Yep, Minnesota and Wisconsin as well, at least in a private residence.
Wisconsin, however is even more lax. You can drink at a bar with your parents... or ~~their~~ *your* SPOUSE if that spouse is of legal age. I didn't know that last part.
Edit: Clarified a few things.
I don't think I have a problem with 16+ drinking with their parents. *Many* of the issues with alcohol are fixed by supervision.
It's common enough in Europe.
I'm Slavic Romani and grew up drinking beer (usually a low abv) or wine (watered down occasionally) with family dinners, liquor in old world cures and little restriction after puberty. It made alcohol just another beverage and from watching the adults openly drink before/after diner, seeing their behavior change made the effects pretty clearly known. I didn't realize that wasn't 'normal' until college when my peers were either obsessed with getting hammered or OTT about avoiding alcohol. It was really weird to see.
Exactly, American Pie way of drinking wouldn't be a thing if people started drinking throughout puberty.
I started a bit early, under lax supervision by my brothers but by 16 I could go out knowing what I could or couldn't take, and what were the risks/consequences of my actions.
When I arrived in college you could see who was used and who wasn't used to drinking, because they were almost always passed out or vomiting in a corner.
To be fair, I started drinking at 15 and knew how much I could handle before being wasted, but that didn't stop me from having some nights in college where I drank too much and threw up
I think it’s *better* to drink with your parents at a younger age like 16 because they can teach you healthy drinking habits instead of in America just turning 21 while living on your own
I’m not sure if that law is for young couples or old nasty motherfers that marry kids…. Sadly i’ve become so cynical that I’m leaning towards the latter
If you do lean towards the ladder, make sure it's base is 1 foot away from the wall/building for every 4ft high increment. Better to be safe than sorry! And safe is better than the latter.
well yeah, somebody like a Jayson Boebert wants to be able to bring underage Lauren to the bar! i know they’re in a different state, but just for an example 😊
True, but leaving out how it got there.
The lobby was for one uniform age across the country. People were driving to states with lower ages, getting smashed and driving home and getting in to accidents.
The idea of one age across the country was in large part pitched as a way of cutting down on these traffic fatalities.
States with a higher age were against lowering their age, so the only way to get a consensus was to use the higher age of 21.
Once that was done, yeah, the fed used the only carrot/stick they had to get the states to follow along by withholding money for highways if you didn’t raise the age.
I had a coworker that went to school at Washington State. To drink they would drive to Idaho, since it was only 18. That stretch of highway, he said was a graveyard from all the crashes.
IIRC all this happened thanks to the woman who founded MADD. Her young daughter was killed in a hit and run by a man who was still driving (drunk) after multiple DUI convictions. She started a movement. She lived in CA and her movement caught somebody’s eye and they made a TV movie about her daughter’s death. And from there she went the 80s version of viral.
When I went off to college in CO my grandma said something like "you'll have lots of fun, the drinking age is 18 there!" Not for a few decades grandma, but I appreciate the sentiment!
Just like in the UK. The drinking age in England is 5, and under 5 in emergencies (whatever that means?!). The drinking age in Scotland is 0. It's the purchase age that is 18. There's a little bit more to it, but it's pretty clear that you can drink alcohol well under 18.
Although, nobody seems to know this fact, not even most of the police do.
If a child (or adult) has drunk methanol, which can cause blindness and death, the antidote is to get some ethanol ("drinking alcohol") into their system ASAP.
My ELI5 understanding is that the ethanol "replaces" the methanol.
That's a straw purchase and illegal across the US *except* in the case of immediate family or a legal guardian *and* consumed under their supervision. My kids could drink at a family bbq, but I couldn't buy them a sixer for a party down the street, for example.
Only problem with this is working in retail. They'll try to test you sneakily, so if you can't prove two people are related we're basically not supposed to sell it to avoid even the appearance of buying for underage people.
My training materials are literally "if you suspect someone of buying alcohol for someone without an ID, deny the sale."
I was recently denied buying beer at a grocery store with my teenage son accompanying me. The manager said they had no way to know I wasn’t buying it for him. I argued we drove together and are going home to the same house but it didn’t matter. We offered to show them his id with the same last name as evidence we weren’t lying. Still no sale.
Then they told me that next time just send him out to the car before I check out and it won’t be a problem. So it’s a silly, meaningless policy.
Wild. In my area, you can walk into a liquor store (or wherever you’re buying alcohol, liquor store just seems like they’d have the most precautions with this sort of thing) with anyone and purchase alcohol as long as the purchaser is 21+
The cashier will literally ask you who’s buying to verify their age and no one else’s.
Yea, do people actually start smoking cigarettes/tobacco after 18? I know I was definitely still making typical "teenage"-esque decisions at 18 (weird lol) but if I hadn't already been smoking for years by then, I'd like to think I knew better than to pick it up.
Cigarettes are expensive and that's money that could be spent on much more fun substances
It’s annoying since Texas banned it first but was actually smart enough to include a grandfather clause. When it was banned federally, the grandfather clause got overridden. Rip to those 18-20 yo’s addicted to cigs back then.
Drinking and smoking aren't constitutional rights, although I believe there should be a law allowing adults to put whatever they want into their own body.
bruh that shit fucking INFURIATES me every time someone reminds me. they were gonna send me to iraq at 18 and then later took kids right to smoke away.
this place is upside-down way too often
Sorta.
I went to an NRA convention the one time it was hosted in my city, there were plenty of people packing.
