SkyDekker

lol, another semantics discussion. Who was holding him? Who was standing guard outside? Who provided protection during the court case? Who'se puppet government is in power?

I'll just quote the first three words you wrote in your post in answer to this:

Like your job for instance.

I had figured it was the incapable of admitting part, turns out it is the incapable of reading and learning part.

Scary how many people actually follow that guy though....

well, legally capable to enter into a contract with the military. Adult is debatable, since you would think an adult could decide for himself if he can have a beer. But, now we are down to a semantics discussion. PS. your imaginary comment makes it clear that you are either incapable of reading or learning, or incapable of admitting you didn't know something.

The standards are lower because the US is having a hard time keeping their armed forces populated at this time. That there is male ego. If the standards are the same than any person passing the standard should be able to do what you describe. The size and intimidation factor I don't think is even valid. The toughest man I know is about the third my size and if I didn't know him I would abolsutely doubt he could do anything to harm me.....many have made that same mistake.

Cassius Clay converted, does that make all boxers Islamic?

Should just be equal standards, set at the right level for the job that is needed. The rest of the argument seems to come down mostly on male ego (no woman can do a better job then a man can do) and the supposed inability for men to keep their peckers in their pants.

Willem gefeliciteerd!!!!!

What is the issue with mixed units? Set the same standard for both sexes and off we go.

Actually, the comment was that 18 year olds should be considerd adult since they can enter into legally binding contracts. That statement is flawed, which is what I was discussing

bwahhhahahahhahahhhaahhahhha, that is some funny shit!!!!!!! gnauk in the url stands for: Gay Nigger Association of the UK. Part of the Gay Nigger Association of America. They did some fun stuff with wikipedia though.... Maybe you don't say shit without being able to back "shit" up, but you are obviously very fucking gullible.....

Most of them yes. Nobody here seems to be arguing about the legality of the US Armed Forces doing this though.

Yes, for minors and those over 18. It isn't. Nor is it pertinent to whether or not buying something in a store is the equivalent of entering into a contract. Since much of this appears much too difficult for you, all you really have to remember is that 18 year olds cannot enter into all legal contracts and that those under 18 can enter into some legal contracts. Maybe we need to start with reading comprehension and basic logic before we go to more difficult things like buying something in a store and basic contracts.

No, I am not: * The original statement was that 18 year olds can enter into legally binding contracts. * I said they can enter into most but not all contracts, since they cannot purchase booze. Purchasing booze is a form of entering into a legally binding contract. * You then said that a child trying to buy gum would be entering into a contract as well. * I replied that technically that is not a legally binding contract. (Note that gum would not be considered a necessity, though changing it to bread/milk in a subsequent post was a nice try) * Hence, 18 year olds cannot enter into all contracts. Minors can enter into some contracts. Lastly, it is now clear that your original statement that 18 year olds are to be considered adult since they can enter into legally binding contracts is utterly false. Now, you can now start to verbally run around in circles, but at least you have learned something today. An hour ago you didn't realize that when you buy something in a store you are actually entering into a contract....

Cause a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract unless it is considered to be for a necessity (that list is different from state to state). read here: http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/Contract-Basics.html Small highlight: Other contracts come into being because of conduct between parties that give rise to a contract, like contracts resulting from the purchase of goods and services. You make a contract with a store every time you purchase an item.

Almost all legally binding contracts can be done verbally, no signing required whatsoever. I know that in Canada the only exception to that is contracts regarding real estate, they have to be in writing to be binding.

No you can't. Technically that is not a legally binding contract.

Any purchase of an item or service is a legally binding contract. An 18 year old cannot legally purchase alcohol nor can he/she legally buy gambling services. Hence, those are purchase and sale aqreements/contracts they cannot legally enter into.

They can enter into most contracts, but they can't enter into all contracts.

Is there? I am very aware of organized efforts pro Christmas, but not so aware of organized efforts to eliminate Christmas.

Nope, I would argue the other way around, based on your constitution. But your armed forces certainly have, are they not a normal militia? Since this right in your consititution was specifically included to deal with the government, would it not naturally flow that the second amendmend guarantees the people the right to arm themselves the same way the nation's armed forces arm themselves? Especially since the head of the government is also the head of the armed forces.

Why did you chose such a backwards time and such a strange land? Or, why would you not create more certainty, why leave it to faith and belief?

I thought you had the right to bare arms, I didn't think it read: The right to bare a rifle. The question isn't anymore if there should be restrictions, the question has become at what level the restrictions should be in place. Your constitutional rights are already restricted and nobody has a problem with it. As a matter of fact, the far majority of people agree with those restrictions. Hence, the argument is about haw far the restrictions should go, not whether or not there should be any. I do have a questions for you though, how would you define the arms you are constitutionally free to bare? Where do you draw the line?