Thread: Harvard Law professor wants ‘Children’s Crusade’ for gun control, lower voting age

Harvard Law professor wants ‘Children’s Crusade’ for gun control, lower voting age

By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times
Monday, February 19, 2018

Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe says a “#Children’sCrusade” may be just what America needs to implement new gun control measures.

Mr. Tribe, who was appointed the first Senior Counselor for Access to Justice in 2010 by then-President Obama, said Monday on Twitter that the “BS detectors” of children should be allowed to work in voting booths.

“Teens between 14 and 18 have far better BS detectors, on average, than ‘adults’ 18 and older,” he tweeted. “Wouldn’t it be great if the voting age were lowered to 16? Just a pipe dream, I know, but … #Children’sCrusade? … #ChildrensCrusade = #MarchForOurLives! Make this as big as possible. Retweet all messages like this one!”

The constitutional-law professor’s remarks, made while promoting the upcoming “March for our Lives” anti-gun rally in D.C., came as dozens of teenagers protested Monday outside the White House with a “lie-in” for increased gun control.

Their efforts are part and parcel of a national conversation on gun laws following the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkside, Florida.

Nikolas Cruz, 19, who was arrested after the shooting, is charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder.

“This is foolishness of the highest order,” responded The Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro, a graduate of Harvard Law School. “The measure of whether a proposal has merit or not should not be the personal emotional investment of the person making the proposal. We don’t let doctors operate on their own family members for a reason. And just because someone saw a classmate shot to death does not grant expertise on matters of policy.”

Mr. Shapiro said social media messaging such as Mr. Tribe’s is a form of “emotional manipulation” that makes it easier for gun-control advocates to frame critics as “uncaring.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ts-childrens-/

The voting age was 21 until 1971. I didn't think it should have been lowered. I don't know if its made any difference one way or the other, but while we were old enough to have an opinion, I didn't really think we were old enough for our opinions to count. I thought we needed more experience on our own first. The driving force behind it was Vietnam. If you're old enough to be drafted, then you're old enough to vote for the people who send you to war. But Nixon ended both the war and the draft in 1973, so it was sort of pointless from that regard.

Nixon was such a great President. It's such a shame what happened to him because of that eternally stupid wiretap burglary.

As to Tribe, well, I think he's exploiting a tragedy to grab for new support for the DemoQuacks, it's a sickness we'll call poliphilia.

Lowering the voting age would be a huge mistake. Folks younger than 18 are still dependent on someone else for their care. Furthermore, it would lead to fraud in our voting system. I can picture a mother taking her two teenage daughters to the voting booth and directing them to vote for a specific individual with the threat of taking away their cell phone for disobeying. Hey, mom and/or dad paid for the phone, the clothes on their backs, food, medical care, housing, etc. Furthermore, those that haven't truly tasted life's hardships yet have no business participating in the direction of this country.

18 is when most children graduate high school and either move on to college or start taking serious employment and responsibility for their own lives. We've got plenty of 18 year old's serving their country or communities in the military, police, fire departments, etc. In this country you're considered an adult at 18.

Leave the right to vote at 18 and let's not have anymore of this silly talk.

Raise the voting age...these snowflakes still living in the basement until 26 years old.

No, you're actually not considered an adult at 18. You can't buy beer in a lot of states until you're 21, you can't buy a handgun in Florida and probably other states as well until you're 21, if you're in college you're still counted as a dependent until you're 21 for taxes and Social Security, you can't rent a car until you're 21, and under Obamacare, you can ride on your parents health insurance until you're 26 as a child. As to the military, we no longer have a draft so no one is forced to join the service, it's a voluntary choice.

It doesn't mean your opinion doesn't matter, your opinion may be right, it may be wrong, I've posted many times that a room of 3rd graders could figure out problems on trade and immigration that are stumping adults.

It's just something to keep in mind because for the long history of our nation until 1971, you were not able to vote until you were 21. Most young Americans today probably don't even know that.

