Why aren't eighteen to twenty-one year-olds allowed to own a handgun to defend themselves? Are they bulletproof? (I know I thought I was.) Are they expendable? When I was younger, I was poor, and I lived in some rotten neighborhoods. Most of us don't have money when we are young so a rotten neighborhood or two might come with the territory. I wasn't wise enough to be aware of crime at 18. Why isn't someone wiser than me allowed to defend himself?
I would enthusiastically support a federal law extending the gun rights age to 18 from 21 and explicitly referencing the second and fourteenth amendments in applying it to the states. If you are old enough to enlist, you are old enough to possess your own handgun.
Why do some governments restrict non-lethal weapons? They don't kill people. Massachesetts requires a $100 license for a non-lethal weapon. In Canada you are allowed to carry pepper spray, but only for use on animals. I thought gun-grabbers would love non-lethal weapons. The more fool me. If you don't believe that gun-grabbers hate self-defense, look no further than these tyrannical, draconian laws.
As regards non-lethal weapons I would also enthusiastically support a federal law explicitly forbidding the states from taxing, licensing or restricting in any way the sales, possession and carrying of non-lethal weapons by any person over the age of fourteen. It should also reference the second and fourteenth amendments in applying it to the states. Incrementalism should not be a tactic for gun-grabbers only.
Actually, the idea that the state should restrict the rights of a free people to properly defend themselves should cause such a visceral response in our legislators that the mere suggestion that non-lethal weapons (much less lethal ones) should be regulated should cause the following series of events:
If the speaker is a man:
1. At least half the legislators should rise to their feet in sudden fury.
2. At least one-twelfth should rush the speaker with the intent to rain physical blows upon him.
3. The remainder of the standing legislators should begin haranguing the speaker, then turn and restrain the twelfth.
4. Those among the half who are men should attempt to restrain the women who rush the speaker, but it should cause them grave mental distress.
5. The restraint should fail to the extent that one to four hard blows impact the speaker.
6. After order is restored a resolution should be immediately passed condemning the notion.
If the speaker is a woman:
1. At least half the legislators should rise to their feet in sudden fury.
2. At least one-twelfth should rush the speaker with the intent to rain physical blows upon her.
3. The remainder of the standing legislators should begin haranguing the speaker, then turn and restrain the twelfth.
4. Those among the twelfth who are men should restrain themselves from striking the woman, but with difficulty.
5. Those among the half who are men should attempt to restrain the women who rush the speaker, but it should cause them grave mental distress.
6. The restraint should fail to the extent that one to four hard blows impact the speaker.
7. After order is restored a resolution should be immediately passed condemning the notion.
Inspired by Kim du Toit's posting a sample letter, and his implied lament that 18 year-old are not allowed to defend themselves.
