SHOTGUN NEWS 
Vol. 50, Issue 33, 1996 -- 3rd issue of November

        To the readers of Shotgun News:

        ...My columns concerning the "Drug War" in relation to gun control
have generated mountains of response from readers.  The consensus is to
decriminalize drugs, let the chips fall where they may and obliterate the
drug dealer and crime in the process.

        Mr. Populi's letter  on the subject  follows and we feel each and
every point he makes is well taken.  We thank him for his permission to
publish this fine treatise on the subject and look forward to your input on
this timely debate. 

                        Nancy Snell Swickard 
                                Publisher


Ms. Nancy Snell Swickard -- Publisher
"Shotgun News"
P.O. Box 669, Hastings, Nebraska  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 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 posses 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 in America was.  It is a classic example of the attempt to
control a vice -- drunkeness -- 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 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 premiss 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 enoromous 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 guns owners.  That is their method of propaganda.  Do we also know that
Drug Warrios 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
tlhe 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 of the 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 defence 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
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 havve become fetishes to some people in
America.  They blame guns and drugs for all the intractible 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 diminsh 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