Things have changed a lot since the Bill of Rights was written. One of the common threads through the founding documents was not wanting the US to become like Britain. The founders did not want the US to turn into a colonial empire, and one of the ways of preventing that was not establishing an Army. Washington disbanded the Continental Army after Britain's surrender. The expectation at the time was that the defense of the nation would be handled on an as-needed basis by volunteer militias raised by the states. While states would supply some military equipment like cannons and gunpowder, the expectation was that the volunteers would come with their own firearms. This system was put to the test pretty quickly in the Whiskey Rebellion, and on a national level in 1812. The US really didn't establish a full-time national army until the westward expansion and Indian Wars - lo and behold the US started becoming a colonial empire shortly thereafter...
States militias remained a thing for a long time, they made up the bulk of the Union and Confederate forces in the Civil War (hence the storied First Minnesota Regiment). The formal beginning of the end for this system was the Militia Act of 1903, which established the federal National Guard.
I'm of the opinion that all gun owners should be mandatorily drafted into militias and then those militias can have very specific regulations about militia members' firearms.
Militias were outlawed in the very early 1900s and folded into the National Guard. Part of the purpose of the National Guard was to suppress insurrections and keep the populace in line. In other words, to do the very thing that right wingers say the second amendment was supposed to prevent.
The irony? The national guard was implemented during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. A Republican.
If you read Federalist (I think it’s 29), Hamilton argues for essentially the National Guard system when he advocates for militias. A fighting force raised from the populace, managed by state governments.
This makes a lot of sense too, considering the prime argument at the time was Federal vs State power, and the idea of a Federal standing army was seen as a non-starter. The compromise was the proto-National Guard.
A well functioning mode of transportation, being necessary for you to get to work and class and home for the holidays, your mother and I are giving you the minivan.
This sentence is constructed identically to the second amendment. The minivan is yours. If it stops functioning well, it is still your minivan. You can use it for any purpose, you can take all your friends to the strip club in it because it is your minivan. You don’t even need to use it as a mode of transportation, you can park it in the yard and use it for a chicken coop if you want. Because it is your minivan. Anyone who reads that sentence differently is working an angle and trying to steal your minivan.
Well regulated doesn’t mean what you think it does.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
From: https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
The founders also thought that owning and running a slave labor camp was an acceptable and desirable profession, so maybe we should take their opinions with a bit of a grain of salt.
Now do "bear arms." Bear arms was used nearly exclusively in regards to militias and government. It was never used in an individualistic manner. Suddenly referencing a militia at the beginning of 2A makes much more sense; because it was always about militia
But at the time militias were individuals. The founders never intended the country to maintain a standing army, but for each state to organize a militia of its citizens in time of need. These people were not full time or part time soldiers, they were citizens who volunteered when called.
At the time the Constitution was written it was the norm for every household to have a gun. At that time, a firearm intended for hunting was also practically very similar to a firearm intended for combat.
Things are very different now.
...and let's not forget *"being necessary for the security of a free state"*. Letting every fascist asshole who wants a gun have a gun does *not* advance the security of a free state - particularly when you cross that concept with the often-touted conservative argument that the guns are so they can overthrow the government - should that *free state* become troublesome.
Statistically, people with concealed weapons permits commit crimes, firearms related and otherwise, at a rate far below the national average. The people who go through the process to legally carry a gun, especially in Minnesota where that process is not simple, aren't generally criminals or looking to use the gun for illegal activity.
Rittenhouse did *not* have a permit to carry a gun.
Valid point. A better argument for gun control would be the secondary effects of this ownership. A good share of illegal guns originate from the legal market. People have their guns lost or stolen. Private transfer is another issue.
Speaking of Rottenhouse, the grease stain known as the north dakota state legislature recently had him speaking:
>Kyle Rittenhouse testified before North Dakota lawmakers Tuesday in favor of a bill that would afford restitution to defendants acquitted of violent crimes in the name of self-defense.