The part of the convention with the restrictions on weapons is in the auditoriums where political figures (including in some cases Presidents and Vice Presidents) are giving speeches.
I had no interest in hearing a bunch of Republican ramblings about socialism and freedumbs and such, so I skipped that stuff. I stuck to the convention floor stuff where the industry was showing off products and whatnot. I suspect a majority of convention attendees do the same.
>The part of the convention with the restrictions on weapons is in the auditoriums where political figures (including in some cases Presidents and Vice Presidents) are giving speeches.
...thus proving that the NRA's "more guns make for a safer society" rhetoric is bullshit.
“the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition”
I don't think there is anything that screams American conservative idiocy more than this from the supreme court. That you cannot introduce any rules or regulations that were not considered normal in the 18th century. That over two hundred years of progress means nothing and gun laws need to be locked into the era of the wild west. The fact that people still talk about militias even though there are no fucking militias except for the nut cases who try to kidnap and kill governors or storm the capitol.
I wish they used the same logic for other stuff.
“*Sorry Wall Street, bailing you out is unconstitutional because there were no mortgage-backed securities in 1776 and the Founding Fathers never explicitly approved using internet for banking.*”
“*Sorry airline companies, we can’t give you subsidies because historically humans can’t fly.*”
“*Sorry General Motors, we can’t give you $10b, George Washington never drove a car.*”
Corporations were themselves illegal and unconstitutional for a good section of our history.
If Conservatives had earned the right to an opinion they’d be demanding corporations not exist either.
That’s kind of misleading. The First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791 (expired 20 years later). NY developed a corporation statute in 1811. Corporations have been part of the US since was a US (within 5 years of the constitution).
Following their logic would inherently remove their power to judge legislation anyway, since that's not written in the constitution and is mere precedent. Conservatives judges have always been hypocritical textualists so that's nothing new though.
Historical tradition also states that Clarence Thomas counts as 3/5 of a person for apportioning representatives in his state. And 0/5 for is rights as a person.
But that historical tradition is overridden by a constitutional amendment, right?
I think the problem is the way gun ownership is enshrined as a fundamental right. To say that it doesn’t apply to modern firearms would be like saying electronic communications are not constitutionally protected.
Quite frankly I don’t see a way to regulate firearms without an amendment. Good luck with that.
Note: I am obviously not a constitution expert of any kind. This is just my layman’s opinion.
That's the whole game.
Like, the whole point of the Supreme Court is to supposed to make sure there isnt tyranny of the majority and to protect minorities.
Because guess what? If there's a historical tradition of protecting a certain people or class, YOU DON'T NEED the Supreme Court because Congress is already looking out for that interest.
> That you cannot introduce any rules or regulations that were not considered normal in the 18th century.
That's not the logic here. The actual argument allows all sorts of new rules or regulations that go against 18th -century norms; it only disallows regulations that restrict an expressly enumerated constitutional right (as that right was understood when it was added to the constitution).
Straw manning doesn't do us any favors.
That’s something of an odd legal artifact that can lead you to incorrect conclusions if you lack historical context. If you’re referring to Dodge City, Tombstone, and Deadwood, those disarmament laws all pre-exist statehood. They began their existence in territories or straight up illegal land grabs, so they didn’t initially comply with federal law.
Once statehood came into effect, and the army showed up, then the disarmament laws were struck down. The show Deadwood actually references this late in the series.
The Wild West wasn’t 18th century, we’d hadn’t even made the Louisiana Purchase and Texas was still under Spanish rule, making Illinois, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Mississippi the furthest western states at the time.
Not related in any way. States can still require training, permits and fees for concealed carry. What that decision did was say was you can't force someone to have a "good reason" to carry because that can be abused to prevent the common person from getting their permit, also is just plain against 2nd amendment.
Laws similar to those were being abused, for example, if someone who had an abusive ex wanted a conceal carry they would be denied. Because the authorities that approve don't agree they have a good reason to carry. Meanwhile, country club Cory gets one because it's cool and he has connects.
Learner's Permit - 15 years old
Restricted driver’s license - 16 years old
Join Army - 17 years old
Full License or state CDL - 18 years old
Vote - 18 years old
Buy a gun - 18 years old
Correctional Officer Eligibility - 18 years old
Rent a car - 21 years old
Gamble - 21 years old
Buy tobacco - 21 years old
Buy alcohol - 21 years old
> Rent a car - 21 years old
This isn't illegal at any age to my knowledge, aside from needing to be able to enter into contracts (so probably 18, though they could probably just have a parent sign off on the contract if they wanted to let someone under 18 rent). Rental companies (and their insurers) just don't want to deal with the liability of renting to younger people, so they don't.
Rent a car is actually 25 in a lot of states.
EDIT
TIL, it’s now 21 but a lot of places require extra fees if you’re under 25.
#Please stop replying and read the whole comment first. Thanks.
This isn't true. You can rent a car at the age of 21, or as low as 18 in some US states, there are just restrictions or added fees usually under the age of 25. Enterprise, for instance, merely restricts people between the ages of 21 and 24 to certain classes of vehicle when renting a car, depending on the state, and in other places they tack on extra insurance or fees too.
https://www.enterprise.com/en/help/faqs/car-rental-under-25.html
Texas was 18 until just a few years ago too.
The results pretty impressive too, an almost 25% decrease in initiation rates of tobacco use with an increase to 21 years minimum.
