Obviously a memo went out instructing all liberals to freak the hell out because a 19-year-old can buy a rifle in this country, but not a beer. You see, the Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz is only 19-year-old and legally purchased the AR-15 he used to kill 17 of his former classmates. I don’t see any of these liberals complaining that there is no age of consent for murder, but for some reason they are furious at the drinking age.
Liberals never have original ideas, nor do they do anything without an agenda. As instructed by their handlers, they took to the Internet to bitch about the drinking age in relation to the age requirement for purchasing a long gun. Up first is The Huffington Post:
Under federal law, and in almost every state, the minimum age for purchasing a long gun from a licensed dealer is 18. This category of firearms encompasses shotguns and rifles, including the assault-style weapons that have become popular in mass shootings. Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns, and in some states, it’s legal for children younger than 18 to own these weapons as long as they have parental consent.
This system gives millions of young Americans the right to buy the deadliest civilian weaponry three years before they can legally drink alcohol. It dates back to the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Then there’s British anti-gun nut Piers Morgan:
Florida shooter was too young to buy a beer in Florida.
But he was old enough to buy one of these & attack a school.
America – what is WRONG with you? https://t.co/32rB9mwliK pic.twitter.com/UAxF4EqmB7
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 15, 2018
“Florida shooter was too young to buy a beer in Florida. But he was old enough to buy one of these & attack a school. America – what is WRONG with you?” Morgan asked.
And also TV dumb guy Chris Hayes:
What possible defense is there of a legal regime where a 19 year old cannot buy a can of beer but can buy a weapon of war?
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) February 15, 2018
“What possible defense is there of a legal regime where a 19 year old cannot buy a can of beer but can buy a weapon of war?” Hayes asked.
Wow, it’s like they all just copy and pasted from the same source material, isn’t it? I bet Michael Bloomberg or Shannon Watts sent out a talking point memo and the obedient liberals complied in passing this information along.
Strangely enough, I actually agree with these liberal sycophants. We should lower the drinking age. While an AR-15 is not a weapon of war, 18-year-olds can join the military and get real weapons of war but not a high-capacity tallboy of Budweiser. Seriously, why should someone be old enough to go to war but not a bar?
Prior to the mid-1980’s the drinking age was 18 in most states until the federal government threatened to withhold highway funds unless they raised it to 21. There also weren’t nearly the number of mass shootings back then. Coincidence? I think not.
In addition, liberals always tell us that no other country in the world has mass shootings like we do in America. It should be noted that 91% of the rest of the world has drinking ages under 21. This too cannot be a coincidence.
Now that I think about it, I’m not sure these liberals are pushing for a lower drinking age. More than likely they want to see the age for buying a long gun raised to 21 or maybe even 25. That will actually make things more stupid if 18-year-olds can join the Army but not legally purchase a firearm with less lethality than the ones they are issued in the military.
In any case, you can guarantee that the democrats are gearing up for some legislation that will further restrict law-abiding Americans right to keep an bear arms. They sent their minions out with the propaganda and soon Senator Chris Murphy or some other asshole democrat will introduce a bill to raise the purchase age for long guns.