[goldstategop]

Let's ask the New York Times liberals a question: why can 18 and 19 year olds be trusted to defend our country in the military but they can't be trusted to defend themselves in civilian life? Another gun control rant the country doesn't share.

[Tzimisce]

You only shoot people your liberal overlords tell you to shoot in foreign lands!

But don’t start getting uppity: you’re still an ignorant peasant here at home.

[VeniVidiVici]

More whining by the New York Times. Their rants are so predictable.

[Gaffer]

The author knows nothing about service. Neither does the NYT.

[Kickass Conservative]

Well, they can Vote in Marxist's like Obama and they can serve in the Military, so why not let them own a Handgun? Might as well let them drink and gamble while we're at it.

Hell, I owned a .22 Rifle when I was eight. Kept it in my bedroom closet with a box of ammo. Bought it off my older Brother for $25 after he got his 30.06.

We are living in a country full of pussies, no doubt about it.

[OrangeHoof]

If liberals saw the second amendment the way they do sex education, all teenagers would be handed guns for free because kids are going to do it anyway.

[Southack]

The NY Times is clueless. After losing the House in 2010, they champion an issue that cost them the House in 1994.

Throw me into that briar patch!

[kingu]

..the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But indeed, they are infringed. Whole classes of arms are outright banned. An ice pick is a felony if it is found on your person in most states, a concealed knife is also a felony. The supposed logic is that these aren't arms, yet I'd challenge anyone to find a single example of a knife being thought of as something forbidden by the founding fathers.

Of course, if they nail you with a felony for carrying a knife, your guns are confiscated and you're forbidden from keeping one in your home. Which might be the entire reason behind such restrictions...

[Secret Agent Man]

Did the NYT then come out and say they are against 18, 19 and 20 year olds serving in the military? Pretty sure they have to shoot guns.

[neverdem]

Why can they vote, but they’re denied a right to self defense?

[Mister Fleas]

In Indiana 18 to 20 year olds can purchase a handgun from an unlicensed dealer and also obtain a permit to carry it. There is no more problem from these young Hoosier adults than any other age group of permit holders. So the article is simply ignorant.

[Wonder Warthog]

A more germane question is why 18 and 19 year olds can be trusted to VOTE, but not own and carry handguns. Votes are infinitely more dangerous than guns. Just ask any of the 160 million dead under socialism/communism in the 20th Century.

[R. Scott]

Not only that but they are trusted to vote too.

[Venturer]

18 year olds cancarry a weapon in the military they should be able to carry one outside the military, They should also be allowed to drink a beer if they want to.

Who was it that decided a man wasn’t a man until he turned 21? That’s BS.

[Graybeard58]

I have a direct ancestor who served in the Revolutionary War, as an infantryman, not a flag bearer or bugler. He was 12 years old. It is documented.

[archy]

Let's ask the New York Times liberals a question: why can 18 and 19 year olds be trusted to defend our country in the military but they can't be trusted to defend themselves in civilian life? Another gun control rant the country doesn't share.

Better yet: Let's require a license and a 7-day waiting period for purchase of a copy of the New York Times. Aftrer all, the constitutional protection of the free press doesn't apply to newspapers of child pornographers who charge for their publications, since they're not *free,* nor to those who charge for advertising inside those publications.

The founders clearly meant that the *free press* was such material as political pamphlets, fliers, broadsides and the internet. Far-thinking guys, those founders of ours!

[highlander_UW]

Compare the right to buy a handgun to the right to vote. Both can cause serious damage if used improperly, yet the left talks about lowering the voting age but resists sharing the constitutional right to keep and bear arms to even adults who could otherwise be members of the military and be required to carry arms?

This is just another area of liberal hypocrisy rearing it's head.

[ozzymandus]

Leftists want to teach children about homosexuality in kindergarten, but don't want 20-yr olds to be allowed to own handguns. Yet they can't see the hypocrisy.

[OldDeckHand]

Hate to say it, but this is some of the same kind of BS that Reagan fed us about the National Drinking Age crap. You either are an adult, or you aren't an adult upon reaching the age of majority. And, if you are an adult and saddled with all the responsibilities that entails - to include criminal liability - then you better be given the EXACT same privileges as your older citizen-peers.

It's more of the same nanny-state BS, and to this regard (about age limitation of implicit and explicit liberties), Republicans AND conservatives are just as complicit at the big-footed liberals.

[Cacique]

Liberals believe that they will control the possessors of guns. Thus, guns should only be held by the GESTAPO and concentration camp guards so they can protect themselves as they prod you into the gas chambers. After all, armed sheep are dangerous..

[DMG2FUN]

Isn’t the age limit on firearms a federal law?