20-year-old Dick's employees are quitting their jobs

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: eNumbra

just the part where you inferred that the stats are mine.

So you admit your post was vapid and your assertion flawed?

a reply to: eNumbra

vapid as compared to what?

no the assertion stands however the flaw belongs to you

own it love it

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: eNumbra
as compared to what?

You asserted drinking age was not an emotionally based law; that it was based on statistics.

Edit: yeah you won’t admit it. All you do is post flotsam.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: eNumbra
as compared to what?

You asserted drinking age was not an emotionally based law; that it was based on statistics.

Edit: yeah you won’t admit it. All you do is post flotsam.

again for the slow amoung us

raising the drinking in the usa was based on statical info. gathered and not based on the same made up emotions that statistics do not back up in the case of removing the 2nd amendment protections from some based on emotion and not actual occurrence that has resulted in the amount of loss of life that would rise to the level of needing to break our constitution GOD givin rights granted to us by our forefathers.

do you have a valid point to your mindless drivel?

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: eNumbra
as compared to what?

You asserted drinking age was not an emotionally based law; that it was based on statistics.

Edit: yeah you won’t admit it. All you do is post flotsam.

again for the slow amoung us

raising the drinking in the usa was based on statical info. gathered and not based on the same made up emotions that statistics do not back up in the case of removing the 2nd amendment protections from some based on emotion and not actual occurrence that has resulted in the amount of loss of life that would rise to the level of needing to break our constitution GOD givin rights granted to us by our forefathers.

do you have a valid point to your mindless drivel?

I guess you could provide those statistics then? Since the overwhelming majority of countries have lower drinking ages and get along fine(probably better than America, honestly) when it comes to alcohol.

a reply to: eNumbra

that is ok

it is not only beside the point and designed to detract from the thread it is also being used by you to reduce the collective iq of the world.

who really believes that the majority of 18-21 yo peeps are as responsible at that time as they are soon to become.

your head is stuck on with ignorance

do you even understand growth and maturity? if you want to look things up then start there

a reply to: rhynouk

Jobs are a dime a dozen now. Where are jobs hard to come by? Everybody is looking for employees around here

originally posted by: howtonhawky
18-21 should be able to purchase with military id or training certificate certifying ones ability to bare arms.

They still can. Nobody is infringing on anyone's Constitutional rights.
They just can't buy their guns at Dick's Sporting Goods. Or Walgreen's. Or Baskin Robbins.
Every store has a right to decide what they want to sell, and to whom.
That's America. You got a problem with America?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: eNumbra

who really believes that the majority of 18-21 yo peeps are as responsible at that time as they are soon to become.

But they’re mature enough for firearms?

If someone is mature enough to be trusted with a firearm they’re mature enough to handle a beer.

Not to mention, once again, all the countries that have no trouble with young drinking ages. Your beliefs are contradictory.

Truth be told, wide swaths of society aren’t mature enough even into their 40s. Age restricting, even banning just assault weapons is pointless feel good nonsense, as they’re the least contributory to gun deaths, but you can’t argue that access to firearms at 18, tobacco at 19/21(depending on the state) and alcohol at 21 is anything but idiotic.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: eNumbra

who really believes that the majority of 18-21 yo peeps are as responsible at that time as they are soon to become.

But they’re mature enough for firearms?

If someone is mature enough to be trusted with a firearm they’re mature enough to handle a beer.

Not to mention, once again, all the countries that have no trouble with young drinking ages. Your beliefs are contradictory.

Truth be told, wide swaths of society aren’t mature enough even into their 40s. Age restricting, even banning just assault weapons is pointless feel good nonsense, as they’re the least contributory to gun deaths, but you can’t argue that access to firearms at 18, tobacco at 19/21(depending on the state) and alcohol at 21 is Amy but idiotic.

21 was taken from like most of our customs the old english

yes they are capable at different ages to shoot and drink responsibly according to guardians customs and boundaries.

that is why a simple logic applied to the rights having one to prove ABILITY should be put into any bill that has to do with our rights granted.