Remember how many in the Obama administration admired Mao? They had 8 years to use the education system to indoctrinate the youth with many of the same "beliefs" instilled by Mao that used to develop his foot soldiers. It seems to me that these socialist communist, like Larry Tribe, that aspire to to power are using the same old book. Mao indoctrinated youth for his "change". JMO



WHY OBAMA'S LIEUTENANTS LOVE MAO

Exclusive: Jamie Glazov details horror of mass murderer celebrated by the left

Published: 10/22/2009 at 12:00 AM

The left’s long romance with tyranny and terror is manifesting itself in the Obama administration once again. Having experienced the high of putting $900 million of American taxpayers’ money into Hamas’ blood-soaked hands, some Obama advisers are now getting a new fix by offering thanks and praise to the late communist mass murderer Mao Zedong.

President Obama’s White House communications director, Anita Dunn, recently praised Mao Zedong in a videotaped speech to high schoolers by calling him “one of the two people that I turn to most.” When confronted on it, she said she was just joking. It remains a mystery what is laughable about extolling the greatest mass murderer in human history who slaughtered 70 million of his own people. In any case, Dunn was clearly not joking, as is evident in the detailed and earnest explanation she gave the high schoolers in her references to both Mao and Mother Teresa while emphasizing the importance of perseverance and choosing one’s own path.

Dunn’s veneration of Mao is shared by another Obama insider, “manufacturing czar” Ron Bloom, who, it appears, has been quoting the communist mass murderer with great approval. At a 2008 Union League Club meeting in New York, for instance, Bloom explained to his audience that:

“We know that the free market is nonsense. (…) We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”
And from the barrel of a gun Mao’s political power did come indeed. Let’s for a moment reflect on the crimes that Mao perpetrated:

After capturing power on Oct. 1, 1949, in the immediate post revolutionary period alone, Mao murdered as many as 15 million Chinese citizens. In 1958, Mao launched the Great Leap Forward, an industrial and agricultural program intended to make China the world’s largest steel and grain exporter. Involving demented economic schemes and brutal forced collectivization, the Great Leap was an unparalleled human disaster, exterminating approximately 38 million people through government-engineered famine.

Mao’s starving victims were reduced to eating grass, dirt, leaves and tree bark in the attempt to survive. They picked through horse manure for undigested grains of wheat, or cow manure for worms. They also resorted to cannibalism, digging up freshly buried corpses. Mad from hunger, parents ate their own children – or swapped children with other parents in an attempt to ease the horror of the act. Children were also killed, boiled and used as fertilizer. Desperate villagers who abandoned their homes and traveled to other towns in search of food were mowed down by machine-gun fire.

This horrifying tragedy – the greatest famine in all human history – was created intentionally by Mao. While millions starved, plenty of food existed in state granaries. The army, however, guarded these granaries under strict order: “Absolutely no opening the granary door even if people are dying of starvation.” In their biography, “Mao: The Unknown Story,” authors Jung Chang and Jon Halliday conclude that if food had not been exported and instead had been distributed among the Chinese people, “very probably not a single person in China would have had to die of hunger.”

In 1966, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution, designed to purge the country of all dissent and bring it completely under the dictator’s vicious rule. Millions of schoolchildren became the infamous Red Guards, whose task was to destroy anything connected to traditional culture and philosophy. As Paul Johnson put it, the Cultural Revolution became “a revolution of illiterates and semiliterates against intellectuals, the ‘spectacle-wearers’ as they were called. … It was the greatest witch-hunt in history, which made the Zhdanov purges in postwar Russia seem almost trivial.”

