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
Why don't you fight the unconstitutional prohibition on nukes?
There are no unconstitutional prohibitions on nuclear materials kiddo. -- I think we have fairly reasonable regulations, -- although I would like to see many more nuclear power plants. -- Which is a political problem, backed up by the same types that back prohibitions on guns & drugs.
-- People like you.
Such sound facts you have on this issue.
You have facts that counter mine?
-- Post them my boy. -- Feel free.
[two bits you won't even try]
Let's reexamine what has transpired on this thread.
You state that no government entity, whatsoever, can constitutionally prohibit me from acquiring anything.
I then ask where you stand on nuclear and biological weapons. To which you reply that those prohibitions are ok because you see them as "reasonable".
You also try to make the case that nukes are prohibited to me, because I could go live on a deserted island, and have those weapons. Well, I'm sure if I were doing scientific research on cocaine for medicinal purposes, I could probably legally obtain such material under the close watch of the government, as would be the case with say a private nuclear power company.
So instead of saying EVERYTHING should be up for grabs, then backtrack and say that well nukes and bioweapons are ok to prohibit because that's reasonable, why not try to convince us that it is not reasonable to prohibit crack, or crystal meth, or heroine in states who's vast majority see the very use of those substances as a violation of their rights due to safety issues and standards?
Why don't you fight the unconstitutional prohibition on nukes?
There are no unconstitutional prohibitions on nuclear materials kiddo. -- I think we have fairly reasonable regulations, -- although I would like to see many more nuclear power plants. -- Which is a political problem, backed up by the same types that back prohibitions on guns & drugs.
-- People like you.
Such sound facts you have on this issue.
You have facts that counter mine?
-- Post them my boy. -- Feel free.
[two bits you won't even try]
Let's reexamine what has transpired on this thread. You state that no government entity, whatsoever, can constitutionally prohibit me from acquiring anything.
I then ask where you stand on nuclear and biological weapons. To which you reply that those prohibitions are ok because you see them as "reasonable".
There you go again, boldly misrepresenting what I've written just above.
You also try to make the case that nukes are [not] prohibited to me, because I could go live on a deserted island, and have those weapons. Well, I'm sure if I were doing scientific research on cocaine for medicinal purposes, I could probably legally obtain such material under the close watch of the government, as would be the case with say a private nuclear power company.
Exactly my point, my boy. Thanks for making it once again.
So instead of saying EVERYTHING should be up for grabs, then backtrack and say that well nukes and bioweapons are ok to prohibit [Another bold lie, I never said that] because that's reasonable, why not try to convince us that it is not reasonable to prohibit crack, or crystal meth, or heroine in states who's vast majority see the very use of those substances as a violation of their rights due to safety issues and standards?
Texbaby, -- thousands of essays have been written on the unconstitutionality of prohibitions on drugs, guns, private sexual behaviors, etc; -- on & on. The essay posted above is a fine example, and you reject it, but ask for more.
--- None of them can convince you neo-prohibitionists.
Instead, why not write your own essay to try to convince us that it is reasonable to regulate [up to the point of prohibition] crack, or crystal meth, or heroine on the basis that it violates ~your~ individual rights due to safety issues and standards?
-- Try to prove that you can enforce such invasive regulations without violating our individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
If you succeed, you would be a national hero.
Your problem is that you call it prohibition with drugs and regulation with bio/nukeweapons, when it is, in fact, that a regular citizen is prohibited from owning either, yet certified government supervised entities could obtain such material.
It makes no difference that you see no danger or violation of community standards if you have a crackhead living next door, what matters is that the majority of your state does, and if they so choose to regulate that material and prohibit regular citizens from obtaining it, just as they prohibit them from obtaining nuke/bioweapons, they, constitutionally, can.
Texbaby, -- thousands of essays have been written on the unconstitutionality of prohibitions on drugs, guns, private sexual behaviors, etc; -- on & on.
The essay posted above is a fine example, and you reject it, but ask for more.
--- None of them can convince you neo-prohibitionists.
Instead, why not write your own essay to try to convince us that it is reasonable to regulate [up to the point of prohibition] crack, or crystal meth, or heroine on the basis that it violates ~your~ individual rights due to safety issues and standards?
-- Try to prove that you can enforce such invasive regulations without violating our individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
If you succeed, you would be a national hero.
Your problem is that you call it prohibition with drugs
It is. Prohibitions violate due process of Constitutional law.
and regulation with bio/nukeweapons,
It is. Reasonable regulations of materials capable of mass destruction do not violate due process of Constitutional law.
when it is, in fact, that a regular citizen is prohibited from owning either, yet certified government supervised entities [~people~] could obtain such material.
Rave on kiddo. -- You can't prove ~your~ point, so you try to misrepresent mine in order to defend unconstitutional prohibitions on drugs, guns, whatever..
