While the left seems to want to lower the voting age to somewhere around conception--even though they'll also say it's not a life at that point--they're determined to put off allowing people to exercise their gun rights until somewhere around social security age.
That might be a smidge of hyperbole, but not without some basis, and West Virginia is bound to infuriate them.
See, while anti-gunners in the Democratic Party are doing everything they can to bar legal adults under 21 from buying certain guns--a list that will no doubt grow until even water pistols are included--the West Virginia Senate went the opposite direction.
Senators passed legislation allowing 18- to 20-year-olds carry a concealed weapon without a permit.
The bill passed on a 33-1 vote. The legislation now goes to the House of Delegates, where members have been running a version of the same policy through committee.
“With this bill, the Legislature is recognizing the 2nd Amendment right of all adult West Virginians to constitutional carry at 18 years of age by eliminating the requirement for an 18- to 21-year-old to obtain a provisional concealed handgun license,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Tom Willis, R-Berkeley.
Senate Bill 30 would effectively standardize concealed carry regulations across all age groups of legal adulthood within the state. Much of the bill just strikes out what have been limitations placed on gun owners aged 18 to 20.
...
Senator Joey Garcia, the only no vote, said the provision for 18- to 20-year-olds has existed because “having a permit will provide for a number of things that will protect their safety. The main thing is the training course that you have to take for that.”
Garcia, a Democrat, fails to note that the lack of a mandatory training course hasn't led to any problems in other states that allow these same lawful adults to carry without a permit.
Weird, isn't it? It's almost like none of that matters unless they can spin it in some way that lets them infringe on people's personal liberty. Strange.
Another Democratic senator, however, actually talked sense. I know, I was shocked, too, but Sen. Chris Rose argued that if these same lawful adults are old enough to serve in the military, where they're trusted with much greater firepower than you can I can walk around with on a regular basis, then why can't they be trusted to carry a handgun?
If they're mature enough to defend this nation, they should be mature enough to defend themselves.
Of course, the left likes to claim that the brain isn't fully mature until 25 or so, and thus, younger adults should be prevented from having the same access to guns as older Americans. To their point, poor brain development might explain why so many younger Americans vote Democrat, so they're probably not entirely wrong. However, this is the only rights limitation they're proposing because of this lack of neurological development, which is also telling.
They don't see gun rights as rights. They want it as a privilege that can be granted or denied on the left's personal whim, which means we don't get guns because we're not progressive nutballs.
At least, that's where I figure they're going to go if they get half a chance.
Their issue isn't guns. It's people who aren't on their side having guns that's the issue.