I understand (and do not disagree with) the argument that people are not as mature at 18 as they are at 21. The same could be said about any person who is younger than I am. I also do not think that 15 and 16 year-old kids are not necessarily mature enough to operate a motor vehicle.
But, the real question is, does the 2nd Amendment extend to all adult citizens of the United States? 10 USC 246 defines “militia” as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age…” Why are those defined under federal law as “militia” not able to purchase or carry handguns but can rifles? We do not generally place restrictions on rights guaranteed under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh or Eighth Amendments based on age. The only constitutional right that has a specific age restriction is the right to vote and that has only been in place since 1971, not including the age requirements for holding the offices of Representative, Senator and President/Vice President.
So, why do we treat the Second Amendment differently. One can say that firearms are more dangerous, but is a handgun any more dangerous than a rifle? Arguably, especially if you look at the state of our legislature and the electorate, the right to vote is much more dangerous than the right to bear arms, and many politicians want to LOWER the voting age! We are seeing the rise of the democratic socialist in our nation. They want to give away everything, paid for on the backs of the working class and would enslave the population to dependence on the government for their needs.
Let’s give the Second Amendment as much respect as we give the rest of the Constitution. “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL not be infringed.”