Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine

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

Dear Ms. Swickard,

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.

Sincerely,

Amicus Populi


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: banglist; copernicus3; corruption; drugskill; drugskilledbelushi; freetime; gramsci; huh; mdm; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 741-748 next last
To: Roscoe
A baseless, silly opinion, well refuted by the article, and most respondents.

Only a few of you well known FReeker gun-bashers rant otherwise. - Telling.
-- We may have found a 'tipping point' in defining conservatism, in the drug/gun connection.
261 posted on 01/15/2003 1:25:02 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Roscoe is high on the illusion of power & control the state gives him.
He, no doubt, is a minor level bureaucrat, hunched over his terminal, pretending to work at the peoples business, as he envisions his dreams of socialistic triumph.
262 posted on 01/15/2003 1:33:49 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; dcwusmc
Apparently, our 'aggie' has this weird concept about home as a castle/private property.

Oh contrare...

If you will read up on the fee simple, bundled rights on your property, you will see that you do not own all the rights to your property. You bought in willingly not having those rights. It was 100% consensual.

263 posted on 01/15/2003 3:11:30 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Yes, well, roscoe's positions on this rather remind me of that old saying about a politician (or in his case, JBT) being like a dead fish in the moonlight, "shining and stinking at once." And we know that gun-grabbers and WODDIES both perform best in the dark because they abhor daylight which would expose their actions for what they are: CRIMES committed on AMERICAN CITIZENS by their own national (and state) government... What a sick bunch these buffoons are...
264 posted on 01/15/2003 3:16:01 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I would not buy a piece of land without ensuring that I owned ALL the rights to it. Would you? I would not tolerate ANYONE coming on my property for ANY reason without my permission. If YOU would do that, then you deserve what happens to you.
265 posted on 01/15/2003 3:19:31 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Look here and see what fee simple means: http://www.iown.com/glossary/FeeSimple.htm

Anything ELSE and you don't own all the rights...
266 posted on 01/15/2003 3:39:55 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Yes, of course aggie.
We are all well aware that you consider yourself an expert in contractural/property/title matters.
We can only hope your customers get/have good insurance.

But tell me. -- If you buy into a condo development in your state, could the condo association insert a clause in the contract [prior to your signing of course] specifying that they can inspect your property at any time, without notice, for any violation of the association rules?
- [Said rules being subject to change at any time by majority vote, of course.]

-- And, --- that the penalty for a refusal to inspect would be an immediate eviction, pending a forced sale of your unit?

Is this basic scenario constitutional, in your opinion?

267 posted on 01/15/2003 3:51:30 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Sorry. Fee simple is the MOST rights you can own. It is not ALL. Walk up to your courthouse and tell them you are creating your own country with your land. Tell them you are seceding. Or try building a nuclear power plant on it. Tell me how they treat those "rights" of yours.

In any civilized society with a functioning commonwealth, property owners must sacrifice certain rights. This is common Lockean principle here.
268 posted on 01/15/2003 4:06:14 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
We don't live in 'functioning commonwealth', we live in a disfunctional constitutional republic, --- primarily thanks to communitarians like you and the freeker roscoe-ites among us.
269 posted on 01/15/2003 4:30:40 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
A REPUBLICAN form of government... wherein the GOVERNMENT is reined in by the bit and bridle of the CONSTITUTION...

Nothing about slamming smack in there. Don't confuse our Constitution with one of the Libertarian Party's endless press release rants.

270 posted on 01/15/2003 6:39:10 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Libertarians and liberals are in bed together spewing their loathsome equation of our right to keep and bear arms with slamming smack. Just when I think they've touched bottom in their rejection of reason, they reach new lows.
271 posted on 01/15/2003 6:42:32 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Sorry. Fee simple is the MOST rights you can own.

Funny, isn't it?

Pretending to be defenders of property rights, they are astoundingly ignorant of its nature.

272 posted on 01/15/2003 6:45:13 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
How weird you are roscoe. You spew loathsome invective here at FR day in, day out, against those taking constitutional positions on the drug & gun wars.

It is hard to imagine what your agenda here favors, but your distain for constitutional debate is quite evident. -- Thus:

"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere."
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
273 posted on 01/15/2003 7:07:31 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Poor Yappy.
274 posted on 01/15/2003 7:15:52 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Yip! Yip! --- Barks our pitiful little roscoe.
275 posted on 01/15/2003 7:24:45 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Why, tpaine, does the BoR give a REASON in the 2nd amendment? Do you think, perhaps, because it is not some arbitrary right they are spouting off, but a necessary right that we must have protected, in order to enjoy true protection of our liberty? Tell me, paine, what reason would the founders give for protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?
276 posted on 01/15/2003 8:29:38 PM PST by Texaggie79 (seriously joking or jokingly serious, you decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Do you think, perhaps, because it is not some arbitrary right they are spouting off, but a necessary right that we must have protected, in order to enjoy true protection of our liberty?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was a bit too rational for their cult to understand.
277 posted on 01/16/2003 1:40:04 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
to roscoe: Your pathetic attempts to justify FedGov's war on Americans means one of three things:
a.) you make your "living" as a JBT feeding off the misery you cause your fellow citizens;
b.) you are seriously misguided and need to have your eyes opened by a nocturnal visit from your local drug goon squad; or
c.) you suffer from terminal tongue-on-jackboot disease because you have never seen a FedGov prohibition you don't like or a Storm Trooper's a$$ you won't kiss.

No matter the problem you have, you are somewhere between despicable and pitiable

Whether he is a knavish Bootlegger promoting narco-terrorism for profit or a duped Baptist committing narco-crimes in the name of false "morality," the lesson in personal responsibility that Roscoe will be taught at the Final Judgement will be the same.

Unless they repent and ask the victims of their crimes for forgiveness, both knaves and dupes will pay for their crimes in the Lake of Fire.

278 posted on 01/16/2003 1:56:31 AM PST by Libertarian Billy Graham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
In any civilized society with a functioning commonwealth, property owners must sacrifice certain rights. This is common Lockean principle here.
What if a person owns no property? What rights must be "sacrificed" then? Where does your logic take you in that instance?
279 posted on 01/16/2003 2:11:25 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Tell me, paine, what reason would the founders give for protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?
Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?
I like your questions.
280 posted on 01/16/2003 2:13:25 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 741-748 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson