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
The 9th and 14th say nothing about drugs being legal. The 2nd says everything about guns being legal. I repeat, no connection.
The point is, - such rights do not have to be enumerated. Lord, but you are dense.
His letter was filled with points. None of them had anything to do with a connection to the 2nd amendment.
Read the quote above, and be ashamed of your blind denial of reality.
The author probably wrote a similar letter to newspapers and churches substituting "1st amendment" for "2nd amendment" and claiming that "they're coming after you next". "We're not fighting for drugs, we're defending the Bill of Rights!". Yeah, right.
Scoff if you must. - But you have lost all your credibility here, imo.
So? Lots of "things" were legal at one point in our countries history...doesn't mean because they ONCE WERE, that we were better off then.
You are arguing that the WOD's has made us 'better off'? How?
----------------------------
They have been prohibited by unconstituional methods, which point you [apparently] refuse to acknowledge. [corrrected]
Just WHERE in my previous post do I acknowlege, or NOT acknowledge this "point", oh legal scholar???
You got me, oh pedantic one!!! Big deal.
And that argument works just as well when used against the right to poosess guns
Why should your socialistic opinion about libertarians be viewed as honest?
Why should we reward addiction??
The treatment of addicts is not a reward.
- And we see the alternative, in the war on drugs, guns, and liberty: -- all three of which you 'apparently' support.
Drug addicts, IMHO - based partly on my observation of a few, have destroyed their lives and, unless they want to kick the habit, their isn't anything I can do to really help them. The damage their addiction causes society is staggering and, IMHO, unaffordable.
To belabor the obvious and repeat myself let me point out that I don't favor legalization. I do favor taking any profit out of dealing in drugs.
The question of what drugs the Boards of Health need to maintain should be left up to them. My answer would be to provide - only to those who have a documented addiction - anything addicts are taking.
To further clarify my position you need to recognize that I don't care about the drug addicts. If they OD I only hope they'll do it somewhere other than the middle of the road so they don't create a traffic problem. The people I'm concerned about are those not addicted to drugs - the girl who doesn't get hooked and become a prostitute, the old lady who can walk down the street without fearing someone will kill her for her wedding ring's street value and all the rest of us.
Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?
And if you can find such a reason, how can the author possibly compare drug use with that reason? No connection.
Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?
Because the framers had just fought a war against a government that tried to limit arms, not one that prohibited food, drink or drugs.
-- Lordy, if Georgie would have banned booze, the Brits would have joined us!
And if you can find such a reason, how can the author possibly compare drug use with that reason? No connection.
Its apparent that you haven't even attempted to understand the authors comparisons. -- Get real or get lost.
Im not sure I know better.
So, the legalization of drugs is "treatment"? LOL.
Why should your socialistic opinion about libertarians be viewed as honest?
Sorry, the FACT that I do not agree with the legalization of drugs does NOT make me a socialist.So you know...I am a rightwing conservative, MANY gun owner, christian. Perhaps, you'd be better served by surfing over to the Ultra Liberal website that bears your moniker?
Because rights did not have to be enumerated to be recognized. The ten that are in the bill of rights were a ploy to promote ratification.
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.