Allegra-D: it’s just like guns. Not safe in the hands of dangerous drug-dealers, but excellent for when you have problems of your own that need solving.
At least, that’s the newest analogy that Cosmopolitan is using to dumb down the gun-control debate. The magazine is confused as to why so many people protest new gun legislation because, as they say, “the Second Amendment is not going anywhere.”
Author Andy Kopsa enters third-grade teacher mode when he writes “here's an example most of us can identify with. I have really bad allergies.” The poor guy treats his bad allergies with Allegra-D, which contains pseudoephedrine. But pseudoephedrine is a main ingredient in meth. So, “since crystal meth is a dangerous drug, Congress chose to regulate my Allegra-D. Now I have to go to the pharmacists and ask to buy my allergy pills.”
Kopsa can still buy his medication, “it's just more of a pain. Same with gun control. You can still buy a gun, piles of them if you want; you are just going to have to jump through a few hoops to get it.” The ability to treat a runny nose, buying a tool to defend yourself, it’s all the same thing. Newsflash, Cosmo: no one buys allergy medication to prevent a problem; Allegra is only useful once the attack of the violent sneezes has already begun. Guns don’t work that way.
Kopsa’s allergies must be particularly awful. So much so that they have caused him to misread the Constitution and think that the second amendment says “the right of the people to purchase and obtain allergy medication shall not be infringed.”
Typical Lefties, having a “rational” discussion by making comparisons where none exists.
