Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[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

[tpaine]

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?
403 tpaine



Ever hear of CC&Rs?
409 Roscoe


Yes, roscoe I have.
Can you answer that whole scenario?
If not, shut up.
412

A condo association has contractual rights. Your cluelessness is pretty pitiable.
415 Roscoe


Of course they do roscoe, but such contractual arrangements cannot violate our constitution.
Thus, it is ~your~ cluelessness that is pretty pitiable.
417 tpaine

"They don't, question beggar." -roscoe-

"Condo contracts, as per the scenario, can violate our constitution", claims roscoe, in a fit of absolute insanity.
419 tpaine

A condo association doesn't need a warrant to exercise rights to it in record CC&Rs. You're still batting zero.
420 -roscoe-

Immaterial & inane.
"Condo contracts, as per the scenario, can violate our constitution", claims roscoe, in a fit of absolute insanity.

[Roscoe]

Immaterial

The 4th Amendment is the requirement for warrants. Golly, you're ill-informed.

[Ben Bolt]

Clearly I should have worded my comment in a different way and for the record I wish it was not a living document but it clearly is and wide open for some folks to see it as they see fit .

I do not consider either of you enemies of freedom . Excuse me if my comment lead either of you to think otherwise .

[tpaine]

Golly, but your comments are inane....
Get lost.

[tpaine]

We all wish the roscoes among us did not see our constitution as a changeable, 'living document', -- subject to the findings & declarations of congress, -- and to the whims of the USSC.

Thanks for your comments.

[takenoprisoner]

"Where a substance comes into being a threat towards others, such as hard drugs, that out trumps you claiming it for religious purposes."

What threat might that be? A drug user is a threat to himself. If he's sharing needles and passing a disease to his comrads, then they are only threats to each other. I say allow them to extinguish themselves peacefully from our midst.

But no, the do gooders seek to save them from themselves and thus we have this so called "drug war." And with this do gooder "drug war" we all suffer losses of basic human and constitutional rights. In the end, we all are losers.

Consider the war on terrorism. We all lose when we sacrifice freedom for security as we spiral downward toward an all out police state. When freedom is sacrificed, the terrorists win...and from where I sit, the terrorists are winning.

And from the looks of things, terrorists have many supporters who don't even realize they are supporters. Their supporters are folks who would sacrifice their freedom for security.

All that said, drug warriors are terrorists when they burst into a home in the middle of the night killing the inhabitants whether it the right or wrong address. Drug warriors are terrorists when they explode and bulldoze a church filled with women children and infants in Waco Texas all the while claiming the inhabitants had a meth lab when no such evidence of a lab was ever produced nor will it ever be since it never existed and was only used as an excuse for a bogus warrant.

Do you support this war? If you do, then in my view you are a terrorist. No less a terrorist than those who bombed us on 911.

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

If [Texaggie supports the wars on meth labs], then in my view [he is] a terrorist.

Yeah but according to Texaggie, Thomas Jefferson supported anti-witch statutes. So local Wars on Meth labs are just fine with him.

Even if this absurd allegation about Jefferson was true, you have to wonder about people who justify their support for modern mobocracy on the belief that such crimes were popular in the past.

In Tex's case, I think he is probably a mere dupe--a believer in a false religion that teaches that robbery and murder are ok when committed in the name of the higher goal of saving the "immoral" from themselves or from hell fire.

Roscoe on the other hand is most probably a knave--a user of dupes like Tex and a believer in the potency of thugs, the power of the majority, and might makes right. He has no fear that he will ever be held accountable for his crimes, since his Satanic "religion" is based on the principle "Do what thou whilst as long as you can get away with it."

I think there's a lot more hope for the dupes like Tex than the knaves. Unlike the knaves, the dupes don't scoff at the idea that each day of their lives brings them one day closer to justice.

[Roscoe]

modern mobocracy

Poor impotent America haters.

[Texaggie79]

But no, the do gooders seek to save them from themselves and thus we have this so called "drug war."

If all the hard drug users only destroyed their own lives, I would say, more power to them. I ONLY see the need for intervention because hard drug users are a THREAT to others. They cannot act responsibly, they have no control over their addiction to a substance that drastically alters their mind. I don't support a FEDERAL WOD because the FED has no constitutional power to do so. Drug laws should be kept to the state level and smaller.

