Libertarians complain about the current gun bill going through Congress. Some concerns are valid, and it's understandable that people of that mentality would give at least lip service to kicking back against it. However, libertarians are notable for not really being concerned about the substance of an issue, but rather the rhetoric and concept of it. They never win elections, so the thought of setting politically realistic policy positions doesn't occur to them. They are so accustomed to losing politically that being self-defeating in their positions doesn't faze them. So, it is easy for them to put up a seemingly purist position on RKBA and ignore the fact that it will actually lead to severe practical losses of the right they claim to be championing.
So, the objective of this installment is to help these potheads..., ur, libertarians, understand the practical effect and the reasons for dealing on the issue by replacing the substance of the issue--guns--with the one substance they do actually care about--marijuana.
Imagine an alternate universe--and potheads are actually good at that--where marijuana is generally legal in this country. <cringe> That is, at least as legal as guns. Restrictions on the constitutional "right to hold and smoke doobie" (RHSD) based on age, mental state, locations and activities, and criminal histories exist (and are opposed by libertarians, of course), but in general people can have their pot. Well, as is to be expected, there are cases of patent misuse of this weed, with people using it creating deadly and destructive traffic incidents (e.g., people smoking driving up onto sidewalks, and when finally stopped look at the policeman and respond, "Dude! Oh, that's Officer Dude! Narley!"), food supply poisonings, and general mayhem, not to mention other social consequences.
As a result, there is a fairly large swath of the public that, while generally supportive of "RHSD," want "common-sense" controls, and some wanting some severe restrictions in terms of age, background checks, and the grade or quality (potency) of the weed generally available. Other matters like definite rules on the difference between selling a friend a joint and actually being "engaged in the business" of marijuana dealing--intended to avoid "loopholes" in the system of preventing prohibited persons from obtaining the substance--are also in sight. Some people are decidedly anti-pot, and want heavy restrictions, perhaps even an essential ban--even seeking to pack SCOTUS with anti-pot justices who will ignore the Doobie Amendment and reverse the famed Marley decision recognizing it as a private right, rather than a collective option of States and localities.
At some point in time, the pot community is faced with a rather anti-marijuana Presidential administration, a Congress controlled by the generally less pro-marijuana party, and a number of incidents which have given political will to the call for more restrictions. Even some generally pro-marijuana officeholders see a legitimacy in some steps to curb "pot violence," as well as the need to respond to anti-pot questions with more than, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, DUDE!"
But more than that, some pro-pot people see the proverbial writing on the wall. SOMETHING is going to happen, and some of the proposals that have tacit public support would be draconian cuts into RHSD. So, they work with the other side to craft some limited steps to prevent people who should not have weed from getting and having it, and some other steps that sound good to a populace tired of these repeated incidents (and how they are played in the--in this universe--anti-marijuana media), and which may actually have some impact. The objective is to head off those deeper infringements that might substantively affect the positive function of people having marijuana.<eyeroll> (Okay, the analogy here has its flaws. But libertarians ignore the issue of a given right's function anyway, and most in their pot-addled brains believe legalized doobie would serve a purpose.)
The ultimate reason for their "caving" on RHSD: It buys time. Even as an army in the field might fight a holding action against a superior enemy to stall their advance while better defenses are prepared, these pro-pot politicians and such are trying to stave off the advance of the anti-pot side until the mid-terms, where they hope to regain a congressional majority, and then hopefully the installation of a pro-pot POTUS in the next Presidential election (yes, potheads can vote). A few concessions now until their side is in charge again and can block the anti-marijuana agenda.
Now, back to our universe: Put this way, many libertarians would suddenly go, "Yeah, dude! I get that! It's, like, not fun, but at least I'd still get my essential doobie." Then, when caught on the downside of their latest smoke, they can be reminded of that: "Now you can see how such political mitigation can look bad to a cause, but actually help protect it against total loss."
Now, whether this explanation would actually work to make libertarians as pragmatic on RKBA as they are on their imagined and baseless RHSD is anyone's guess. Their substance has a far stronger impact on a person's thinking processes than do private arms. And again, losing political battles is just their lot, and suffering the consequences doesn't have the same effect on them. It's all just about a "principle" of "freedom," regardless of the substance (save, of course, for their doobie). However, it might help some of the non-pothead purists to see a value in this pragmatism: If arms in the hands of private citizens really does have benefit, then trading off in a tight political situation to hold on to at least the baseline of it (and the current gun bill preserved far more than that) can well be worth the cost, with the result having a very real value. Even as the pothead would most definitely deal to hold onto their drug, so maybe pro-gunners could see the way to deal to hold onto their firepower for both now and in the future.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html