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
Well since I cannot buy or own wmds, then I guess you are fine with the fact that you cannot buy or own crack. So, we have reached an agreement.
Good times.
Dream on about 'agreements' texbaby. -
I don't agree with anti-constitutionalists.
The argument with video games is that they send the wrong message. I hardly see that as dangerous as a substance that chemically alters one's brain, causing them to do things they have no control over.
Paraphrasing your stance:
If you could get enough stupid people in one state to vote to regulate assault weapons from any private citizens owning them in that state, well, they can do that.
The argument with assault weapons is that they send the wrong message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you Ms Brady.
If that state/township/community agrees that his drug of choice is too much of a threat, it's theirs. If he wants to do that drug, don't do it in a city that prohibits it.
You say, "when someone gets stoned" look, we can all agree pot is less harmfull than alcohol, and it's idiotic and hypocritical to outlaw it. But for hard drugs, they are a threat.
I advocate in court for abused children. And I will tell you that 99.9% of the cases I see are caused by drug usage. HARD drug usage. Crystal Meth, crack, heroin. These drugs are just simply impossible to do responsibly. The very act of doing them at all is irresponsible. And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.
I do believe we have an amendment that would disagree.
If you could get enough stupid people in one state to vote to regulate assault weapons from any private citizens owning them in that state, well, they can do that.
I do believe we have an amendment that would disagree.
Meaning that only the enumerated rights are protected? -- Read the 9th.
I advocate in court for abused children.
And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.
Please tex, tell us more on how you qualify as an "advocate". -- Is this your new career?
"I hope" you say, we "have a chance of getting back to some semblance of a free country."
I fear the more communitarian 'advocates' we have, the less chance of that.
Well, dealing with these families directly I can tell you, legalizing thier hard drug of choice would help nothing but maybe allow them to have more money to pay the bills a little more often. They still wouldn't work, they still would abuse their children they still would be worthless humanbeings that were nothing but a drain on the system.
Legalizing their drug would probably actually create more families like this. Because with the "illegal" stigma taken off, some naive parents might think they can do meth or crack on the weekends while the kids are away only to find out they no longer have any control over their habit and lives.
It's a volunteer job for a private charity.
Believe me, had these parent's not been getting high, and they were treating their children the same way, you would still agree they should be taken out of the homes.
But sadly, it is the drugs alone that make these parents so dangerous for their own kids. Parent that would sell their own childs bodies for access to drugs. Parent who let their 5 year olds take care of themselves for days at a time.
It's down right horrifying, and just about every single one of them, when you talk to their relatives, they tell you that they were never that way, until they got on the meth, or crack or whatever hard drug it is.
If you legalized it, they would still not be able to afford it legally, because they would still be high all the time, and without a job. Hell, if you made it legal alot of them wouldn't have a job because the local drug store would take over. Then they would do even more desperate things for the drugs.
I advocate in court for abused children.
And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.
Please tex, tell us more on how you qualify as an "advocate". -- Is this your new career?
It's a volunteer job for a private charity.
Is the court aware that you consider these parents "-- worthless human beings that were nothing but a drain on the system --"?
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.