Both of you dumb sides of idiots are inconsistent with your own logic, yet you call the other person out every time. You fail to see that you can agree partially with one side and partially with the other. Here's my non-hyprocrite logic. I've made up my mind this time. Here's a list of three things I believe that would completely contradict each other if we all had to pick sides: 1. Guns should be legal. The US government is pretty fucking corrupt. When Hitler took power he took away everyone's guns first and for reasons that make perfect sense. Also, if one guy who doesn't have a sniper cuz he could only afford an assault rifle walks into a movie theater where they can't get away with being a sniper easily anyways and there are: 100 people and among them, 12 people with assault rifles, 32 with hunting rifles, and half of the rest with uzis, probably that one guy is going to get killed before he's done shooting people regardless of how much better he is than everyone there individually with a gun, even if he has military training. The only scenario where this doesn't work is with a skilled sniper, but that's very rare and most mass shooters just use machine guns because that's more realistic to get away with. You democrats can get over it. 2. If all drugs were legal less people would get killed. I wouldn't consume any form of poison myself but let me put it this way: If a fat person eats enough food then they get diabetes. If they get diabetes they are at risk of death. If we jailed everyone that ate a hamburger then we'd see crime among any fat people with mental illness. Any fat person in the country with enough mental illness, addiction, and unwillingness to quit would start making and selling hamburgers illegally and we would have a hamburger crime crisis. Our attitude as a country about fat people is that someone can only quit hamburgers if they really want it and work for it, and according C some experts it requires religion of some kind to do (a lot of weight loss therapy groups DO tell you to come to "come to the love of Jesus" because there IS a positive correlation between having religion and having an easier time ending your addictions). It also requires intense exercise. If a fat person really doesn't care, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL THEM THAT THEY CAN'T POISON THEMSELVES AND DIE OF DIABETES?! They aren't gonna be able to quit if they don't want to work for it anyways. I wouldn't do this myself and I used to have the drug attitude about food although I do agree that they should illegalize GMOs because that doesn't go by the same principle the way just eating too many calories does. But drugs are more like eating hamburgers in general and not GMOs. The only difference is that the idiots who take them are more often willing to buy guns to kill people over them. I hate the idea of poison myself and I would never knowingly poison myself. But someone who would do so, despite being a total fucktard, should have every right to do so. I personally will never take anything if I don't have my doctor's permission, but a rational law would essentially say "you wanna poison yourself? Go head, so long as it doesn't affect anyone else." I'm serious. I'm done with these stupid republican arguments. This logic is stupid. Besides, even an idiot who wants to do drugs can easily smuggle them in from Mexico. We waste money as a nation over this shit. Just let the stupid people die. That said, I agree with you that beyond a certain extent of doing drugs, they are all stupid and I will not be among them. 3. Surveillance should be outlawed. The fourth amendment outlaws "unwarranted search and seizure." This applies to terrorists too. Its meant to apply to criminals too with the intention of also taking into mind people who could be wrongfully accused. As far as we know, the NSA could very well be dumb enough to treat all mentally ill people as a terrorist. I still think that applies. Sure, violent video games can cause the extent and form of mental illness needed to drive someone to do this but the vast majority of COD players haven't hurt a fly. But see, there's this thing called a warrant that the police have to get under the constitution by a judge and their reasons have to be approved so that they actually arrest the small percentage of people who are willing to bring a large bomb to a public area in advance and not the fifth grader who made a project in their backyard for educational purposes. Instead, they can appeal it to a judge and the judge can decide if the arrest is worth the resources, money, and time, BEFORE they start looking at Google searches and Facebook messages. Now if a kid brings the project to school, they'll get arrested because they'll get investigated by the security at the school. Plus, the majority of people are not making bombs, even at my high end school district in a rich and safe neighborhood where everyone had at the minimum seen at least one YouTube video of it.