Regarding your first claim: Well, I would argue that it does in some respects but let's stay on topic. Regardless, that wasn't my point. I’m sorry you misunderstood me.
I was stating that the US and state constitutions do address age limits. That is a fact. What those limits pertain to is beside the point, whether it be for driving or if wearing white on labor day is acceptable or whatever is irrelevant to this discussion.
The reason for the reference was to address the issue of WHY THERE ARE AGE LIMITS. My argument is that most of society and even the founders can/could make a distinction between the capacity for responsible behavior through reasoning among adults and children.
But you didn't like that example. Fair enough. I'll dispense with the metaphors and make this as plain as possible for you...
You come on here, where in light of the Connecticut school shootings that resulted in the deaths of mostly children between the ages of five and six, and the question is asked "should teachers be armed?" And your response to this is "If teachers are armed, and the students aren’t, I oppose".
Forget any rules or laws... A fundamental difference of reasoning exists between the underdeveloped brain of a 5-6 year old and adults in their twenties to fifties. Thus to demand or even suggest equal treatment of a firearm in the hands those children and their teachers is, and I’m not trying to be insulting here, but it’s F**KING NUTS!
Again I’m not trying to be insulting but I really question if you’re being serious or just trolling us (akin to Dan Akroyd’s "bag of glass" skit), especially after your call for "more federal police" on a website devoted to shrinking the size of government. However if that is really how you feel than I’m afraid we simply disagree. In either case I have no desire to continue this conversation.
Unless Ron Paul! -Lorax