@Olivier5,
DAVID wrote:Obviously, the people in the very first years of life
are not ABLE to exercise their rights to keep or bear arms.
Below an un-certain age, a citizen is not able to lift a gun, nor to talk or walk.
Below an un-certain age, NO tools, including defensive tools, can be used.
Olivier5 wrote:Interesting. How does the transition between NO tools and ALL tools work in practice?
Well, with the passage of time,
there is natural mental and somatic development,
and in some cases: training with those tools. Practice makes perfect.
On the day of his birth a citizen is 1OO% defenseless, regardless
of his written Constitutional rights; even if he had a gun in his crib,
he 'd not be able to use it for lack of muscular strength and co-ordination,
as well as absence of the requisite mental development for conceptual understanding.
People can become competent with the use of tools
including defensive tools, at all different ages.
Such growth is very individual, maybe unique.
Olivier5 wrote:At what age and after what sorts of background checks
and training/ability certification are or should kids be allowed to use:
Sharp knives?
Guns?
Dynamite and other explosives?
OK, in regard to knives,
I don t suggest that we curtail and reduce freedom more than it is now,
in that I am a libertarian; I try to promote freedom.
I recommend that concerning knives the
status quo remain in effect;
i.e. parents will probably see to how well their children adapt.
No one has any authority to execute background checks
regarding anyone learning to use knives.
Concerning background checks, remember that thay serve as
the foundation for discrimination. The USSC has ruled against
discrimination in
Browder v. Gayle as being violative of the
US Constitution's requirement of "equal protection of the laws"
regarding a few moments seating on a bus. Defense of one 's life
is more important than seating on buses. The 2nd Amendment deprives
government of jurisdiction qua personal weapons. Both apply.
With respect to guns, again, parents shud probably be watchful
in judging whether to equip some of their children with guns,
to make sure that thay are of sufficient mental stability
at whichever age gunnery training begins. I imagine that 's
comparable to a parent deciding when or whether to give
his child a bicycle; possibly different people at different ages.
Some people I know have refused to ride bikes or drive cars at any age.
Again, Olivier, its extremely personal and individual, rather than age-based,
in my vu. A lot depends on the willingness of the person to learn it.
Regarding age, for elucidation, let me put it this way:
the stupidest and most
depraved thing a lunatic can do
is to cock a loaded revolver and give it to a week-old baby in his crib.
(He 'd probably not accept it, but . . .) u coud only expect a bad result
from that. When he can learn to handle firearms safely depends on
the Individual. I began at age 8, but in my naborhood, there was no
known age limit. I was not the youngest armed person on my block.
My nabors were better armed than I was; no trouble with anyone.
Let 's remember that defensive guns are
emergency equipment,
to keep a victim alive when confronted with the predatory violence
of man or beast, i.e., the bad guy or the animal gets to choose
when
his victim
needs to defend his life. I cannot be more precise.
Olivier5 wrote: Fighter aircrafts and bombers?
Atomic bombs?
That depends on the Air Force, Army or Navy.
The 2nd Amendment applies to personal, wearable weapons.
Olivier5 wrote:You get my drift: the bigger the destructive power of the weapon, the greater the requirements, restrictions and regulations. It's sheer logic, like the fact that it takes many more hours of training to become a Boeing 747 pilot than to drive a car. It's not just that it's more complicated, it's also that many more lives are at stake.
Therefore, it makes sense to ask for more regulation of powerful automatic weapons than of small handguns.
As the USSC said in
D.C. v. HELLER 554 U.S. 570 (2008), 2nd Amendment
protection might extend to include the civilian possession of M-16
automatic rifles, and the like, but analysis of that is deferred to another day.
David
