'We the people' can infringe on the right to keep explosives for health reasons? -- Neat new argument, -- for the Brady types.
What of weapons? Interestingly, weapons were singled out by the framers and those who ratified the Constitution as so necessary as to be protected.
If all substances were to be protected, why were weapons singled out?
Arms [including explosives] were 'singled out' because the King tried to infringe on our rights to keep them. We specifically enumerated that right for good effect, not wanting any level of our new gov'ts to have the power to infringe upon it; - fat chance.
I'm all for more liberty, and I'll entertain arguments to legalize some substances that are currently prohibited, but I won't entertain the notion that getting high is a Constitutionally protected right.
Prohibitionists believe that a moral majority rules in a democracy. -- We have a Republic.
Restricting the sale of C4 explosives is tyranny to you. OK got it. I think you've just pigeon holed yourself, but your honest.
Arms [including explosives] were 'singled out' because the King tried to infringe on our rights to keep them. We specifically enumerated that right for good effect, not wanting any level of our new gov'ts to have the power to infringe upon it; - fat chance.
Why enumerate any rights? Based on your assertive reading of the Constitution, it simply isn't required.
Prohibitionists believe that a moral majority rules in a democracy. -- We have a Republic.
Which you seem to forget is elected to serve the people. In nonenumerated areas, I'll take the judgement of the electorate over the dictate of nine appointed judges.