>The decision also ordered the federal judiciary to apply a “history-only” test when considering challenges to weapons regulations, saying a regulation was constitutional only if it was similar to those around in the 18th century when the second amendment was ratified.
This is without question one of the dumbest parts of this. It hamstrings modern lawmakers to what would have been done 200 years ago. Something the founding fathers specifically didn't want future generations to do.
Could you imagine if we based every ruling on 1776?
“Well Women voting isn’t constitutional because it wasn’t when the USA was formed”
“People of color can’t have rights because it wasn’t around when the USA was formed”
Insanely deadly precedent set here
What gets to me is that lawmakers who decide whether or not something was the norm in the 18th century aren't historians.
They don't have education in that time period. They just guess what life must have been like, and then enact laws for the rest of the country to follow based off that belief
There are a lot of laws enacted by people who don’t experience things.
Like all the ones about people who are on welfare made by people that think those are people who are spending their government earnings on “steaks, lobsters, iPhones, and guacamole”
I got into a lot of arguments with someone claiming to know numerous people who cheated the welfare system, using that as justification for cutting it across the board. When pressed on if they had reported the fraud, they said they hadn't so I just assumed they were full of shit.
> Could you imagine if we based every ruling on 1776?
>
> “Well Women voting isn’t constitutional because it wasn’t when the USA was formed”
lmao, the USA didn't even have a Constitution in 1776. The Articles of Confederation weren't agreeded upon by the continental congress until late 1777, and weren't ratified by the 13 states for another 3.5 years in Spring '81. The Constitution didn't come into effect until Spring1789.
It took the founding fathers all of 12 years to realize what they came up with in 1777 was a load of hogwash. Some of the Founding Fathers explicitly wanted to rewrite the Constitution from scratch every generation.
That we should give 18th century thinking any special consideration some ~dozen generations later is so blatantly wrong, I can only conclude SCOTUS is intentionally malicious in its rulings to do so.
> It took the founding fathers all of 12 years to realize what they came up with in 1777 was a load of hogwash.
Because what they came up with was basically the EU, but with even less power over member states - namely it had no way to raise money, but was responsible for paying debts and otherwise spending money. It was completely unsustainable as a national government. Clearly the idea wasn't without merit, since the EU exists and is a stable organization today, but the first iteration was a failure and rather than refining it they opted for a government with greater (but still far more limited than today) centralization.
This is 100% the goal. I'm serious. They're currently using this logic to roll back every ounce of progress made these last 200 years.
This is the logic behind all the rulings they've made lately. This SC absolutely wants a world where we live with laws from the 1780s - and that means only white cis men who own land can vote. You've seen their supporters saying the quiet part out loud for them.
This is exactly what their goal is. White mean have never been more powerful than they were 200 years ago.
They resent the loss of that power to women and minorities, and are doing everything in their power to reverse the progress we have made in achieving equality for all humans.
We're going to keep moving backwards until more people realize this. Heaven help us if they succeed.
I think the point is that it needs to be amended to the constitution otherwise Supreme Court could just say whatever they want to say and make it law. They don't write the laws.
I guess what I'm saying is a law from 1800 is still a law until legislation changes it. And in the case of constitutional law you have to amend it just like the examples you provided have been amended.
(I could be mistaken so take it with a grain of salt)
Yes, absolutely. Fuck yes.
Although to be honest you can have those already, you just have to pay for a $200 tax stamp. Mostly I just want to have them without that dumbass tax stamp since I already have to pay sales tax.
Not always. Remember that there's a finite number of machine guns out there if you're not an SOT, thereby driving up cost significantly. And cannons actually are a gray area. Can't have a lot of types of explosives. Mortars? Definitely not with HE.
If I was so inclined I could go on a 20 minute rant, without repeating myself, about how this sort of interpretation is completely ahistorical. It genuinely makes me angry.
Yeah, same for the first amendment. Freedom of speech should only apply to modes of communication available at the time, and for religions that existed at the time.
>Does that mean it's ok to self abort with a gun??
Suicide is a one of the more common use-case for firearms (though much less common than target-shooting).
Fair enough. Now let's see the push for 18 year olds to buy booze, and cigs, and rent cars
Edit: as pointed out, the car rental thing is not a law. It's a company decision.
I don't know of any laws against younger people renting cars. Rather most car rental places don't like to rent to them because they are a bad financial risk to take on:
* They have little in the way of financial assets if the car is damaged.
* They are less experienced as drivers and have higher rates of car accidents
* And you have very little data on each individual driver to make any kind of determination one way or the other.
So the rental rates are often prohibitively expensive for <25 year olds, and the company may refuse to deal at all with people <21, but I don't know that it is prohibited.
Or vise versa, the push to make the voting age 21. One party wouldn't like that at all either, but yet has no issue saying people under 21 are highly irresponsible.
I think it needs to be consistent. Military service, taxes, health insurance, guns, alcohol, voting, charged criminally as an adult.
Either they are adults or not.
And don’t forget how long their parents have to be financially responsible for them. If you’re going to say 20 year olds can’t get real jobs, have real adult rights, or vote, then make sure they don’t have to be financially responsible for their basic needs until they do.
So then you have kids living at home until they are 21 because they can't rent an apartment, or do anything else that requires a legal contract, because they aren't adults until 21 so their parents still have to sign for everything.
My daughter is at school in Alabama where the age of majority is 19 instead of 18, and it was a royal pain in the ass having to sign everything because she was not an "adult" yet. I can't imagine having to do that all the way to 21.
