Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: California violated the Second Amendment with semiautomatic rifle age restriction, court finds Read [View all]24601
(4,114 posts)40. This is an interesting question. I know you can join at 17 (as were some of my West Point
Classmates); however, international law would prohibit actual deployment for fighting until age 18. Otherwise, provisions with respect to "Child Soldiers" would be in effect.
By the time a 17-year old enlistee completed basic training and their branch's Advanced Individual Training, it's highly unlikely her or she would be under 18. It's still possible but not probable.
I'm almost 68 and still believe if you can fight for your country, you should be able to drink a toast to it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

California violated the Second Amendment with semiautomatic rifle age restriction, court finds Read [View all]
ripcord
May 2022
OP
So we don't think they're responsible enough to drink alcohol at 18, but a deadly weapon, no problem
onecaliberal
May 2022
#3
Well, they're considered to be responsible enough to join the military at 18. n/t
OnlinePoker
May 2022
#6
This is an interesting question. I know you can join at 17 (as were some of my West Point
24601
May 2022
#40
2nd amendment protected individual rights to own what was essentially the accepted state-or-the-art
24601
May 2022
#42
Also at that time 13 year old girls were getting married to much older men.
SmittyWerben
May 2022
#7
Why can't semi-automatic and other high assault weapons be banned. That bars no one from owning
Samrob
May 2022
#9
Dred Scott was 7-2 which proves a super majority court is not always right either.
cstanleytech
May 2022
#45
Firearms training and the requirement to securely store all firearms away when not on your person.
cstanleytech
May 2022
#25
Yup but it could be argued that any such age limitations imposed upon a person
cstanleytech
May 2022
#44
Well, it sorta is, cause prohibition was done by constitutional amendment ...
Hugh_Lebowski
May 2022
#47
stupid repug judges. they may also bring us back to a time when children under 10 could be married
samsingh
May 2022
#31
Clearly this is a prelude to overturning state AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions.
J_William_Ryan
May 2022
#49