It makes no difference that you see no danger or violation of community standards if you have a crackhead living next door,
In 69 years of life kid, I've had a lot of weird neighbors. - But none that I considered dangerous or in "violation of community standards". -- You do? Call 911. There are hundreds of criminal laws to protect you from 'dangerous' people.
what matters is that the majority of your state does, and if they so choose to regulate that material and prohibit regular citizens from obtaining it, just as they prohibit them from obtaining nuke/bioweapons, they, constitutionally, can.
Yep, thats the way you communitarians want our country to be run. No way.
Give it up. -- Your communes standards will never rule in our Republic.
I'm just going to have to quit. I think this has to be some joke you are playing if you can't see your twisted logic here. Drugs are regulated, weapons are regulated. How? through prohibiting regular citizens of obtaining either. It's exactly the same. The punishments/fines whatever might be different, but both are impossible for me to legally go out to my street corner and buy. EXACTLY THE FREAKING SAME THING.
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.
Reasonable regulations of materials capable of mass destruction do not violate due process of Constitutional law.
I'm just going to have to quit. I think this has to be some joke you are playing if you can't see your twisted logic here.
I've been presenting the same unrefuted logic since this thread started kiddo.
You can't 'see' it? Read the article again.
Drugs are regulated, weapons are regulated. How? through prohibiting regular citizens of obtaining either. It's exactly the same. The punishments/fines whatever might be different, but both are impossible for me to legally go out to my street corner and buy. EXACTLY THE FREAKING SAME THING.
And you support those prohibitions.
--- Those prohibitional powers have never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.
Yet somehow, they magically have for nuke/bioweapons. And don't say "no those are reasonable regulations" because I can say the exact same thing of hard drugs.
You can 'say' hard drugs compare with CNB materials, but it's ludicrous. -- Your neighbor can have his basement secretly full of 'hard drugs', at no risk to you. CNB materials, extremely high risk, possibly to a whole city/county.
There is no difference constitutionally. [between hard drugs & CNB materials]
Dream on kiddo. -- Or is it cocktail time again that's fueling your imagination?
I just got you buddy. Took a while, but you bit. You have just, unknowingly, admitted that there is no constitutional difference in prohibiting private ownership of nuke/bio weapons and narcotics. You did so because you are trying to argue that those weapons are dangerous to others while narcotics aren't. This is where the community/state comes in. Because why should the entire nation follow exactly what tpaine thinks is too dangerous and what isn't? This is what you are proposing by saying that states cannot prohibit private ownership of narcotics because YOU don't see them as dangerous enough to merit such a regulation. Weather hard drugs are as dangerous to neighbors as those weapons is of no importance here. What is important is who get's to decide if they are or not? States or tpaine?
Texaggie79 wrote:
I just got you buddy. Took a while, but you bit.
You have just, unknowingly, admitted that there is no constitutional difference in prohibiting private ownership of nuke/bio weapons and narcotics. You did so because you are trying to argue that those weapons are dangerous to others while narcotics aren't. This is where the community/state comes in. Because why should the entire nation follow exactly what tpaine thinks is too dangerous and what isn't? This is what you are proposing by saying that states cannot prohibit private ownership of narcotics because YOU don't see them as dangerous enough to merit such a regulation. Weather hard drugs are as dangerous to neighbors as those weapons is of no importance here.
What is important is who get's to decide if they are or not? States or tpaine?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sigh. -- We discussed this exact same 'gottcha game' you play, -- several days ago. -- I answered you about "who decides" in detail at #656:
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/820965/replies?c=655
Read it, and reply if you can.
Who get's to decide what is reasonable? Because my definition obviously differs from yours.
Read my answer at #656.
So the legislators, executives and judges get to decide. Ok then, well they decided that it was reasonable to regulate narcotics through prohibiting possesion by private citizens.
What's the complaint then?
Read our Constitution and you might get a clue.
LMAO, you just go in circles.
Constitution apparently means by "property" that nothing can be prohibited from us.
What about bio/nuke weapons?
Well we can make reasonable regulations on bio/nuke weapons.
Why not drugs?
Because that's not reasonable.
Who says? The constitution.
Skip back to the top.
LMAO, you just go in circles.
You claim, as you chase your own tail.
Constitution apparently means by "property" that nothing can be prohibited from us.
"Apparently"?. [see Harlen on due process]
What about bio/nuke weapons? Well we can make reasonable regulations on bio/nuke weapons.
Yep, so we have.
Why not drugs? Because that's not reasonable.
Yep, prohibitions made on drugs. guns, etc, are Constitutionally unreasonable.
Who says? The constitution.
How bout that kiddo, you've finally 'got it'. Congrats.
So there we have it. All this "unconstitutional" bs is fake. We have come to the heart of the matter.
Drugs and wmds are both regulated through prohibiting private citizens from owning them. It's reasonable for wmds, but not drugs, so sayeth the tpaine, all mighty tpaine.
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.