War on Drugs = War on Guns?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Tackleberry1, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Am I the only one who sees a direct "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", link between the War on Drugs and the War on Gun Owners?

    Since the 1960's our Nation has continued to escalate a campaign against illicit drugs after outlawing a product that the Constitution gives them ZERO authority to regulate in the first place.

    These actions have created a lucrative black in market for both guns and drugs offering obscene profits to anyone violent enough to control a teritory and ruthless enough to kill anyone who gets in there way.

    Unlike our adversaries, I'm NOT blaming the death tolls on our freedoms. I am laying blame for the death toll at the feet of our Government. A Government that has illegally regulated substances, imprisoned people for what they choose to injest, and in doing so, created the black market violence that is then used as an exuse to infringe on OUR 2A liberties.

    A cursory glance at history proves an earlier attempt to use "mind altering" substances and Governments need to protect its citizens from them as the excuse to greatly expand Gonernment and Law Enforcement powers.

    We know ^^THIS^^ as prohibition and our ancestors were smart enough to figure out what was going on and repeal it.

    The running gun battles on American streets driven by illicit alcohol profits were not ended by the magical G Men of the FBI or by regulating full auto weapons. It ended when the illicit profits that fueled it were removed by the consumer who could now buy a safer, cheaper, and legal product from there now legal liquor store.

    For half a century our "supposed"'allies on the right have been protecting there sacred cow known as the War on Drugs by capitulating with the Left who's driven to "do something" to protect there inner city pet constituents from gun violence. Violence created soley by the combination of the welfare state and the ridiculous proffits available in the drug and gun black markets.

    Pro gun advocates, with the exception of perhaps Ron Paul, have completely failed to recognize the connection and blindly supported the War on Drug to the detriment of our own 2A freedoms.

    We've done ^^THIS^^ because many of us buy into the same hand wringing liberal fear mindset that if legal, addiction would become rampant. The streets would be lined with addicts stumbling through life, creating more crime, and injuring more innocents in search of there next fix.

    So I ask all of you, when was the last time an alcoholic held up a gas station or mugged a woman in a park in order to feed there booze addiction?

    When was the last time illicite booze smugglers murdered a border partol agent?

    When was last time Canadian booze lords murdered 55,000 Canadians so they could continue funneling cheap whiskey into the US?

    These fears are no more rational than the liberal fear that the streets would run red with blood if we passed CCW. Contrary to the anti gun spin doctors, motorists have not begun gunning each other down over fender benders. This was an irrational argument used to protect the special interest of gun control.

    The argument against legalizing drugs is the same Trojan horse meant to protect the current special interest of Law Enforcement funding and political power.

    End the War on drugs and the Violence that fuels support for Gun Control goes with it.

    Reaching these conclusion requires only that you study the history of controlled substances and the recognition that Goverments motivation is NOT the protection of it's citizens but rather in obtaining the additional power garnered by scaring it's citizens into allowing the increased powers that will eventually lead to there enslavement.

    Tack
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  2. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Yes, there may very well be a link. The "war on drugs" is a round-about justification for gun control and increased power for the government.

    Is it possible our public education system, in which parents of students have little or no say in how things are run or what the curricula are, a justification for property taxes thus turning us all into serfs? After all, if you must pay property tax to fund schools, you don't own your own land, do you? You rent it.

    There are probably many other cause/effect links if we paid closer attention.
     

  3. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    2,394
    312
    83
    This is so true! It wasn't so painful in the years before the '60's, when the schools were run by the local school board, which, in turn was composed of members of the community. The school board oversaw the budget, hired and fired the teachers and the principal and had some say in what subjects were taught. The state chose the textbooks, best I remember.Truly a 'community school.' Then the Federal government began sticking it's fingers into the pot and we have what we have today. We still pay property taxes in order to keep our homes and land, but we have absolutely NO say in what the school system does. From the lunch menu to school hours to school curriculum, it's 'Federal Guideline,' which is really 'Federal Fiat.'
     
  4. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Guys, you are absolutely correct on the property tax/school issue. I'm paying over 7k per year...and increasing...despite loosing 80k in value over the last 4 years.

