Home
I think its troublesome that some of you seem to agree with the age being 18 or older to purchase or own a firearm.

Because why?

I think SCOTUS should, when they deliver the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen ruling, include language to the effect the "the age to buy any firearm in any state will be the same age as that state requires to vote; and the ID requirements to purchase a firearm will be the same as that state requires to vote."

Which will, of course, cause the Democrat-run states and cities to revolt.

'Cause rights should not exist with differing standards between the rights.

At least according to me.
Some adults don’t need guns!! I don’t think it has much to do with age but it has a lot to do with gray matter.
The problem is when someone who doesn't believe anyone should own any guns gets to make the decision if we can buy one.
I like the idea of those pesky piece of papers called the constitution and BOR's.

No ages specified. Only thing specified is "shall not be infringed"
How about the age at which some have to register with selective service.
But they want you to vote for their communist asses when you are 18....
IMO, if they say your not mentally there until at least 21 they need to raise the age of selective to 21
Or in some Democrat run states, the proposal is 16!!!!
Originally Posted by ingwe
But they want you to vote for their communist asses when you are 18....

Raise that too
So you’ve got a 19-21 year old active duty Marine who’s been trained to fire artillery, mortars, full auto rifles and when he comes home on leave and he can’t buy a semi-auto version off the rifle he used to fire Expert. 🤬

TORO CRAPPO💩
Originally Posted by navlav8r
So you’ve got a 19-21 year old active duty Marine who’s been trained to fire artillery, mortars, full auto rifles and when he comes home on leave and he can’t buy a semi-auto version off the rifle he used to fire Expert. 🤬

TORO CRAPPO💩


No smokes, no chew, no gun.
It's a matter for the parents to decide, not the government, if a kid can have a gun before age 18, or even later so long as he's under their roof.
Raising the age to vote and to buy a firearm to 21 would be a good move for anyone not in the military. Would solve a lot of problems today!
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
Originally Posted by navlav8r
So you’ve got a 19-21 year old active duty Marine who’s been trained to fire artillery, mortars, full auto rifles and when he comes home on leave and he can’t buy a semi-auto version off the rifle he used to fire Expert. 🤬

TORO CRAPPO💩


No smokes, no chew, no gun.

Beat me to it. 21 to buy tobacco and alcohol is absolute bullshît. Let alone a firearm! We need sheriffs and governors that ignore such laws and refuse their enforcement.
The crime-prone age group is 15 to 25, it wouldn't bother me if this age group was more heavily scrutinized than other age groups when purchasing firearms.

Keep in mind that young adults in the military are in a very structured environment where access to firearms is tightly controlled and limited.
From the age of 7, I’d help my grandfather on his ranch doing kid things; collecting eggs daily from the hen house, feeding sheep, turning on the well pumps to irrigate.

I’d then be turned loose with a model 63 Winchester and a box of Super X Long Rifles to reek havoc on anything that moved in the bosque.

At the age of 10, I saved enough to go to Furr’s and put 10$ down on a Marlin model 60 with my dad. The sales guy obviously knew I was buying it and when I had the rest of the balance (30$), I picked it up with dad.

I routinely rode a bike there to buy ammo by myself.

.50¢ a box.
The first Browning pistol a friend of mine bought was from his high school teacher, who brought it to class to sell it to him afterwards.
In 4th Grade, we still had “Show and Tell”.

I used to hunt with a model 94 Winchester for deer from about 10 years old on. It was my Great Aunt’s.

For Christmas one year, she gave it to me. I was in heaven. I took it to class for “Show and Tell” that week and everyone in class got to come up front to handle it.
Originally Posted by Squidge
The crime-prone age group is 15 to 25, it wouldn't bother me if this age group was more heavily scrutinized than other age groups when purchasing firearms.

Keep in mind that young adults in the military are in a very structured environment where access to firearms is tightly controlled and limited.


Too bad that's not how the constitution is worded.
Originally Posted by Nebraska
Raising the age to vote and to buy a firearm to 21 would be a good move for anyone not in the military. Would solve a lot of problems today!
What problems? We were 2 decades into almost record setting low homicide rates before the Democrats created their War on Cops and Defund the Police campaigns.

