Rights & Responsibilities: Following The Case of "Affluenza"

I've never heard of Afflluenza in my life before hearing of a 16 year old rich kid from Texas who drunk-drove killed 4 people and ruined more lives. Affluenza is a bullshit defense in which the kid dodges responsibility on account of being pampered in a rich family. This slaps the face of what responsibility is and points out just how retarded treating teenagers as children is. In the 18th century, a 14 year old could purchase firearms, drink and purchase beer, seek employment, drive carriages, buy and smoke cigarettes, and even live on their own if financially independent and people didn't complain. They felt teens having adult rights gave them a stronger sense of responsibility and are also to be held as responsible as an adult.

Millions of teenagers are forced into adult responsibility while being presumed irresponsible for many adult rights. Rights come from birth, not when surpassing a designated birthday. Knowing right from wrong is evidence of being responsible enough to make adult decisions. The reason a 6 year old has no responsibilities nor adult rights is because the child can't distinguish right from wrong. Morality has to be taught through guidance and when caretakers fail to guide the child to being responsible, they are just as guilty of irresponsible behavior as if the child actually did know right from wrong.

Ethan Couch was given a mansion by his father without sense of responsibility so the father was the real owner since he was taking responsibility for the mansion. I don't feel couch was pressured into taking responsibility for his actions and when the justice system had the opportunity to do what mom & pop didn't do, Judge Jean Boyd stupidly sided with the defense during sentencing and sentenced Ethan Couch to just 10 years probation and treatment.

How can anyone seriously presume under 21 year olds to be irresponsible on some adult accounts while forcing maximum adult responsibilities on them? As for children, aren't parents more responsible for their children since they know the child better than anyone else? Driving a car is a major responsibility and in driving you are taking adult responsibility for your actions. If the youngster can't be held responsible to adult standards, then the parents for example are usually responsible. For example, February 29, 2000 a school shooting in Michigan occurred in which a 6 year old Negro boy from a troubled family took his uncle's gun to school and shot a classmate with it. The 6 year old boy couldn't be charged even in juvenile court because of his age and 6 year olds don't have any legal responsibilities. The youth can't be held legally accountable even after 50-90 years. The uncle was however charged with involuntary manslaughter because he neglected to keep the 6 year old boy from accessing the firearm.

Do we seriously need laws that put law abiding citizens on trial? The fact that someone can be put on adult trial and receive adult sentences is evidence enough of responsibility for firearm ownership, alcohol consumption, cigarettes, and gambling.

The most irresponsible group of people in our society is Congress! Yes, congress like the rest of the federal government refuses to take responsibility and a lack of effective consequences at deterring tyrannical government violating the U.S. Constitution is only maintaining the problem. You have to use force against tyrannical government and that's where armed insurrection(should be used rarely), nullification, and citizen's enforcement of the U.S Constitution and our unalienable rights.

What about government agencies? Over 5,000 have been killed by violent law enforcement since September 11 attacks. Can you honestly say that we need more gun control against private citizens while arming law enforcement jack booted thugs with fully automatic machine guns? Gun control proponents are willing to overlook abuses by government thugs such as accidental contraband raids. If guns caused violence, why can't EVERYBODY including law enforcement and our military disarm? Elitists will never do so since that would jeopardize their grip on power and control of people.

I can just compare laissez-faire markets vs. planned centralized economies and you will see how government industry is less responsible than free market private economies. Take the dysfunctional Oakland Police Department which blames victims for violence, particularly back in 2012 with a 16 year old girl shot by a 36 year old maniac. The 36 year old maniac had more just treatment under the law than the 16 year old victim as the latter couldn't even purchase a handgun let alone carry one. Police have no obligation to protect you but they're better at threatening you with arrest if you do not obey whatever laws politicians make.

How can a public servant(legislator, judge, district attorney, law enforcement officer) demand their masters obey whatever law is passed with the threat of violence? Just look at how Mexican government handles the drug cartel violence and has strict gun control. Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster made the Ukrainian city of Prypiat uninhabitable since the mid 1980's, then under the Soviet Union.

What's the panacea for violence in society? Responsibility! Forcing wrong doers to take responsibility for evil is the best option for combating terrorism, substance abuse, gun violence, and government abuse of power. You can't have a rule of law without armed citizens checking government tyranny. You have to view and treat government thugs like cancerous cells.

Conclusion here is if someone harms another, punish them, don't put prior restraints on gun purchases. Prior restraints only seek to help those in power evade being accountable to the people.