    However, this thread is about the link between the War on Drugs and Gun Control. Let's stay on point. :)

    Tack
     
  5. willshoum

    willshoum New Member

    5,417
    0
    0
    Alcoholics unanamus.....

    We all know that to much indulgence in both causes problems. I'm a or use to be a working alcoholic.....Yes I like my beer, I haven't smoked a joint since the 70's.... Make the dam stuff legal and tax the sh$t out of them....And if the stuff your using causes a problem with your job, then we will put you on a chain gang fixing what needs fixing.......You either cut the head off of the consumer or just say $$$$ it..........If you do away with the drug user you are half way there........:mad::mad::mad:
     
  6. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Sorry. I was trying to validate your point with another example, is all.

    You don't have to think very hard to understand the "war on drugs" is a sham. The 18th amendment banning the sale, possession, consumption, manufacture or distribution of alcoholic beverages was done because the federal government otherwise lacked the authority to ban booze.

    There is absolutely no ******* legal authority for the federal government to ban ANYTHING that 3/4 of the state legislatures have not ratified a proposed amendment to the constitution to GRANTING the federal government the authority to ban. The entire "war on drugs" is illegal. All of the expenses, all of the lives lost, all of the incarcerations, all of the busts...completely illegal.

    So there goes the legal and moral authority of the federal government. The next step is to ask "so why are they doing it?" There are at least a few answers.

    First, as tack says, it's a way to impose firearm limitations.

    Second, it's a way for the government to impose a power play between their idea of criminals and the rest of us.

    Third, it's a way to extract more resources from taxpayers to fund prisons, rehab institutions and all the support personnel that involves. Essentially, it's the justification for more taxes.
     
  7. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    I'd love to see some investigative journalism on the costs for the War on Drugs - both in dollars and lives :eek:


    I think if the world knew how much life and money was being pissed away they would take pitchfolks and torches to their leaders :cool:
     
  8. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,618
    803
    113
    The best way to fight the war on drugs is to legalize them, and let the FDA make sure the stuff being sold is PURE!

    Shooting up the pure stuff, they'd all OD and die within a week and the problem would be solved!:p:D:p
     
  9. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Sure...but then you'd loose all the new tax revenue from repeat customers?
     
  10. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,209
    264
    83
    After Prohibition political critters should have learned their lesson about banning stuff. In the past 40 years millions of young people have been made felons because they used dope. More dope is coming into the US than ever before.

    Does anyone else find it strange that politicians and the politically connected never go to jail for their involvement in dope peddling? Here in OK; a Lawton pharmacist sold enough Sudafed at six times the retail price to make 50 pounds of meth. He was given a fine and probation because he was one of the anointed: Haskell Evans was a member of the OK board of health. Meanwhile: A woman with no criminal record went to prison for selling a few grams of her meth stash.

    The "war on drugs" is a sick joke. The US government is bankrupt, its time to end this feel good scam.
     
  11. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,618
    803
    113
    politicians, especially liberals, never learn.:(
     
  12. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    +1000

    However, pray tell, would our self anointed keepers justify the billions spent on there law enforcement and prison special interest if all the violence from the illicit drug trade suddenly disappeared?

    Tack
     
  13. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    Tack we haven't seen eye to eye on some things in the past but I think your 110% on this.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Josh

    Where did you find that image?

    Thanks for the feedback on the post. Yes, we have disagreed in the past and it's certain to happen again but that's what makes FTF so great.

    Exchange of ideas allows all of us to consider a different point of view and occasionally modify our position.


    I used to be 100% pro law enforcement...then Obama got the white house and we've seen:
    Voter Intimidation by Black Panthers go unpunished
    Fast and Furious
    Intelligence leaks
    No knock warrent murders off innocents
    And much more...

    ^^THIS^^ has all combined to convince me that strong law enforcement is only a POSSITIVE when those pulling the strings adhere to the law. Unfortunately we currently have criminals in office so what does that make the average street cop...illegitimate?

    Tack
     
  15. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    2
    0
    No doubt about it, the money is so big in the illegal drug market that nobody in charge will choose to kill it. LEO's, Lawyers, courts, producers and distributors all rake it in by the boatload and few on the take in any way want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg!

