I spend a lot of time reading op-eds and editorials from various news publications from across the country, particularly on the issue of guns. The reasons should be pretty obvious.

What I don't see a lot are pro-gun editorials.

Instead, most editorial boards seem to universally view every gun control law as a good thing and anything that smells of being pro-gun as the most awful thing any lawmaker could support. I've seen this in publications large and small.

But today, I found one that went a different direction. It wasn't the only pro-gun editorial I've ever seen, but it's been years since I came across one, and this one is a good one. It deals with the recent decision by the Fifth Circuit regarding adults under 21 buying handguns.

The law, long-standing though it may have been, deprived a category of adults — trusted and often encouraged to vote and trusted to enlist in our armed services — from one of their clearly enumerated rights. And, we doubt, failed to improve the safety of our communities and neighborhoods by assailing their rights.

As we have editorialized in the past, we firmly believe that violent crimes can better be prevented by addressing recidivism — by empowering law enforcement and probation and parole officers to investigate crimes and hold criminals accountable. We continue to believe, as well, that tougher sentencing for violent crimes and for repeat offenders would also curb violent crime in our nation more effectively than gun control proposals.

I agree fully.

It's a unicorn among editorials.

However, the paper is from a relatively small town in Pennsylvania, with a circulation of around 19,000 people are so, which is a shame because it's pretty clear to me that we need more of this in journalism.

First, the commentary about the inane idea that adults can be trusted manning machine guns and heavy artillery in the military, but can't be trusted to buy a handgun for self-defense. They can own one under federal law, but only if someone older gives it to them, which is idiotic.

So yeah, the Fifth Circuit was absolutely correct in its ruling, and it shouldn't have been necessary in the first place.

The truth of the matter is that these rules make no sense at all. Either they're adults or they're not. I'm sick of these weird standards on age, where someone is trustworthy enough to vote and die for their country, but not actually exercise the totality of their God-given rights.

But those who support this also tend to just see it as a way to minimize anyone exercising that right--a right many of them deny is actually a right in the first place. They'd support anything that made it harder for people to lawfully own guns. In this case, it's legal adults under 21, but in others, it's literally any other group they can come up with.

They also never seem to get that lawful gun ownership isn't the problem at all, but then again, they think gun control works, so how smart can they actually be?