The Missouri Legislature voted down a bill that would ban 15 year olds and younger from carrying guns in public places. Gun Rights groups apparently see no limits on who should be allowed to carry a gun. I guess an unsupervised kindergartner can walk down the street with a loaded gun. That kindergartner might have a very good reason for having a loaded gun. How do we know? Why should we prevent a law-abiding six year old from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights? Everyone from birth to old age should just carry a gun and the world would be a better place.

Should everyone carry a gun? Should chronically depressed people carry arms? People with quick tempers? Psychotic people? Aren’t these Missouri Legislators the same people who think adolescents aren’t mature enough to make a decision regarding gender changing operations? If a kid isn’t mature enough to make a decision that requires consultations with doctors, lawyers and parents over a period of time, how can he be mature enough to handle a weapon that requires split second decision making in a crisis situation. There is a disconnect here this is startling.

Young people face all kinds of restrictions because there is an assumption that many underage people are immature for some adult responsibilities. A person has to be 21 years old, for example, to buy alcohol. If a 15 year old walked down the street, holding a bottle of gin, the police could arrest that child for breaking the law. Now there may be a perfectly good reason for that 15 year old to have a bottle of gin. He could be bringing it back to Mom and Dad. But because the state legislature of Missouri have decided that some people under the age of 21 aren’t mature enough to handle alcohol, all people under that age are banned. It is arbitrary. It is unfair to the under 21 who can handle alcohol reasonably. But for the safety of those under 21 and for the general public who might be adversely affected by drunk adolescents, an age barrier to alcohol purchases was made.

Everyone accepts these restrictions with nary a complaint. There may be disputes about where the line should be drawn (aged 21 or 18) but there isn’t much debate that no line should be drawn at all. Right now age, as seen by the majority of citizens in Missouri, is seen as a reasonable marker for this maturity. The same can be said for driving a car. Why then are 15 year olds who’s maturity to drink alcohol and to drive are suspect being allowed to walk the streets unsupervised by an adult with a loaded gun?

The Missouri Legislature’s action on this bill is depressing. If any restriction on gun ownership is seen as an attack on gun rights, then it is hopeless to think there is any meaningful middle ground out there. They are saying that people who are deemed insufficiently mature enough to make decisions regarding alcohol consumption and driving automobiles, are mature enough to walk down a street with an AK47. Why are they better able to handle weapons than a car and alcohol?

The thing here is I, by and large, have surrendered on gun laws. I don’t see the point if the 2nd Amendment trumps any restriction on a person’s capabilities to use guns. However, this law, to me, seemed like a no brainer. Why should an unsupervised 15 year old be walking down the street with a loaded gun. He can’t drive a car. He can’t buy alcohol. And, hey, I am to the point if he is accompanied by one of his parents or a guardian, I am perfectly willing to let him brandish his weapon. But, no, if this minor tweak of the law, which would give law enforcement in high crime areas some legal power to monitor underage gun use, is seen as an attack on the 2nd Amendment, there is simply nothing to talk about anymore. It appears that the gun lobby wants everyone armed from cradle to the grave — regardless of their ability to use guns, their maturity to make decisions and their rationality to use high caliber weapons. To the firing range we must all go.