It’s not the guns that have gotten worse.
It’s not the people that have gotten worse.
It’s the Democrat policies that are killing people.
The constitution doesn't give age as a limiting factor....but it does give shall not be infringed as one.

If you can choose to be a transvestite at 12, enlist at 18 and need to be 21 to exercise your rights....you've done read it wrong.
Originally Posted by Nebraska
Raising the age to vote and to buy a firearm to 21 would be a good move for anyone not in the military. Would solve a lot of problems today!


No.

Fugg no.
I think the idea that a 17 year old girl can't purchase the means to defend herself is not only absurd, but criminal.
Originally Posted by Nebraska
Raising the age to vote and to buy a firearm to 21 would be a good move for anyone not in the military. Would solve a lot of problems today!

Name the problems that would solve you stupid fugk.
Originally Posted by Hogwild7
The problem is when someone who doesn't believe anyone should own any guns gets to make the decision if we can buy one.
This is the problem. Or at least one of them.
23 year old just shot up a work place in Maryland, Maryland has gun laws, MAKE MORE LAWS, Raise the Age,
Don't address the issues,
Originally Posted by Joel/AK
Originally Posted by Squidge
The crime-prone age group is 15 to 25, it wouldn't bother me if this age group was more heavily scrutinized than other age groups when purchasing firearms.

Keep in mind that young adults in the military are in a very structured environment where access to firearms is tightly controlled and limited.


Too bad that's not how the constitution is worded.
There we go again waving that pesky document around.
If 21 to buy a firearm, and alcohol, then 21 to enlist, sign a contract, smoke, and VOTE Except they want to lower the voting age to 16.......
I agree, David. I also think its troubling that some on the fire are wolves in sheeps clothing regarding being Patriots and coming up with anti Trump narratives.

As Q said, infiltration rather than invasion.
The militia of most states is defined as the able bodied men between the ages of 18-45. People forget you could not vote across the board for local State and Federal elections until the age of 21 prior to the 26th Amendment which was ratified by enough State legislatures July 1, 1971. But, age of conscript was 18 and Eisenhower pushed to lower the age to vote via Amendment in 1954 due to that fact but the States would have none of it.

If the culls want to change the age to purchase and carry a firearm to 21, (which by the 10th Amendment should be a State thing only) then they should do it by Constitutional Amendment, along with rescinding the age to vote to 21, get married without parental consent, enter contracts and drive. Only two of those things are Rights however, the rest are privileges and not protected by the Constitutions, but Big Brother wants to rule.

If the Right to arms can be set aside by congressional vote, then no right is sacrosanct and the Republic is indeed dead.
Treating 18-21 year olds who should be adults by then like children is another big problem.
Originally Posted by deflave
I think the idea that a 17 year old girl can't purchase the means to defend herself is not only absurd, but criminal.

Concur 100%
Is there a statistic out for how many 16 year old girls commit mass murder on a regular basis?
Originally Posted by CashisKing
Originally Posted by deflave
I think the idea that a 17 year old girl can't purchase the means to defend herself is not only absurd, but criminal.

Concur 100%




+1
Originally Posted by CashisKing
Is there a statistic out for how many 16 year old girls commit mass murder on a regular basis?




Yeah, I'm betting that's a flatliner without a bubble to be seen anywhere, now matter what timeline you dream up.
Originally Posted by rcamuglia
The first Browning pistol a friend of mine bought was from his high school teacher, who brought it to class to sell it to him afterwards.

In the late 50's early 60's I used to ride the school bus to school with my n870 to hunt pheasants with after school. During the school day the shotgun and ammo was in my locker NOT LOCKED. Try that today.
Originally Posted by Calhoun
Originally Posted by Nebraska
Raising the age to vote and to buy a firearm to 21 would be a good move for anyone not in the military. Would solve a lot of problems today!
What problems? We were 2 decades into almost record setting low homicide rates before the Democrats created their War on Cops and Defund the Police campaigns.

It’s not the guns that have gotten worse.
It’s not the people that have gotten worse.
It’s the Democrat policies that are killing people.

Well said.
Lies and propaganda work, be it gun law, school shootings or about presidents and elections and thousands more.