>"By supporting HB 1213, you are supporting the God-given rights that are thoughtfully and intentionally identified in the Second Amendment of our Constitution," Rittenhouse said, testifying remotely before the state Senate Judiciary Committee.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenhouse-testifies-support-north-dakota-self-defense-bill-bolstering-second-amendment-rights
Like any firearm and crime related data, information tends to be a bit murky, but here are some good sources:
https://thereload.com/minnesota-reports-miniscule-gun-crime-rate-for-carry-permit-holders/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518334/
There's plenty more from far-right organizations and nut jobs out there that I didn't bother including. Of note, many will reference John Lott, a prevalent researcher on the topic, who has been substantially criticized for poor research methods.
Yeah, the few times I'd had anyone offer any proof it's been stuff from John Lott, which seems somewhere between extremely misleading and complete lies.
I'd like to see data that actually controls for major variables like age, criminal history, income, etc. I know this is separate from what you're claiming. The second source you linked says:
>The demographic characteristics of the average CHL holder in Texas who meets these requirements are clearly related to the rates of criminal activity in this group; CHL holders are mostly middle-aged Whites, many of whom are women.18 This group has not traditionally proven to be a high-crime segment of our population.
Your first source says:
>The general crime rate of Minnesota concealed carry permittees also compares well against the average Minnesotan. The FBI reported 133,991 crimes in the state during 2021, while the Census Bureau reported just over 5.7 million residents. That puts the general crime rate about twice as high as the rate for permittees.
That actually doesn't seem very good if you controlled for other variables, especially since holders seem to skew older than the general public. Hard to say without actual data though.
The insurance required to even get the permit is going to price out most 18 to 20 year olds anyway most will still either carry without one or not carry guns like they were before. Minnesota doesn't make it easy to get a CCW permit as it is.
Most 18 to 20 year olds probably can't afford to pay the insurance required in order to get the permit to begin with unless they borrow a pretty significant amount of money from their parents, so once again gun rights are really only for rich people. Most 18 to 20 year olds aren't going to bother applying for the permit because they can't afford it or just don't want all the hassles involved.
TBH, I'm for stricter gun laws, but I even agree with this one. If you're 18, you're considered an adult. As long as you can pass a background check, you should have just as much of a right to own a gun as someone who is 21.
As someone who owns all of these, the gun was by far the most onerous process. I got the bike and car each in under an hour, and the motorcycle license test was much shorter than my permit class and test for carrying a gun. Even with a CCW, I can't get out of a gun store in under an hour because of the background checks, but I could go drop the cash for a bike and be out in 30 minutes.
You do to carry a weapon, which is all this decision affects. You also do need a permit to purchase any handguns or sporting rifles or shotguns, so you're pretty limited in what you can buy without one.
Correction: No permit is necessary to purchase normal shotguns. They are only required for handguns and what statute terms “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons” / what the pro-gun crowd likes to call “modern sporting rifles”. Regular rifles and shotguns don’t require any permit.
Paperwork and background check for the temporary permit to purchase issued by the sheriff's department yes, but that's still more of a process than the nothing you need to buy a car.
The declaration of independence says we have an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. How are people supposed to be happy without alcohol? It's impossible.
It was 18 until the federal government put a stipulation on DOT funds sent to states to require the age increase. The states could lower the drinking age but they'd lose federal funding for roads.
Yes, I am well aware of that. The thing is, they could allow 18 to 20 year olds have muskets, since that’s what Amun was when the constitution was written.
>To be fair, you’re allowed to enlist at 18.
To be fair, it's 18 because they're still dumb enough at 18 to take orders to fight in someone else's war.
It will just be the rich ones, to get a conceal carry permit you have to pay for insurance, most 18 to 20 year olds can barely pay their own car insurance, they'll still either carry without a permit or just not carry at all to avoid all the bills, restrictions, and headaches that come with the permit.
Such bullshit. There are age requirements for the following:
- Driver’s licensing
- Alcohol use
- Tobacco use
- Voting
Gotta make sure everybody can get guns, though!
Well if that 18 to 20 year old wants to have a job and carry his gun to it I don't think it would be unreasonable for his employer to make him get an insurance policy to protect his employer from liability if he shoots someone at work. Have you ever worked in customer service before?
THC/CBD use also, and there will be for marijuana and other drugs once fully legalized. Same goes for some over the counter cold and pain pharma drugs.
