The body is already infected, this may be the injection of the antibiotics.
If you have to get permission from the government to do something, it's not a right anymore. Would a requirement to get a background check prior to giving a speech, buying a book, or making a post be an infringement of 1A rights? If yes, then it's also an infringement of 2A rights. If no, then whether you support the implementation of this program or not, you acknowledge that the government has the legitimate authority to do it.
A few milligrams of medicine can cure a 50 kilogram organism. You can call it extremism if you like, but standing on principle to protect rights at potentially great personal risk is heroic.
That's an excellent point. Per the current interpretation of the commerce clause, and by the recognition that each state has the authority to regulate intra-state trade, they would be well within their prescribed authority to have such a requirement. The logic would be identical to the requirement for gun registration, both at the federal level and the handful of states that have their own additional requirements (NY, CA, NJ, MD, DC, IL, MI or, in other words, the rotten apples).
What they do not grasp is the fact that one in three Americans own guns and when one takes out the numbers of minors (not allowed to own them) and adds in criminals that would never admit to own them (also not allowed) the number raises even higher. So when he says small number he is referring to close to half the population. Oh and don't forget those that, while they may not own guns themselves, do support the 2nd A, another group banners ignore because it does not fit their agenda. When confronted by reality most banners simply ignore it or repeat their same old failed arguments, the problem is they have no answer to the root causes meaning criminals and the mentally ill, remove them from the scenario and you find we have little in the way of a "gun problem".