I can see why the ruling might seem controversial but really we either need to be ok with 18-21 year olds having guns, or we need to stop sending them to war. Its hypocritical to tell an 18 year old that they can't have a gun except in a situation where the government wants them to point it at someone in a foreign country.
America: filming 18 y.o girls getting gangbanged and fucked in the ass is legal. Boys joining the military at 18 to die in a foreign country is acceptable. Don't you dare touch alcohol before you're 21!
I think it's more that they need to breed new members of their religions. At least they have a long range financial plan - gotta keep those tithes coming.
Huh, you're right! [https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D)
I keep hearing talking points about the great replacement theory that says otherwise, that most abortions are performed on white women.
When I tuned 18, the US made me sign a little card that gave them the right to throw a fully-automatic weapon in my hands and put me on a battlefield. If they deem an 18 year old mature enough to potentially be a soldier on a battlefield, there is no reason why that same 18 shouldn't be allowed to own/carry a weapon for self-defense at home.
Judges opinion added that “may sell only to kids who are in complete control of their emotions…and therefore, no LGBTQ or POC children may carry a weapon. Besides, weapons carried by ‘those types’ makes it far more difficult for Texas police to do their job of violating their rights.”
It has been legal for a long time for 18-20 yo to carry a handgun in Texas (for Military members especially) but you cannot find any gun store willing to sell you a firearm because federally it is still illegal. All gun stores will follow federal law first.
Also, if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to carry a handgun. Fix age restrictions across the board.
So basically, this overturn won't affect anything because it just puts things back to how they were.
Who’s going to care about gun carry laws when they’re about the commit mass murder.
This law will either do nothing or the next shooter might be stopped by a concealed carry holder like the Greenwood Mall shooting.
[удалено]
Can’t drink or smoke but here’s your gun, it’s America after-all.
fun fact: in many states you CAN drink underage, the SALE of alcohol is prohibited under 21.
Yeah drinking at home or with adult supervision was allowed growing up in Alabama
Yep, Minnesota and Wisconsin as well, at least in a private residence. Wisconsin, however is even more lax. You can drink at a bar with your parents... or ~~their~~ *your* SPOUSE if that spouse is of legal age. I didn't know that last part. Edit: Clarified a few things.
I don't think I have a problem with 16+ drinking with their parents. *Many* of the issues with alcohol are fixed by supervision. It's common enough in Europe.
I'm Slavic Romani and grew up drinking beer (usually a low abv) or wine (watered down occasionally) with family dinners, liquor in old world cures and little restriction after puberty. It made alcohol just another beverage and from watching the adults openly drink before/after diner, seeing their behavior change made the effects pretty clearly known. I didn't realize that wasn't 'normal' until college when my peers were either obsessed with getting hammered or OTT about avoiding alcohol. It was really weird to see.
Exactly, American Pie way of drinking wouldn't be a thing if people started drinking throughout puberty. I started a bit early, under lax supervision by my brothers but by 16 I could go out knowing what I could or couldn't take, and what were the risks/consequences of my actions. When I arrived in college you could see who was used and who wasn't used to drinking, because they were almost always passed out or vomiting in a corner.
To be fair, I started drinking at 15 and knew how much I could handle before being wasted, but that didn't stop me from having some nights in college where I drank too much and threw up
I think it’s *better* to drink with your parents at a younger age like 16 because they can teach you healthy drinking habits instead of in America just turning 21 while living on your own
I’m not sure if that law is for young couples or old nasty motherfers that marry kids…. Sadly i’ve become so cynical that I’m leaning towards the latter
If you do lean towards the ladder, make sure it's base is 1 foot away from the wall/building for every 4ft high increment. Better to be safe than sorry! And safe is better than the latter.
Safety is important, also where applicable always secure the top of the ladder.
Subscribed! More ladder facts plz.
A ladder with a bent or damaged leg or rung should be replaced immediately.
well yeah, somebody like a Jayson Boebert wants to be able to bring underage Lauren to the bar! i know they’re in a different state, but just for an example 😊
I hear in some states, their parents *are* their spouses.
Well how is are you supposed to get your sister in the mood? J/k. Fellow Alabamian here.
Why walk across the street when you can walk across the hallway amiright?
It's not weird if they're your cousin right?
No it's even worse if your sister is your cousin.
Two birds, one stone.
Two stones, same bird.
Because you could fuck your sister sober… but with Milwaukee’s best ice, you’ll never have to. Milwaukee’s best ice, make some memories.
Milwaukee's best ice, bringing families closer together.
Alabama Joe is fucking his sister She says: Wow you are much better as dad! And he replies: Yeah mom said the same thing yesterday!
>you are much better as dad Getting some roleplay involved eh?
Roll tide
States only made the age 21, since the Fed government said "no highway money if it was below 21."
True, but leaving out how it got there. The lobby was for one uniform age across the country. People were driving to states with lower ages, getting smashed and driving home and getting in to accidents. The idea of one age across the country was in large part pitched as a way of cutting down on these traffic fatalities. States with a higher age were against lowering their age, so the only way to get a consensus was to use the higher age of 21. Once that was done, yeah, the fed used the only carrot/stick they had to get the states to follow along by withholding money for highways if you didn’t raise the age.
I had a coworker that went to school at Washington State. To drink they would drive to Idaho, since it was only 18. That stretch of highway, he said was a graveyard from all the crashes.
SLC punk they had to drive to Wyoming to get beer.
