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
A given? WTFBBQ?!? How?!?!? You said the constitution allows for NO compromise. We are allowed ALL property, period. How can you make exceptions?!?! YOU JACK BOOTED THUG!!!
A given? WTFBBQ?!? How?!?!? You said the constitution allows for NO compromise. We are allowed ALL property, period. How can you make exceptions?!?! YOU JACK BOOTED THUG!!!
Sophomoric argument again. You're playing the same childish games you played three years ago, tex. - Grow up.
FR's "organizers" show us what they are made of with every juvenile comment posted.
-- Proof enough of Bastiat's point.
No you simply want to have your cake and eat it to. You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance, per the constitution, yet when it comes to nuclear weapons, you say "well obviously government can regulate that".
Why is that tpaine? It's because you see that as something that is just too dangerous to go unregulated. You have no constitutional support, you just use your personal view that it is too dangerous, and state "well that's common sense".
So let's all let tpaine make the rules on what is too dangerous.
Not true. -- I've been saying for years that like all rights, the public aspects of 'doing drugs' can be reasonably regulated, using due process of Constitutional law. - Prohibitions however, -- are repugnant to due process of law.
-- We have never, and cannot empower governments to enact prohibitions on our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property.
You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance, per the constitution, yet when it comes to nuclear weapons, you say "well obviously government can regulate that".
Yep, per the Constitution, reasonable regulations can be written.
Why is that tpaine? It's because you see that as something that is just too dangerous to go unregulated. You have no constitutional support, you just use your personal view that it is too dangerous, and state "well that's common sense". So let's all let tpaine make the rules on what is too dangerous.
Rant on my boy. You can't argue the issue logically, so you invent things to say. Infantile game you play.
So your entire argument here is: Dangerous weapons like bio or nuclear are reasonable, but crack, heroine, ext are not reasonable to prohibit citizens from possessing? And so we all must follow tpaine's definition of reasonable.
Not true. -- I've been saying for years that like all rights, the public aspects of 'doing drugs' can be reasonably regulated, using due process of Constitutional law. - Prohibitions however, -- are repugnant to due process of law.
-- We have never, and cannot empower governments to enact prohibitions on our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property.
You say states are forbidden from regulating ANY substance, per the constitution, yet when it comes to nuclear weapons, you say "well obviously government can regulate that".
Yep, per the Constitution, reasonable regulations can be written.
Why is that tpaine? It's because you see that as something that is just too dangerous to go unregulated. You have no constitutional support, you just use your personal view that it is too dangerous, and state "well that's common sense". So let's all let tpaine make the rules on what is too dangerous.
Rant on my boy. You can't argue the issue logically, so you invent things to say. Infantile game you play.
So your entire argument here is:
Their you go again, inventing my "entire argument".. You're an amusingly juvenile troll.
Dangerous weapons like bio or nuclear are reasonable, but crack, heroine, ext are not reasonable to prohibit citizens from possessing? And so we all must follow tpaine's definition of reasonable.
How many ways can you mischaracterize my position, tex-baby? -- Troll on.
It's pretty simple bro. Either states have NO ability to regulate dangerous materials through prohibiting its citizens from possessing said material, or they do. There's no "only what tpaine thinks is dangerous".
Weird theory my boy. -- Where did you dream up that one?
-- Can you justify it with ~any~ link to our founding documents or common/case law as practiced in the USA?
I challenge you to make a rational argument supporting your theory.
"-- It is, of course, well established that a State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not contravene any federal constitutional provision.... --"
Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his 'Pruneyard' decision.
Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins
Address:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/pruneyard.html
My theory? It's not a theory it's fact through logic. Same way that either you can be a member of FR, or not. There is no half and half. If you are signed up for FR, you are a member, if you aren't signed up then you aren't. Logic.
So, either the constitution allows for states to regulate harmful substances by prohibiting citizens from owning it, or it doesn't. Your post by Rehnquist seems to imply that they can. So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?
Either states have NO ability to regulate dangerous materials through prohibiting its citizens from possessing said material, or they do.
Weird theory my boy. -- Where did you dream up that one? -- Can you justify it with ~any~ link to our founding documents or common/case law as practiced in the USA?
I challenge you to make a rational argument supporting your theory.
My theory? It's not a theory it's fact through logic.
Meaningless denial. You simply can't make a rational argument supporting your claim, so you want to argue about the word 'theory'.