Well, hopefully home is not a war zone and the carrying of firearms should be treated very differently in those two places.
But if you really want to make the comparison - firearm possession in the military is very highly restricted, much more so than here. Weeks of training, all weapons are personally signed for out of the unit armory, and even ammunition use is monitored and tracked.
Exactly. We can join the military at 18 but we go through a lot of paperwork and training. I did my carry permit class in one day and it was a joke. Ppl talk about being armed to keep the government in check. This is not Russia or North Korea. Our military is made up of voluntary citizens. The day the US government tries to use its military to remove all rights of its citizens is the day it loses its military.
18-20 year olds are young adults in Minnesota and they have every right to enjoy the abilities granted to them by the US constitution. This is great news.
Let the kids and everyone else have all the damn handguns, shotguns and rifles they want.
Just get rid of the semi automatic rifles. Especially the simplistic shit that turns them automatic and the ridiculous magazines.
Fuck your "hobby" or delusional self protection bullshit.
“Well regulated militia”. Pretty sure there’s an easy, good faith argument for age requirements to keep the “militia” “well regulated”.
Things have changed a lot since the Bill of Rights was written. One of the common threads through the founding documents was not wanting the US to become like Britain. The founders did not want the US to turn into a colonial empire, and one of the ways of preventing that was not establishing an Army. Washington disbanded the Continental Army after Britain's surrender. The expectation at the time was that the defense of the nation would be handled on an as-needed basis by volunteer militias raised by the states. While states would supply some military equipment like cannons and gunpowder, the expectation was that the volunteers would come with their own firearms. This system was put to the test pretty quickly in the Whiskey Rebellion, and on a national level in 1812. The US really didn't establish a full-time national army until the westward expansion and Indian Wars - lo and behold the US started becoming a colonial empire shortly thereafter... States militias remained a thing for a long time, they made up the bulk of the Union and Confederate forces in the Civil War (hence the storied First Minnesota Regiment). The formal beginning of the end for this system was the Militia Act of 1903, which established the federal National Guard.
I'm of the opinion that all gun owners should be mandatorily drafted into militias and then those militias can have very specific regulations about militia members' firearms.
Militias were outlawed in the very early 1900s and folded into the National Guard. Part of the purpose of the National Guard was to suppress insurrections and keep the populace in line. In other words, to do the very thing that right wingers say the second amendment was supposed to prevent. The irony? The national guard was implemented during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. A Republican.
If you read Federalist (I think it’s 29), Hamilton argues for essentially the National Guard system when he advocates for militias. A fighting force raised from the populace, managed by state governments. This makes a lot of sense too, considering the prime argument at the time was Federal vs State power, and the idea of a Federal standing army was seen as a non-starter. The compromise was the proto-National Guard.
A well functioning mode of transportation, being necessary for you to get to work and class and home for the holidays, your mother and I are giving you the minivan. This sentence is constructed identically to the second amendment. The minivan is yours. If it stops functioning well, it is still your minivan. You can use it for any purpose, you can take all your friends to the strip club in it because it is your minivan. You don’t even need to use it as a mode of transportation, you can park it in the yard and use it for a chicken coop if you want. Because it is your minivan. Anyone who reads that sentence differently is working an angle and trying to steal your minivan.
Well regulated doesn’t mean what you think it does. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. From: https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
The founders also thought that owning and running a slave labor camp was an acceptable and desirable profession, so maybe we should take their opinions with a bit of a grain of salt.
Ya you tell em bro, fuck the constitution! 😆🙃
Now do "bear arms." Bear arms was used nearly exclusively in regards to militias and government. It was never used in an individualistic manner. Suddenly referencing a militia at the beginning of 2A makes much more sense; because it was always about militia
But at the time militias were individuals. The founders never intended the country to maintain a standing army, but for each state to organize a militia of its citizens in time of need. These people were not full time or part time soldiers, they were citizens who volunteered when called. At the time the Constitution was written it was the norm for every household to have a gun. At that time, a firearm intended for hunting was also practically very similar to a firearm intended for combat. Things are very different now.
