A common refrain that is heard in defense of those who engage in substance abuse is that it is not their fault, because addiction is a disease rather than a choice, and the afflicted have no choice or say in the matter except to engage in the abuse of various substances, even if said substances are illegal and their use constitutes a separate felony offense with each new usage. Instead of punishment, what is called for is acceptance of their use of illicit narcotic substances, tolerance as they freely engage in the use of illicit narcotic substances so they can maintain their addiction, and assistance so they can try and clean up their acts, despite the available evidence that they have no desire to do just that. With such facts in evidence, perhaps it is time for advocates of the second amendment to claim firearms ownership is an addiction, and that they have no choice but to own and use firearms, because such is ultimately dictated by their disease, leaving them no say in the matter, and thus meaning firearms cannot be legally restricted as it is unfair to those who are suffering from said addiction since they did not ask to become addicted to firearms in the first place. If the bait is taken, no new firearm-related restrictions pertaining to the legal ownership and use could be implemented, since they would be unfair and discriminatory. If the claim is called out for being ridiculous and dismissed out of hand simply because it relates to firearms, those doing such have to go on record as holding that addiction is not a disease, can be discriminated against, and those afflicted with addiction can be criminally prosecuted and punished for trying to tend to their so-called "disease" meaning they will be admitting those who use illicit narcotic substances can continue being treated like criminals.