If an 18-year-old Can Join the Military and Have a Gun … Why Should He Wait ’Til 21 as a Civillian?

In the political rush to pass even more gun legislation, in the aftermath of the tragic school shootings, one brilliant idea is to raise the age of gun ownership to 21.

Let’s forget the fact that none of the gun-toting kids in the past year actually owned them. But what does that mean for the young 18 year-olds who may be a part of the ground forces sent to Yugoslavia? Will we disarm them? Or is it OK to tell them they can own a gun and even kill an enemy that has never harmed them, invaded their country, or threatened their loved ones?

It’s the blonde defense. Oh, that’s different silly, they are trained to use guns and kill. Well, if it’s OK to train our 18 year-old kids to use a weapon effectively enough to kill strangers half-way around the world.

Why don’t we train their peers to use a weapon effectively to defend themselves from some terrorists gang that might blast into their school? How can you argue one minute to disarm kids while arguing the next, to arm them to fight in someone else’s war in another country?

A little consistency goes a long way toward maintaining a sane society.