[Texaggie79]

So, your problem is making a distinguishment between guns and drugs? Let me refer you to the second amendment. If, indeed prohibition of all substances and property were forbidden by the USC, why, then, would the second amendment be required?

[Roscoe]

Equating drugs with guns is Libertarianism's most pernicious and persistently advanced fallacy.

[tpaine]

There are thousands of unconstitutional laws, and people are convicted of them every day. - Most gun law violations, for instance, are even denyed appeal.
Does that fact prove your point?

Mine is that prohibitions on guns, - or drugs, violate the constitution. - Why your 'stance' is otherwise is beyond logic. - 321 by tpaine

So, your problem is making a distinguishment between guns and drugs?

Not my problem, obviously, -- that example is directed at YOUR misapplied stance. - Learn to read.

Let me refer you to the second amendment. If, indeed prohibition of all substances and property were forbidden by the USC, why, then, would the second amendment be required?

The history of the BOR's is freely available. You need the study, fer sure.

[Alan Chapman]

Let me refer you to the second amendment. If, indeed prohibition of all substances and property were forbidden by the USC, why, then, would the second amendment be required?

Of the Bill of Rights, Alexander Hamilton said:

"They are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a...pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"