Let's reexamine what has transpired on this thread.
You state that no government entity, whatsoever, can constitutionally prohibit me from acquiring anything.
I then ask where you stand on nuclear and biological weapons. To which you reply that those prohibitions are ok because you see them as "reasonable".
You also try to make the case that nukes are prohibited to me, because I could go live on a deserted island, and have those weapons. Well, I'm sure if I were doing scientific research on cocaine for medicinal purposes, I could probably legally obtain such material under the close watch of the government, as would be the case with say a private nuclear power company.
So instead of saying EVERYTHING should be up for grabs, then backtrack and say that well nukes and bioweapons are ok to prohibit because that's reasonable, why not try to convince us that it is not reasonable to prohibit crack, or crystal meth, or heroine in states who's vast majority see the very use of those substances as a violation of their rights due to safety issues and standards?
Why don't you fight the unconstitutional prohibition on nukes?
There are no unconstitutional prohibitions on nuclear materials kiddo. -- I think we have fairly reasonable regulations, -- although I would like to see many more nuclear power plants. -- Which is a political problem, backed up by the same types that back prohibitions on guns & drugs.
-- People like you.
Such sound facts you have on this issue.
You have facts that counter mine?
-- Post them my boy. -- Feel free.
[two bits you won't even try]
Let's reexamine what has transpired on this thread. You state that no government entity, whatsoever, can constitutionally prohibit me from acquiring anything.
I then ask where you stand on nuclear and biological weapons. To which you reply that those prohibitions are ok because you see them as "reasonable".
There you go again, boldly misrepresenting what I've written just above.
You also try to make the case that nukes are [not] prohibited to me, because I could go live on a deserted island, and have those weapons. Well, I'm sure if I were doing scientific research on cocaine for medicinal purposes, I could probably legally obtain such material under the close watch of the government, as would be the case with say a private nuclear power company.
Exactly my point, my boy. Thanks for making it once again.
So instead of saying EVERYTHING should be up for grabs, then backtrack and say that well nukes and bioweapons are ok to prohibit [Another bold lie, I never said that] because that's reasonable, why not try to convince us that it is not reasonable to prohibit crack, or crystal meth, or heroine in states who's vast majority see the very use of those substances as a violation of their rights due to safety issues and standards?
Texbaby, -- thousands of essays have been written on the unconstitutionality of prohibitions on drugs, guns, private sexual behaviors, etc; -- on & on. The essay posted above is a fine example, and you reject it, but ask for more.
--- None of them can convince you neo-prohibitionists.
Instead, why not write your own essay to try to convince us that it is reasonable to regulate [up to the point of prohibition] crack, or crystal meth, or heroine on the basis that it violates ~your~ individual rights due to safety issues and standards?
-- Try to prove that you can enforce such invasive regulations without violating our individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
If you succeed, you would be a national hero.