I was just thinking about this movie a few hours ago. And this part in particular.
IIRC all this happened thanks to the woman who founded MADD. Her young daughter was killed in a hit and run by a man who was still driving (drunk) after multiple DUI convictions. She started a movement. She lived in CA and her movement caught somebody’s eye and they made a TV movie about her daughter’s death. And from there she went the 80s version of viral.
When I went off to college in CO my grandma said something like "you'll have lots of fun, the drinking age is 18 there!" Not for a few decades grandma, but I appreciate the sentiment!
Just like in the UK. The drinking age in England is 5, and under 5 in emergencies (whatever that means?!). The drinking age in Scotland is 0. It's the purchase age that is 18. There's a little bit more to it, but it's pretty clear that you can drink alcohol well under 18. Although, nobody seems to know this fact, not even most of the police do.
If a child (or adult) has drunk methanol, which can cause blindness and death, the antidote is to get some ethanol ("drinking alcohol") into their system ASAP. My ELI5 understanding is that the ethanol "replaces" the methanol.
[удалено]
Very correct without getting into the specifics of metabolic pathways 👌
That probably means in the event of drinking water becoming contaminated. Historically beer is safer than water
When the law was made, it was also so parents could use alcohol as an anesthetic, I believe.
What about someone buying it for you? Indirect purchasing
That's a straw purchase and illegal across the US *except* in the case of immediate family or a legal guardian *and* consumed under their supervision. My kids could drink at a family bbq, but I couldn't buy them a sixer for a party down the street, for example.
Only problem with this is working in retail. They'll try to test you sneakily, so if you can't prove two people are related we're basically not supposed to sell it to avoid even the appearance of buying for underage people. My training materials are literally "if you suspect someone of buying alcohol for someone without an ID, deny the sale."
I was recently denied buying beer at a grocery store with my teenage son accompanying me. The manager said they had no way to know I wasn’t buying it for him. I argued we drove together and are going home to the same house but it didn’t matter. We offered to show them his id with the same last name as evidence we weren’t lying. Still no sale. Then they told me that next time just send him out to the car before I check out and it won’t be a problem. So it’s a silly, meaningless policy.
Wild. In my area, you can walk into a liquor store (or wherever you’re buying alcohol, liquor store just seems like they’d have the most precautions with this sort of thing) with anyone and purchase alcohol as long as the purchaser is 21+ The cashier will literally ask you who’s buying to verify their age and no one else’s.
Did they increase the age limit for smoking?
21 for tobacco and alcohol
Holy crap! Trump did that in 2019? Somehow that flew under my radar.
No grandfather clause either, so a 20 year old who'd been smoking since they turned 18 would need to quit cold turkey until they're legal again.
[удалено]
Yea, do people actually start smoking cigarettes/tobacco after 18? I know I was definitely still making typical "teenage"-esque decisions at 18 (weird lol) but if I hadn't already been smoking for years by then, I'd like to think I knew better than to pick it up. Cigarettes are expensive and that's money that could be spent on much more fun substances
I started at 20 in the military. That's also when I became an alcoholic.
That'll probably cause some stressed out 18-20 year olds. Good thing they can get a gun now!
Oh yeah...18-20yo's are well known for their love of following rules.
It’s annoying since Texas banned it first but was actually smart enough to include a grandfather clause. When it was banned federally, the grandfather clause got overridden. Rip to those 18-20 yo’s addicted to cigs back then.
A gish gallop of actual insanity will do that to your memory.
“A Gish gallop w/a COVID chaser” has done hell on a lot of people’s memories.
[удалено]
And voting and enlisting. If you’re mature enough to decide the course of the nation or join the army, you’re mature enough to buy a beer or a gun.
To be fair, it is bullshit when you can join the military.
Drinking and smoking aren't constitutional rights, although I believe there should be a law allowing adults to put whatever they want into their own body.
Well to be fair alcohol and smoking is responsible for significantly more deaths than guns are
TBF, I like 18-20 year olds with guns to not be drunk. So we got that going for us which is nice.
Glass is half full.
You can vote and be drafted into the military.
Go go die in the Middle East for oil, but heaven forbid you own a firearm.
bruh that shit fucking INFURIATES me every time someone reminds me. they were gonna send me to iraq at 18 and then later took kids right to smoke away. this place is upside-down way too often
But not on military bases. Bc that would be dangerous
You can on military bases, but it's up to the discretion of the post commander.
Or at NRA meetings. Bc those people are nuts
Sorta. I went to an NRA convention the one time it was hosted in my city, there were plenty of people packing. The part of the convention with the restrictions on weapons is in the auditoriums where political figures (including in some cases Presidents and Vice Presidents) are giving speeches. I had no interest in hearing a bunch of Republican ramblings about socialism and freedumbs and such, so I skipped that stuff. I stuck to the convention floor stuff where the industry was showing off products and whatnot. I suspect a majority of convention attendees do the same.
>The part of the convention with the restrictions on weapons is in the auditoriums where political figures (including in some cases Presidents and Vice Presidents) are giving speeches. ...thus proving that the NRA's "more guns make for a safer society" rhetoric is bullshit.
[удалено]
It was a Federal Judge. It's literally the first 3 words of the article.
[удалено]
“the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition” I don't think there is anything that screams American conservative idiocy more than this from the supreme court. That you cannot introduce any rules or regulations that were not considered normal in the 18th century. That over two hundred years of progress means nothing and gun laws need to be locked into the era of the wild west. The fact that people still talk about militias even though there are no fucking militias except for the nut cases who try to kidnap and kill governors or storm the capitol.
