‘Kids’ Can Get Guns, Why Not Beer?

The attempt last month on the life of former President Donald Trump by a 20-year-old shooter is yet another example of the disparity between the ease with which those younger than 21 may access firearms vs. alcohol.

Granted, the would-be assassin acquired the AR-15 style rifle used in the Butler, Pa., shooting from his father, although he legally purchased 50 rounds of ammunition on the day he killed one person and wounded Trump and two others. For some twisted reason, in the eyes of society, a 20-year-old possessing a semi-automatic weapon and copious amounts of ammo is preferable to that same 20-year-old possessing a six-pack of beer.

It’s a fact that 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds are considered “adults” for nearly every purpose — they can vote, sign contracts, fight in combat, file lawsuits, decide for themselves about medical treatment and even purchase or possess an assault-style weapon — but they cannot legally purchase alcohol.

Who can blame an 18-, 19- or 20-year-old who faces all of the responsibilities of the adult world — particularly those in the military service protecting the inalienable rights of others — for wanting to enjoy all of the rewards of adulthood. Many of these “adult kids” are drinking anyway and all the 21 drinking age law has done is criminalize them.

What does the government think happens in that time span between the ages of 18 and 21 that makes a person any more “adult” or responsible when it comes to the purchase and consumption of alcohol, yet has no effect on a person’s maturity in purchasing a weapon?

It makes more sense to require teens to reach 18 before receiving driving privileges than to make “adults” wait until they are 21 to have a beer or cocktail.

Forty years ago last month, President Ronald Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which mandated that states raise their drinking age to 21 or suffer a 10 percent cut to their federal highway funding. While states technically were not required to change their laws, the possibility of losing millions of dollars in federal funding made Reagan’s bill a de facto federal minimum drinking age.

Surprisingly (or not, given the billions the National Rifle Association spends to lobby Congress and other elected officials) there is no federal minimum age for purchasing a long gun such as an AR-15. In some states (not Ohio, thankfully), children younger than 18 may legally purchase and possess such weapons.

Perhaps, as some people have suggested, the answer to the problem of underage drinking is to eliminate some of those who are considered underage. Allowing 18-, 19- and 20-year-old “adults” to consume alcohol would free up resources to more vigorously enforce laws against purchases and consumption by true minors.

Expanding the pool of legal consumers also makes good business sense. Here in Ohio, lowering the drinking age to 19 (the limit before the federal blackmail raising the drinking age to 21) would go a long way to help permit holders. And allowing 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds into “adults only” venues such as casinos could add additional revenue to state coffers.

Denying 18-, 19- and 20-year-old “adults” the ability to drink is akin to treating them as second-class citizens. But that’s the way it is here in the “land of the free,” where “all men are created equal” under the Second Amendment, but some “men” and “women” are not as equal as others when it comes to their “pursuit of happiness.”