Marijuana.com

Plainsman1963

Should both drugs and guns be legal?
01-22-2005 | Dave Duffy | Backwoods Home Magazine


Answering the question of “Should drugs be legal?” is like answering the question of “Should guns be legal?” Whoever answers either question steps onto a minefield of passionate opposition—from conservatives if you say yes to drugs, and from liberals if you say yes to guns. That’s why it’s easier to recognize that both questions are really part of a much larger and more important question: Should government be controlled? And the answer to that question, as well as the other two, is yes.

The illegalization of drugs gives government the excuse to trample our rights, under the guise of protecting us and our children from their effects, and the illegalization of guns will give government the ability to totally trample our rights because we would have no defense against it.

What has the illegalization of drugs accomplished?

• Prisons are overcrowded with drug offenders sentenced under mandatory sentencing laws while violent offenders go free to make room. The result is the U.S. now has the highest incarceration rate in the world, made up mainly of people who have never committed a violent crime—pretty incredible for a “free” country.

• There is increased corruption in our police and judicial systems due to the large amount of money available for payoffs. The poorer you are the more likely you are to go to jail; monied drug lords with their high-priced lawyers have little to fear from the law.

• Millions of Americans who suffer from chronic pain go undermedicated because doctors are afraid to prescribe pain killers for fear of being investigated (a number have already been sent to prison) by a Drug Enforcement Agency. A U.S. health agency has called the suffering of these patients a national disgrace.

• Seizure of property from citizens who have not been found guilty of any crime has gone sky-high, thanks to drug laws that give police the power to seize property suspected of being involved in a crime. It’s up to the owner to prove his property is innocent. Orwellian?

• The War on Drugs is a repeat of Prohibition in the ‘30s. The amount of drugs consumed in America has not gone down appreciably, but the price of them has gone way up, making them even more attractive to sell.

What will the illegalization of guns accomplish?

• This is the classic history lesson of our century. Like all the communist and fascist states that outlawed guns before turning against their own people, we will be powerless to resist our government should it turn against us. And judging from our government’s conduct in its War on Drugs, it already has.

What about the arguments against making drugs legal and keeping guns legal? Both are essentially the same: drugs and guns lead to the destruction of our children, the former through destroying their physical and mental well being and the latter through killing them outright.

Both arguments play on the public’s desire to protect their children at all costs. Those who would keep drugs illegal would imprison our children rather than have them take drugs, and those who would make guns illegal would expose our children to the potential enslavement of a government turned tyrannical rather than let them be endangered by guns. (Another story is the fact that Justice Department statistics show that guns are used by private citizens to prevent violent crimes far more often than they are used to commit crimes, but the stories behind those statistics never make it into the newspapers. I wonder why?)

People in government, especially the cadre of bureaucrats who think they know best how we should run our lives, find these excuses convenient to hide behind. The illegalization of drugs has given our government the excuse it needs to stop us on the street and make a warrantless search of our person, to invade our home on the suspicion we may be using drugs, and to send our children to prison for their own good. The illegalization of guns would allow the government to go even further because we would have no way to resist police in what appears to be our emerging police state.

I am the father of four children and here’s what I think of the government and their conservative and liberal supporters who want to protect my children against drugs and guns: Leave my children alone. They are my concern, not yours. I would rather they ran the risk of experimenting with drugs than have some government agent send them to prison to be gang raped by hard core criminals. And I would rather they risked being gunshot than have them live out their lives as servants to a tyrannical government without any chance to restore their freedom through armed resistance.

Drugs and guns may be bad if used badly, but an all powerful Government is much worse. The illegalization of drugs may have sounded like a good idea in theory once, but it has given Government far too much power over us. And the proposed illegalization of guns may sound like a good idea in theory to some because it is supposed to help keep our children safe, but in reality it will take away our last and ultimate defense against government. And like our Founding Fathers I would rather live free with some peril than live as the protected slave of government.

The question is this: Do we want a powerful government that can come into our homes or stop us on the street at will and arrest us on the suspicion we may be guilty of a crime, that can seize our property on the suspicion it is guilty, and that sends our children to prison for their own good? Or do we want a government that dares not trample on our rights guaranteed in our Constitution?

If the latter, then both drugs and guns must be legal.

Reprinted with permission of Dave Duffy and Backwoods Home Magazine. 1-800-835-2418

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Posting Guidelines

 

Zilos

I don't see how keeping guns legal is gonna protect us from the government? Unless things goto anarchy. Anybody that points a gun at a government officials or police officers is gonna wish they didn't.

However I don't think guns should be illegal, I think there needs to be rules, like keeping them locked up so kids can't get at them, since some people are too careless to do so.

Actually, I just don't know... in the end, education is the best answer, and better then any law. But educating people can be alot harder them enforcing laws I guess....

