TexasCHLforum.com

Dragonfighter wrote:A little OT, but when I was seventeen I used to run...a lot. I used to run occasionally with a DPS trooper in the neighborhood. He was the only one that could keep up with me on either my eight or ten mile days. I was do to go in in three months, he invited me in for a beer. I squirmed a little and he said that he figured if I was old enough to serve, I was old enough to have a beer.

I didn't quite get it then, I do now. Why can an eighteen year old (or even seventeen year old) be responsible enough to be set on the ground in foreign lands with arms, explosives and crypto yet not responsible enough to carry CCW after undergoing the training and background checks?

Because those 17 and 18 year olds are not at all trusted. They're treated like children. When they go to the bathroom, what clothes they wear, what they eat and when, what haircut they'll have, and every other aspect of their life is strictly controlled to create uniformity and that external control on every detail is only loosened (somewhat) after a sufficient period to create internal conformity to the unit as a whole. At that point, minor variations are acceptable and more freedom is given, but the reigns are still held tightly and all actions must conform to an understood norm. Any variation from that norm and the control is quickly and strictly exerted again in order to cause the person to return to uniformity.

Listen to the talk of any one who has been in the military for 10 or more years and they'll tell you loudly that they themselves don't trust the 18-21 year olds. The caste system is alive and well in our military. The officers have separate housing, restaurants, facilities, etc while the "kids" are allowed to go "play" after their "chores" are done. Ironically, many sources say the 18-21 demographic is the most populated age range in the military.

I very much respect all who are serving as well as their families who sacrifice so much so that they can serve our nation. From a purely philosophical standpoint, the quotes I read here on gun control and societal control by Lenin and Mao very much apply to the culture under which our military is run. The high ups want complete allegiance, uniformity, and to know that orders will be followed unquestioningly. They turn a blind eye at frat-boy type behaviors which propagate the parent-child relationship dynamic while they shut down every avenue of possible disunity from originality and free thinking including the almost complete barring of firearms ownership/use. The irony of soldiers being stripped of numerous rights including the RKBA in order to defend our right to do so is sad, at the least. I wonder what the military brass would say if confronted with that if they were answering honestly. How they're responding to the issue of DADT right now gives us a view into their thinking on topics which can cause disunity. IIRC, all of the military brass say that they can't afford the upheaval it would cause for people to have to face this. They don't care what people's positions or orientations are; they only care that there is a vocal disunity on the topic. People fighting for their own causes instead of for the unit's. Lack of uniformity. They can't function with free thinkers, no matter what the cause.

Restoring full gun rights to 18-20 year old military members, or any military members, encompasses a lot more than a Constitutional argument on the 2nd Amendment. It strikes at the heart of how our entire military is run.

WildBill wrote:

Zoomie wrote:Lets try and get rights for those of us under 21 and those of us serving in the military.

Regardless of age, those serving in the military should have all of the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen.

Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment stating, "Upon attaining the age of majority a person may not be restricted of any rights and privileges as a citizen due to age".

MeMelYup wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Zoomie wrote:Lets try and get rights for those of us under 21 and those of us serving in the military.

Regardless of age, those serving in the military should have all of the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen.

Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment stating, "Upon attaining the age of majority a person may not be restricted of any rights and privileges as a citizen due to age".

How would social security retirement work then? It creates a special class of privileges by age.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Zoomie wrote:Lets try and get rights for those of us under 21 and those of us serving in the military.

Regardless of age, those serving in the military should have all of the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen.

Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment stating, "Upon attaining the age of majority a person may not be restricted of any rights and privileges as a citizen due to age".

How would social security retirement work then? It creates a special class of privileges by age.

Yes and No. A person 12 years of age can draw Social Security, but at the age of 12 they are not eligible to retire. This is Federal not Constitutional

The age that was in question was pertaining to the 2nd amendment, which is the age of majority.
The BATF passed the law stating that a person under 21 could not buy a handgun or handgun ammunition. This is of Federal jurisdiction and usurps the authority of the 2nd amendment.
I will even go farther and guess that due to the BATF requirement to be 21 is why Texas Concealed Carry is written the way it is and has a loophole for the Military.
That’s my opinion and you know what they say about that.

Where is Social Security in the Constitution?

Shoot Straight wrote:Where is Social Security in the Constitution?

He didn't say constitutional rights and privileges. He said a constitutional amendment protecting all rights and privileges of American citizens from being based on age. That's different.

The right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution.

Shoot Straight wrote:The right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution.

Are you suggesting an amendment to his proposed constitutional amendment?

He proposed, "Upon attaining the age of majority a person may not be restricted of any rights and privileges as a citizen due to age."

Are you recommending that it should say, "Upon attaining the age of majority a person may not be restricted of any Constitutional rights and privileges due to age"?

The constitution does not put an age limit on the 2nd amendment nor the 1st amendment.