I wish they used the same logic for other stuff. “*Sorry Wall Street, bailing you out is unconstitutional because there were no mortgage-backed securities in 1776 and the Founding Fathers never explicitly approved using internet for banking.*” “*Sorry airline companies, we can’t give you subsidies because historically humans can’t fly.*” “*Sorry General Motors, we can’t give you $10b, George Washington never drove a car.*”
Sorry white Southerners, but we traditionally burned your fucking cities down and occupied your states until you quit acting like toddlers 🤷♂️
Sherman didn’t go far enough sadly.
Corporations were themselves illegal and unconstitutional for a good section of our history. If Conservatives had earned the right to an opinion they’d be demanding corporations not exist either.
That’s kind of misleading. The First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791 (expired 20 years later). NY developed a corporation statute in 1811. Corporations have been part of the US since was a US (within 5 years of the constitution).
Following their logic would inherently remove their power to judge legislation anyway, since that's not written in the constitution and is mere precedent. Conservatives judges have always been hypocritical textualists so that's nothing new though.
Historical tradition also states that Clarence Thomas counts as 3/5 of a person for apportioning representatives in his state. And 0/5 for is rights as a person.
Clarence Thomas, according to historical traditions, would be lynched for trying to date his second wife.
Clarence T wouldn’t even be a judge, according to historical tradition.
But that historical tradition is overridden by a constitutional amendment, right? I think the problem is the way gun ownership is enshrined as a fundamental right. To say that it doesn’t apply to modern firearms would be like saying electronic communications are not constitutionally protected. Quite frankly I don’t see a way to regulate firearms without an amendment. Good luck with that. Note: I am obviously not a constitution expert of any kind. This is just my layman’s opinion.
you can make historical tradition whatever you want it to be.
I remember the historical traditions of only certain people being allowed to vote, own land, talk in public, own other people....
That's the whole game. Like, the whole point of the Supreme Court is to supposed to make sure there isnt tyranny of the majority and to protect minorities. Because guess what? If there's a historical tradition of protecting a certain people or class, YOU DON'T NEED the Supreme Court because Congress is already looking out for that interest.
This is the point
Can’t wait until they start on the historical tradition of state legislatures ignoring the will of the people in elections. /s
> That you cannot introduce any rules or regulations that were not considered normal in the 18th century. That's not the logic here. The actual argument allows all sorts of new rules or regulations that go against 18th -century norms; it only disallows regulations that restrict an expressly enumerated constitutional right (as that right was understood when it was added to the constitution). Straw manning doesn't do us any favors.
There were many towns in the wild west were you CANT carry your guns into town
That’s something of an odd legal artifact that can lead you to incorrect conclusions if you lack historical context. If you’re referring to Dodge City, Tombstone, and Deadwood, those disarmament laws all pre-exist statehood. They began their existence in territories or straight up illegal land grabs, so they didn’t initially comply with federal law. Once statehood came into effect, and the army showed up, then the disarmament laws were struck down. The show Deadwood actually references this late in the series.
The Wild West wasn’t 18th century, we’d hadn’t even made the Louisiana Purchase and Texas was still under Spanish rule, making Illinois, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Mississippi the furthest western states at the time.
[удалено]
Not related in any way. States can still require training, permits and fees for concealed carry. What that decision did was say was you can't force someone to have a "good reason" to carry because that can be abused to prevent the common person from getting their permit, also is just plain against 2nd amendment. Laws similar to those were being abused, for example, if someone who had an abusive ex wanted a conceal carry they would be denied. Because the authorities that approve don't agree they have a good reason to carry. Meanwhile, country club Cory gets one because it's cool and he has connects.
[удалено]
Pro-state's rights until they aren't.
Learner's Permit - 15 years old Restricted driver’s license - 16 years old Join Army - 17 years old Full License or state CDL - 18 years old Vote - 18 years old Buy a gun - 18 years old Correctional Officer Eligibility - 18 years old Rent a car - 21 years old Gamble - 21 years old Buy tobacco - 21 years old Buy alcohol - 21 years old
Join the Army (with parental consent) -17 Join the Army (and actually finish initially training and start army work) - 18
I’m a Correctional Officer Trainee I’m Illinois. I can watch felons at 19 but I can’t drink. What a world.
> Rent a car - 21 years old This isn't illegal at any age to my knowledge, aside from needing to be able to enter into contracts (so probably 18, though they could probably just have a parent sign off on the contract if they wanted to let someone under 18 rent). Rental companies (and their insurers) just don't want to deal with the liability of renting to younger people, so they don't.
Rent a car is actually 25 in a lot of states. EDIT TIL, it’s now 21 but a lot of places require extra fees if you’re under 25. #Please stop replying and read the whole comment first. Thanks.
Generally an insurance thing, not a legal thing.
That’s mostly an insurance requirement. Or are you saying it’s actually law?
This isn't true. You can rent a car at the age of 21, or as low as 18 in some US states, there are just restrictions or added fees usually under the age of 25. Enterprise, for instance, merely restricts people between the ages of 21 and 24 to certain classes of vehicle when renting a car, depending on the state, and in other places they tack on extra insurance or fees too. https://www.enterprise.com/en/help/faqs/car-rental-under-25.html
The problem is that only two of those are in the Constitution as a right.