You can always fool some of the people all of the time
I believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and means exactly what it says. The Bill of Rights enumerates certain God given rights which government cannot violate. Any law or regulation that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. The Second Ammendment says "shall not be infringed" therefore no government at any level can constitutionally restrict private ownership of firearms in any way.
From a realistic standpoint I can see where placing an age limit on the purchase or possession of firearms is reasonable but the Constitution forbids infringement, which that would be, therefore it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court just issued a decision that federal officers cannot be sued for violating constitutional rights. I don't fully understand that decision and have to think there is more to it than is being reported, especially since Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion. From what I have read, it seems like a bad decision and I would have to agree with the minority opinion.
Given the opportunity there are constitutional issues I would like to discuss in a reasonable manner without it becoming emotional. For instance does the Constitution only protect citizens or anyone in the United States? If you are here illegally are you protected under the constitution? What about birthright citizenship? What about age limits to vote? Is voting a right of being in the United States or a privilege of citizenship? How are three letter agencies allowed to make rules and regulations having force of law and bypassing Congress? There are others but you get the idea.
It’s bull schit. You’re either an adult or not.
And those same fools advocate a 16 year old voter age.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And those same fools advocate a 16 year old voter age.

Curious to me why they haven't gone to 16 already..... nothing really stopping them.
Originally Posted by Nebraska
Raising the age to vote and to buy a firearm to 21 would be a good move for anyone not in the military. Would solve a lot of problems today!
Raising the legal age to vote to 30 would solve almost.every problem this nation faces.

But that is no more reasonable than treading on 1'st or 2'nd Amendment rights.

So, lets just repeal the 26'th as a compromise.
Originally Posted by Muffin
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And those same fools advocate a 16 year old voter age.

Curious to me why they haven't gone to 16 already..... nothing really stopping them.
Never could get enough states to ratify a Cont. Amendment. Same reason ERA is not law.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by Muffin
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And those same fools advocate a 16 year old voter age.

Curious to me why they haven't gone to 16 already..... nothing really stopping them.
Never could get enough states to ratify a Cont. Amendment. Same reason ERA is not law.

See, that's the rub, California et.al. doesn't NEED anything to be ratified by any other State..... they can pass State Law allowing 16yo to vote and it's done. It is not a violation of the Constitution to do so.

Art. 26 Sec. 1 - '...The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age...'

NOTHING within Art. 26 says that a 16yo CANNOT vote................ It also does NOT say that NON citizens are prohibited from voting(IIRC there are nearly a dozen municipalities that allow non-citizen voting).... Those are STATE issues...
Very few "Numb-nutz" on the street corner as sharp as a recently graduated Marine Private, regardless of age.
If the age had been 21, then 20 year old Adam Lanza wouldn't have murdered his mother and stolen her gun to shoot up the Sandy Hook school.
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
If the age had been 21, then 20 year old Adam Lanza wouldn't have murdered his mother and stolen her gun to shoot up the Sandy Hook school.
Except for the fact that 20 year old Adam Lanza didn't own any guns. He killed his mother and took hers.

She was over 21.
Originally Posted by Muffin
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by Muffin
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And those same fools advocate a 16 year old voter age.

Curious to me why they haven't gone to 16 already..... nothing really stopping them.
Never could get enough states to ratify a Cont. Amendment. Same reason ERA is not law.

See, that's the rub, California et.al. doesn't NEED anything to be ratified by any other State..... they can pass State Law allowing 16yo to vote and it's done. It is not a violation of the Constitution to do so.

Art. 26 Sec. 1 - '...The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age...'

NOTHING within Art. 26 says that a 16yo CANNOT vote................ It also does NOT say that NON citizens are prohibited from voting(IIRC there are nearly a dozen municipalities that allow non-citizen voting).... Those are STATE issues...
Thank you for the correctiom.
I'm a big believer in 21 as long as it's across the board. 21 to vote, 21 to buy alcohol, 21 to buy a firearm and 21 to join the military.
Originally Posted by MadMooner
It’s bull schit. You’re either an adult or not.


We have all met 50 year old men and women who are a long ways from being an "adult"..
I bought my first firearm, a Cooey Model 600 22LR, shortly after I turned 14. I never even thought of shooting someone. I just wanted to shoot ground squirrels (gophers), magpies, crows and starlings. Rabbits and grouse.

