thus, we’re talking about the *laws* regarding *concealed weapons* and *no-gun-zones*.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821058/posts
You can also type keyword "hupp" into the search box and find related articles about her.
Best regards,
Thanks for that link.
Great job. Always found Fred refreshing. You have put words to the “why”.
Inasmuch as a government physically *cannot* fully protect a disarmed society, it being totally impossible,the amount of taxes paid is moot. Furthermore *any* public official advocating this, knowing full well the impossibility of delivering the service, is guilty of willful fraud...
the infowarrior
awesome analysis...
i’ll put your name in the hat as speechwriter for FDT’s campaign.
Mr. Thompson nails it! BUMP and SUPPORT FRED THOMPSON!
awesome analysis...
i’ll put your name in the hat as speechwriter for FDT’s campaign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.