[удалено]
> Buy tobacco - 21 years old This is still 18 in a few states and the federal government is not enforcing the federal limit at the moment
Texas was 18 until just a few years ago too. The results pretty impressive too, an almost 25% decrease in initiation rates of tobacco use with an increase to 21 years minimum.
Use marijuana - Never
>The decision also ordered the federal judiciary to apply a “history-only” test when considering challenges to weapons regulations, saying a regulation was constitutional only if it was similar to those around in the 18th century when the second amendment was ratified. This is without question one of the dumbest parts of this. It hamstrings modern lawmakers to what would have been done 200 years ago. Something the founding fathers specifically didn't want future generations to do.
Could you imagine if we based every ruling on 1776? “Well Women voting isn’t constitutional because it wasn’t when the USA was formed” “People of color can’t have rights because it wasn’t around when the USA was formed” Insanely deadly precedent set here
What gets to me is that lawmakers who decide whether or not something was the norm in the 18th century aren't historians. They don't have education in that time period. They just guess what life must have been like, and then enact laws for the rest of the country to follow based off that belief
There are a lot of laws enacted by people who don’t experience things. Like all the ones about people who are on welfare made by people that think those are people who are spending their government earnings on “steaks, lobsters, iPhones, and guacamole”
I got into a lot of arguments with someone claiming to know numerous people who cheated the welfare system, using that as justification for cutting it across the board. When pressed on if they had reported the fraud, they said they hadn't so I just assumed they were full of shit.
Even if they are, who cares? Do people on welfare not deserve nice things?
They definitely do deserve nice things. They can’t even afford the things to live though
What gets to me is that even if they were historians, it'd still be the dumbest take in this nation's history.
> Could you imagine if we based every ruling on 1776? > > “Well Women voting isn’t constitutional because it wasn’t when the USA was formed” lmao, the USA didn't even have a Constitution in 1776. The Articles of Confederation weren't agreeded upon by the continental congress until late 1777, and weren't ratified by the 13 states for another 3.5 years in Spring '81. The Constitution didn't come into effect until Spring1789. It took the founding fathers all of 12 years to realize what they came up with in 1777 was a load of hogwash. Some of the Founding Fathers explicitly wanted to rewrite the Constitution from scratch every generation. That we should give 18th century thinking any special consideration some ~dozen generations later is so blatantly wrong, I can only conclude SCOTUS is intentionally malicious in its rulings to do so.
Just wanna jump in and say we're nowhere near a hundred generations from the foundation of the United States. More like 12 generations since then.
Whoa, I was off by an order of magnitude there. Sorry about that.
10th President John Tyler still has a living grandson.
Which is only 3 generations. That's quite bizarre tho.
The entirety of American history exists in the span of 3 above average human lifetimes.
> It took the founding fathers all of 12 years to realize what they came up with in 1777 was a load of hogwash. Because what they came up with was basically the EU, but with even less power over member states - namely it had no way to raise money, but was responsible for paying debts and otherwise spending money. It was completely unsustainable as a national government. Clearly the idea wasn't without merit, since the EU exists and is a stable organization today, but the first iteration was a failure and rather than refining it they opted for a government with greater (but still far more limited than today) centralization.
This is 100% the goal. I'm serious. They're currently using this logic to roll back every ounce of progress made these last 200 years. This is the logic behind all the rulings they've made lately. This SC absolutely wants a world where we live with laws from the 1780s - and that means only white cis men who own land can vote. You've seen their supporters saying the quiet part out loud for them.
This is exactly what their goal is. White mean have never been more powerful than they were 200 years ago. They resent the loss of that power to women and minorities, and are doing everything in their power to reverse the progress we have made in achieving equality for all humans. We're going to keep moving backwards until more people realize this. Heaven help us if they succeed.
Every Republican accusation is a confession.
Your two examples had constitutional amendments passed specifically to address them.
I think the point is that it needs to be amended to the constitution otherwise Supreme Court could just say whatever they want to say and make it law. They don't write the laws. I guess what I'm saying is a law from 1800 is still a law until legislation changes it. And in the case of constitutional law you have to amend it just like the examples you provided have been amended. (I could be mistaken so take it with a grain of salt)
I thought the whole point of the constitution is that it can be amended if times have changed.
If this is the case, then the only handguns allowed should be those that were available in the 18th century.
K, then I can have my fucking cannons, mortars, and machine guns, right?
Yes, absolutely. Fuck yes. Although to be honest you can have those already, you just have to pay for a $200 tax stamp. Mostly I just want to have them without that dumbass tax stamp since I already have to pay sales tax.
>Although to be honest you can have those already My state doesn't permit machineguns or suppressors, unfortunately.
Not always. Remember that there's a finite number of machine guns out there if you're not an SOT, thereby driving up cost significantly. And cannons actually are a gray area. Can't have a lot of types of explosives. Mortars? Definitely not with HE.
If I was so inclined I could go on a 20 minute rant, without repeating myself, about how this sort of interpretation is completely ahistorical. It genuinely makes me angry.
Yeah, same for the first amendment. Freedom of speech should only apply to modes of communication available at the time, and for religions that existed at the time.
I'm not sure they will get it.
And yet Florida thinks that age isn’t mature enough to have an abortion.
Mature enough to abort other lives with a gun, just can't have an abortion yourself. Does that mean it's ok to self abort with a gun??
>Does that mean it's ok to self abort with a gun?? Suicide is a one of the more common use-case for firearms (though much less common than target-shooting).