About 6 months later, the law changed and I was too young for a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate, required to purchase a firearm) and would have to wait until I was 16 to get the FAC.
Originally Posted by AB2506
I bought my first firearm, a Cooey Model 600 22LR, shortly after I turned 14. I never even thought of shooting someone. I just wanted to shoot ground squirrels (gophers), magpies, crows and starlings. Rabbits and grouse.

Times have changed.

I too "bought" my first firearm when I was 14 with my paper route money, a Winchester 9422 XTR, I still have it.
Originally Posted by David_Walter
I think its troublesome that some of you seem to agree with the age being 18 or older to purchase or own a firearm.

Because why?

I think SCOTUS should, when they deliver the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen ruling, include language to the effect the "the age to buy any firearm in any state will be the same age as that state requires to vote; and the ID requirements to purchase a firearm will be the same as that state requires to vote."

Which will, of course, cause the Democrat-run states and cities to revolt.

'Cause rights should not exist with differing standards between the rights.

At least according to me.

Therein lies the problem, and why less and less people are taking Democrats seriously.

A year or 2 ago they wanted to lower the voting age to 16, but now they claim an 18 year olds brain isnt developed enough to buy a firearm.
The age should be 17 to buy or own any firearm.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246#:~:text=The%20militia%20of%20the%20United%20States%20consists%20of,States%20who%20are%20members%20of%20the%20National%20Guard.
But a 4 year old can choose their gender.
Bought my Remington 521 Targetmaster in 1962 at the age of thirteen. Thru the mail. $27 postal money order.
Just me- i find it troublesome that many
continue to enable and make excuses for
many that need to be in a mental health
facility, or in jail or prison, or that need to be
executed and planted.
The processes and institutions for dealing with
those that shouldn't be running around loose
have been created and refined for years and years,
but it's objectionable to admit that our offspring
or friends or relatives are unhinged and need
confinement of one kind or another for the
protection and safety of innocent bystanders
Originally Posted by deflave
I think the idea that a 17 year old girl can't purchase the means to defend herself is not only absurd, but criminal.
Absolutely! A lot of younger girls (edit: and boys) being preyed upon by pedophiles, too. A loud last surprise would solve some problems.
Originally Posted by local_dirt
Originally Posted by CashisKing
Is there a statistic out for how many 16 year old girls commit mass murder on a regular basis?




Yeah, I'm betting that's a flatliner without a bubble to be seen anywhere, now matter what timeline you dream up.

Google Brenda Spencer "I don't like Monday's".

Not trying to be a jerk...just bringing this forgotten crime up.
Originally Posted by David_Walter
I think its troublesome that some of you seem to agree with the age being 18 or older to purchase or own a firearm.

Because why?

I think SCOTUS should, when they deliver the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen ruling, include language to the effect the "the age to buy any firearm in any state will be the same age as that state requires to vote; and the ID requirements to purchase a firearm will be the same as that state requires to vote."

Which will, of course, cause the Democrat-run states and cities to revolt.

'Cause rights should not exist with differing standards between the rights.

At least according to me.
While I appreciate the sentiment, the problem is that is legislating from the bench; something courts have no business nor authority doing.
Originally Posted by LeakyWaders
Originally Posted by local_dirt
Originally Posted by CashisKing
Is there a statistic out for how many 16 year old girls commit mass murder on a regular basis?




Yeah, I'm betting that's a flatliner without a bubble to be seen anywhere, now matter what timeline you dream up.

Google Brenda Spencer "I don't like Monday's".

Not trying to be a jerk...just bringing this forgotten crime up.

I immediately thought of her too. But that’s it. And the fact that it happened something like 40 years ago, and is the singular incident that is remembered, does seem to make it the exception that proves the rule….
I think when you're 18, your state should issue you a firearm.....
Originally Posted by DHN
Originally Posted by David_Walter
I think its troublesome that some of you seem to agree with the age being 18 or older to purchase or own a firearm.

Because why?

I think SCOTUS should, when they deliver the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen ruling, include language to the effect the "the age to buy any firearm in any state will be the same age as that state requires to vote; and the ID requirements to purchase a firearm will be the same as that state requires to vote."

