20 year old sues Dicks and Walmart

[moseschi]

Pretty sure Ben was referring to it as a God given right.

I don't think he's referring to God given right.

Because if you look at my original post, it is clear as day what I said. I said, "As long as the right to bear arms is in the 2nd Amendment, purchasing a firearm when a person meets all the necessary criteria (ie. over age 18 and have no felony etc...) is a RIGHT given by this country. (Emphasis Added)"

 

[moseschi]

<sigh>

Let me be explicit.

They didn't put it in the constitution to give us anything. They put it in the constitution to protect a pre-existing natural right.

That's a critical distinction. If you start thinking that governments give rights, then you must accept that governments can take them away.

I don't accept that. I have a right to self-protection and that includes the right to own efficient tools for that purpose. The government can't take that away from me. They can change laws, call my guns illegal, and put a bullet in me when I refuse to give them up...but they can't take that right from me because they didn't give it to me.

I was born with it.

I believe there are God given right and there are rights given by people.

For God given right. Just read the Bible.

So what are the rights given by people? Well, my dad call me a son. At any point he can disown me and call me "not son." And erase me from his will. So my right as a son is not necessarily given by God.

 

[Younggun]

I believe there are God given right and there are rights given by people.

For God given right. Just read the Bible.

So what are the rights given by people? Well, my dad call me a son. At any point he can disown me and call me "not son." And erase me from his will. So my right as a son is not necessarily given by God.

Although I agree you have no right to force someone to use specific speech (pronouns...), I fail to understand how it negates any other natural or god given rights. (we aren't all religious here, but there is a murky line on it's discussion).

Please clarify on your belief that the right to self preservation is limited or non existent. I word it this way intentionally as the right to bear arms is tied directly to the right to self preservation.

Also, please see my extended explenation of my belief in post 94.

 

[avvidclif]

Sir, if a store does not want to sell an item, they can do that. If they decide not to sell an item that is protected by the constitution, they have the right to do that. But if they start selling an item that is protected by the constitution, they cannot discriminate.

Let's talk about the Christian baker in Oregon who decided not to sell an item (this time, it is an item [a cake] that is not protected by the constitution) to a certain "type" of individual. However, they lost their case and had to pay hundred of thousands of dollars. A cake is not protected by the constitution. A person does not have a right to own a cake. But the judge favored the couple who really had no right protected by the constitution to buy a cake.

However, bearing a firearm is a right given by the country. And Walmart and Dicks' practice of discriminating 18-20 year old is against the right that was given by the constitution.

The problem with your argument is the Constitution doesn't have an age limit so why is 18-20 protected.

 

[Younggun]

Fine. You want to discuss in depth? Discuss.

Lay out your beliefs on a business owner's rights vs. the Constitution. I am all ears.

Currently on my phone. Should be able to set aside time to get on the computer later. It's difficult to lay out the full picture of a belief system on a 2.5" touch screen keyboard...

 

[benenglish]

For God given right. Just read the Bible.

I try not to appeal to The Eternal when discussing how we govern our society. There are plenty of atheists and others out there who have the same rights I do even if we don't believe in the same things. Thus, I refer to "natural rights" in the same way Washington referred to "The Great Architect."

But if you seriously want to invoke God and the Bible, I'll play along. Jesus got angry and redressed grievances by using a weapon and becoming violent when it was appropriate. Having the right to own weapons is, if we are to follow his example, God-given. I'll grant that.

Happy?

See: John 2:15.

 

[BRD@66]

Danger Will Robbinson! Danger.

 

[AustinN4]

I try not to appeal to The Eternal when discussing how we govern our society. There are plenty of atheists and others out there who have the same rights I do even if we don't believe in the same things. Thus, I refer to "natural rights" in the same way Washington referred to "The Great Architect."

A very good way to express it and one that I will use in the future. I should have used "natural" in my post and I am sorry for diverting thread toward a forbidden subject here.

 

[oldag]

Currently on my phone. Should be able to set aside time to get on the computer later. It's difficult to lay out the full picture of a belief system on a 2.5" touch screen keyboard...

I hear that.

 

[easy rider]

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of liberty; being of one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live as slaves"

John Dickinson, July 6th, 1775

 

[sharkey]

Pretty sure Ben was referring to it as a God given right.

Or a "natural right". Buddha forbid we exclude the pro 2A atheists



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[moseschi]

The problem with your argument is the Constitution doesn't have an age limit so why is 18-20 protected.

Age limit is something the government imposed upon us. When they made this age restriction law, I am pretty sure there were people who thought that the government was infringing on our rights. I do agree with Younggun that the Constitution is written to chain and restrict the government. I really do believe there should be no age restriction on weapon.

But why did we allow the age restriction? Is it because it is common sense? Perhaps. A wisdom call?

I do think it is because parents are not parenting their children anymore. And children are doing whatever they want to do. But I digress...

 

[oldag]

I do think it is because parents are not parenting their children anymore. And children are doing whatever they want to do. But I digress...

A lot of truth there. And the root cause of many problems.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

The age for drivers license used to be 14, of course it's not apples/apples.

 

[benenglish]

Buddha forbid we exclude the pro 2A atheists

We got a big tent, here, us gun owners. Pastafarians welcome, too.

 

[benenglish]

But why did we allow the age restriction?

Probably because the concept was entrenched in English common law since pretty much forever. Blackstone's Commentaries was published in 1765 and it was pretty definitive that children (in the term of the day, "infants") were people incapable of committing a crime or being held to the same standards or permitted the same rights as adults. It even made reference to historical cases where children as young as 9 had been found guilty of capital crimes. I'm not sure how old "historical" is in this context but, suffice it to say, the concept of treating children differently has been with us for far longer than we've been a country.

The ages involved have changed a bit and, I suppose, vary by jurisdiction. Back in Blackstone's day, if you were under 7 you were an infant. If you were over 14, you were an adult. 7-14 was a grey area.

Nowadays things are different in the specifics but the concept is the same. Yes, I realize the USSC has definitively ruled that minors must be afforded due process and that the Bill of Rights is not "for adults alone". Despite that wording, we'll never give up the concept of treating children differently than we do adults.

 

[easy rider]

The founding fathers also often referred to keep and bear arms as a birthright. I guess it should be up to the family to decide when a child is responsible enough to have a gun. But if a distinction is made that 18 year olds are responsible enough to make decisions on their own, then that should also be a decision they should make. It's my belief that if the government wants to make a change in at what age a person is responsible enough to own a gun, they should also put forth an argument of in what age a person is responsible to be on their own and may need that protection to buy a gun.

 

[jrbfishn]

The age for drivers license used to be 14, of course it's not apples/apples.

You're right. Vehicles will probably kill more children in the next month than long guns will kill anyone all year. Yet we happily turn children loose with cars all the time. Much more dangerous than long guns.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

You're right. Vehicles will probably kill more children in the next month than long guns will kill anyone all year. Yet we happily turn children loose with cars all the time. Much more dangerous than long guns.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

If the kids are all driving black scary looking cars, then we would have car free zones.

 

[jrbfishn]

Before the '50s, most cars were black.
Car free zones, might not be such a bad thing.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk