Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

Ms. Nancy Snell Swickard - Publisher Shotgun News P. O. Box 669, Hastings, NE 68902

I was very distressed to see the remark of one of your subscribers which you quoted on page 8 of your October 1 (1996) issue. The support of the "Drug War" by anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is the most dangerous error of thinking in the politics of the "gun control" debate. This error is extremely widespread, although there have been some recent signs that some Americans are seeing through the propaganda of the Drug Warriors which affects all levels of our society.

Sadly, major players in the defense of the 2nd Amendment (like the NRA) show no signs of awareness of the part played by the Drug War in our present hysteria over violence. This is a serious error, because the violence produced by the Drug War is one of the main reasons that a majority of American citizens support gun control. Without the majority of a citizenry frightened by endemic violence, Mr. Clinton and his allies in the Congress would not enjoy the power they now possess to attack the Bill of Rights.

To understand the effect of the Drug War, we must understand it for what it is: the second Prohibition in America in this Century. I do not need to remind anyone who knows our recent history what a disaster the first Prohibition was. It is a classic example of the attempt to control a vice--drunkenness--by police power. It made all use of alcohol a case of abuse. It produced such an intense wave of violence that it gave a name--The Roaring Twenties--to an entire decade. It lead to the establishment of powerful criminal empires, to widespread corruption in police and government, and to a surge of violence and gunfire all over the land. And it produced a powerful attack on the Bill of Rights, including the most successful campaign of gun control laws in America up to that time.

Before the first Prohibition criminalized the trade in alcohol, liquor dealers were ordinary businessmen; after 1920 they were all violent criminals fighting for their territories. We had gang wars, and drive-by shootings, and the use of machine guns by criminals.

We now have the same effects of the first Prohibition in the present Drug War, and Americans appear to be sleepwalking through it with no apparent understanding of what is happening. It is testimony to the truth of Santayana's famous remark that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. We must understand that this has all happened before, and for the same reasons.

It is essential that defenders of the 2nd Amendment understand that the whole Bill of Rights is under attack by the Drug War, and that assaults on the 2nd Amendment are a natural part of that trend. What is the main premise of a gun-control law? It is that guns are implements which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. What is the main premise of Drug Prohibition? It is that drugs are substances which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. Both lines of reasoning say that because a few people abuse something, all Americans must be treated like children or irresponsibles. All use is abuse.

This is an extremely dangerous idea for a government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. It is a natural consequence that such thinking will lead to attacks on the Bill of Rights, because that is the chief defense in the Constitution against abuses of government power.

Since the beginning of the Drug War, no article of the Bill of Rights has been spared from attack. There has been an enormous increase in police power in America, with a steady erosion of protections against unreasonable search and seizure, violations of privacy, confiscation of property, and freedom of speech. We have encouraged children to inform on their parents and we tolerate urine tests as a condition of employment for anyone. All who question the wisdom of Drug Prohibition are immediately attacked and silenced. These are all violations of the Bill of Rights. Are we surprised when the 2nd Amendment is attacked along with the others?

We understand that opponents of the 2nd Amendment exaggerate the dangers of firearms and extrapolate the actions of deranged persons and criminals to all gun owners. That is their method of propaganda. Do we also know that Drug Warriors exaggerate the hazards of drug use--"all use is abuse'--in the same way formerly done with alcohol, and extrapolate the condition of addicts to all users of drugs? That is their method of propaganda. Most Americans are convinced by both arguments, and both arguments depend on the public's ignorance. That is why discussion and dissent is inhibited.

Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.

Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition. We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.

If we do not explain to people that the fusillade of gunfire in America, the return to drive-by shooting, and our bulging prisons, come from the criminalizing of commerce in illegal drugs, we cannot expect them to listen to a plea that we must tolerate some risk in defense of liberty.

Why should we tolerate, for the sake of liberty, the risk of a maniac shooting a dozen people, when we cannot tolerate the risk that a drug-user will become an addict?