Which will, of course, cause the Democrat-run states and cities to revolt.

'Cause rights should not exist with differing standards between the rights.

At least according to me.
While I appreciate the sentiment, the problem is that is legislating from the bench; something courts have no business nor authority doing.

The Supreme Court of the United States reaffirming our Constitutional rights and preventing them from being illegally restricted is most definitely NOT “legislating from the bench”, it’s ultimately the BIGGEST and most IMPORTANT issue that the courts are charged with upholding….our Constitutional rights!

Lower courts….lesser courts that are typically comprised of politically biased ass kissers appointed to federal judgeships and circuit courts by politically motivated presidents in an attempt to politicize the judiciary is where judicial activism is typically displayed. The SCOTUS is <usually> above that…..but in this clown world that we live in I take back everything I just said and I agree with you. 😁
Aces, I think you misunderstood me. I am not against language upholding our rights. OP stated POTUS should declare an age to purchase a firearm. That is contrary to 2A and definitely IS legislating, as is mandating ID requirements. According to the Constitution voting regulations are up to the states.
Originally Posted by Epishemore
The age should be 17 to buy or own any firearm.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246#:~:text=The%20militia%20of%20the%20United%20States%20consists%20of,States%20who%20are%20members%20of%20the%20National%20Guard.

Alas, the challenge of your cite of title 10 would be fine except that as of age 45 you would no longer be part of the militia. Not sure that's goin to work for me. grin Although, as a member of the Inactive Naval Reserve ready reserve for another year and half before I transfer to the retired rolls, I suspect I fall under class #1

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2[/i]497[/i].)
[/i]
MOST life-long bad habits, stupid decisions and "counter-success life styles" are started by young men and women between the ages of 17 and 24.
Easy answer?
Legal age of full adulthood should be reset from 18 to 22 or maybe even 24. At full adulthood, after supporting yourself for 4-6 years you'd get to join the military, vote, drink alcohol (if you are so inclined) Smoke (if you are so inclined) and so on.

Will that cure the problem completely? NO! But it would cure about 90% of it.

The culture focuses on kids because they have not yet seen the truth themselves and been responsible for their own actions. The Dem/Comms know how to get their way by brainwashing's kids. From TV commercials to music to out-right lies taught in schools by communists atavists (we call those creatures "teachers"). But if freedom to shape your own life was given at 24 but criminal accountability was demanded at 12, we'd see a huge turnaround in the nation.
Today 12 year old criminals are protected from the consequences of crime, and adults are forced to pay taxes to support retirement homes for the criminals (called prisons, where they are simply taught to be more successful criminals )

And all of this is a result of a lack of involvement of the common citizen in their own government We the People are the 1st 3 words of the highest law of the land, and yet not one in 1000 citizens have ever takes 2 days of a 75 year long life to read it and study it and find out what it says and why it says it. 100% of all government runs on tax money. The 2 REASONS the USA was even brought into existence was because of unfair taxation and a move to cease the arms at Concord (tax revolt and gun-control)

Franklin warned us all. When asked what kind of government was drafted at the signing of the Constitution he said "A republic----------------if you can keep it".
Plato also warned future generation a lot longer ago then that.
He told us 'People who refuse to be involved in their government are ALWAYS punished by being ruled by their inferiors"


Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But the fist thing we see from a study of history is that people don't learn from history. We see posts from several of them on this forum from time to time.
Go back and read my post again. I didn’t advocate for a specific age. I advocated for the court to mandate that all rights have a similar age of majority, or starting age.

If a state has voting at 16, then firearms at 16. If a state has no ID voting, then no ID firearm purchases.

That’s what I said.


Originally Posted by DHN
Aces, I think you misunderstood me. I am not against language upholding our rights. OP stated POTUS should declare an age to purchase a firearm. That is contrary to 2A and definitely IS legislating, as is mandating ID requirements. According to the Constitution voting regulations are up to the states.
Originally Posted by Pugs
Originally Posted by Epishemore
The age should be 17 to buy or own any firearm.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246#:~:text=The%20militia%20of%20the%20United%20States%20consists%20of,States%20who%20are%20members%20of%20the%20National%20Guard.