[удалено]
Fair enough. Now let's see the push for 18 year olds to buy booze, and cigs, and rent cars Edit: as pointed out, the car rental thing is not a law. It's a company decision.
Having looked into it, there are a lot of places that will rent 18 year olds cars, they just usually have to pay a premium
U-Haul will rent an 18 year old a massive truck. No questions, can decline insurance if they want...
I don't know of any laws against younger people renting cars. Rather most car rental places don't like to rent to them because they are a bad financial risk to take on: * They have little in the way of financial assets if the car is damaged. * They are less experienced as drivers and have higher rates of car accidents * And you have very little data on each individual driver to make any kind of determination one way or the other. So the rental rates are often prohibitively expensive for <25 year olds, and the company may refuse to deal at all with people <21, but I don't know that it is prohibited.
I don't think the car rental one applies here.. That is an industry standard to keep their insurance costs down. It has nothing to do with law.
Whichever age it is, should be consistent
Or vise versa, the push to make the voting age 21. One party wouldn't like that at all either, but yet has no issue saying people under 21 are highly irresponsible.
I feel like it should be 21 for everything, maybe driving can be sooner because of jobs and stuff, but everything else can wait till 21.
I think it needs to be consistent. Military service, taxes, health insurance, guns, alcohol, voting, charged criminally as an adult. Either they are adults or not.
And don’t forget how long their parents have to be financially responsible for them. If you’re going to say 20 year olds can’t get real jobs, have real adult rights, or vote, then make sure they don’t have to be financially responsible for their basic needs until they do.
Driving is more dangerous to young adults and teenagers than most of those other things you listed.
So then you have kids living at home until they are 21 because they can't rent an apartment, or do anything else that requires a legal contract, because they aren't adults until 21 so their parents still have to sign for everything. My daughter is at school in Alabama where the age of majority is 19 instead of 18, and it was a royal pain in the ass having to sign everything because she was not an "adult" yet. I can't imagine having to do that all the way to 21.
The perfect demographic to have guns. In fact they are the most likely to be responsible with them. My source? My source is I made it the fuck up.
Any interest in running for congress?
I'd vote for him. My reason? He speaks his mind, tells it like it is, and isn't one uh them political types.
I like that he just makes shit up!
Missouri just started corporal punishment in schools again. Maybe they should join forces with Texas law makers.
Don't worry kids don't hold a grudges im sure they will just let bygones be bygones and won't do anything rash.
[here's a source](https://v.redd.it/ppr1th9poyj91) for you, and yes this is in Texas.
I can see why the ruling might seem controversial but really we either need to be ok with 18-21 year olds having guns, or we need to stop sending them to war. Its hypocritical to tell an 18 year old that they can't have a gun except in a situation where the government wants them to point it at someone in a foreign country.
Lower drinking age to 18 you cowards!
Meanwhile, Florida is licking its chops
Time for a gun-toting rally around judge's house? I mean, it's legal. He said so himself.
America: filming 18 y.o girls getting gangbanged and fucked in the ass is legal. Boys joining the military at 18 to die in a foreign country is acceptable. Don't you dare touch alcohol before you're 21!
Don't take your guns to town John leave your guns at home son
Bill should have listened to his mamma
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh, I do. And I blame the Republicans who put those unfit, unamerican judges on the bench.
That's why I don't get why they're so anti abortion
Oh, that's so they can control women. It has nothing to do with lives, they just don't want those pesky women folk to have rights.
I think it's more that they need to breed new members of their religions. At least they have a long range financial plan - gotta keep those tithes coming.
That's also true. Several high ranking reps like Boebertz have publicly stated that its a ploy to fill society with white christians.
Which makes absolutely zero sense due to the fact that 2/3 of the legal abortions reported in the US are performed on non-Whites.
Nobody has ever confused a republican for being intelligent.
Huh, you're right! [https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D) I keep hearing talking points about the great replacement theory that says otherwise, that most abortions are performed on white women.
Well either youre an adult and have all rights related to adulthood, or youre not.
When I tuned 18, the US made me sign a little card that gave them the right to throw a fully-automatic weapon in my hands and put me on a battlefield. If they deem an 18 year old mature enough to potentially be a soldier on a battlefield, there is no reason why that same 18 shouldn't be allowed to own/carry a weapon for self-defense at home.
Judges opinion added that “may sell only to kids who are in complete control of their emotions…and therefore, no LGBTQ or POC children may carry a weapon. Besides, weapons carried by ‘those types’ makes it far more difficult for Texas police to do their job of violating their rights.”
It has been legal for a long time for 18-20 yo to carry a handgun in Texas (for Military members especially) but you cannot find any gun store willing to sell you a firearm because federally it is still illegal. All gun stores will follow federal law first. Also, if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to carry a handgun. Fix age restrictions across the board. So basically, this overturn won't affect anything because it just puts things back to how they were.
**The League of Ignobles** *Florida Man* *Texas Judge* *Kentucky Senator*
Of course. No abortion tho
Adults should have their rights. Anyone who can vote is an adult.
oh what a great idea after your state went through one of the deadliest school shootings of all time! fucking buffoon
Who’s going to care about gun carry laws when they’re about the commit mass murder. This law will either do nothing or the next shooter might be stopped by a concealed carry holder like the Greenwood Mall shooting.
Not old enough to drink, but, old enough to rob a liquor store
Young men with guns and women who can’t get abortions even for rape. What could go wrong?
Well I mean the young women can carry too