It’s in his possession, and he feels he has a right to have it and use it as he sees fit.
He gets a sense of comfort from knowing it’s there.
He objects to government restricting his right to own it.
He could hurt a lot of people with it.
He could hurt himself.
He has to be careful to keep it safe, so that it doesn’t end up in the wrong hands.
He’s got a preferred dealer.
He’s got plenty of accessories to go along with it.
He reads articles about it on the internet.
He supports legislation in favor of it.
He posts about it on Facebook and Twitter.
He uses it recreationally.
He just wants the government to stay out of his business.
Is it a gun?
Or is it drugs?
The argument for gun rights is the same argument for ending the War on Drugs. Likewise, the argument in support of the War on Drugs is the same argument against gun rights.
Why would we want the government to ban one thing that has potential to do great harm while fighting to preserve the right to possess something else that also has potential to do great harm?
Where’s the consistency in logic?
I’m looking at you, Conservatives.
Comments