Replies

If drugs should be banned, GUNs should be banned

Both are items desired by millions, for recreation and practical use, and both can be misused with deadly consequence. Moreover, guns are very likely to kill innocent bystanders, just like it is proposed meth did in this article. So, tell me what the difference is, and then tell me why alcohol and cigarettes shouldn't be banned.

Moreover, guns are very likely to kill innocent bystanders, just like it is proposed meth did in this article. So, tell me what the difference is, . . .

Second Amendment.

Next question.

Because the essential difference might not have seeped through the crack in your granite noggin and onto that Brazil nut you call a brain, let me make it more clear to you.

The right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right. Smoking dope and shooting methamphetamine are not.

The right to keep and bear arms is essential to personal and national security and self-defense. Smoking dope and shooting methampetamine are utterly devoid of any virtue outside of getting a user stoned so he can act like an ass (or, as in this case, beat a 12 year-old boy nearly to death).

In short, there is essential and transcendent virtue in the Second Amendment that justifies denying power to government to prohibit personal ownership of guns despite the fact that some citizens will misuse guns.

There is no essential virtue in dope and meth use. They are useful only to advance George Soros's "doper-victim" nanny government socialist agenda.