The War on Drugs/Guns

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory76.html

How related are the two? More than you might think, I'd bet.  Advocates of civil liberties need to get together and support ALL civil liberties - not just a select few, and they need to do so consistently.  The ACLU should stop denying that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.  The NRA should stop denying that the 10th amendment protects an individual's right to use drugs.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."  Amendment 10, the Bill of Rights.
(http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/Instructional/Resources/FoundingDocuments/Docs/TheBillofRights.htm)

Thus, since the drug war is not expressly authorized in the constitution, it is unconstitutional, right? ...

Advocates of the Bill of Rights and the civil liberties contained within should be more consistent.  It is not consistent to advocate the liberty of one group of people while ignoring the liberty of another group of people. 

This is one of the big reasons I was so turned off from both the NRA and the ACLU.  The NRA seems to be a recruiting ground for the neo-cons, claiming to support the bill of rights, while ignoring many of the liberties enshrined within it, such as the 4th and 10th amendments. 

The ACLU, likewise, seems to be a recruitment arm of the democratic party. It claims to be a supporter of the bill of rights & the constitution, while ignoring the 2nd amendment & the rights of american gun owners.  Both are inconsistent. 

The NRA should have joined the ACLU in opposing the Patriot Act and the more egregious violations of the bill of rights associated with the drug war.  The ACLU should join the NRA in being an advocate for the 2nd amendment rights of americans.

This is not to say I dissaprove of these organizations.  I am happy they are there.  Just imagine how much worse off our civil liberties in general would be without them.  However, civil liberties would fare better overall if the two of these organizations would hold to their objectives - defending the constitution and bill of rights for all americans.. and to stop kissing the asses of neo-conservatives and democrats regardless of what violations of civil liberty they support.

I have encouraged others since, if they would, to join GOA instead of the NRA due to these reasons (http://www.gunowners.org/), since GOA seems to be a more consistent advocate of the Bill of Rights in many cases where the NRA backed down (again, this is not to say I'm not happy the NRA is there).

Of course, advocates of civil liberties could also join one of the most uncompromising and consistent advocates of liberty today, the libertarian party (http://www.lp.org/).

bump for importance

This post contains much truth.

I'm gonna have to agree.  There is also a very practical political incentive for civil liberties organizations to band together in this manner: namely, the power of more votes and more money.

We need people to raise a stink about this if we want something done about it, or else both of these organizations will continue fucking us over by dividing the liberty advocates. 

Here is what the ACLU has to say about your 2nd amendment rights: 

"The individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well regulated militia." Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." - ACLU, Policy statement #47, 1996.

So in other words, they are saying the 2nd amendment doesn't give you as an individual a right to keep and bear arms, and that this is a collective right for the military/police/national guard.

If you believe the term "militia" means the National Guard then you must believe that the freedom of speech is reserved for the Government Printing Office.

>>6
Form a militia and call it the Negro Extermination Militia. Tell them by negro you are using the spanish word for "black" because this particular militia is multi-lingual and diverse and by black you mean the absence of light in order to refer to people who are unenlightenned enough to support tyranny. Add that by "extermination" you mean "neutralisation" and not genocide which is a seperate concept entirely. The Negro Extermination Militia will primarily recruit from agricultural communities in places such as Kansas and Florida and volunteer travel to crime ridden projects in cities such as Detroit and LA in order to help local police reduce violent crime.

Explain that as long as they define "the right to bear arms" only as the idea that people are only allowed to form militias in order to keep and bear arms, the Negro Extermination Militia will continue to exist. Once they change their opinion then NEM will disband since it will no longer be necessary.

>>6
Also tell them you are following their precept because they are avid supporters of the ACLU and want to help reduce crime in impoverished black communities.

Increased possession of guns will only treat the symptoms of America's bloodthirsty society.
>>7
Straw Man, Ad Hom

>>9
wut?

>>6
Classic.

"Thus, since the drug war is not expressly authorized in the constitution, it is unconstitutional, right? ..."

If it is not banned it is certainly not uncostitutional.  Supreme court has never even gave a second thought to it so I have no doubt in my mind that it is in fact constitutional. 

>>12
It's more complicated than you're making it out.  Read the Tenth Amendment carefully.  If you accept that the prohibition of drugs is not an expressly stated Federal ability in the constitution, then it should be left up to the States.  Production, sale, and consumption of drugs within a single State does not fall under the purview of interstate commerce either.  As far as I can tell, the only constitutional ground the Feds have for the drug war is national security....which is bullshit. 

There's a reason they crafted an amendment to outlaw alcohol: there wasn't a way to make it illegal without one.

The point of having a gun is to protect yourself in a crises when the government can't help you. Example: Giant flood in new orleans. Government is 1) too fucking busy and 2) too fucking stupid to help you, so help yourself against looters.

>>14
Well, where the government fails, the Nail-bat picks up, amirite?

>>15
Correct.

ミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミ
ミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミ
ミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミ
ミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミ
ミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミミ

>>13
Exactly.  Drug prohibition, if exercised at a FEDERAL level (which a lot of it is), is completely unconstitutional.  It is a violation of the 10th amendment. 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Drugs are just chemicals and guns are just tools. There's no fucking reason to ban them, other than false security of big goverment. We just have to learn to accept that people die daily and it's natural.