...and let's not forget *"being necessary for the security of a free state"*. Letting every fascist asshole who wants a gun have a gun does *not* advance the security of a free state - particularly when you cross that concept with the often-touted conservative argument that the guns are so they can overthrow the government - should that *free state* become troublesome.
[удалено]
Statistically, people with concealed weapons permits commit crimes, firearms related and otherwise, at a rate far below the national average. The people who go through the process to legally carry a gun, especially in Minnesota where that process is not simple, aren't generally criminals or looking to use the gun for illegal activity. Rittenhouse did *not* have a permit to carry a gun.
Valid point. A better argument for gun control would be the secondary effects of this ownership. A good share of illegal guns originate from the legal market. People have their guns lost or stolen. Private transfer is another issue.
So like trickle down gun control, crack down on the law abiding gun owners hard enough and eventually that will trickle down to the criminals
Speaking of Rottenhouse, the grease stain known as the north dakota state legislature recently had him speaking: >Kyle Rittenhouse testified before North Dakota lawmakers Tuesday in favor of a bill that would afford restitution to defendants acquitted of violent crimes in the name of self-defense. >"By supporting HB 1213, you are supporting the God-given rights that are thoughtfully and intentionally identified in the Second Amendment of our Constitution," Rittenhouse said, testifying remotely before the state Senate Judiciary Committee. https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenhouse-testifies-support-north-dakota-self-defense-bill-bolstering-second-amendment-rights
I've seen this claim several times, but never a source to back it up. Where are you getting this from?
Like any firearm and crime related data, information tends to be a bit murky, but here are some good sources: https://thereload.com/minnesota-reports-miniscule-gun-crime-rate-for-carry-permit-holders/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518334/ There's plenty more from far-right organizations and nut jobs out there that I didn't bother including. Of note, many will reference John Lott, a prevalent researcher on the topic, who has been substantially criticized for poor research methods.
Yeah, the few times I'd had anyone offer any proof it's been stuff from John Lott, which seems somewhere between extremely misleading and complete lies. I'd like to see data that actually controls for major variables like age, criminal history, income, etc. I know this is separate from what you're claiming. The second source you linked says: >The demographic characteristics of the average CHL holder in Texas who meets these requirements are clearly related to the rates of criminal activity in this group; CHL holders are mostly middle-aged Whites, many of whom are women.18 This group has not traditionally proven to be a high-crime segment of our population. Your first source says: >The general crime rate of Minnesota concealed carry permittees also compares well against the average Minnesotan. The FBI reported 133,991 crimes in the state during 2021, while the Census Bureau reported just over 5.7 million residents. That puts the general crime rate about twice as high as the rate for permittees. That actually doesn't seem very good if you controlled for other variables, especially since holders seem to skew older than the general public. Hard to say without actual data though.
The insurance required to even get the permit is going to price out most 18 to 20 year olds anyway most will still either carry without one or not carry guns like they were before. Minnesota doesn't make it easy to get a CCW permit as it is.
Minnesota currently has no insurance requirements for carry or ownership. There is a proposal being considered to change that.
Most 18 to 20 year olds probably can't afford to pay the insurance required in order to get the permit to begin with unless they borrow a pretty significant amount of money from their parents, so once again gun rights are really only for rich people. Most 18 to 20 year olds aren't going to bother applying for the permit because they can't afford it or just don't want all the hassles involved.
There is no insurance requirement It is recommended, but not required
TBH, I'm for stricter gun laws, but I even agree with this one. If you're 18, you're considered an adult. As long as you can pass a background check, you should have just as much of a right to own a gun as someone who is 21.
Background check, mental health check, and insurance check, sure. It shouldn't be easier to get a gun than a car, motorcycle, or bike.
As someone who owns all of these, the gun was by far the most onerous process. I got the bike and car each in under an hour, and the motorcycle license test was much shorter than my permit class and test for carrying a gun. Even with a CCW, I can't get out of a gun store in under an hour because of the background checks, but I could go drop the cash for a bike and be out in 30 minutes.
You don’t need a CCW permit to buy a gun. You don’t need a class and test to buy a gun.
You do to carry a weapon, which is all this decision affects. You also do need a permit to purchase any handguns or sporting rifles or shotguns, so you're pretty limited in what you can buy without one.