Same way that either you can be a member of FR, or not. There is no half and half. If you are signed up for FR, you are a member, if you aren't signed up then you aren't. Logic.
Rehnquist belies your specious 'logic':
"-- It is, of course, well established that a State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not contravene any federal constitutional provision.... --" Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his 'Pruneyard' decision.
Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins Address:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/pruneyard.html
So, either the constitution allows for states to regulate harmful substances by prohibiting citizens from owning it, or it doesn't. Your post by Rehnquist seems to imply that they can.
Just as I said, States can make reasonable regulations, but they can't make unreasonable prohibitions that violate due process.
[see Harlan above on due process]
So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?
Back to basics tex? In our system:
-- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.
Can you agree on those basics?
So you admit the qualifier is "reasonable"?
Who get's to decide what is reasonable?
Prove that prohibiting me from buying crack is unreasonable.
Either states have NO ability to regulate dangerous materials through prohibiting its citizens from possessing said material, or they do.
Weird theory my boy. -- Where did you dream up that one? -- Can you justify it with ~any~ link to our founding documents or common/case law as practiced in the USA?
I challenge you to make a rational argument supporting your theory.
My theory? It's not a theory it's fact through logic.
Meaningless denial. You simply can't make a rational argument supporting your claim, so you want to argue about the word 'theory'.
Same way that either you can be a member of FR, or not. There is no half and half. If you are signed up for FR, you are a member, if you aren't signed up then you aren't. Logic.
Rehnquist belies your specious 'logic':
"-- It is, of course, well established that a State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not contravene any federal constitutional provision.... --" Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his 'Pruneyard' decision.
Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins Address:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/pruneyard.html
So, either the constitution allows for states to regulate harmful substances by prohibiting citizens from owning it, or it doesn't. Your post by Rehnquist seems to imply that they can.
Just as I said, States can make reasonable regulations, but they can't make unreasonable prohibitions that violate due process.
[see Harlan above on due process]
So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?
Back to basics tex? In our system:
-- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.
Can you agree on those basics?
Tex can't even agree:
So you admit the qualifier is "reasonable"? Who get's to decide what is reasonable?
Weird reply; -- 'Deciding' is answered just above. --- Read much?
Prove that prohibiting me from buying crack is unreasonable.
Prohibiting you from buying a gun is unreasonable, unless it obvious you are of unsound mind & high on crack at the time. -- Once sober we can discuss the issue as reasonable adults. Keep trolling, and no doubt you will make a complete fool of yourself.
I didn't say gun, I said crack. And you still haven't provided a solid foundation for where we can establish what exactly is reasonable. Who get's to say?
So, the qualifier is, what is too dangerous and who get's to decide?
Back to basics tex?
In our system: -- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; -- and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.
You can't even agree on those basics?
So you admit the qualifier is "reasonable"? Who get's to decide what is reasonable?
Weird reply; -- 'Deciding' is answered just above. --- Read much?
Prove that prohibiting me from buying crack is unreasonable.
Prohibiting you from buying a gun is unreasonable, unless it obvious you are of unsound mind & high on crack at the time. -- Once sober we can discuss the issue as reasonable adults. Keep trolling, and no doubt you will make a complete fool of yourself.
I didn't say gun, I said crack.
Read the posted article; -- It's an excellent essay on why prohibitions on guns & cocaine are unreasonable.
And you still haven't provided a solid foundation for where we can establish what exactly is reasonable.
Who get's to say?
In our system this is "who gets to say", tex:
-- Legislators are pledged to make reasonable laws; -- Executives are pledged to enforce only reasonable laws; -- and Justices pledged to decide questions about unreasonable laws that arise before the courts, -- in favor of liberty for all.
We are all responsible for being "reasonable" about each others Constitutional liberties.
Now and then of course, we find people like you who believe in prohibitions on liberty. -- Which is a weird choice, one you can't even understand.
Trying to pin him down is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. He refuses to answer a direct question because he has no answer.
"Unreasonable regulations restrict individual liberties paulsen".
RP likes nothing better than seeing individual liberties restricted.
He don't want no steenkin' free country.
Reasonable ones do not? And you know the difference?
"You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty"
Sane is irrelevant. It is a fact that government has the power to prohibit liberty with due process.
"and that anyone who protests this power is crazy"
Crazy is irrelevant. Maybe not in your case, no, but in general.
Anyone who doesn't realize that government has the power to deprive someone of liberty with due process is ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, Amendments V and XIV.
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.