[tpaine]

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?
403 tpaine


Condos are simply a purchase of a smaller amount of rights of a certain property. If you buy rights to a condo while the assoc. retains the right to searching the property at any said time, they can. Now, rummaging through your PERSONAL property, such as bags, boxes, ect is not permissible, because that is truly personal property.
The government, however, is bound by the 4th amendment. It cannot subject us to search and/or seizure without just cause and a warrant.
-ta79-

Yes aggie, invading your home, "rummaging through your PERSONAL property"; -- guns, drugs, "bags, boxes, etc. is not permissible, because that is truly personal property", as you admit.

The condo association and fed/state/local governments, are "bound by the 4th amendment. It cannot subject us to search and/or seizure without just cause and a warrant." - Just as you admit.

Its getting close to game, set, match, aggie. Time for you to concede?
- Or will you scuttle off again, as usual, hoping that your odd views on our constitution are not noted?
410 tpaine

_________CRICKETS?_________

I notice you concede states cannot violate the 4th amendment, but will not concede that states do NOT have the power to violate our constitution in the drug war:

"I don't support a FEDERAL WOD because the FED has no constitutional power to do so. Drug laws should be kept to the state level and smaller."
-ta79-

Can you resolve your contradictions? - I bet not.

[dcwusmc]

Once upon a time the Congress and the Supremes both agreed that certain classes of people were subject to be owned by other people, with no recourse. The pipe dreams of those days are reflected in the CSA, and with the same validity; i.e.: none whatsoever. You can cite this bull-bleep forever and ever, amen, and it means the same thing each time: You are high on something that reeks. Plus you are deluding yourself. And there WILL be a reckoning, soon or late, it will come. I know you are not a fan of the 10th Amendment, but it IS still there and, despite being ignored by both parties, has yet to be repealed. Your usual bull-bleep notwithstanding, there is ZERO authority in the Constitution for the United States for FedGov to prohibit ONCE SINGLE SOLITARY THING. Call it militia malarkey all you want... that PROVES NOTHING and you know it. Aside from your bluster and BS, you have nothing. You are an empty Edgar suit on a pile of dung. That must be a pretty sad sight when you peep into the mirror each morning... or do you even cast a reflection? Enquiring minds want to know.

[dcwusmc]

See my Reply to your post 431

[dcwusmc]

See my Reply to your post 341

OOPS....

[Texaggie79]

Unconstitutional search and seizures are not permissible by any government. Prohibition of dangerous substances are permissible by states.

[dcwusmc]

I realise we are asking a lot of you, but try thinking for a change, instead of sniffing at reasoned replies... The dry counties banned the SALE of alcohol, NOT its private possession and use. THAT is a limitation. The WOSD attempts to ban possession and use, in addition to sales. Since fedgov is ALREADY in the wrong, they have no scruples about subsequent violations of the Constitution by their ENFORCEMENT methods. And the same demonization tactcs used against drug users are being applied in wholesale lots to gun-owners. Your dementia needs some serious treatment. Or maybe you need to be reprogrammed.

[dcwusmc]

Kindly post cites for these truly amazing claims. Such things may have been asserted by George III, but the Founding Dads set that aright with the Constitution. Please justify your claim with actual cites of law and Constitution.

[Texaggie79]

Amazing? That smoking crack in a community isn't a human right?

If you lived off in your own land, on an island, perhaps, it's your right, but you don't have that right when in a state where your fellow citizens are threatened by your activity.

[tpaine]

Unconstitutional search and seizures are not permissible by any government.
Prohibition of dangerous substances are permissible by states.
-ta79-

You have a real problem with logic.
The reasonable regulation of dangerous substances are permissible by states. -- This is a given.
Outright prohibitions on 'dangerous' property by any level of government, have been well demonstrated on this thread as being against the very principles of our free republic, & our constitution.
Your inability to acknowlege that this fact works against your own freedom is telling.
Only fanatics for a 'cause' are so blind. What is your cause aggie?
-- Are you rational enough to tell us, to explain?

[Roscoe]

The WOSD attempts to ban possession and use

You can possess and use drugs. Are there no drug stores on your planet? No doctors? No prescriptions?

Your arguments are flimsier than a house of cards.

[Roscoe]

Once upon a time the Congress and the Supremes both agreed that certain classes of people were subject to be owned by other people, with no recourse.

Slavery was a matter of state, not federal, law. Read a book.