Quote Originally Posted by tylerdolphin View Post
Well, weed can't be used to kill someone so its kinda apple and oranges. Things that have potential to kill others definitely deserve more regulation than harmless plants. Even from a libertarian point of view that still holds true since the philosophy calls for laws and such for actions and things that cause harm.
Fair enough. But alcohol and other drugs cause harm, do they not? As do any number of other things. Should there be background checks for those who want to drink or collect knives?

I actually agree with limited, but sensible, gun control laws. But the problem is that's not a principled stance, it's a practical one that subverts the principle of generalized freedom and civil liberty. Rob has shown himself to more of an absolutist on those principles so I was curious why he seemed to be willing to limit people's liberty relative to gun ownership but not in other ways.