Replies

Personally, as a conservative one of the primary purposes of the state is to enforce the laws so that we can have a safe and peaceful community. How do we do that unless we arrest know drug users who are in process of purchasing drugs, who run from the police and illegal carry weapons?

Interesting argument, though in spite (and because) of its foundation on things that just aren't so.

First off, you say illegal carry weapon, but the Second Amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note that there's nothing in there as to what sort of arms; it can and does cover everything from knives to field artillery.

You assert that purchasing drugs is illegal… while conveniently ignoring the fact that the only way for this to be true is to hold Wickard as a good interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Ironically, such an opinion is to relegate the several states to the position of conquered as such an assertion of internal control of commerce via the commerce clause would necessarily apply to foreign nations as well because it is literally the same clause (commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes) and such an assertion would be either a declaration of war or imposition of will upon the conquered.

So, given that you give the weight of law to things that ought not be, how do you justify the exercise of police force here?

If this can be distilled down to holding the liberals responsible for the society they are guilty of creating per Tacitus’ observation, then that would be most sensible.

That, though, would need to take into account the admonitions of the Founding Fathers, who warned us that religion and morality (including the traditional family) have to be the “indispensable supports” of society (per Washington) and that the immoral and irreligious cannot be governed by (but can be punished by) the Constitution (per John Adams).