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
In this post, you say having to enumerate is silly. I agree. I really wasn't addressing the article at all, just your statement.
So, then, now you're saying that because the firearm weapon is considered so important it has an amendment to itself, other rights not specifically mentioned can be abrogated by the state? 
The 2nd says everything about guns being legal. I repeat, no connection.
And a good job he did, which you have been unable refute. Specific enumeration of our rights is not needed. -- Read the 9th or the 14th for proof.
Drugs were not given such an amendment. And, if the 9th and 14th amendments say so much about protecting the freedoms you so copiously listed, why list guns separately?
Answered previously, - and again, you were unable to refute.
Comparing the freedom to do drugs with the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, elevates drug use to a level it does not deserve.
89 -robertpaulsen-
And it discredits the right to keep and bear arms. Not that they care. 92 -roscoe-
Typically inane comment roscoe. --- Why does comparing violated rights 'discredit' either one of them?
"bring over" = incorporate
The Constitution and Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Although the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment may limit action by state and local governments, they have rejected the notion that the 14th Amendment incorporates the entire Bill of Rights.
Today, only three provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, 5th and 7th Amendments, remain unincorporated.
"listen to yourself supporting the 'right' of states to ban anything"
The right of California to ban guns says nothing about my position on the issue.
I can read the ninth. But how do the courts read the ninth?
695 F.2d 261 (google it)
The Seventh Circuit found no Supreme Court precedent to support the theory that the Ninth Amendment protects any specific right. In fact, the Ninth Amendment has not been used to define the rights of individuals or to invalidate state or federal laws.
"Since appellants do not cite, and our research has not revealed, any Supreme Court case holding that any specific right is protected by the ninth amendment, appellants' argument has no legal significance. Appellants may believe the ninth amendment should be read to recognize an unwritten, fundamental, individual right to own or possess firearms; the fact remains that the Supreme Court has never embraced this theory."
Please stop it with the 9th Amendment references. And William, I guess we'll need your list after all.
-?- Can you explain the meaning of this line of gibberish?"
"bring over" = incorporate The Constitution and Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868.
So the south claimed, refuted by the supermacy clause of Art VI. The 14th was passed, in part, to resolve that issue.
Although the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment may limit action by state and local governments, they have rejected the notion that the 14th Amendment incorporates the entire Bill of Rights. Today, only three provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, 5th and 7th Amendments, remain unincorporated.
'Incorporation', in my opinion, is just a shysters dodge, used to gain more power to the 'justice' system.
--------------------------
"listen to yourself supporting the 'right' of states to ban anything"
The right of California to ban guns says nothing about my position on the issue.
It says it all. You do not support our inalienable RKBA's, if you believe states have the 'right' to ban them. The NRA should revoke your membership, imo.
Absolutely. Limitations. Not eradication. We tried eradication, remember?
Again, if I state a fact it doesn't mean that I support that fact. It's just a fact.
False. Local prohibitions predate our Constitution.
A shyster's dodge? That's your argument?, Why oh why do I waste my time?
Indeed, why do you waste your time calling my clearly labled opinion an argument? Are you daft, or duplicit?
Again, if I state a fact it doesn't mean that I support that fact. It's just a fact.
And I didn't argue about your fact, I gave my opinion of those facts.
Get a logical grip.
False, sourceless, meritless, mindless.
The court is not saying that the 9th amendments does not protect unenumerated rights held by the people, it's saying that it checked the SC rulings and couldn't find one that enumerated the rights to be protected under the 9th. It probably found several where the SC said the 9th protects rights not otherwise named in the Constitution.
To read it any other way is nonsense. If the 9th amendment doesn't protect unenumerated rights fo the people, why is it there and why is the wording as it is?
Certerori was denied to the SC because the point that the 9th protects what the 2nd protects was argued. Cert was not denied because the SC refused to rule on the fact the 9th protects unenerated rights.
The wording of the 9th is clear, unambiguous and to the point. No cigar. Try again.
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.