There is always a problem locally that justifies further restrictions on freedom. Perhaps if you read the law more carefully you will notice that a lot of the chemicals now tracked are useful in the manufacture of weapons as well as meth. Does that change your thinking any?
Meantime, the 'border invite'stands. Adios, America. . .(don't know how to say 'same' in Arabic; but may; soon enough.)
I know you're right and I have had a hard time putting up my argument.
I have encountered 3 different labs in my construction / rehabilitation carrier and have had the unfortunate opportunity to stumble upon one with a baby strapped in a car seat.
It really sours the soul and has a life changing impact on a person like you or me, one that I hope you never have to experience.
Meth Sucks! I hope you never have to find out how much it destroys
Cheers Freeper Mycroft!
Why should that matter in the libertarian pie-in-the-sky utopia? Aren’t all humans granted the right to arms? What if its my happy to blow things up?
What right does government have to deny my right to happy? Is it government’s jurisdiction to ogre itself into threatening me with the what-if oops? And so dangerous - must be outlawed - right?
If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that local government could plausibly restrict gun possession / ownership in the interests of greater public / social peace.
I have no other understanding of your statement other than plausibly your willingness to subject yourself to rules established by an elected ruling body of like-minded citizens.
I propose herewith: that we establish a society whereby Mitt Romney - and the likes of which - shall be now and and hereevermore forebidden. Those individuals proposing pluasibles, or otherwise sychophancy, shall be run out of town on the fever tree-rail (ungreased).