Shoot Straight wrote:The constitution does not put an age limit on the 2nd amendment nor the 1st amendment.

Are you then recommending that you would support a constitutional amendment which said, "A person may not be restricted of any Constitutional rights and privileges due to age"?

The current UN rights of the child treaty would support such a viewpoint, but that is very controversial as it is a radical overturning of the historical understanding of a parent's right to direct his child's upbringing which includes, for example, being able to restrict the child's free movement, direct the child's religious practices, and so on. This right of a parent is, of course, linked to the child's age. (And there are always exemptions such as emancipation, and we've covered earlier how we have numerous different ages for different rights.)

I'm having trouble following what it is you are trying to convey and how it relates to the conversation regarding 18-20 year olds being able to purchase and carry firearms with the same freedom of 21 year olds or of those in the military being restricted from using their constitutional rights.

I'm saying those rights already have no age limit. The lack of age restriction is perfectly clear in its absence.

Any US government official or employee who denies constitutional rights is a "domestic enemy" of the constitution.

Is that clear enough?

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:A little OT, but when I was seventeen I used to run...a lot. <SNIP>

Because those 17 and 18 year olds are not at all trusted. They're treated like children. When they go to the bathroom, what clothes they wear, what they eat and when, what haircut they'll have, and every other aspect of their life is strictly controlled to create uniformity and that external control on every detail is only loosened (somewhat) after a sufficient period to create internal conformity to the unit as a whole. <SNIP>

I would argue, having "been there, done that", all is geared for cohesiveness and a base standard of competency. It would be terribly impractical to presume an "army" without a common discipline and training standard would have any hope of successfully completing their mission.

Listen to the talk of any one who has been in the military for 10 or more years and they'll tell you loudly that they themselves don't trust the 18-21 year olds. The caste system is alive and well in our military. The officers have separate housing, restaurants, facilities, etc while the "kids" are allowed to go "play" after their "chores" are done. Ironically, many sources say the 18-21 demographic is the most populated age range in the military.

Really? At eighteen I had the fate of an entire infantry company in my hands. I was regularly consulted by the CO and XO before actions were taken. At nineteen I was an advance man on the ground for a SF team. While not common, I was hardly an exception.

The separation of ranks is a matter of fraternization. While conducive to a certain "prejudice" it also serves to prevent an officer from befriending or dating a subordinate and then applying pressures apart from the chain-of-command.

I very much respect all who are serving as well as their families who sacrifice so much so that they can serve our nation. From a purely philosophical standpoint, the quotes I read here on gun control and societal control by Lenin and Mao very much apply to the culture under which our military is run. The high ups want complete allegiance, uniformity, and to know that orders will be followed unquestioningly.
<SNIP> They can't function with free thinkers, no matter what the cause.

That's a negative. During all phases of my training creative problem solving, discernment and open dialogue were encouraged (providing for proper protocol). Questioning of orders when cause for their legality, ROE or unnecessary risks came into doubt was not only accepted but demanded. Protection for the refusal of unlawful orders is in the UCMJ.

Restoring full gun rights to 18-20 year old military members, or any military members, encompasses a lot more than a Constitutional argument on the 2nd Amendment. It strikes at the heart of how our entire military is run.

At nineteen, I had qualified expert with M-16, 1911 and hand grenade. I had been cross-trained in the operation and field maintenance of the Makarov 9x18, and Kalashnikov 7.62x39 (AK-47). When my unit went on alert and I pulled CQ, I was required to report to the unit armory and pull my sidearm. But they didn't trust me

Edited for spelling.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Shoot Straight wrote:The constitution does not put an age limit on the 2nd amendment nor the 1st amendment.

Are you then recommending that you would support a constitutional amendment which said, "A person may not be restricted of any Constitutional rights and privileges due to age"?

The current UN rights of the child treaty would support such a viewpoint, but that is very controversial as it is a radical overturning of the historical understanding of a parent's right to direct his child's upbringing which includes, for example, being able to restrict the child's free movement, direct the child's religious practices, and so on. This right of a parent is, of course, linked to the child's age. (And there are always exemptions such as emancipation, and we've covered earlier how we have numerous different ages for different rights.)

No such constitutional amendment is necessary. Every adult enjoys all constitutional rights, unless they have lost those rights. There is also no reason to invade the rights of parents to control their children. The U.S. Supreme Court has already held in numerous cases that children do not enjoy all of the constitutional rights as do adults.

The NRA cases deal with denying existing constitutional rights to adults.

Chas.

Hoi Polloi wrote:Listen to the talk of any one who has been in the military for 10 or more years and they'll tell you loudly that they themselves don't trust the 18-21 year olds.

I guess you and I talk to different military folks. Are you perhaps talking about the Russian military?

Chas.

I was in the military about 40 years ago (USMC). The average age in SE Asia was 19 and I was comfortable trusting ALL of my peers with my life.