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

[Texaggie79]

Ultimate ownership can only go to God, when you think about it. But, in a civilized society, with laws, physical ownership is actually to the government. Otherwise they could not take your land if you didn't pay your property taxes, or if you gained in by committing felonious acts.

If you PHYSICALLY owned your property, how far would that ownership extend? How far up into the sky would you own the air over it? How far down under the Earth would you own? Could you destroy your land and make it one giant hole in the Earth? If it was TRULY yours, you could. It's not though. You simply own certain RIGHTS to that land. That is what transpires when one purchases land or a home. You are purchasing the building and RIGHTS to the land it's on. That it all. You cannot physically OWN the land.

[tpaine]

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 To: All
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


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.
480 -ta79-

It must be hell on earth to live in constant fear of imagined threats from your peers, even those who live "in big expensive houses."
Whatta life aggie, and whatta man you are.

[tpaine]

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.
437 -ta79-


No, tex, your amazing claim is that ALL land in the U.S. is owned by FedGov. Please cite that claim.
450 dcwusmc


Ultimate ownership can only go to God, when you think about it. But, in a civilized society, with laws, physical ownership is actually to the government. Otherwise they could not take your land if you didn't pay your property taxes, or if you gained in by committing felonious acts.
If you PHYSICALLY owned your property, how far would that ownership extend? How far up into the sky would you own the air over it? How far down under the Earth would you own? Could you destroy your land and make it one giant hole in the Earth? If it was TRULY yours, you could. It's not though. You simply own certain RIGHTS to that land. That is what transpires when one purchases land or a home. You are purchasing the building and RIGHTS to the land it's on. That it all. You cannot physically OWN the land.
481 -ta79-

That is quite a nonsourced, opinionated "cite" there aggie, which I'm sure roscoe will take you to task about.
But, in any case, what I find fascinating, is that you admit that abusing 'drugs' is OK, --
-- "If you lived off in your own land, on an island, perhaps, it's your right".
But that "you don't have that right when in a state where your fellow citizens are threatened by your activity".

Here you show not only your basic ignorance of criminal law, but your distain for our constitutional method of applying the law to assure individual liberty.
Your mere fears & imaginings that activities are taking place that 'threaten' you, -- are not grounds for criminal law regulating the behavior of your neighbors.

In fact, such paranoia on your part may make a case for your own commitment, if you overreact on protecting yourself from your own fantasies.

[Texaggie79]

The coke, heroine, and crack addict are probably thrilled to have someone like you to stand up for them and defend them. What knoble citizens they really are. Thanks for showing us the way.

[tpaine]

Whatever.

Thanks for showing us your 'roscoe' type reply.

[Ben Bolt]

From who I meet in my day the web is all the malcontents have tpaine . Actually if it was not for the web these people would not ever be heard from .

Like you I tend to aim my laser on the bigger picture .

[Roscoe]

And seeing useful idiots equate drugs and guns delights the left-wing gun control crowd.

[dcwusmc]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzt Wrong answer. Property ownership IS in the individual and NOT the government. In fact, FedGov is prohibited from owning land except with permission from the legislatures of the several States. Look it up. State and local gov'ts maintain the fiction that they can tell you what to do with your land... but it doesn't always wash, especially out in the country. They CAN, under the fifth amendment, take property, but must pay for it at the going rate. Your air rights go to the end of the atmosphere, but the Supremes have ruled that air traffic may pass without payment to you... however, you may build a tower of whatever size you like and compel air traffiic to detour. Your rights theoretically go to the center of the earth, but you'd find it rather hot there, like a precursor to the hell reserved for authoritarians and other thugs. If you wish to dispute this, please provide the cites for your stance. Otherwise stand exposed as a fraud.

[Texaggie79]

Fraid not my friend. It's the dirty little secret of true real estate. Go get an abstract for your property. It lists the RIGHTS you have to it. As for your little statement about building a tower.... try it in a city....

Your right to build as high as you want is at the whim of your local legislature.

