From the Department of Obvious Statistics...

[Bailey Guns]

-- it's called freedom, people.

Yeah...because it's so hard to follow some pretty basic rules. And the rules aren't secret...everyone knows them. Freedom also requires responsibility and accountability.

[Bailey Guns]

Ahh, rights should be deprived to those who we presume guilty. Gotcha.

Wow...you got that far from a simple statement that not everyone is innocent. Amazing.

[Skip]

Yeah...because it's so hard to follow some pretty basic rules. And the rules aren't secret...everyone knows them. Freedom also requires responsibility and accountability.

It’s not a basic rule. It’s a fairly senseless and arbitrary one. A basic rule is “don’t steal.” The penalty for which isn’t even $300K (steal that much and they’ll send you to Congress).

We threw M16s at 18 year olds and told them to charge a hill. But a 20 year old can’t drink a beer? Or buy a pistol?

These nanny state rules do the exact opposite of creating responsibility. People stay children until they hit mid 20s. ACA says 26! How many millennials will celebrate their 40th birthday in mom’s basement?

[Bailey Guns]

That's not the point. Even 18 year old individuals who've been given a gun by Uncle Sam have to follow some pretty basic rules which include don't drink if you're underage. Don't follow the rules? Expect to suffer consequences. You can say they're "nanny state" rules all you want...and I won't always disagree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that probably every single state in the Union has minimum drinking ages. You may agree or you may disagree. Colorado has various "contributing to the delinquency" laws and it's pretty easy to commit a felony by giving an underage person alcohol. But the state also tells people what will happen if they do it. Why should it be a surprise when the state follows thru with the threat?

ETA: BTW..."nanny state" rules are not supposed to create responsible people. The intent, right or wrong, is to establish order in society. Children should learn about responsibility from their parents. I'd argue that not making people accountable for their actions, like underage drinking, is far more harmful than these basic rules...and, yes, don't drink if you're underage is as basic as it gets.

[KevDen2005]

I used to party my ass off at AU man. Those libtards really know how to throw some parties.

And I'm not even that impressed that the ambient air was a .01....that's well below the legal limit.

[Bailey Guns]

I understand what you're saying. And believe me, I spent enough time working in the "justice system" to know how screwed up it is. I couldn't wait to get out.

My only thing is the 6 individuals who hosted this thing apparently put a lot of thought into advertising and promoting it and had to know: 1) They were going to be breaking a LOT of laws by allowing underage drinking in their shared home, 2) There would be severe consequences when things went bad.

They went bad. There were consequences. I get what you're saying about a screwed up system. On the other hand, this is the type of stupidity, frequently on display in our society, that leads to a system where there is far too much work for the prosecution side of the system to handle without forcing plea deals. I guess what it boils down to is this is not the battle I'd chose to fight to in order to fix the system.

Also, all too often these types of parties end up with a participant dead from the results of drinking too much. Then people bitch at the "system" that didn't do anything.

[Skip]

That's not the point. Even 18 year old individuals who've been given a gun by Uncle Sam have to follow some pretty basic rules which include don't drink if you're underage. Don't follow the rules? Expect to suffer consequences. You can say they're "nanny state" rules all you want...and I won't always disagree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that probably every single state in the Union has minimum drinking ages. You may agree or you may disagree. Colorado has various "contributing to the delinquency" laws and it's pretty easy to commit a felony by giving an underage person alcohol. But the state also tells people what will happen if they do it. Why should it be a surprise when the state follows thru with the threat?

ETA: BTW..."nanny state" rules are not supposed to create responsible people. The intent, right or wrong, is to establish order in society. Children should learn about responsibility from their parents. I'd argue that not making people accountable for their actions, like underage drinking, is far more harmful than these basic rules...and, yes, don't drink if you're underage is as basic as it gets.

"Underage" is exactly the problem.

