Oh Joy it must be time near election time again

[teufelhunden]

Fine: Prove that it is a law that they are enforcing. Namely one that has some kind of legal backing. Once you prove that, you have an argument, until then we will have to wait until the adults to come along and decide who is being mature, as you did not include yourself amongst them.

MA Code Chapter 269: Chapter 12a: Air rifles; sale to minors

Whoever sells to a minor under the age of eighteen or whoever, not being the parent, guardian or adult teacher or instructor, furnishes to a minor under the age of eighteen an air rifle or so-called BB gun, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months.

Chapter 269 Section 12b: Air rifles; possession by minors; shooting

No minor under the age of eighteen shall have an air rifle or so-called BB gun in his possession while in any place to which the public has a right of access unless he is accompanied by an adult or unless he is the holder of a sporting or hunting license and has on his person a permit from the chief of police of the town in which he resides granting him the right of such possession. No person shall discharge a BB shot, pellet or other object from an air rifle or so-called BB gun into, from or across any street, alley, public way or railroad or railway right of way, and no minor under the age of eighteen shall discharge a BB shot, pellet or other object from an air rifle or BB gun unless he is accompanied by an adult or is the holder of a sporting or hunting license. Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, and the air rifle or BB gun or other weapon shall be confiscated. Upon a conviction of a violation of this section the air rifle or BB gun or other weapon shall, by the written authority of the court, be forwarded to the colonel of the state police, who may dispose of said article in the same manner as prescribed in section ten.

I was unable to find when the law was enacted, but one can reasonably assume it wasn't put on the books yesterday. Its legal backing comes along the same lines as that of such laws as those which restrict the age to purchase tobacco, alcohol, firearms, spray paint, etc.

[OneEyedPimp]

I was unable to find when the law was enacted, but one can reasonably assume it wasn't put on the books yesterday. Its legal backing comes along the same lines as that of such laws as those which restrict the age to purchase tobacco, alcohol, firearms, spray paint, etc.

Which in this country's founding has no legal backing. You are impling that those people, those under 18, are sub-human by denying them the rights guareenteed to those of older age. This is morally wrong which falls into the same catagory as abortions.

[nippinout]

Which in this country's founding has no legal backing. You are impling that those people, those under 18, are sub-human by denying them the rights guareenteed to those of older age. This is morally wrong which falls into the same catagory as abortions.

Oh dear. IBL

Let's allow newborns the right to vote?

[OneEyedPimp]

Oh dear. IBL

Let's allow newborns the right to vote?

...and why not? When do you define someone as becomming human? I define it at inception, any other date raises the question as to when someone actually becomes a human, because we all know how people diverge in opinion.

And what does IBL mean?

It should also be noted that it has to be a concious decision by the person, not the parent saying their five month old wants to vote for someone and then his parents vote for him. That is a no-no.

[nippinout]

...and why not? When do you define someone as becomming human? I define it at inception, any other date raises the question as to when someone actually becomes a human, because we all know how people diverge in opinion.

And what does IBL mean?

You cannot make sound decisions as a child. That is why you cannot vote, smoke, or buy firearms until you are at least 18.

This is not about defining what a human being is. This is about law and order. Laws do not exist to treat those younger than 18 as sub-human.

If I were a politican in your world, I would offer every 'human' candy and ban vegetables in school lunches. Guaranteed victory in your foolish land of ponies and make-believe.

[SCpoloRicker]

I hope to God this is trolling...

/doubtfull

[teufelhunden]

Nobody is treating younger people as sub human. The laws are in place for the protection of the minor children and society around them. Look it up; younger people, even though they may appear to be adults generally do not have a fully developed risk processing system yet. In simple terms for you, that's why kids seem to do more dumb things than adults. That covers things like firearms and BB guns.

Then, go ahead and look at the drinking age; it's not just arbitrary [well, at 18 it wasn't, at 21 it is, but, I digress]. The liver is not fully developed to the point of being able to process high quantities of alcohol until late adolescence; since the law can not feasibly provide for testing every single person to see if their liver is functioning or their brain can handle computing risks or etc, they figure out the point where most people will be set and ready to go and make that the age for the law.



You're 16. Of course you believe you can do anything that adults can do because you're a teenager and teenagers know best. I've been there, and looking back.. I know I didn't. Maybe if you remove your head from your rectum when you grow up a little, you'll figure it out too.

[OneEyedPimp]

You cannot make sound decisions as a child. That is why you cannot vote, smoke, or buy firearms until you are at least 18.

This is not about defining what a human being is. This is about law and order. Laws do not exist to treat those younger than 18 as sub-human.

If I were a politican in your world, I would offer every 'human' candy and ban vegetables in school lunches. Guaranteed victory in your foolish land of ponies and make-believe.

Problem is in my world you would not be able to do that as there would be no public school system to ban them in; a politician has no control over the private sector.

This debate is about when you become a human by definition. It is all a matter of opinions, and as long as those opinions diverge it is wrong to have one law governing all. It is just YOUR opinion that younger people can not make the same decisions as those that are older.