__________________
:: Posting Guidelines :: 420 Lounge :: Hemp Cultivation :: Myths :: Canadian Laws :: U.S. Laws :: Recipes ::

Buzzby

Well, you see, in the US we once had a government that abused us, taxed us without representation, stole our goods, and quartered soldiers in our homes. We didn't like that. Fortunately, most Americans of those days were armed, so we were able to rise up and kick the bastards out. If we hadn't had guns we'd still be subjects of the queen (like you are ) instead of citizens of a free republic. In a system of checks and balances designed to keep the government from going tyrannical, the final factor is an armed citizenry.

Don't say, "It can't happen here." It can happen anywhere. Some of my people had lived comfortably in Germany for a couple of centuries before the government went bad and started shipping them off to death camps. The moves of our current regime to suppress dissent are reminding me that freedom is something that needs to be defended. If it isn't, authoritarian *ssholes will push their agendas over a passive populace.


A primary reason to have guns in the house is to be able to defend yourself and your family. If the guns are locked up this becomes very difficult to accomplish. If you have very young children it's wise to have some kind of protection on your guns that they can't remove but you can. (I used a very strong rubber band thingy that takes adult strength to remove.) When my daughter was five years old I began to teach her gun safety and take her shooting with me. I showed her how much damage they can do. When she was six I let her shoot my .22 pistol. After that she lost all interest in firearms and I felt safe leaving a home defense weapon in a ready-to-use condition. (When she went off to college she joined the NCAA rifle team and shot matches all over this part of the country.)


I agree about education, but we may be talking about different curricula. Guns are tools. You can be ignorant about them, fear them, or learn to use them appropriately. In a society of free men and women I think it is necessary for there to be an armed citizenry to serve as a check on government power.

Our constitution says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". At the time of its writing, the militia consisted of all adult males from 15 to 55, each man providing his own weapon and initial ammunition. (It was not the National Guard.) "Well regulated" refers to the ability of this militia to cooperate and use their weapons efficiently (like a well regulated timepiece.) If you look at the writings of the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, it's obvious that their intent was that all men (this was before Women's Liberation) be armed so that the US government could never become like the recently defeated British government and that each household could defend itself from criminals and contribute to the defense of the community at need.

__________________

Herb Ninja

I bet if I were to walk down the road with a shotgun in hand I would be harassed by every cop that noticed me. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is often unconstitutionally denied. And why should I need to get a concealed carry license when the constitution plainly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? And I have to be 21 to buy a pistol, what crap. Pisses me off... Peace, HN-

__________________
Ron Paul for the Long Haul

MickityMike

Yeah, I imagine if a cop saw you walking around with a shotgun you'd probably get asked a question or two. Although it'd be perfectly legal, it's also a bit unusual, and I don't see that cops noticing that you're armed - with a shotgun - as necessarily a bad thing.



But as for the thread topic, should both guns and drugs be legal, I say: Hell YES they should. Don't tread on me, ya bastards!

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

 

MickityMike

Plainsman1963

Also keep in mind what a big, diversified nation we are.

The majority (or close to it) of pickups around here have a long gun in the rack at the back of the cab. In plain view of anyone looking. No one even bats an eye.

Herb Ninja

Asked a question or two? I said harassed. At the very least. Possibly detained. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Peace, HN-

Puffer

Originally posted by MickityMike:
Yo, Mickity! Looks like you found something else we agree on. (Still, arguing can be lots of fun.)

__________________
Just say "know" to marijuana!

Herb Ninja

Hawaii gun laws:

(c) Except as provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9, all firearms and ammunition shall be confined to the possessor's place of business, residence, or sojourn; provided that it shall be lawful to carry unloaded firearms or ammunition or both in an enclosed container from the place of purchase to the purchaser's place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places upon change of place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places and the following: a place of repair; a target range; a licensed dealer's place of business; an organized, scheduled firearms show or exhibit; a place of formal hunter or firearm use training or instruction; or a police station. "Enclosed container" means a rigidly constructed receptacle, or a commercially manufactured gun case, or the equivalent thereof that completely encloses the firearm.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person on any public highway to carry on the person, or to have in the person's possession, or to carry in a vehicle any firearm loaded with ammunition; provided that this subsection shall not apply to any person who has in the person's possession or carries a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor in accordance with a license issued as provided in section 134-9.

(e) Any person violating subsection (a) or (b) shall be guilty of a class A felony. Any person violating this section by carrying or possessing a loaded firearm or by carrying or possessing a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver without a license issued as provided in section 134-9 shall be guilty of a class B felony. Any person violating this section by carrying or possessing an unloaded firearm, other than a pistol or revolver, shall be guilty of a class C felony.

{134-5 refers to hunting, 134-9 refers to licenses to carry.}

According to this website "Licenses to carry are available to local residents in theory. In practice, the police will not issue permits to anyone." Its kinda like the marijuana tax stamps, when they said you couldn't grow marijuana without the stamps and then didn't let anyone have the stamps. Peace, HN-