Do you get it yet?

if you have been trained then you can exercise your rights. otherwise wait until you are above the accepted maturity levels set.

also if you really want stats on drinking and age then look to insurance companies. they use them alot.

your argument has become unbecoming.

a reply to: howtonhawky

So at what age do you get to exercise the freedom of religion? Or freedom of speech? Or the freedom from excessive bail? Or the freedom from quartering soldiers? Or the right to a jury trial? Or the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure? How does one go about proving the ability to not have to quarter government troops? Or the ability to freely associate?

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: eNumbra

who really believes that the majority of 18-21 yo peeps are as responsible at that time as they are soon to become.

But they’re mature enough for firearms?

If someone is mature enough to be trusted with a firearm they’re mature enough to handle a beer.

Not to mention, once again, all the countries that have no trouble with young drinking ages. Your beliefs are contradictory.

Truth be told, wide swaths of society aren’t mature enough even into their 40s. Age restricting, even banning just assault weapons is pointless feel good nonsense, as they’re the least contributory to gun deaths, but you can’t argue that access to firearms at 18, tobacco at 19/21(depending on the state) and alcohol at 21 is Amy but idiotic.

if you have been trained then you can exercise your rights. otherwise wait until you are above the accepted maturity levels set.

Where do I sign up for alcohol training then? Will a bar accept my liquor exemption certificate?

a reply to: eNumbra

you can signup where ever they keep your right to get drunk

now do you see how your argument has been beside the point the whole time cause i am speaking of a specific 2nd right where your argument is based on many rights together

as seen with prohibition before drinking can be as tricky as shootin

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: howtonhawky

So at what age do you get to exercise the freedom of religion? Or freedom of speech? Or the freedom from excessive bail? Or the freedom from quartering soldiers? Or the right to a jury trial? Or the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure? How does one go about proving the ability to not have to quarter government troops? Or the ability to freely associate?

you never

but the rest of us have been shown to exercise most of our rights responsibly without causing public harm

the answer is whenever you have the ability

the point is that once we accept limitations put on us for one thing then the others will follow and that is why it is gravely necessary when regulating such problems that are greatly causing harm to society we have to allow for ABILITY to TRUMP regulations. The rights can not be broken but can be regulated. The regulations have to have meaning and valid reason that promotes the general welfare and security of the nation and must be agreed upon.

a reply to: howtonhawky

you never

You really can't post without getting personal about things, can you?

but the rest of us have been shown to exercise most of our rights responsibly without causing public harm

I'll need proof of your claim that you've shown the ability to not quarter government troops and therefore be granted the right to not do so, please.

the answer is whenever you have the ability

When does one have the ability to show they have the ability to be afforded the protections of the 13th Amendment?

the answer is whenever you have the ability

That's really the problem here: you seem to think the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments are things that the government allows people do or have, and it should be contingent on demonstrating an ability to do them.

That is exactly the opposite of what the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Amendments, is.

a reply to: Shamrock6

yea i am not buying what you are selling peddle to another if you can not follow the logic.

you have become irrational in relation to the premise of the thread.

rephrase or retreat

a reply to: Shamrock6

just to clear up for you the problem you are having is that when using the term ABILITY was in reference to infringement not drinking or storm troopers or whatever tangent you got on.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: eNumbra

you can signup where ever they keep your right to get drunk

now do you see how your argument has been beside the point the whole time cause i am speaking of a specific 2nd right where your argument is based on many rights together

as seen with prohibition before drinking can be as tricky as shootin

K.

a reply to: howtonhawky

we are the militia

16th - 17th century definition of "militia" - you know, when the document was written.

Every parish furnished a quota of eligible men, whose names were recorded on muster rolls. Likewise, each household was assessed for the purpose of finding weapons, armour, horses, or their financial equivalent, according to their status.

Link


Did you fill out the form requiring this information? Because I didn't and I'm afraid if we're going to follow the 2nd to the letter, then I may be conducting a felony.