Yes, but you didn’t have any of those things when you were off duty in the local bar, did you? They were safely locked away in the arms room or the motor pool. THAT was my assertion – that no matter how stupid any member of the military gets due to drinking, there are safeguards in place to prevent them from wreaking havoc with their weapons. There is no such system in place to prevent them – or anyone else – from wreaking havoc with their cars. Therefore, I see no problem with restricting drinking to those who have grown up a few years longer.
**
It was also utterly not my assertion. My response was to blur, who presented the the old-enough-to-be-in-the-military-but-not-old-enough-to-drink argument.
If you want to raise the argument of when someone should be old enough to buy a firearm, that’s different. I will note, however, that the right to drink is not enshrined in the Constitution, nor has anyone ever suggested that it is a basic right of human beings.
Having a weapon does not depress someone’s inhibitions. It does not impair a person’s judgment. It does not decrease a person’s reaction time. Drinking does all of those things, and I’m fine with the restriction on drinking being where it is based on those things.
Who said anything about drinking and shooting? Why are you mingling the topics? I asserted that the weapons themselves, fired by a stone cold sober 18 year old, had much more killing potential than an automobile guided by an intoxicated person.
Yes there is a system in place. In my state it’s called ‘The DUI Task Force’. It’s a complex system of local and state law enforcement officers armed with BAC analysis equipment and field sobriety tests, as well as road blocks ( the latter I do not condone ).
What is your reasoning for restricting an 18 year old from drinking if he has no intention of driving? Just because he might drive?
The right to wipe your ass is not protected by the Constitution either, would you like it if they took that away from people under the age of 21?
I would argue that it is a basic right to drink alcohol. It has been a part of human societies since shortly after civilization began. Just because some Tee-Totallers don’t like it isn’t going to change things. PROHIBITION was overturned.
The restrictions I assume you are talking about are the laws regarding DUI, drunk and disorderly, etc. which pertain to adults already.
I’m fine with those too. But what do they have to do with the question at hand?.. the total restriction on drinking for legal adults between the ages of 18 and 21?
By the way, having a weapon most certainly does depress some people’s inhibitions.
Weapon=Power
How many muggings, rapes, and murders do you think would occur if the assailant had to rely on his bare hands? (Do not take this as a suggestion that weapons be outlawed, I fully appreciate the Constitution)
It isn’t really the beer, it’s the beer & car keys combination. And I may be wrong, but I feel that I’m way more likely to run into an immature idiot with the beer/carkeys combination than an enlisted immature idiot with a gun.
Yet, does this support an under-21 only prohibition? Should not this be grounds for global prohibition instead?
My point is that regardless of the negative effects of alcohol, it is essentially discrimatory (and, when compared to voting/military service/gun use, baffling) towards adult, vote-eligible citizens. I agree that it is probably statistically more likely for a 19 year old to DUI than a 65 year old. It is also statistically more likely for members of certain racial groups to commit crimes. Does that mean it would be acceptable to outlaw gun ownership for, for example, blacks, but to allow it for whites? Clearly not.
The negatives of alcohol use are certainly there, but the same can apply to gun ownership. You may personally believe that alcohol is more dangerous than owning guns. That’s fine. Yet, that does not defend laws that prohibit use only for certain groups. For example, it would be unacceptable to globally prohibit drivers over a certain age because of declining ability.
There are always individuals who cannot handle responsibility. I simply don’t think that others should be punished for them in a discriminatory fashion. Adult, vote-eligible citizens should have equal rights unless there is cause to rescind such rights (as felony convicts have shown), not simply because it is popular.