Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition.
We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs. --"
The logical core of the article.
--- Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.
Governments are limited to legally 'reasonable' regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.
Reasonable regulations of materials capable of mass destruction do not violate due process of Constitutional law.
I'm just going to have to quit. I think this has to be some joke you are playing if you can't see your twisted logic here.
I've been presenting the same unrefuted logic since this thread started kiddo.
You can't 'see' it? Read the article again.
Drugs are regulated, weapons are regulated. How? through prohibiting regular citizens of obtaining either. It's exactly the same. The punishments/fines whatever might be different, but both are impossible for me to legally go out to my street corner and buy. EXACTLY THE FREAKING SAME THING.
And you support those prohibitions.
--- Those prohibitional powers have never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.