In the Cultural Revolution, almost every expression of human emotion – and every cultural ritual whose purpose was to honor the sanctity of human life and relationships – became illegal, including weddings, funerals and even the simple act of holding hands. The Red Guards humiliated, beat and murdered teachers, school administrators, bureaucrats, foreign diplomats, technicians, artists, intellectuals and, eventually, anyone and everyone. “Class enemies” experienced every humiliation the Red Guards could think up; the Guards smeared their faces with ink, forced them to get down on all fours and bark like dogs, and made them eat grass. The Red Guards also literally feasted on those they had murdered. In Guangxi, where at least 137 “animals” (“class enemies”), mostly teachers and college principals, were killed, the Red Guards cooked and ate them.

An immense concentration-camp system, the laogai, spread through China like a cancerous growth. It operated under the pretense of “reform” or “re-education” through labor and self-denunciation.

The horrors of the laogai almost defy description. Harry Wu, who spent 19 years in the “laogai,” has given an account of its vicious dynamics in “Laogai: The Chinese Gulag.” Bao Ruo-Wang has done the same regarding his seven years in the laogai in “Prisoner of Mao.” Wu and Bao did for China what Armando Valladares did for Cuba in “Against All Hope,” and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn did for the Soviet Union in “Gulag Archipelago”.

Between 1949 and 1980, some 50 million Chinese people passed through this system of terror. Like Stalin’s Gulag, Mao’s laogai took on a life of its own, continuing its bloody work unabated until Mao’s death from Parkinson’s disease in 1976. In all, Chinese Communism would extinguish the lives of over 70 million people in the 20th century.

Mao biographers Jung Chang and Jon Halliday also document how this horror represented the natural order of things for Mao. Indeed, while millions of his people were starving to death, the dictator habitually informed his inner circle that it did not matter if people died and that, in fact, death was to be deemed a cause for celebration and rejoicing. This was because, naturally, destruction was necessary in order for the earthly heaven to be built. Mao wished destruction not only for his own country, but for the entire universe. As he explained: “This applies to the country, to the nation and to mankind. … The destruction of the universe is the same. … People like me long for its destruction, because when the old universe is destroyed, a new universe will be formed. Isn’t that better!” Mao stated that it would be ideal to sacrifice about 300 million Chinese lives for the world revolution, since “it’s best if half the population is left, next best one-third. …”

Thus, as in Castro’s Cuba, mourning for the dead was forbidden. Mourning implied that there was something wrong with death – a notion that a death cult obviously couldn’t allow. Moreover, grieving for a dead person singularized the individual and his private reality. Mao therefore outlawed the shedding of tears at funerals and even ordered peasants to plant crops over burial grounds – since he believed that deaths “can fertilize the ground.”

With all of these barbarities in mind, it is completely no surprise that Obama insiders such as Anita Dunn and Ron Bloom would pick a genocidal dictator like Mao to be the object of their affection.

These leftists are simply continuing the left’s long tradition of showering adulation upon Mao – as well as other communist mass murderers.

Indeed, as I have documented in my new book, “United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror,” leftists worldwide were, and have continued to be, exhilarated by Mao’s horrifying reign of terror – and the philosophy it was based on. From the likes of American journalist and activist Anna Louise Strong and the French “feminist” intellectual Simone de Beauvoir, from American journalist Edgar Snow to the “Red Dean” of Canterbury Hewlett Johnson, from British filmmaker Felix Greene to Orville Schell, the dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley, there was never a shortage of leftists who genuflected in the direction of Mao’s killing fields.

Anita Dunn and Ron Bloom prostrating themselves before the memory of the greatest mass murderer in human history is to be totally expected. It’s just another chapter of the left’s long history of bowing down in front of adversary regimes and despots who devote themselves to inhumanity, oppression and death.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/113670/

Originally Posted by Judy

No, you're actually not considered an adult at 18. You can't buy beer in a lot of states until you're 21, you can't buy a handgun in Florida and probably other states as well until you're 21, if you're in college you're still counted as a dependent until you're 21 for taxes and Social Security, you can't rent a car until you're 21, and under Obamacare, you can ride on your parents health insurance until you're 26 as a child. As to the military, we no longer have a draft so no one is forced to join the service, it's a voluntary choice.