Alas, the challenge of your cite of title 10 would be fine except that as of age 45 you would no longer be part of the militia. Not sure that's goin to work for me. grin Although, as a member of the Inactive Naval Reserve ready reserve for another year and half before I transfer to the retired rolls, I suspect I fall under class #1

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2[/i]497[/i].)
[/i]
Didn't Heller clear that up?
One problem I have is denying rights for DV Misdemeanors. Not that I think DVers should not lose their rights, but that felonies are what the level should be. If the case is bad enough to lose rights it should be a felony.
Originally Posted by Sitka deer
One problem I have is denying rights for DV Misdemeanors. Not that I think DVers should not lose their rights, but that felonies are what the level should be. If the case is bad enough to lose rights it should be a felony.
What's a "DVer"?
Originally Posted by skeen
Originally Posted by Sitka deer
One problem I have is denying rights for DV Misdemeanors. Not that I think DVers should not lose their rights, but that felonies are what the level should be. If the case is bad enough to lose rights it should be a felony.
What's a "DVer"?

I'm assuming "domestic violence".
Yeah I don't think the age needs to be raised for semi-auto. I had a few semi-autos in my room as a teenager (with my parent's knowledge) and I didn't shoot up anything. Issued an M-16A1 before I was 18. I could also drink at 18 back then.

What is the difference now? Violence being glorified by Hollyweird for one.
Originally Posted by Joel/AK
Originally Posted by ingwe
But they want you to vote for their communist asses when you are 18....

Raise that too

35 is a nice age for voting - sme as running for congress?. A little real world experience is helpful.

Those living in their mom's basement need not apply to either..
It’s in the Constitution, if you take time to read it.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S2_C2_1/

Article I, Section 2, Clause 2:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.


According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.
The Constitution does spell out several age requirements in its wording.

A citizen must be 18 years of age or older to vote.

Members of the House must be 25 years of age or older and have been a citizen for at least 7 years.

Members of the Senate must be 35 years of age or older and have been a citizen for at least 9 years.

Presidential candidates must be a natural born a citizen of the United States, a resident for at least 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

Why would the framers include age requirements in the Constitution if "age doesn't matter"? Age requirements are included because it does matter in terms of the quality of having had experience, knowledge, and good judgment. That’s something that comes with time which younger individuals haven’t acquired yet.
Originally Posted by Squidge
The Constitution does spell out several age requirements in its wording.

A citizen must be 18 years of age or older to vote.

Members of the House must be 25 years of age or older and have been a citizen for at least 7 years.

Members of the Senate must be 35 years of age or older and have been a citizen for at least 9 years.

Presidential candidates must be a natural born a citizen of the United States, a resident for at least 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

Why would the framers include age requirements in the Constitution if "age doesn't matter"? Age requirements are included because it does matter in terms of the quality of having had experience, knowledge, and good judgment. That’s something that comes with time which younger individuals haven’t acquired yet.


The age to vote was an amendment voted on in the 50's.
Originally Posted by Joel/AK
Originally Posted by Squidge
The Constitution does spell out several age requirements in its wording.

A citizen must be 18 years of age or older to vote.

Members of the House must be 25 years of age or older and have been a citizen for at least 7 years.

Members of the Senate must be 35 years of age or older and have been a citizen for at least 9 years.

Presidential candidates must be a natural born a citizen of the United States, a resident for at least 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

Why would the framers include age requirements in the Constitution if "age doesn't matter"? Age requirements are included because it does matter in terms of the quality of having had experience, knowledge, and good judgment. That’s something that comes with time which younger individuals haven’t acquired yet.


The age to vote was an amendment voted on in the 50's.

True, it used to be 21. The 26th Amendment was ratified in July of 1971.
Originally Posted by Squidge
Originally Posted by Joel/AK
Originally Posted by Squidge
The Constitution does spell out several age requirements in its wording.

A citizen must be 18 years of age or older to vote.

Members of the House must be 25 years of age or older and have been a citizen for at least 7 years.

Members of the Senate must be 35 years of age or older and have been a citizen for at least 9 years.

