Yet somehow, they magically have for nuke/bioweapons. And don't say "no those are reasonable regulations" because I can say the exact same thing of hard drugs.
You can 'say' hard drugs compare with CNB materials, but it's ludicrous. -- Your neighbor can have his basement secretly full of 'hard drugs', at no risk to you. CNB materials, extremely high risk, possibly to a whole city/county.
There is no difference constitutionally. [between hard drugs & CNB materials]
Dream on kiddo. -- Or is it cocktail time again that's fueling your imagination?
I just got you buddy. Took a while, but you bit. You have just, unknowingly, admitted that there is no constitutional difference in prohibiting private ownership of nuke/bio weapons and narcotics. You did so because you are trying to argue that those weapons are dangerous to others while narcotics aren't. This is where the community/state comes in. Because why should the entire nation follow exactly what tpaine thinks is too dangerous and what isn't? This is what you are proposing by saying that states cannot prohibit private ownership of narcotics because YOU don't see them as dangerous enough to merit such a regulation. Weather hard drugs are as dangerous to neighbors as those weapons is of no importance here. What is important is who get's to decide if they are or not? States or tpaine?