I've often heard the best way to test an argument is to take it to the extremes where the fundamental flaws reveal themselves more readily. One of the major arguments against the exercise of second amendment rights on college campuses is the supposed danger of adding firearms to an environment where there is a greater incidence of drug and alcohol abuse. This argument both ignores the reality that campus borders are horrendously porous, and accepts the premise that substance abuse is an unstoppable force that must affect everyone within university borders. If this fear is enough justification to prevent the exercise of a constitutional right, why has such logic not been applied more broadly?