There are historical and psychological reasons why the legal age for purchasing assault weapons does not make sense [More]
And if you want to know about gun laws, who better to consult than a “Professor and Director, Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies [and] Editorial Director, Feminist Studies”?
[Via Dan Gifford]
Thank you, WarOnGuns. If we were to unilaterally go up to 21 years of age, to somehow “compromise” due to her arguments, Aunty Anti would just start beating the “25 Minimum!” drum. I can’t in good conscience vote to keep arms for self-defense from those 18-20 year olds who’ve gotten married and signed contracts for their own domicile.
During the time period referenced in the Bruen decision, one wanted a rifle barrel that was a length that brought the muzzle up to chin height with the butt grounded. That made it easier to see what you were doing while reloading. Since rifles were a substantial investment, youngsters often waited until they reached their full height before they got their first.
For modern day kids, that would be sometime in middle school. Think the left would go for that?
She’s exactly right.
Historically, the militia is all able-bodied males age 16 to age 45. Anyone who is eligible to serve in the militia should be able to furnish himself/herself the tools to do so, which means militia-useful weapons should be available to 16-year-olds.
That said, setting the age to 18 years makes sense in that the age of majority includes voting rights; one who answers muster should have a say in who is giving the orders.