Dan and I were schmoozing with my 19 and 23 years-old daughters the other day. My UK-based progeny crowed that they can drink at 18, and scoffed at The Land of the Free’s National Minimum Drinking Age Act (restricting alcohol purchases to 21-year-olds and up). “Did you drink when you were 16?” I asked.
Sarah admitted she had. As had her friends. “Did anything bad happen because of it? Are you an alcoholic? ” She shook her head. “So why should the state decide when you’re ‘ready’ to drink? Isn’t that down to parenting?”
Whether or not you agree, you have to wonder why 21 is the “magic” number for drinking — and carrying a handgun. Commentator Gman left this underneath our post BREAKING: Federal Judge Denies UT Profs’ Request for Preliminary Injunction to Stop Campus Carry
The vast majority of these students are denied their natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected right to self defense by virtue of their age. When is this travesty going to be corrected? We need to address the disparity of trust we engender in our youth.
One can sign a legal document at age 18. One can join the military and die for their country and yet never have had a beer or shot of Jack. And one can be in the military, well trained in the safe and effective use of firearms, entrusted with fully automatic rifles, and still denied the right to purchase certain very bearable firearms and the required ammunition.
And this is the real issue. Our government doesn’t seem to trust our youth, and it isn’t getting any better.
Should the minimum age for concealed or open carry be lowered to 18 across the board? If nothing else, the law leaves the vast majority of college students — an extremely vulnerable population — disarmed. Should there even be a minimum age?