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.

I see you are trying to ignore the substance of the issue under debate, as usual... your policy is that of the usual bloviating gooberment bureaucrap:

Ignore as long as possible;
Obfuscate when ignorance is no longer an option;
Deny when things clarify anyway;
Divert attention when you can no longer deny (Wag the dog);
Demonise those who will not be diverted... and if all else fails,
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. Then begin the cycle again. Like Waco and too many others. You're a real pip, roscoe. and a typical bureaucrap. Are you on overtime this weekend?

Clearly, slavery was also a matter of federal law, just as quoted.

The quote says state law.

Article. IV., Section. 2.,Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Crash, burn, whimper.

You are quoting a law in the constitution, the federal 'law of the land' claiming that it has no laws on the matter of slavery.

Which says that slavery is a matter of state law.

Crash, burn, whimper.

"This may require us to speak farther in regard to our opinions upon the general question of slavery. We think the Constitution of the United States was so framed as to give its protection to the institution in the organized States where it existed. But, notwithstanding the recent decision of the Supreme court of the United States, a body whose offically expressed opinions very many persons, we regret, are inclined to regard as too sacred to be called in question, notwithstanding this decision we have found no sufficient reasons to change a position previously maintained by us, that slavery is a matter of local policy, a subject for State legislation, a domestic institution existing, and existing only by virtue of municipal law, which the people of the State, and they only, can abolish, but which, as above stated, neither the people of the nation, or of any State possess any inherent right to plant on soil where it does not already exist." --Quindaro Chindowan, May 13, 1857

I ONLY see the need for intervention because hard drug users are a THREAT to others.

Our very existence is a THREAT to us all. In each and everything we do and everyplace we go there is potential THREAT. Guess what? Well that's life.

One theory has it that man once slept on the slopes of cliffs in order to avoid becoming victim of prey to the many predators of the time...theorizing this is why some have spiraling falling nightmares. Obviously that was a THREAT. And if you read the Bible, one will discover violence, war, and sexual deviations beyond imagination...obviously a THREAT for the time.

Today some folks perceive some backstreet drug addict as a THREAT to their very existence and way of life. If true, then it would seem that these folks who are fearful of some backstreet drug addict disturbing their own existence...well to me, it just doesn't say much for their own existence if it is that weak.

My message is this. Don't worry about what some low life on the backstreet is doing to himself. Concern yourself with what you yourself are doing for yourself, your family, your country, and your freedom as a proud American. Stand tall and steadfast for freedom. Do not allow drug addicts and terrorists to take away our freedom. When we do, we forfeit our freedom and they win. And in this case, losing is not an option.

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.
429 -texaggie-

Thats a damn big if even for a Texan . You only see a need because hard users are a threat to others ?
What ever you see must be a good thing in the long haul I guess . From where I am you seem to chase storms in the night .
468 -dorben-

Today some folks perceive some backstreet drug addict as a THREAT to their very existence and way of life. If true, then it would seem that these folks who are fearful of some backstreet drug addict disturbing their own existence...well to me, it just doesn't say much for their own existence if it is that weak.
469
My message is this. Don't worry about what some low life on the backstreet is doing to himself. Concern yourself with what you yourself are doing for yourself, your family, your country, and your freedom as a proud American. Stand tall and steadfast for freedom. Do not allow drug addicts and terrorists to take away our freedom. When we do, we forfeit our freedom and they win. And in this case, losing is not an option.
470 takenoprisoner

Thanks fellas, and well said. -- The weak sisters of our world, the roscoes/texaggies, the appeasers, are slowly but surely winning, --- to date.
This new media, exemplified by forums like FR, may be our last best hope to turn back the clock to liberty.
Thanks.

My message is this. Don't worry about what some low life on the backstreet is doing to himself.

Freely manufacturing crack, collecting kiddy porn, etc. It's a recipe for a libertarian cesspool instead of a healthy and functional America.

The cult's hatred of our nation's historic systems of laws is pathological.

The Constitution contains one, and ONLY one, limit on prohibitory laws.

Article. I., Section. 9., Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

That restriction ended 195 years ago. Libertines who hate our Constitution are out of luck.

The Constitution contains one, and ONLY one, limit on prohibitory laws.

Article. I., Section. 9., Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Crash, burn, whimper.

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.
__________________________________

The logical core of the article. --- Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.

Governments are limited to legally 'reasonable' regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.

From Roscoe's New American Political Dictionary:

Free Republic = Bad. Free citizens will choose to turn into drunkards and lay in the streets. The trains will never run on time.

Military Police State = Good. Regimented subjects will be commanded to take baths and wear clean spiffy clothes. The trains will run on time.

His hatred of individual freedom, a free republic, and humanity in general is sickening.

You must not know any hard drug users. They do not live in the "backstreet". The ones I know even live in big expensive houses. They are ALL a threat. They cannot act responsibly, they are a danger to their children, they are not in control of themselves. They have no right to do that in my state.

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.