    Prohibition created a map to follow, just substitute the word drugs in place of booze and put "Demon" in front of it and the outcome is exactly the same. The word guns doesnt yet invoke the same visceral response but they are working to see if they can.

    If only 10% of the money being spent to win a war against an enemy with no legs was spent on prevention and intervention, we would be miles ahead and have 90% left in the bank!
     
  16. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,209
    264
    83
    CVS Pharmacies paid a 75 million dollar federal fine for selling Sudafed by the truckload to meth makers. Pharmacists told the company executives what they were doing was wrong. Despite the fact that company executives aided and abetted in making meth; no one went to jail.

    Yep, big company executives, like the banks, are "too big to jail". :mad:

    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/business&id=7724717

     
  17. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    I've had that pic for several years.Its survived being moved from machine to machine lol.

    You and anyone else can use it as you see fit.

    Anyway,its very important to understand how we can screw ourselves in support of more government when we agree to it being implemented by those we like,but then when those of our political opposite get power,they get to use those powers to their behest.

    I'm very fond of this quote:

    “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
    -Thomas Paine

    One of the best examples of this sort of thing is the Department of Homeland Stasi.

    Conservatives thought it would be a good thing to create yet another illegitimate federal police force,one that this time would specifically be designed to literally centralize all the local and state police with the federal bureaucracy.

    This would help us defend ourselves from radical fundamentalists terrorists and other dangerous people,they said.

    Things got really hokey when they started trying to classify druggies as supporters of terrorists tho,didn't it?

    And then they seemed to be trying to paint average run of the mill criminals as "terrorists",too.

    In the same vein,it was fine when we started allowing the government to ignore the inalienable rights of ALL PEOPLE,and the restrictions placed on it to the effect that it must observe due process and such.

    Who cares if some raghead in Gitmo's natural rights isnt protected from the most powerful government on earth,right?

    Well,now,as they say,the plot thickens and the shoe is on the other foot.

    Not 3 months after Obama the Marxist Usurper was elected,the Department of Homeland Stasi released a directive calling those who support 3rd party politicians,the Constitution,gun rights,etc,etc,could be "homegrown terrorists" and should be given "the special treatment" by law enforcement.

    The system Bush and the conservatives designed to "keep us safe" from the "evil terrorists" was now being used to target the left's bogeyman- the "radical right",in other words,most conservatives.

    We have to be careful when we unleash devils,because devils have no loyalty and will turn on their creators.

    Anyway,this is the sort of thing our Founders warned us about.

    Too big of a government is not good for anyone.
     
  18. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    2
    0
    Too big and its tendrils reach deeply into our lives from every corner and crevice. The laws that make things and not actions against the law also allows them to do what they please in pursuit of things.

    Every year thousands of laws are added to our communites, Counties, States and Federal law books. Some with famous names, others just appear out of nowhere. Who said Ignorence of the law is no excuse, musta been back in the roaring 20's when they only had 15 or 20 real laws to worry about, not thousands!

    They should make a new law, "For every new Law that is Created, three old ones must be eliminated". That would keep them tied up for decades!!!!!!!
     
  19. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    I do not believe the government has the legitimate authority to limit what i eat, drink, smoke, or shoot up. I do not respect any laws that they make to that end/purpose. I do pity those who are so addicted to meth or crack or whatever else that they are almost incapable of getting sober alone.

    I do believe that a circular patten of government agency budgets growing larger has emerged in relation to the "war on drugs". I do believe that jailing drug addicts for extended periods of time is an expensive way to transform addicts into real criminals with additional skills to feed their untreated habits/addictions. I do think that same money would be better spent on researching new ways to help people get over their addictions (crack "patch" or whatever it may be).

    I don't believe that the people of the U.S. have the power or will to reign in the errant federal government on this issue anytime soon.
     
  20. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    They got my attention when the Ice Cream Lady...Neopolotin? Napolitono? Whatever her name is, put out there Cautionary memo concerned that Disgruntled Vets could be a threat!

    The only way anyone can see this as a rational fear would be if you planned on raping the Constitution. Then yes, those of is who swore to uphold it might scare you.

    Tack