It doesn't mean your opinion doesn't matter, your opinion may be right, it may be wrong, I've posted many times that a room of 3rd graders could figure out problems on trade and immigration that are stumping adults.

It's just something to keep in mind because for the long history of our nation until 1971, you were not able to vote until you were 21. Most young Americans today probably don't even know that.

There are exceptions to practically everything in life. With that said, it's still wrong to deprive that 18 year old soldier serving in a combat situation the right to vote for his leader (Commander-in-Chief). Older ages for buying a gun or drinking is sort of irrelevant to the discussion if we're talking about federal elections, which I am. Those are state, not federal laws you're referring to, aren't they?

What defines a legal adult is the ability to legally work, participate in contracts, vote, marry, give sexual consent, and join the military. However, being a legal adult under 21 does not give one the right in most states to purchase alcohol. Heck, I can remember a time in the military where you could drink on base at any age if you were actually a military member, which means 17 year old's could drink. That all changed in the 80's. Now I believe all military bases must adhere to state or country laws. Go figure that one out. I guess too many foreign related incidents involving alcohol and DUIs. If I remember correctly, the mother's of MADD were instrumental in passing the legislation that raised the military drinking age.

In the United States and most of the Western world you are considered a legal adult at age 18.

I keep hearing the Socialist Democrats say that gun owners must have insurance to own a gun. Will the premiums be so high that and ordinary person could never afford it? What would the requirements be for a person to be considered insurable? Would it be a Democratic voting record? Or, have the Democrats gotten into bed with insurance companies for kickbacks? Are people that supported Trump enemies of the state? After eight years of the Obama administration, people should be aware that the goal was to "control". JMO

Gun Control: A Tyrant's Tool in World History

by AWR HAWKINS
10 Nov 2014

Gun control is a tool that individual tyrants and various colonial rulers the world over have used to place—and keep—entire populations in a defenseless and subjective posture.

Three examples that clearly illustrate the truth of this are Cambodia, China, and Nazi Germany.

Cambodia became a protectorate of France in 1893. And according to the Texas Review of Law and Politics (TRLP), the French government first introduced gun control into country in 1920, when they “restricted” the carrying of firearms. In 1938 “a rigorous system of gun licensing” was also put in place. After this, the gradual but certain chipping away at gun rights continued until—by 1953—”gun possession for self-defense, target-shooting, or collecting was banned.”

France pushed gun control because they feared an uprising, especially from Communists or anti-colonial insurgencies. Therefore, just as Democrats in 19th century America took pains to keep slaves from arming themselves and rising up, so too France took pains to be sure those within their protectorate could not rise up against them.

It is worth noting that France’s efforts to disarm the Cambodian people gained so much momentum that gun control was still in place in 1956, three years after Cambodia was granted independence. Servility ran deep.

TRLP also shows that Mao Tse-tung used guns to take control of China in 1949. Thereafter, he “disarmed the Chinese people” yet simultaneously claimed to rule in their name. Then, with a government that was armed to the teeth versus a people who had no means for self-defense, Mao “perpetrated the largest mass murder in the history of the world, killing approximately 20 million people.”

Chinese people were denied the dignity of private gun ownership for self-defense and were then slaughtered on a grand scale.

Enter World War II Germany, and words like Nazi, Auschwitz, Dachau, and Adolf Hilter immediately stir our minds to consider the level of atrocity one tyrant can perpetrate against an unarmed people.

Breitbart News previously reported that Stephen P. Halbrook’s Gun Control in the Third Reich shines a light on Hitler’s use of gun control against the Jewish people and other “enemies of the state.” Hitler and his party implemented gun control systematically, like France did with the Cambodians, but he did so with far greater quickness, like Mao in China.

Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933 and immediately began pushing for total power—for complete control of every aspect of government. One part of this pursuit was ridding himself of political and state enemies, and one way to accomplish this was by disarming those who could be described as “enemies of the state” or dangers within the state.