Presidential candidates must be a natural born a citizen of the United States, a resident for at least 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

Why would the framers include age requirements in the Constitution if "age doesn't matter"? Age requirements are included because it does matter in terms of the quality of having had experience, knowledge, and good judgment. That’s something that comes with time which younger individuals haven’t acquired yet.


The age to vote was an amendment voted on in the 50's.

True, it used to be 21. The 26th Amendment was ratified in July of 1971.


Curiosity has me intrigued. Where did it state that voting was to be at the age of 21 in the constitution?

I may have overlooked it.
If the fact that the 2A stands as a bulwark against a despotic government and the militia is the functional arm of the 2A then it stands to reason that anyone of the minimum age for the militia or military is of age to own and practice with the same weapons they’d be taking into battle with them. If our government is willing to sacrifice our 18 year old treasures in their overseas conflicts then those same 18 year olds should have the right to defend themselves against that same government.
For those who think raising the age to buy a RIFLE from 18 to 21 will make any significant difference...

In 2014 we had a record low murder rate of 4.3 murders per 100,000 people. There were 12,312 murders and 248 were linked to a rifle.

In 2020 we had a 50% higher murder rate of 6.5 murders per 100,000 people. There were 17,815 murders and 318 were linked to a rifle.

Murders increased by 5,500 - rifle murders increased by 70. Less than 2% of the increase in murders was rifle related.


Data.. it's important.
Originally Posted by Calhoun
For those who think raising the age to buy a RIFLE from 18 to 21 will make any significant difference...

In 2014 we had a record low murder rate of 4.3 murders per 100,000 people. There were 12,312 murders and 248 were linked to a rifle.

In 2020 we had a 50% higher murder rate of 6.5 murders per 100,000 people. There were 17,815 murders and 318 were linked to a rifle.

Murders increased by 5,500 - rifle murders increased by 70. Less than 2% of the increase in murders was rifle related.


Data.. it's important.


It's not about the facts, it's the agenda. We all know that
Originally Posted by Joel/AK
Curiosity has me intrigued. Where did it state that voting was to be at the age of 21 in the constitution?

I may have overlooked it.

It wasn't, the age to vote and other voting requirements were left to the States.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/voting-age-history.html

Quote
In fact, when the Constitution was ratified in 1788, it made no mention of a federal voting age. It was up to the states. In most cases, you had to be 21 years old, and a white, male, landowning protestant to vote.

Social changes in the early 19th century led to the first major voting reforms. In the 1820s, contested elections convinced many people that broader suffrage, or the right to vote, was needed. By 1830, religion and property requirements had been abolished in almost all state constitutions, although suffrage was still only guaranteed to white males over the age of 21. The last state to remove restrictions on universal white, male suffrage was North Carolina in 1856.

The expansion of male suffrage caught the attention of female activists, who in 1848 organized for the first time at the Seneca Falls convention in New York. These activists declared that women should have the right to vote. However, women would not be the next group to receive suffrage. That would fall upon freed African Americans at the end of the Civil War. In 1868, former slaves were guaranteed citizenship with the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment. Black males were guaranteed the right to vote in 1870 with the passing of the Fifteenth Amendment, although some Southern states adopted literacy and education tests to limit access to the polls.

As the 20th century began, all males 21 or older could legally vote. However, women still couldn't, and many white women were particularly upset that black males received suffrage before them. This spurned a new wave of activism. Wyoming was the first territory, and then state, to grant universal suffrage to women. It would not be until after World War I, however, that this became a national measure. The Nineteenth Amendment granted women the right to vote in 1920.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...r-olds-right-vote-record-time-180976261/

Quote
The fight to lower the voting age began in earnest decades earlier, in the early 1940s, in response to a different conflict: World War II. Between 1940 and 1942, Congress passed successive Selective Service laws that lowered the military draft age first from 21 to 20, then from 20 to 18 in 1942. The 1942 age limit sparked debate in Congress about the connection between the voting age of 21 and the age of military service, and the fairness of conscripting men into service who could not vote.

“If young men are to be drafted at 18 years of age to fight for their Government,” said Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan as Congress considered his bill to lower the voting age, “they ought to be entitled to vote at 18 years of age for the kind of government for which they are best satisfied to fight.”
© 24hourcampfire