“Sheesh!”
I’m just trying to explore your thinking, I didn’t mean to hit a nerve.
From your words and various posts I take it that you are not a “Shall not be infringed” kind of person. So what’s your thinking? I doubt your thinking is that “the right of the people” does not apply to those under a certain age because they are not people. Yet you think that “the right of the people” does not apply to those people. Why?
Do you think that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” has boundaries like “the right of the people to vote” and that laws regarding things outside those boundaries are not infringements? If so, what, where and why are those boundaries?
The boundaries on “the right of the people to vote” are clear, at least some of them. One has to be a resident of the district in which a public vote takes place. One has to be a member of the organization in which a private vote takes place. And it seems to me the reasons for those boundaries are self evident.
Your thoughts?
Well I am sensitive about this issue and it’s personal, but even so I’m attempting to understand gun ownership in light of the debate about it.....and considering my lack of understanding about firearms isn’t helping so I appreciate those who have posted just what these rifles are.
When my sons announced they’d be looking forward to when they were old enough to drive we explained to them that though they would be of ‘legal age’ to do so this would not be unless they had become responsible about other areas of responsibility.... They needed to show they could be responsible. So I would expect the same regarding ownership of guns.