In October 1933, bans on the possessions of firearms by “persons dangerous to security” were drafted. One month later—on November 21—a more detailed draft made clear that National Socialists would enjoy the ability to buy firearms but other persons would not. Thus there was actually a push to relax gun laws—as far they applied to National Socialists—while simultaneously tightening them as they applied to “enemies of the state” and/or “subject races.”

A memorandum accompanying the November 21 gun control draft said: “The prerequisite for any relaxation of the current firearm law, however, is that the sentencing and police authorities proceed with merciless severity against any possession of a weapon by any enemy of the people and the state.”

Halbrook shows that by 1938, Hitler discarded the generic “enemy of the state” phraseology and simply said what he really meant—Jewish people could not own or possess guns.

On November 10, 1938, German papers carried the news: “Jews Forbidden to Possess Weapons By Order of SS Reichsfuhrer Himmler, Munich, November 10.” The news was accompanied by this warning: “Persons who, according to the Nurnberg law, are regarded as Jews, are forbidden to possess any weapon. Violators will be condemned to a concentration camp and imprisoned for a period of up to 20 years.”

On November 9, 1938, a Jewish person could lawfully possess certain weapons. On November 10, they could not, and they faced a stiff prison sentence for doing otherwise. In 1942, unarmed Jews were sent to concentration camps and shot to death, gassed to death, starved to death, and killed in other ways too horrible to fathom.

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, some “six million Jews” were killed in this fashion. And that number does not include other unarmed “enemies of the state” who were killed in horrible ways as well.

Gun control is a tyrant’s tool.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...world-history/

Originally Posted by MW

There are exceptions to practically everything in life. With that said, it's still wrong to deprive that 18 year old soldier serving in a combat situation the right to vote for his leader (Commander-in-Chief). Older ages for buying a gun or drinking is sort of irrelevant to the discussion if we're talking about federal elections, which I am. Those are state, not federal laws you're referring to, aren't they?

What defines a legal adult is the ability to legally work, participate in contracts, vote, marry, give sexual consent, and join the military. However, being a legal adult under 21 does not give one the right in most states to purchase alcohol. Heck, I can remember a time in the military where you could drink on base at any age if you were actually a military member, which means 17 year old's could drink. That all changed in the 80's. Now I believe all military bases must adhere to state or country laws. Go figure that one out. I guess too many foreign related incidents involving alcohol and DUIs. If I remember correctly, the mother's of MADD were instrumental in passing the legislation that raised the military drinking age.

In the United States and most of the Western world you are considered a legal adult at age 18.

Yeah, well, in my opinion, if you aren't old enough to rent a car or buy a beer, you aren't old enough to serve in the military. These are life and death situations in combat, I don't think an 18 year old should be making those decisions.

And the military supports that view, because as you know from other threads and even more on the news today, 71% of our Americans in the age range of 18 to 24 aren't eligible to serve in the military to begin with because they have too many issues that under military guidelines disqualifies them from doing so.

We need to raise the age to own a gun, vote and serve in the military, at least in any capacity that would put you in harm's way. What did all the 18 and 19 year old seniors do during this shooting? They texted. They had their hands occupied, their heads down, their minds off their environment, and were totally focused on an electronic device during a mass shooting.

No, they are not old enough to be in the military in any capacity that would put them in harm's way.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yeah, well, in my opinion, if you aren't old enough to rent a car or buy a beer, you aren't old enough to serve in the military. These are life and death situations in combat, I don't think an 18 year old should be making that decision.

And the military supports that view, because as you know from other threads and even more on the news today, 71% of our Americans in the age range of 18 to 24 aren't eligible to serve to begin with because they have too many issues that under military guidelines disqualifies them.

All the more reason we need those that are eligible and can qualify to serve if they want.

Don't really see what being able to rent a car or drink alcohol has to do with it. I don't drink and served for over 20 years. Oh, and I never had reason to rent a care between the age of 18 or 21. Besides that, an 18 year old can certainly purchase one!