If you think about it, law and order could be preserved to a greater degree if you removed age laws and only punished people for what they did wrong to others, not themselves. In the end though, my view on this stems from taxes. I do not want my stolen income to be spent on stopping children from doing what they are guarenteed to do(provided they make a concious decision on the matter).

[OneEyedPimp]

I hope to God this is trolling...

/doubtfull

No, these are my political views. I did not want to argue them, but I was provoked.

[nippinout]

No, these are my political views. I did not want to argue them, but I was provoked.

OH NO! HE WAS PROVOKED!

No, your logic is flawed.

Spock would feel ashamed, if he allowed himself to experience emotions.

[OneEyedPimp]

Nobody is treating younger people as sub human. The laws are in place for the protection of the minor children and society around them. Look it up; younger people, even though they may appear to be adults generally do not have a fully developed risk processing system yet. In simple terms for you, that's why kids seem to do more dumb things than adults. That covers things like firearms and BB guns.

I think your definition of sub-human is different. I.E. sub-human means being denied the rights enjoyed by the rest. The age laws are doing just that. Again on the age thing, YOUR opinion. I really dont care what others do, so long as it does not interfere with me.

Then, go ahead and look at the drinking age; it's not just arbitrary [well, at 18 it wasn't, at 21 it is, but, I digress]. The liver is not fully developed to the point of being able to process high quantities of alcohol until late adolescence; since the law can not feasibly provide for testing every single person to see if their liver is functioning or their brain can handle computing risks or etc, they figure out the point where most people will be set and ready to go and make that the age for the law.

While I assume that is true about the liver, who is to say that I need to be protected for my own safety? Seriously, what if they moved the smoking age to 79 because some survey showed that that was when the lungs started to deteriorate, so you can't do much damage by smoking? Wouldent you be pissed?(not implying you smoke of course)

You're 16. Of course you believe you can do anything that adults can do because you're a teenager and teenagers know best. I've been there, and looking back.. I know I didn't. Maybe if you remove your head from your rectum when you grow up a little, you'll figure it out too.

Yup, I am 16. Pretty proud of my youth too. My head is up my rectum as much as yours is. If given the choice to smoke, drink, etc I would not simply because I do not wish to participate is such activities(not even when I am "of age"). I simply argue these view points for my fellow man to make his own descision, his God-given right.

And isn't it weird that age laws are a rather recent development?

[OneEyedPimp]

OH NO! HE WAS PROVOKED!

No, your logic is flawed.

Spock would feel ashamed, if he allowed himself to experience emotions.

Whatever helps you. My logic is flawed in YOUR opinion, not mine.

And I am a little too young to get the Spock reference.

[nippinout]

I think your definition of sub-human is different. I.E. sub-human means being denied the rights enjoyed by the rest. The age laws are doing just that. Again on the age thing, YOUR opinion. I really dont care what others do, so long as it does not interfere with me.



While I assume that is true about the liver, who is to say that I need to be protected for my own safety? Seriously, what if they moved the smoking age to 79 because some survey showed that that was when the lungs started to deteriorate, so you can't do much damage by smoking? Wouldent you be pissed?(not implying you smoke of course)



Yup, I am 16. Pretty proud of my youth too. My head is up my rectum as much as yours is. If given the choice to smoke, drink, etc I would not simply because I do not wish to participate is such activities(not even when I am "of age"). I simply argue these view points for my fellow man to make his own descision, his God-given right.

And isn't it weird that age laws are a rather recent development?

Rights being denied simply based upon age is wrong to you?

Let's allow 8 year olds to have sex with 40 year old men!

How about I am allowed to legally sell 4 year olds porn!

6 year olds, you can now drive!

15 year olds, that learners permit is now a drivers license. You can have a blood alcohol content of .08 and drive all hours of the night!

Your logic is flawed beyond belief.

[nippinout]

Whatever helps you. My logic is flawed in YOUR opinion, not mine.

And I am a little too young to get the Spock reference.

A person's ability to do something should be limited to more than "As long as it doesn't affect anyone else".

That attitude is why I don't like having to pay insurance for drivers who are complete idiots. That's why I don't like having to pay health insurance to subsidize heavy smokers who do not exercise or eat a healthy diet.

Actuarial Scientists are smart people.

Actions affect everyone.

[OneEyedPimp]

Rights being denied simply based upon age is wrong to you?

Let's allow 8 year olds to have sex with 40 year old men!

How about I am allowed to legally sell 4 year olds porn!

6 year olds, you can now drive!

15 year olds, that learners permit is now a drivers license. You can have a blood alcohol content of .08 and drive all hours of the night!

Your logic is flawed beyond belief.

You may think it is flawed, but nothing above bothers me provided that the only harm is self-inflicted. If the 8 year old conscents, so what?

You would be kind of weird with 4 year old child porn.

If the 6 year old doesnt cause boldily or property harm to others, so what?

Same argument with the 15 year old.

I sound really bad with specific examples like that but my basic political philosophy allows anything provided that you do not infringe on other's rights. You can also look at it this way: there are very few Libertarians out there, so none of these changes are likely to happen in my lifetime, and I am younger. Then again, I am a little bit more "radical" than most libertarians, leaning more towards a government system that is as close as humanly possibly to anarchy that you can get while still having order.