The Smith-Suprynowicz Freedom Test
I found this in the current issue of the online magazine, The Libertarian Enterprise.
* Would [you] support the right of a nine-year-old girl to walk into a hardware store and, without signing anything or producing identification of any kind, pay cash for a submachinegun, several hundred rounds of ammunition, and a supply of morphine? If [you] wouldn't, then whatever [you're] in favor of, it isn't freedom.
When I first read this, I muttered, "Huh? What would a nine-year-old girl want with a submachine gun?"
Then, recovering, I reasoned that as long as she doesn't use it to initiate force against me or someone else, it really isn't any of my business. Or anyone else's.
Same reasoning goes for the morphine.
One of the biggest things we can do to enhance the police state that now governs us, is to believe that what other folks do that we may not like or understand (in the absence of initiation of force) is something that needs to be controlled.
I justify this by means of the requirements of man's life qua man, but if you want to justify it by means of the Second Amendment, all you have to do is read it. The right isn't limited by age, race or gender. Arms can mean guns, knives, swords, truncheons, brass knuckles, nunchuks or anything else. As long as they're not used to initiate force.
There is no limitations mentioned as to where one might bear arms. If one has the right to be in a place, one has the right to defend oneself there.
As for morphine, there is no mention in the Constitution anywhere that allows government to tell one what he may or may not ingest.
Remember: VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!