[OneWingedShark]

Again, if you don't like it, change the laws and rules the Constitution permits. Under it, the right of a minor child to have and carry a gun is going to be infringed, like it or not.

So then you agree that the young one's gun-carrying is infringed... then how can you derive a restriction [on age] where none exists?

The title of [ART I, ] SECTION I is RIGHTS OF PERSONS.

Do you intend to assert that the boy is not a person? {There is nothing in the previous-posts's cited constitution segments which justifies an age restriction.}

[imardmd1]

So then you agree that the young one's gun-carrying is infringed... then how can you derive a restriction [on age] where none exists?

Perhaps from his father, who says, "Son, don't take that BB gun out of this yard, and don't point it at anybody, or I'll take it away from you and ground you for two weeks." In the same fashion that Dad says, "You talk to me that way again, and I'll tar your hide." Are you getting this? The infringement is present, right, and just. Needs no Bill of Rights. The boy has none in this context. His role is to learn, not dictate.