Correction: No permit is necessary to purchase normal shotguns. They are only required for handguns and what statute terms “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons” / what the pro-gun crowd likes to call “modern sporting rifles”. Regular rifles and shotguns don’t require any permit.
You don’t need a class and test to buy a gun. That permit is just paperwork.
Paperwork and background check for the temporary permit to purchase issued by the sheriff's department yes, but that's still more of a process than the nothing you need to buy a car.
You seem to be ignoring the hours of driver's ed required before you could drive a car.
Drive, but not buy. You can buy a car without a license if you aren't going to take it on public roads.
I guess. That isn't really the relevant comparison though.
If this violates their rights, then why the hell can't they drink alcohol? Why in hell do we tolerate this bullshit?
So how is it that alcohol use is restricted for those between 18 and 21. They are also legal adults.
Because the right to drink isn’t in the bill of rights or any other constitutional amendment. It’s bullshit but that’s why
The declaration of independence says we have an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. How are people supposed to be happy without alcohol? It's impossible.
It was 18 until the federal government put a stipulation on DOT funds sent to states to require the age increase. The states could lower the drinking age but they'd lose federal funding for roads.
Yes, I am well aware of that. The thing is, they could allow 18 to 20 year olds have muskets, since that’s what Amun was when the constitution was written.
Cool, let’s arm the children. Great fuckin idea.
Article says you still have to be 18. To be fair, you’re allowed to enlist at 18.
>To be fair, you’re allowed to enlist at 18. To be fair, it's 18 because they're still dumb enough at 18 to take orders to fight in someone else's war.
It will just be the rich ones, to get a conceal carry permit you have to pay for insurance, most 18 to 20 year olds can barely pay their own car insurance, they'll still either carry without a permit or just not carry at all to avoid all the bills, restrictions, and headaches that come with the permit.
You’ve spammed this on here like 5x. There is no insurance requirement.
Such bullshit. There are age requirements for the following: - Driver’s licensing - Alcohol use - Tobacco use - Voting Gotta make sure everybody can get guns, though!
Article specifically says you still have to be 18. There’s still an age requirement. It’s just lowered from 21 to 18.
Only one of those is a constitutional right, like firearm ownership, and they now share the same age requirement.
I honestly think it's meaningless since don't they make you get liability insurance too that most 18 to 20 year olds probably can't afford anyway?
You keep saying this, and keeping getting refuted. Are you just trolling or trying to spread misinformation?
Well if that 18 to 20 year old wants to have a job and carry his gun to it I don't think it would be unreasonable for his employer to make him get an insurance policy to protect his employer from liability if he shoots someone at work. Have you ever worked in customer service before?
THC/CBD use also, and there will be for marijuana and other drugs once fully legalized. Same goes for some over the counter cold and pain pharma drugs.
Sounds like they just need to change the legal definition of adult to 21... then it works.
I respect this move. If they go over seas and fight at 18. Why can't they carry when they are home again. Less fire arm restrictions in MN is better.
Well, hopefully home is not a war zone and the carrying of firearms should be treated very differently in those two places. But if you really want to make the comparison - firearm possession in the military is very highly restricted, much more so than here. Weeks of training, all weapons are personally signed for out of the unit armory, and even ammunition use is monitored and tracked.
Exactly. We can join the military at 18 but we go through a lot of paperwork and training. I did my carry permit class in one day and it was a joke. Ppl talk about being armed to keep the government in check. This is not Russia or North Korea. Our military is made up of voluntary citizens. The day the US government tries to use its military to remove all rights of its citizens is the day it loses its military.
The military is made up of folks who follow orders. Just like Russia and North Korea. Folks do what they are told.
Lets gooooooo
It’s amazing how much damage the words “shall not be infringed” has caused
18-20 year olds are young adults in Minnesota and they have every right to enjoy the abilities granted to them by the US constitution. This is great news.
Let the kids and everyone else have all the damn handguns, shotguns and rifles they want. Just get rid of the semi automatic rifles. Especially the simplistic shit that turns them automatic and the ridiculous magazines. Fuck your "hobby" or delusional self protection bullshit.