Video Highlights
- The discussion surrounding gun control often centers around the age at which individuals should be allowed to own guns.
- The legal battles over the rights of 18 to 20-year-olds to purchase and possess firearms are inconsistent and unconstitutional.
- Historically, 18 to 20-year-olds have always been considered part of the people mentioned in the Second Amendment.
- Proposed training requirements and permits as a condition for exercising the right to bear arms are not supported by the Constitution.
- California's 10-day waiting period and other restrictions have not been effective in reducing crime.
- The NRA's role in opposing gun control measures is misunderstood and other organizations are doing the real work in defending Second Amendment rights.
Video Summary
Gun control is a hotly debated topic, often centering around the age at which individuals should be allowed to own firearms. In a recent conversation between Patrick David and Andrew Schultz on the Flagrant podcast, the question of whether a 14-year-old should be able to own a gun was raised. While this is an interesting starting point for discussion, it ignores the larger issue at hand: the rights of 18 to 20-year-olds to purchase and possess firearms.
Currently, there are laws in place that prohibit 18 to 20-year-olds from purchasing certain types of firearms. This inconsistency in the treatment of 18 to 20-year-olds is both unconstitutional and illogical. These individuals are legally considered adults and are allowed to enter the military, enter into contracts, get married, and engage in other activities that are reserved for adults. Yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, they are treated as second-class citizens.
Historically, 18 to 20-year-olds have always been considered part of the people mentioned in the Second Amendment. During the Revolutionary War, they were often called to serve in the militia and were legally required to bring the firearms they already possessed. This historical context supports the argument that 18 to 20-year-olds have the right to keep and bear arms.
Currently, there are ongoing legal battles surrounding the rights of 18 to 20-year-olds to purchase and possess firearms. Multiple federal courts have found that laws restricting their ability to do so are inconsistent with the text and history of the Second Amendment, and therefore, unconstitutional.
The conversation also touched on the idea of training requirements and permits as a condition for exercising the right to bear arms. While training is important and should be encouraged, making it a government-mandated requirement is not supported by the Constitution. We would not require someone to undergo training or obtain a permit to exercise their right to vote or to engage in free speech. The Second Amendment is intended to protect individuals from government overreach, not to give the government the authority to determine who can exercise their rights.
California's 10-day waiting period and other restrictions have been cited as examples of gun control measures that could be effective in reducing crime. However, there is no evidence to support these claims. The 10-day waiting period, for example, was put in place to prevent impulsive criminal activity, but there is no evidence to suggest that such activity is related to the purchase of firearms. Multiple cases have been filed against the waiting period, arguing that it is not supported by the text and history of the Second Amendment.
The conversation also touched on the role of the NRA in opposing gun control measures. While the NRA has been a prominent organization in the fight for Second Amendment rights, it has also been criticized for compromising on certain issues. Other organizations, such as FBCG, GOA, and SAF, are doing the real work in defending Second Amendment rights. It is important to look beyond the NRA and support these organizations that are actively fighting for our rights.
In conclusion, the conversation surrounding gun control is complex and multifaceted. It is important to consider the legal implications and historical context when discussing the rights of individuals to own firearms. Training is important, but making it a government-mandated requirement is not supported by the Constitution. California's gun control measures have not been effective in reducing crime, and the NRA's role in opposing gun control measures is often misunderstood. It is crucial to support organizations that are actively defending our Second Amendment rights.
