I've changed my way of thinking, regarding the 2A

[Gordon Freeman]

This quote of yours sure sounds like it from post 25.

"I am fine with age limits. There is an age limit on voting too. I think there is a reasonable way to govern like a conservative and a libertarian-everyone-for-themselves-whatever-happens kind of way. I'm for a more conservative way of governance than a purist, libertarian. At least on this issue."

I am fine with age limits. On selling yes. I personally wouldn't sell a gun to anyone under 16, but that's me. Unless accompanied by an adult or a guardian. But that's my personal view. I stand by that 100%. I don't think society is responsible enough to drive a car at 16. But that's different than demanding more gun control or being "soft" on 2A.

 

[Peacekeeper]

What about 6 year old?

I was given my first shotgun to me the day before I was born, when I was about 5 I given my first rifle and I still own both of them. My father taught me about gun safety, I was not allowed to touch them or shoot them unless he was present. By the age of 7 I was a pretty good shot, my oldest sister shot on a rifle team and sometimes I would go with her and dad to watch her shoot and sometimes get to shoot there with her. I see no problem in a 6 year old owning a gun, but the parents need to be involved.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I am fine with age limits. On selling yes. I personally wouldn't sell a gun to anyone under 16, but that's me. Unless accompanied by an adult or a guardian. But that's my personal view. I stand by that 100%. I don't think society is responsible enough to drive a car at 16. But that's different than demanding more gun control or being "soft" on 2A.

And I said before I'm fine with your right (and everyone else's) to put whatever restrictions on your personal transactions that you want. Heck people here require a bill of sale and all sorts of other nonsense. The 2A is not about restricting you, it's about restricting the government. The question remains are you OK with governments setting age limits that are expressly prohibited by the 'shall not be infringed' language of the 2a?
Perhaps I've been misunderstanding you and you are simply saying you think it's a good idea (from a practical standpoint) but it is NOT Constitutional. If that is the case we will simply have to disagree about any level of government intrusion and unconstitutional infringements being a 'good ideal'.

 

[DerekB711]

 

[Gordon Freeman]

And I said before I'm fine with your right (and everyone else's) to put whatever restrictions on your personal transactions that you want. Heck people here require a bill of sale and all sorts of other nonsense. The 2A is not about restricting you, it's about restricting the government. The question remains are you OK with governments setting age limits that are expressly prohibited by the 'shall not be infringed' language of the 2a?
Perhaps I've been misunderstanding you and you are simply saying you think it's a good idea (from a practical standpoint) but it is NOT Constitutional. If that is the case we will simply have to disagree about any level of government intrusion and unconstitutional infringements being a 'good ideal'.

It was my fault for not being very clear. Responding on my smartphone is generally harder for me. But, yes, to answer your question, EVERY FEDERAL and STATE LAW regarding gun ownership is unconstitutional as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Bypass]

So because the constitution doesn't mention "sales" of guns the Government can effectively ban all guns from being sold? But if you want to "bear and keep" that would be perfectly acceptable? The constitution doesn't mention ammunition either, so should all guns be legal, but ammo?

My point is that it is perfectly acceptable to regulate certain rights, but not limit them or ban to obscurity.

 

[RamRoddoc]

And I said before I'm fine with your right (and everyone else's) to put whatever restrictions on your personal transactions that you want. Heck people here require a bill of sale and all sorts of other nonsense. The 2A is not about restricting you, it's about restricting the government. The question remains are you OK with governments setting age limits that are expressly prohibited by the 'shall not be infringed' language of the 2a?
Perhaps I've been misunderstanding you and you are simply saying you think it's a good idea (from a practical standpoint) but it is NOT Constitutional. If that is the case we will simply have to disagree about any level of government intrusion and unconstitutional infringements being a 'good ideal'.

Key point here, who is granted that ability? At least if we consider the purpose and intent of the bill of rights.

 

[PSALM 144:1]

Well cskiles I think you have crossed a major threshold. Congrats!!!

Mr Gordon Freeman brings up a point,be it absolutely silly, it is still a point!

The "Government" wants to "Govern"!
To "Govern" means to control!
Control "from the womb to the tomb"!

Our founders knew what "Government" would want to do to the people!
That is why we have The Constitution!

Gun control is not about guns!
It is about control!

We ,Freedom loving people, should pay close attention!

As the man said,"the most scared he's ever been is when he answered a knock at his door
and he heard, we are from the Government and were here to help"!!!!!!