Interesting. You would strip the Second Amendment out of the Consitution, rather than locking away the violent criminals! Law and Order first, inalienable rights second. Too bad for the other 10% of non-criminal gun owners, and too bad for the rest of the non-gun-owning public, who would never become able to be gun owners in that case. Another telling admission on your part. Nearly 100% of civilian gun owners are criminals in Chicago and Washington, D.C. Sounds like you support their laws there - because only criminals need guns, right?
From your answer here, it is clear that no matter the connection between drug use and crime that I provide, you will not connect one with the other. If a 90% correlation isn't enough for you then nothing will be. Drug use to you is a sacred right. So important that defending it is well worth any evil that may become of it.
Our difference is that my perception of rights meets reality and yours doesn't. The reality is that the right to be armed, the right of religion, and the right of free speech, are all beneficial to society, and all begin to get curbed at the point they do unacceptable harm to others. This curbing is a balance of benefit against harm. As drug use results (from the admissions of the users) in a great deal of harm, and no benefit that could not otherwise be attained legally, it fails to make the cut as a sacred right.
If you could stop being disingenuous for 30 seconds you might grow a little.
I just love how you are able to toss in a little insult or condescension into nearly every post. You obviously have some deep need to do this, and it doesn't harm me, so knock yourself out.
Stating that people that commit gun crimes have guns 100% of the time is a nonsensical comparison, and you know it.
Although this argument is literally true, it is also nonsensical most of the time (and I do know it); it is nevertheless an argument used by the gun grabbers to ban all guns from all civilians and is therefore reasonable to present in analogy. However, there are a few jurisdictions where guns are already essentially totally banned (Washington DC, Chicago) and in those places, then, essentially 100% of civilian gun ownership is criminal, and the argument is fully applicable. According to your own criteria regarding drugs, in those places there is zero redeeming value to gun ownership statistically, therefore, the gun bans are fully justified - and by extension ought to be expanded to other jurisdictions where gun possession is legal but nevertheless much more heavily associated with criminal activity. This makes your position indistinguishable from the gun grabbers, on at least this point.
It is safe to say that possessing a gun never drove anyone to commit a crime.
Although a lot of gun grabbers say exactly this.
On the other hand the most common answer to "why" from criminals committing armed robbery is "drugs".
LOL! First of all it's not "drugs" but "lack of drugs" which they seek to remedy by buying some, but they need money, which is why they rob. (So, drug users who possess drugs are LESS likely to rob than those who don't.) Whoops on your part.
Secondly, I have already pointed out that drug prices would drop if they were decriminalized. For example, the street value of pot should be approximately zero - it's a WEED and would grow nearly anywhere, like dandelions, if that were somehow permissable.
Thirdly, you got all indignant about the "nonsensical comparison" about 100% of gun criminals being gun owners, and yet your statement above contains the same fallacy. In particular: The correct question (to you, at least) isn't whether most gun criminals are gun owners, but rather whether most gun owners are gun criminals, that would sway you to or away from the gun rights/gun prohibition position. In the same way, it is the same nonsensical argument to say that most armed robbers are drug users; the correct argument is whether most drug users are armed robbers, to sway you to or away from the "drug rights"/drug prohibition position. To make the example even more clear, suppose 99% of rapists owned Levi jeans. Then in that case your question shouldn't be whether we should ban those jeans on that fact, but rather on what fraction of all Levis owners were rapists - presumably a miniscule minority. Now, I'm willing to allow that you merely were unaware that you used the same fallacy as the one you got indignant about my (intentionally) using, and not outright hypocritical, so I'll refrain from saying, what was that? Ah yes - "If you could stop being disingenuous for 30 seconds you might grow a little."
That is a real correlation that you refuse to accept.
Correlation != causation. You know that, right?
From your answer here, it is clear that no matter the connection between drug use and crime that I provide, you will not connect one with the other. If a 90% correlation isn't enough for you then nothing will be.
Once again, correlation != causation, once again, I don't think it's 90%, and once again I think the burden of proof rests on you. (More about which in a later post.) To answer your question, you would have to convince me that (gun ownership, drug use) has no possibility of non-harmful use, as I made the case for nerve gas and plutonium. Incidentally, so long as drug use is criminal itself, it is 100% associated with crime, which makes for a circular argument. (All drug users are criminals, by definition, and therefore, drug use is associated with crime, which justifies the laws against them.)
Drug use to you is a sacred right.
That would be "body sovreignty is a sacred right" to you. I own my body, not The State. Other things follow from there.
So important that defending it is well worth any evil that may become of it.
There you go again, confusing violent crimes with drug use. I know a lot of people who have used drugs and aren't violent criminals. But, this makes no difference to you.
Our difference is that my perception of rights meets reality and yours doesn't.
Your saying this doesn't make it so. You are susceptible to the same fallacies of the gun grabbers, as I have pointed out. Your "reality" is as flawed as theirs is, and your motivations are the same.
The reality is that the right to be armed, the right of religion, and the right of free speech, are all beneficial to society, and all begin to get curbed at the point they do unacceptable harm to others.
And another reality is that when governments start thinking that they own the bodies of their subjects, bad things happen. I could cite historical precedent for this fact, but I don't think you will grasp the relevence. Incidentally, do you think allowing people to be Muslims is "beneficial to society?" It comes from freedom of religion, after all.
This curbing is a balance of benefit against harm. As drug use results (from the admissions of the users) in a great deal of harm, and no benefit that could not otherwise be attained legally, it fails to make the cut as a sacred right.
So your position is, people must prove that something (1) has a benefit and (2) isn't even associated with, let alone causes, harm, in order for you allow it to be a right. The "Presumption of Tyranny," I'll call it. Unless someone can demonstrate (1) and (2), it should be prohibited as far as you are concerned. I wonder exactly what you think a "Free Republic" is, and why exactly you are on this site - as opposed to "Authoritarians 'R' Us." Incidentally, what keeps you from banning rock climbing, or skydiving, or bungee jumping, or car racing, or skiing, or hang gliding or any other such diversion that "has no benefit that can't be gotten in other ways" and that demonstrably injures, maims, and kills people? My own (obviously distorted, according to you) position is that so long as a behavior doesn't necessarily lead to the harm of others, people should be allowed to do what they wish, what they enjoy, what they desire - and that's what the "Free" in "Free Republic" means. Is it the "Freedom to permit provably irreplaceable and non-harmful activities?"