"(1) common sense gun laws that don't violate the 2nd amendment" - No such thing.
"(2) talking about the violence we bombard our kids with in movies and video games" - Common excuse for poor parenting, placing blame on other people/places/things
But hey, I let my son play video games at times and I let him run around shooting real "semi automatic"guns too. He has a profound respect for firearms and is a damn good shot. Common sense is to teach kids all about firearms, remove the "mystique" at an early age. Get more firearms in the hands of people who want to own them. If they dont want one fine,but shut the #^&#^&#^&#^& up that they're scared of them, grow a set. Too many PC pansy ass people in this country and the up and coming generations are being raised the same way.

I'm not arguing with you as I agree with your general ideas at times. But there is no such thing as "common sense gun laws" thats a liberal catch phrase. Its bull s h i t.

The original intent of the framers of The Constitution

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

–Tenche Cox, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress

At the time of it's passing, "well regulated" meant that the equipment was kept in good order and up to present standards, not mired in a bunch of red tape as it means today..

"common sense gun laws that don't violate the 2nd amendment" - No such thing"

Of course there is such a thing. I don't think that laws that, for example, prevent 12 year olds from buying an Uzi, are unconstitutional.

"
"(2) talking about the violence we bombard our kids with in movies and video games" - Common excuse for poor parenting, placing blame on other people/places/things "

I agree, there are crappy parents out there who doen't know what their kids are watching/playing/listening to. If everyone was a good parent, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But given that there are so many unsupervised kids watching TV and playing video games all day long, society would be better off if they were watching more "Leave it To Beaver" and less "Reservoir Dogs".

I agree that it is up to the parents, but don't you guys find it funny that the same liberal elite (you know the hollywood types that always hang out with Obama) that want all this gun legislation are the very ones glorifying gun violence in the movies?

I'd love to see where a 12 year old can buy an uzi.

In the US? No, because of gun laws.

The flip side is now that 12 year old will be defenseless in mass shooting that they would likely be able to stop.

As would the 12 year old be defenseless against just about everything else. Really, Spence, pick a more sensible comparison.

But its for the children !! That's the BS they want you to believe. Next he'll tell you how gun free zones have no effect if shootings..same #^&#^&#^&#^& different thread.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does the Second Amendment have an age restriction?

No it doesn't. And twelve year olds at the time the second amendment was written may or may not have had their own gun. Chances are they didn't have their own gun, but would have been trained on the use of the family's gun or guns. And so would have probably been as proficient with them as most adults are today. And today, whatever gun is owned in the family, it would be sensible to teach the younger family members the proper handling of said gun (even if the child does not actually own the gun) and the extreme importance of not playing with the gun or removing it from the safe place without permission. And be taught what to do with it in the extreme case of some armed intruder (mass killer or not) breaking in and threatening the family.

And 12 year olds in most cases are not allowed to go unattended to places where mass shootings typically occur. In school settings, the mass shooter is far more likely to succeed if the adults (teachers, guards, etc.) are not allowed to have a gun there.

The reality is that twelve year olds in our current culture are far less responsible for their own life than their counterparts in the 18th Century. They are raised and taught now to be totally dependent on adults. As such they are pretty much defenseless against adults of all types (criminals, perverts, mass shooters) if they are not accompanied or watched over by other adults.

Actually, even adults are less responsible today for their own lives than their counterparts in the 18th century. We are taught and told by our progressive "experts" that we need government to order and assure our lives. That we don't need guns. That we should depend on the proper "authorities" to protect us from mass shooters.

Of course, that requires that the bad guys must not be allowed to have guns. And, ultimately, the only way to accomplish that is to ban all the rest of us (except the "authorities," of course) from having guns.

They can't, because it's against the law. That's what I am talking about, when I say that we need common sense gun laws.

You seem like the type of Dad I am trying to be, and if they were all like you, we wouldn't need any laws at all. But they aren't, and we do.

It does not, which has always made me wonder why the NRA hasn't challenged laws with age restrictions. Maybe even the NRA has limits to its greed. I don't have another answer.

Actually the Constitution does impose an age restriction. It is one which, in effect, imposes that restriction on those under the age of eighteen. That is the age which the 26th Amendment gives citizens the right to vote which cannot be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.

Ergo, the Constitution, in effect (the right to vote being the signature of full citizenship), does not grant those under that age the full rights granted to those who have not reached that age of majority. Wikipedia: "The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized (and recognized or declared) in law. It is the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them. Most countries set majority at 18."

That is all to say that various "adult" rights, such as the right to bear arms, are not guaranteed to minors, but can be granted or restricted by different levels of government.

Well stated as usual.

hey those would sell like HOT cakes
with Aunt Jemaah syrup
do they come in ROSE color

All the 26th Amendment does is prohibit states from restricting voting for those over the age of 17. If you're 18 or 19 or 20 you're a voting adult and still under federal law prohibited from buying a hand gun for instance...Many states even allow minors to own long guns as well.

How does that differ from what I said? "That is all to say that various "adult" rights, such as the right to bear arms, are not guaranteed to minors, but can be granted or restricted by different levels of government."

As far as the federal government restricting gun rights for those over 17, the federal government has a long history of encroaching on the Second Amendment.