Context here. Right-winger in italics.
You have to be licensed to carry a gun. He was a child.
So, arguing the right wing cases for gun possession and Dodge City laws, why shouldn't a minor be allowed to carry a weapon in order to defend himself?
You can't argue that 'it's against the law', as laws are written, re-written, and amended all the time. All you're doing is making a circular argument; "minors can't carry guns to defend themselves because it's against the law, and the law says that minors can't carry a gun because they are minors."
The argument that you are avoiding is the why behind under-majority age possession of firearms: it's the idea that a minor doesn't have the life experience/sound judgment necessary to use a weapon responsibly. However, if you admit that, you have to examine the facts around this Martin case and also state that his shooter - an adult - also did not possess the sound judgment necessary to use his weapon responsibly.
Which says a lot about these 'Dodge City' laws in that people in general aren't sophisticated enough gun owners to make these sort of life and death decisions. If anything, Martin-as-a-minor displayed better judgment when he ran away than Zimmerman when he pursued against the advisement of the 911 operator, started an altercation, and shot a kid.
That fact a liberal would advocate a minor carry a fire arm...
No, you're wrong again. What I'm saying is that it's a special hypocrisy on the part of right wingers such as yourself to push for legislation that enables the commission of incidents such as the Martin shooting, and that Trayvon Martin has as much of a right - even more of a need - to defending himself as George Zimmerman does.
If you would argue differently, you would have to admit that there was no reason that either Martin or Zimmerman should be making the kind of life and death decisions that these laws allow them to do...and that it's a bad law based on a unrealistic, flawed right-wing idea about how un-civilized society can actually be.
