Is being against the drug war but in favor of gun control hypocritical?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The State doesn't have the right to ban or regulate drugs or guns.

Since when?


But then again, this discussion, like many others, doesn't come down to rights.

Since...the beginning of time.

[Earth]

Very nice non-answer.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Guns existed at the beginning of time? States existed at the beginning of time?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The issues are so different, I'd say no.

I'm against the drug war and against gun control though.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Very nice non-answer.

No, it was a very clear and succinct answer.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Are you going to, perhaps, provide evidence or some sort of intellectual justification for your position?

[Earth]

Very nice non-answer.

No, it was a very clear and succinct answer.

Fail. Your answer is meaningless.

[Derek]

"Criminalization of drugs only makes the problem more difficult to control." vs. "Making guns illegal reduces gun crime."

Discuss.

No I wouldn't say hypocritical but you can't really go against the 2nd amendment. I think drug laws are just an excuse to lock more people up and make more money for the state.

The state MAKES money?? I've never noticed that...

I'm not quite sure where my post went but anytime there's gun or drug charges it's easy money for the state.

[nclib]

No (D). Not every time an illegal drug is used, does it affect another person, but guns are generally used for the purpose of harming someone else.

[Derek]

No (D). Not every time an illegal drug is used, does it affect another person, but guns are generally used for the purpose of harming someone else.

What about drugs used for the purpose of harming people. I wouldn't say it's hypocritical but I'd seriously question the judgment of someone with those positions. I've also never met a person was serious about banning guns.

[Phony Moderate]

If it was, it must also be hypocritical to support the concept of the state having the right to stop a woman from "murdering" her fetus.

[Derek]

If it was, it must also be hypocritical to support the concept of the state having the right to stop a woman from "murdering" her fetus.

What about a fetus' inalienable right to life?

[Ameriplan]

No (D). Not every time an illegal drug is used, does it affect another person, but guns are generally used for the purpose of harming someone else.

...You're smart.

[Earth]

If it was, it must also be hypocritical to support the concept of the state having the right to stop a woman from "murdering" her fetus.

What about a fetus' inalienable right to life?

Haha. Just once, I'd like someone to explain this inalienable bullsh**t coherently.

[Mechaman]

No (D). Not every time an illegal drug is used, does it affect another person, but guns are generally used for the purpose of harming someone else.

And I wonder why the ACLU is a joke organization instead of actually devoted to preserving American civil liberties.
If there was any consistency they would be condemning the hoplophobe movement as much as they did the war on drugs.

[Derek]

If it was, it must also be hypocritical to support the concept of the state having the right to stop a woman from "murdering" her fetus.

What about a fetus' inalienable right to life?

Haha. Just once, I'd like someone to explain this inalienable bullsh**t coherently.

You don't believe in the inalienable rights from God do you? By God I mean natural rights.

[SPC]

Being against one form of prohibition while favoring another form of prohibition sounds hypocritical to me.

[Mercenary]

Not necessarily, but it could be depending on the case.

Gun control can be including merely things you do on public property.
The drug war controls what people do in their own homes.

One could oppose being able to carry a gun on public property but support you being able to own what you wish in your private home. Likewise they could oppose being able to take your drugs out in public and get high and such but support your right to won and ingest them in your own home.

I personally oppose both the drug war and gun control.

[Derek]

I guess it would depend on what you mean by gun control. I even agree that a people should be at least 16 to purchase certain guns and 18 for an AK 47. I can see 14 in the mountains or plains because they never hurt anyone. As for drugs, I think laws regarding smoking bans and alcohol have gotten way out of hand but would never support legalizing anything else other than marijuana. So the question should be more focused on how much gun control and how much drug regulation there should be. I also find it hilarious that there are democrats who want all kinds of smoking bans everywhere but want to legalize other drugs like ecstacy, shrooms, heroin, and cocaine.

[Gustaf]

The argument would have to be that if you think people should be allowed to handle drugs they should also be allowed to handle guns.

This isn't without merit. Depending on the drug it isn't impossible to argue that possesing a gun (for hunting or self-defence) is more reasonable than possessing drugs. And heavy drug usage can clearly be a lot more harmful both to the individual and to society than simply owning a gun.

Since both issues tend to revolve around individual liberty versus utility of society as a whole there are clearly similarities. That doesn't make any position hypocritical, but I'd say you have to refine your argument a little bit to hold a position like being opposed to regulating drugs while favouring cun control.

[Deldem]

Not really. This is largely apples to oranges in my opinion, especially since the issues themselves are not merely 2-sided- one might support the legalization of marijuana, but oppose all the other drug liberalization laws, or in the case of gun control, some might support banning automatics, but not handguns. It's very rare that one is totally against the drug war and totally in favor of gun control.

[phk]

Depends on the nature of their gun control.

[minionofmidas]

There are certain types of hysterical anti-gun arguments from the 90s that, when coupled with certain quite common drug decriminalization arguments, would come across as fairly hypocritical. But that particular type of antigun person is not usually anti drug war at all, so...

[Derek]

Yes it's hypocritical, lock and load.

[Goldwater]

No. Just because the Government can control X successfully doesn't mean they can control Y successfully.