How can I contribute to the delinquency of a legal adult? It's nonsensical! These are 18+ year olds. I'm not saying it's okay to serve kids, it's the law that says 18 is adult. That's the line in the sand. I'm not debating my own standard but the standard imposed by gov in conflict with the laws. "Underage" is a interesting way of trying to resolve that conflict on certain matters but not others (senseless).

When these rules are arbitrary and senseless (victimless crimes) it encourages disobedience. The math is easy... "why shouldn't I do this, it hurts no one? As long as I don't get caught, who cares?"

Because gov is a god above man that must be obeyed without reason? We have religion for that. But the rules are the rules! And then why can't the government obey their own rules? (I won't bore you with examples)

Most gun laws fall into the same flawed thinking and it's why they are ineffective. A person uninterested in a mass murder possessing a 30 round magazine means nothing. Thus how many "rebuild kits" are currently available?

A person interested in mass murder will break all lesser laws created by the nannies.

Order is decreased in both scenarios. We will never have a police state capable of enforcing all laws all the time. Thus order relies on the voluntary compliance of an overwhelming majority of people.

We increase that compliance by making laws/rules that are morally and logically consistent, and applying them equally. Creating morally/logically false tests ("underage") to attempt and make inconsistent laws consistent isn't working.

Another example... SBRs. BATF says you can own a pistol. BATF says you can own a rifle. BATF says you cannot own a rifle with a barrel less than 16" unless you get a stamp and makes it a felony. Such a weapon is actually less capable than a rifle and less concealable than a pistol (shhhh, don't tell the cool kids). What harm is prevented with the SBR rules? What does the stamp do other than creating a barrier for people who have no intention of creating harm?

Enter the Sig "Brace" for "pistols." BATF says "okay but it's how you use it" only to later say "actually, we don't care." Now people are shouldering SBRs (uh, I mean pistols) without stamps. The horror!

99.9999999999999999999999999% of those people will never commit a crime or hurt anyone with their stampless SBRs/pistols.

One senseless law ignored and effectively trampled along with the credibility of BATF who creates the rules. Other ones (assault, murder, etc...) fully respected.

[Gman]

The federal government is too involved in our daily lives. They've overstepped their Constitutional authority. "Oh, but the states regulate legal drinking age", you may say. Again, the federal government has destroyed state sovereignty. When the federal government takes funds from the citizens of states, it then uses those funds as a cudgel to get compliance from the state governments. The feds assert that if you don't raise your legal drinking age to 21, you won't get federal highway funding. What's a state to do?

I've lived through this drinking age example. I was in college when the drinking age in TX was 19. Then when I was 20 1/2, the federal mandate pushed the state limit to 21. I was a responsible adult for 1.5 years, and then I wasn't for 6 months. That's about as arbitrary as it gets. I didn't drink before I was legal at 19. Do you think I stopped for the 6 months that I was not legal? Hell no. I broke the law for 6 months as I rebelled against the flawed logic and stupidity of the whole situation.

I believe the only age limits in the US Constitution are 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, and 25 to be a Representative. If the age of majority is 18, and you're considered an adult and can sign contracts and represent your own affairs, stop playing games with other arbitrary limits, particularly at the federal level. Let the citizens in states decide what's best for themselves.

The biggest issue regarding these arbitrary limits is math. You have new adults/voters at 18 that are vastly outweighed by those that are older and not affected by the impacts of their decisions. This follows my logic that legislators should be unable to create legislation that doesn't apply to them.

[Skip]

[snip]

This follows my logic that legislators should be unable to create legislation that doesn't apply to them.

This is a strong case for term limits. Two term and you're out limits this unequal application of the law. Means the special people join the rest of us to live with the consequences of their actions.

Not sure I'm 100% settled on the issue of term limits but I see the merits.

The age thing is interesting when you think more about it. They could completely eliminate gun ownership without seizing a single firearm. Second Amendment stays on paper with a patchwork of local/state/Fed laws that prohibit based on age/date (phase out). Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to age unless you're old (apparently).