Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[tpaine]

"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." -From the letter-

The 9th and 14th say nothing about drugs being legal. The 2nd says everything about guns being legal. I repeat, no connection.

The point is, - such rights do not have to be enumerated. Lord, but you are dense.

His letter was filled with points. None of them had anything to do with a connection to the 2nd amendment.

Read the quote above, and be ashamed of your blind denial of reality.

The author probably wrote a similar letter to newspapers and churches substituting "1st amendment" for "2nd amendment" and claiming that "they're coming after you next". "We're not fighting for drugs, we're defending the Bill of Rights!". Yeah, right.

Scoff if you must. - But you have lost all your credibility here, imo.

[tpaine]

'Drugs' were 'legal' for most of US history. - They have been prohibited by unconstituional methods, which point you refuse to acknowledge. Are you a socialist, or a conservative? -- You cannot be a 'conservative' prohibitionist. 19 -tpaine-

So? Lots of "things" were legal at one point in our countries history...doesn't mean because they ONCE WERE, that we were better off then.

You are arguing that the WOD's has made us 'better off'? How?

----------------------------

They have been prohibited by unconstituional methods, which point you [apparently] refuse to acknowledge. [corrrected]

Just WHERE in my previous post do I acknowlege, or NOT acknowledge this "point", oh legal scholar???

You got me, oh pedantic one!!! Big deal.

[Oztrich Boy]

So? Lots of "things" were legal at one point in our countries history...doesn't mean because they ONCE WERE, that we were better off then.

And that argument works just as well when used against the right to poosess guns

[tpaine]

A Libertarian society is not acceptable IMHO.

Why should your socialistic opinion about libertarians be viewed as honest?

Why should we reward addiction??

The treatment of addicts is not a reward.
- And we see the alternative, in the war on drugs, guns, and liberty: -- all three of which you 'apparently' support.

[tpaine]

Good point, --- one that is unrefutable by FR's many drug warriors.
- Which may explain their absence on this thread. Only the more dense of their coven are here.

[caltrop]

Perhaps if I clarify my position you'll be able to follow my argument.

Drug addicts, IMHO - based partly on my observation of a few, have destroyed their lives and, unless they want to kick the habit, their isn't anything I can do to really help them. The damage their addiction causes society is staggering and, IMHO, unaffordable.

To belabor the obvious and repeat myself let me point out that I don't favor legalization. I do favor taking any profit out of dealing in drugs.

The question of what drugs the Boards of Health need to maintain should be left up to them. My answer would be to provide - only to those who have a documented addiction - anything addicts are taking.

To further clarify my position you need to recognize that I don't care about the drug addicts. If they OD I only hope they'll do it somewhere other than the middle of the road so they don't create a traffic problem. The people I'm concerned about are those not addicted to drugs - the girl who doesn't get hooked and become a prostitute, the old lady who can walk down the street without fearing someone will kill her for her wedding ring's street value and all the rest of us.

[robertpaulsen]

"such rights do not have to be enumerated"

Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?

And if you can find such a reason, how can the author possibly compare drug use with that reason? No connection.

[tpaine]

Well said.
The drug warriors don't really care about curing the problem or ending the 'war' however.

The war is their agenda.

They hope to create a new socialist society based upon the ruins of our constitution.

[tpaine]

"such rights do not have to be enumerated"

Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?

Because the framers had just fought a war against a government that tried to limit arms, not one that prohibited food, drink or drugs.
-- Lordy, if Georgie would have banned booze, the Brits would have joined us!

And if you can find such a reason, how can the author possibly compare drug use with that reason? No connection.

Its apparent that you haven't even attempted to understand the authors comparisons. -- Get real or get lost.

[caltrop]

Unhappily, I'm afraid I have to agree.

[SSN558]

The drug warriors believe they are conservative. Actually there is a distinct difference betweeen a conservative and a facist.

[ActionNewsBill]

Good post. After reading this, I cannot understand how someone can claim to be pro-second Amendment and pro-drug war at the same time.

[tpaine]

They hope to create a new socialist society based upon the ruins of our constitution.
-28-

Unhappily, I'm afraid I have to agree. -ct-

Thanks, - I'm far from being 'happy' about our situation, meself.
What truely pains me is that so many erstwhile conservartives on FR cannot even see the point our author above is making. They are so blinded by their fervor to 'control' drugs, that they forget ALL our constitutional liberties are involved, inseperateably.

[tpaine]

The drug warriors believe they are conservative. Actually there is a distinct difference betweeen a conservative and a facist.
31 -SSN558-

Hmmmm, lets ask some of FR's foremost warriors if they care to comment.

[weikel]

You'd almost think it was designed that way, if we didn't know better

Im not sure I know better.

[Puppage]

The treatment of addicts is not a reward.

So, the legalization of drugs is "treatment"? LOL.

Why should your socialistic opinion about libertarians be viewed as honest?

Sorry, the FACT that I do not agree with the legalization of drugs does NOT make me a socialist.So you know...I am a rightwing conservative, MANY gun owner, christian. Perhaps, you'd be better served by surfing over to the Ultra Liberal website that bears your moniker?

[groanup]

"Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?"

Because rights did not have to be enumerated to be recognized. The ten that are in the bill of rights were a ploy to promote ratification.

[tpaine]

Good post. After reading this, I cannot understand how someone can claim to be pro-second Amendment and pro-drug war at the same time.
Yep. Tis a strange dichotomy. Perhaps the boys above can help us understand.

[tpaine]

steve50:
"You'd almost think it was designed that way, if we didn't know better."

Im not sure I know better.
35 -weikel-

Rest assured, we know you don't.

[weikel]

Um im anti wod why do you always attack people who agree with you. If I didn't know better I'd think you were a troll trying to get other people to hate libertarians.