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.

Wrong again, tpaine.

It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power.

Don't worry, if you keep trying, someday you'll be able to make a valid point.

Blind hatred of the law and of America's principles of self-government isn't conservative.

C'mon Roscoe - you're not shy about telling everyone what libertarinism or liberalism are. Tell us what conservativism is. If we are to be self-governing, then we must judge the law. What is the "conservative" criteria for what constitutes a good law?

The Founders did NOT set up the States. The Several Sovereign States were who rebelled and then established the Constitution which set up the national government. Methinks you are getting the cart before the horse. The Constitution ensures only that the powers of Government are LIMITED and that the States have a republican form of governance... They did envision a variety of styles, to be sure, but within each state the equal rights of ALL were to be protected, as that is the SOLE LEGITIMATE excuse for the very existence of governments. Yes, your gated community example is OK, but ONLY to the level of a rather smallish community, not at the level of a State. Besides, a town or even a county is a whole lot easier to know everyone and reach such a supermajority consensus as it would take to have your brand of whatever it is that you want to have.

I note that your one word "response" does not address the issue I raised in my answer. Figures. You are noted for that. IOW, you have NO logical answer and not a Constitutional leg to stand on... which means nothing to you and your crowd, as you have guns to back up your arguments... and a judiciary that will overlook your illegal use thereof...

The gun owners of america will disagree, if/when the ~courts~ are stupid enough to use that 'finding' to further infringe upon our liberties.

Keep trying roscoe, someday, somehow, you will convince someone that you are a valid 'conservative'.

What's to refute? That's the OPINION of a bunch of congresscritters and means less than nothing. It's as if they were to opine and then legislate that pi equals three or 2+2=15 or something. It's meaningless drivel, just as is most of what you post. The fact that it also flies in the face of the Constitution also escapes them and you. The fact that GOVERNMENT is linking guns and drugs and calling them both evil probably hasn't escaped you but you're cool with that because it'll give your heroes more doors to kick in during the wee hours... except that in THIS case, there are a whole lot of combat veterans who own firearms and know how to use them... and most of us are NOT criminals or other "unworthies" who don't get some folks' ire up on their behalf. I recall that one guy who was burned to death by LA County Sheriffs and the BATFags when they could just as easily have arrested him AWAY from home... but he was not a "nice" guy so he wasn't one to make a martyr of... yet he was vilified and demonized because he owned guns... hmmmmmmmm.

The gun owners of america will disagree, if/when the ~courts~ are stupid enough to use that 'finding' to further infringe upon our liberties.

Wrong again. The court's "finding" was that dope doesn't get the same protections as firearms.

"The court's "finding" was that dope doesn't get the same protections as firearms." roscoe

So what? They are wrong. The gun owners of america will disagree, if/when the ~courts~ are stupid enough to use that 'finding' to further infringe upon our liberties.
We have inalienable, basic rights to life, liberty, and property. Both guns & 'drugs' are property. -- Thus, they can no more be prohibited than life & liberty.

The Founders did NOT set up the States.

Physically, no. Legally, yes. Read the USC. It specifically lays out the extent to which states can govern. That which is not prohibited to the states is left up to the people of each state to decide.

Yes, your gated community example is OK, but ONLY to the level of a rather smallish community, not at the level of a State.

I believe the more local the laws, the better, however there is nothing keeping states from acting as such, unless their state constitutions specifically prohibit it. The USC, in no way prohibits states from acting as such. If you believe it does, where is this mentioned, and why can smaller communities and towns (by your statement) be allowed to do this? I want specific constitutional references.

I mean it as it read, the Constitution does NOT CREATE the States. They existed, first as the 13 Colonies, then as rebels and finally as states under the Articles of Confederation, seperate and Sovereign. They acceded some of their Sovereignty to the new National Government under the Constitution, but the States created the Constitution, not the other way around. Read a good history book.

The Constitution sets forth the extent to which BOTH States and FedGov may govern. It also sets forth, in a Bill of Rights, that all RIGHTS, enumerated and otherwise, are retained BY THE PEOPLE. Which means that the sole legitimate excuse for having any government at all is the equal protection of the rights of ALL THE PEOPLE... not finding non-existent rights of some to exist at the coerced expense of others or to kill the pre-born and most surely not to find some non-existent authority to flat ban and prohibit the use of any substance on someone's PRIVATE PROPERTY, no matter where.

(DAMN Windows XP!)

Remember the old saying, "a man's home is his castle"? It was true once, and still is, except for the fact that this principle of Common Law is ignored routinely by gooberment thugs and their legislative and judicial enablers.

Apparently, our 'aggie' has this weird concept about home as a castle/private property.

He seems to believe that a communities 'majority will' can decide proper behavior, and legal possessions for ALL who live in the area, regardless of constitutional restraints.
In this view you are free to leave this commune-ity, but not to disagree with its ability to rule by majority decree.

It's a form of 'democratic communitarianism', -- but aggie insists it is 'constitutional conservatism'.
-- His denial of political reality seems to be getting worse.

have known this for a while. If you make narcotics legal, the price will become so low and the manufacturing of these drugs will become such a part of america that "drug countries" and a lot of the filth our nation sees will no longer exist.

And demand will increase! We will end up with a nation of dope-heads incapable of discerning filth!

You follow the WOD's party line well. -- Do you also use this type line on the war on guns?

-Make a federal CCL legal-

And demand will increase! We will end up with a nation of gun crazies incapable of discerning proper conduct! There will be blood on the streets!

So what? They are wrong.

Not at all. Libertarian and liberal ignoramuses who work to discredit the right to keep and bear arms by equating it to smoking dope are wrong.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

I suspect these guys have never even read the Constitution. Maybe High Times.

A REPUBLICAN form of government... wherein the GOVERNMENT is reined in by the bit and bridle of the CONSTITUTION... quite the opposite of what you envision, a society where government is the bit and bridle reining in the people. And where thugs like you are holding the reins... Sorry, roscoe, old thug, YOU are who's high on something... something rotten and reeking. And it AIN'T conservatism or the Constitution.

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.