In fact, very few gun-owners are mass murderers and a minority of drug-users are addicts, but people are easily persuaded otherwise and easily driven to hysteria by exaggerating dangers. What addict would be a violent criminal if he could buy his drug from a pharmacy for its real price instead of being driven to the inflated price of a drug smuggler? How many cigarette smokers would become burglars or prostitutes if their habits cost them $200 per day? How many criminal drug empires could exist if addicts could buy a drug for its real cost? And, without Prohibition, what smuggler's territory would be worth a gang war? And why isn't this obvious to all of us?

It is because both guns and drugs have become fetishes to some people in America. They blame guns and drugs for all the intractable ills of society, and they never rest until they persuade the rest of us to share their deranged view of the evil power in an inanimate object.

They succeed, mainly, by lies and deception. They succeed by inducing the immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the words: Guns! Drugs! Notice your reactions. Once that response is in place, it is enough to make us accept any remedy they propose. An anxious person is an easy mark. They even persuade us to diminish the most precious possession of Americans, the one marveled at by every visitor and cherished by every immigrant, and the name of which is stamped on every coin we mint--Liberty. They say that liberty is just too dangerous or too expensive. They say we will have to do with less of it for our own good. That is the price they charge for their promise of our security.

Unreasonable regulations restrict individual liberties paulsen.

Reasonable ones do not?

Correct. They regulate the public aspects of objectionable behaviors. Criminal law covers other aspects of harmful behaviors.

And you know the difference?

I think most of us do. You communitarians however, want restrictive prohibitions:
-- You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty.

Sane is irrelevant. It is a fact that government has the power to prohibit liberty with due process.

Wrong. -- Government has the power to jail convicted criminals, -- but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law.

You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty.and that anyone who protests this power is crazy.

Crazy is irrelevant. Maybe not in your case, no, but in general.

As I said, you are using catch 22 'reasoning' in claiming that protesters are crazy. Your bureaucratic ploy is very relevant. -- It's a main part of your communitarian agit-prop on the issue.

Anyone who doesn't realize that government has the power to deprive someone of liberty with due process is ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, Amendments V and XIV.

Nice twist, right from the Communitarian Manifesto playbook.
Yes, the government has the power to jail convicted criminals, -- but only by using due process of constitutional law.

You cannot see the forest for the trees buddy.

I am 100% with you that government has no power to regulate, prohibit, or do anything else that interferes with our personal lives unless we violate the right of another.

Problem with you is, you cannot see that different people have different standards in which they see their rights infringed.

Why can't a community get together, like fellow libertarians are trying to do in New Hampshire (I think it is) and decide on what they see is right violations, and, therefor set their own community/state standards?

If I wan't to live in a community free from crack users, why can I not get together with a community and put together a township, or county that prohibits that within it's boundaries? And if you disagree with said prohibition, don't go in.

Is this not how our founders set up our states and counties?

Paulsen claimed:

"-- government has the power to prohibit liberty with due process. --"

Wrong. -- Government has the power to jail convicted criminals, -- but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law.

Tex opines:
I am 100% with you that government has no power to regulate, prohibit, or do anything else that interferes with our personal lives unless we violate the right of another.

Problem with you is, you cannot see that different people have different standards in which they see their rights infringed.

The problem with you is, you cannot 'see'/understand that we have established Constitutional standards, the 'Law of the Land'.

Why can't a community get together, like fellow libertarians are trying to do in New Hampshire (I think it is) and decide on what they see is right violations, and, therefor set their own community/state standards?

They can. They can set reasonable standards for public behaviors, using due process under Constitutional law.

If I wan't to live in a community free from crack users, why can I not get together with a community and put together a township, or county that prohibits that within it's boundaries?

Because any political subdivision is subject to upholding our Law of the Land. -- You can however, put together a privately owned communitarian community with strict regulations on drugs, morality, etc. -- Feel free, as long as you don't violate individual rights in doing so.

And if you disagree with said prohibition, don't go in.

Exactly. - Many condo associations would welcome you. If you break their rules, out you go, all quite legally.
But evicting you is it, -- they can't jail you.

Private associations are run by whoever owns/controls them. -- Within reason.

Is this not how our founders set up our states and counties?

Nope, our State & local governments are run by 'we the people' pledged to the rule of Constitutional law. -- They can jail you for lawbreaking.
Get the difference yet, texbaby?