I work in appraisal and land title insurance. If want "cites" for my stance, simply read your full abstract. For all you know, someone may own certain rights to your land that you haven't a clue about.

[Texaggie79]

I still am amazed at how many people are unaware of mineral rights. Jed Clampet would probably never happen. Someone that ignorant would not have mineral rights.

[Texaggie79]

hehe. the joys of REAL estate

[takenoprisoner]

"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."

No I don't know any hard drug users nor do I care to know any. And any that might live someplace in a "big expensive house" is not my problem either.

Yes, I can conceive how a hard drug user could be a threat to him/herself and his/her immediate family. But that's a personal and family matter and none of your nor my business.

If a child is being abused or neglected because the parent is a hard drug user, then other family members need to step in first. Meantime, you, I, and all the rest take a backseat until all else fails. In that case, with no others stepping forward, then and only then should the state step in when there is a clear and present danger to the child/ren. And then only to rescue the abused and neglected child while offering assistance to the drug abusing parent/s to get back on the right track.

But to burst into their home locked and loaded risking death and/or injury to the child/ren? You can't be serious.

I give you Waco. Allegedly the fed went there to "save the children." What did they do? They killed the children. Good plan. When the parents refused to surrender, they just killed them all, parents and children alike. Is this your justice? Is this what you want? Is this what you are?

[Texaggie79]

Not just to their immediate family, but their neighbors as well. People are living next door to someone who has purposefully put themselves in a state where they cannot act responsibly or on sound judgment. No one wants to live next to any hard drug addict, and if visible, they would bring down the value of properties around them. They are addicted to a substance that has taken away their ability to choose to use it or not. They are a slave to that drug and will do anything and harm anyone for it.

[dcwusmc]

As I told you before, I would buy no land without ALL rights, including water, mineral, timber and so forth. Nor would I want to buy in a city where zoning laws would be a nuisance. But your contention that all land is OWNED by government is ludicrous on the face of it. Show me where THAT exists in this country.

[takenoprisoner]

No one wants to live next to any hard drug addict, and if visible, they would bring down the value of properties around them

This is an interesting propostion. My mother in law is in her eighties and living with us. Because of her degenerative and painful back condition her doctor has put her on morphine (a "hard drug")to relieve the pain. I guess I can't tell the neighbors though right? Less all our property values decline should this get out right?.

Whatever, I grew up with people and got to know people. All kinds of people from different walks of life...still just people with this or that difference from me of some sort. That's life.

My recommendation is that you get out sometime to experience life without worrying so much about your stupid property value. IOW's, give life and the people around you a chance. Besides,chances are your property will be a heap of rumble a hundred years from now...so what?

Now if you and your neighbor have some sort of rock solid granite home that will last a thousand plus years, then I would still say you both (regardless of addictions if any) have the right to be secure and safe in your home and property in the here and now.

The difference here between you and I is that you don't believe people have a right to be secure and safe in their homes while I do. To go further, I believe folks have a right to smoke, drink, and do whatever drugs they want in the privacy of their homes.

Moreover, I believe folks who want to snoop under the neighbor's bed rationalizing their perversion that it is to "protect" their property "values," are a pathetic breed of miscreants not worthy of human status.

[takenoprisoner]

If I forfeit my own freedom to prevent a drug addict, do I and society win? If I forfeit my own freedom to prevent a terrorist, do I and society win?

Or in the end does the drug addict and terrorist actually win since in the process of protecting myself I forfeit my own freedom?

[Texaggie79]

Then find a state where others share your lack of foresight. Allow cocaine and heroine and all their tweeked versions to be sold at Krogers. I have the right to live with others who share my common sense and do not wish to watch our state become a sh!*hole. WE DO have a right to be secure in our homes, and that requires that drug addicts are not allowed to freely pursue their destructive behavior in our neighborhood.

[takenoprisoner]

WE DO have a right to be secure in our homes, and that requires that drug addicts are not allowed to freely pursue their destructive behavior in our neighborhood.

I've been secure in whatever home I have been in for 50 plus years. Do you live in an insecure neighborhood? If so, then follow my lead, and move.