That may surprise, and even miff, some readers, but I'm not sure that a restriction is any more an infringement on our second amendment rights than is prohibiting 14 year-olds from buying certain weapons, or prohibiting anyone at all from buying a fully automatic rifle or a grenade launcher.
Having said that, though, I think there's an amusing irony in the arguments made by some liberals in favor of raising the age at which certain weapons can be purchased.
Before I explain that I should note that Florida has just passed such a restriction, and although many Democrats voted against it, they did so only because the legislation provides for a program to train school faculty to carry a firearm. They generally favored raising the age at which a person can buy a weapon.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R.) signed new state gun restrictions into law on Friday, including raising the minimum age to buy a gun to 21 and instituting a three-day waiting period for all firearm purchases.I trust that the county sheriffs in Florida know a bit more about how to train people to neutralize an active shooter than the sheriff of Broward County apparently does, but in any case, there's an irony in hearing liberal Democrats argue that the age at which guns can be purchased should be raised to 21.
The new law also banned the sale of bump stocks in Florida and allowed police to ask judges to confiscate weapons from those deemed a threat to themselves or others, as well as granted monies for the training and arming of school personnel, the Miami Herald reports:Scott signed the bill despite his opposition to creation of a program that allows school personnel to carry concealed weapons on campus.
Family members of all 17 Parkland victims signed a statement supporting passage of the legislation.
The Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, named in memory of the assistant football coach at the school who died protecting students from gunfire, will create a $67 million program for county sheriffs to train school personnel to neutralize an active school shooter.
Back in the 1970s, when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, it was liberal Democrats who led the way, and one of their chief arguments was that if someone was old enough at 18 to go to Vietnam and fight and possibly die then he/she was surely old enough to vote. The argument struck many as silly, but like other silly arguments before and since, it carried the day with our politicians, and the voting age was duly lowered.
Eighteen year olds were henceforth to be considered old enough and mature enough to be entrusted with the great responsibility of choosing our nation's leaders.
Forty some years later, we find liberal Democrats now rejecting almost the same argument they made in the 1970s. Even though 18 year olds may be old enough and mature enough to go off to Iraq and heaven-knows-where-else to fight and possibly die, we now hear liberals say, they're not old enough to buy a weapon here at home.
Yet, if they're old enough to go to war, and thus old enough and mature enough to vote, why are they not also old enough and mature enough to own a weapon?
Maybe someone should ask them.
As I said above, I myself have no objection in principle to raising the age at which certain kinds of weapons can be purchased, but then neither have I ever impressed with the "old enough to fight and die" argument, nor could I ever see the wisdom of lowering the voting age to 18.