-- I'm sure you do, but like paulsen, you just don't want to 'see' it.
Communitarian-ism is a form of social blindness.

"Give me the line in the constitution that says NO property can ever be prohibited at any gov level, then argue that nukes can't be outlawed either, since you don't want to look hypocritical...."

Give me a line in the Constitution that says government can prohibit anything? In fact in the 1920s they had to pass an ammendment to ban alcohol, and it was repealed. Why 80 years later do you claim that government has always had the power to do that.

Plus the Constitution limits the governments power, it in no way limits the rights of a person. It cannot limit the rights of the people, because our freedom doesn't come from the Constitution, its ours with birth.

Texbaby asks:

If I wan't to live in a community free from crack users, why can I not get together with a community and put together a township, or county that prohibits that within it's boundaries?

Because any political subdivision is subject to upholding our Law of the Land.
-- You can however, put together a privately owned communitarian community with strict regulations on drugs, morality, etc.
Many condo associations would welcome you. If you break their rules, out you go, all quite legally. But evicting you is it, -- they can't jail you.

Our State & local governments are run by 'we the people' pledged to the rule of Constitutional law. -- They can jail you for lawbreaking.

Get the difference yet, texbaby?
-- I'm sure you do, but like paulsen, you just don't want to 'see' it.
Communitarian-ism is a form of social blindness.

And if crack is against the law.... that's exactly what they do.

Yep; - such prohibitions are the issue here.

You say.... well they can't prohibit any drugs because that is liberty and property, but when it comes to nukes, you say, well that's reasonable. Why aren't drugs? Because you say so?

You're going in circles again tex. You asked that question yesterday, and I answered. Remember?

Give me the line in the constitution that says NO property can ever be prohibited at any gov level, then argue that nukes can't be outlawed either, since you don't want to look hypocritical....

Again, -- the 'line' is in the 14th. We discussed it yesterday. -- You left that discussion about cocktail time.
-- Now here you are, - its deja vu all over again.

Get help kid.

jjbrouwer wrote:

It is appropriate your post should be "666"...

The devil that wrote this made me do it:

"-- You are an extremely rude little man (or woman.)
I couldn't give a damn what anyone here thinks I stand for. It's interesting that on a thread about free speech, I have to put up with little pipsqueaks like you jumping on all my posts.
Now please run along. I am sure there are people to squeak at on other threads.

"Correct. They regulate the public aspects of objectionable behaviors."

Which restricts individual liberties. Which is what I said.

"Government has the power to jail convicted criminals"

More than that. They can jail, fine and execute.

"but only by using due process in both the writing & enforcing of the law."

Government is only required to use individual due process when life, liberty, or property is at stake in the enforcement of constitutional laws. Government is not required to use individual due process when writing laws. They may set the drinking age at 21, for example, even though an individual 20-year-old can prove himself to be more responsible than those older than he.

But back to the issue. You still are required to give another reason why we can prohibit nukes and bioweapons from private citizens other than "it's reasonable".

There you go again, misreading my position. We can reasonably regulate use/storage of nuclear/biological/chemical materials, [much is privately owned] but we can't constitutionally prohibit possession.

Because see, I say prohibiting crack is "reasonable".

And I've explained why your prohibitions on drugs & guns are unconstitutional.

So your argument is moot until you give another argument for why it's ok.

Neener neener. - Grow up.

"Give me a line in the Constitution that says government can prohibit anything?"

The federal government? Well, the federal government has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, and "to regulate" includes "to prohibit". Or so the U.S. Supreme Court says:

"Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin."
-- Brooks v. US, 267 U.S. 432 (1925)

"In fact in the 1920s they had to pass an ammendment to ban alcohol ..."

Yes, an amendment was passed. But it was desired, not required.

"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."
-- www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html

"... and it was repealed."

Yes. Section 1 of the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. That returned everything to where it was.

But then Section 2 was added, removing the power to regulate alcohol from the federal government and returning that power exclusively to the states.

"It cannot limit the rights of the people, because our freedom doesn't come from the Constitution, its ours with birth."

The Constitution protects your freedom of speech, but it is limited -- it is illegal to libel or slander someone, for example, or yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Congress may reasonably regulate your constitutionally protected rights.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.