Are these 'infringements'?

Its not changing the subject. If adults need to have adult supervision, then they arent adults.

The notion that its only OK for 'adults' to have guns with the supervision of the govt is just as asinine as sending minors off to war. When is an adult an adult? 18 or 21? Im OK with either, just not 'both'.

 

There is a saying, something to the effect a hawk and a chicken are both birds. The comparison ends there.
A soldier, be she 18, 21 or 30, has firearm training and its use is supervised by the chain of command. The civilian has none of that, making the situation, that you don't recognize, completely different. In that unsupervised, untrained situation maturity is a positive factor in avoiding error. Who is more mature an 18 year old or 21 year old?

 

Forgot to hit reply above

 

A 21 year old is mature. 18 is not, not physically anyway. The brain isn't fully developed at 18. I don't think 'supervision' in the military chain of cammand is the same 'supervision' you think gun owners ought to be subject to... but perhaps you'd care to clarify what you think is necessary.

If the civilian has no training like the military does, its because the govt isn't interested in providing it. A 'well regulated militia' means a well trained (and well supplied) militia. Are there any leaders in the gun control movement calling to provide training? All I've seen are calls to simply require it without any provision of increased resources that actually provide it. The military PROVIDES training.

If I agreed to accepting the requirement of 'training' as a prerequisite to firearm ownership, would you agree to the govt being responsible for providing that training as an elective in the public school curriculum?

 

Still having trouble with this? An 18 year old, apparently, can do a soldier's job. At least I've heard no complaints from the generals. A civilian's job is not to shoot and kill whomever the chain of command says is the enemy. That is why a little mature decision making is order. 9 states require training to own a gun and 13 states require handgun owners to be 21.

And yes. gun control advocates are advocating for other states to follow suit.

 

No state requires training just to own (or even carry) firearms. Some states require training to get a permit to conceal a firearm, which means those who dont have a permit must carry any arms openly and visibly. The logic being that one can both 'keep' and 'bear' arms without concealing arms, thus concealment can be constitutionally restricted. Similarly, an 18 year old adult can still 'keep and bear' rifles or shotguns if they are barred from owning handguns. I don't agree with that interpretation, but that is how the interpretation is currently made. No state requires training as a prerequisite to own all firearms.

I notice you didn't answer my question- If I agreed to accepting the requirement of 'training' as a prerequisite to firearm ownership, would you agree that the govt should be responsible for providing that training free of charge and without restriction, such as in public school curriculum?

 

And I notice you didn't address the difference between an armed 18 year old soldier and civilian.
Sure, why not offer an elective certification for seniors.

 

I did. The difference is training. If I agreed to accepting the requirement of 'training' as a prerequisite to firearm ownership, would you agree that the govt should be responsible for providing that training free of charge and without restriction, such as in public school curriculum?

 

Sure why not, but if the age to own a firearm was 21, then they couldn't take the test for certification until they are 21.

 

Why not? Part of providing training is providing the necessary materials. Cops, military and professional security provide weapons for recruits that are required to be trained in their use. Any required public training should do the same.