My reason was because as far as I'm concerned as long as you are not harming anybody you are good to go. Not to mention the war on drugs, guns, terrorism etc are all false fronts for a war on our rights. At least in my opinion. No harm? no foul is my motto.
I also see it as a war on rights and individual liberties.
Most of the indirect losses of liberty in the past several decades have come about from attempts to restrict individuals the majority did not like.
Most expansion of government search and seizure laws came about from the war on drugs. These have played a significant role in a reduction of firearm rights and case law against gun freedoms.
In California the Hayes case is a prime example, where just concealing a loaded magazine while legally having a gun open carried was determined to be a crime in order to justify the otherwise illegal search that uncovered some drugs. Since the drug charge was the whole case, if the search was determined invalid (which it was because a magazine for a perfectly legally carried gun was not a crime or reason for probable cause) the case would have been dropped.
So we all lost a little more of our rights to insure prosecution of the drug crime.
Another example is the Black Panthers. We all lost our right to open carry in California because California legislators voted to restrict the rights of a very tiny percentage of the population that were not very popular with the general population. Protect us from the boogeyman by removing our rights.
All they need is a boogeyman most people are against, and they can pass legislation that encompasses us all under the guise of just stopping the boogeyman.
Gonzales vs Raich (medical marijuana grown in state and never part of commerce at any level, state or federal, still determined subject to Federal jurisdiction) led to a decision which defeats the Firearms Freedom Act before it ever even got off the ground. Without that decision NFA restricted items created for personal or that didn't cross state lines could have been determined outside the scope of the commerce clause. This was shown in California under United States vs Stewart 9th circuit. The court determined a homemade NFA item made only for personal use in Arizona was outside the scope of the commerce clause. Meaning it is entirely legal without NFA registration.
The SCOTUS then told them to reverse their decision "in light of Raich", as Raich created all encompassing logic for Federal authority that could be expanded to anything. The 9th Circuit reversed their decision as directed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Once again the war on drugs led to less firearm freedom.
Federal power was expanded well beyond anything prior in that decision for a wide range of things, all to insure someone on private property growing a plant they never sold to anyone or crossed state lines with was still subject to federal authority.
I could go on with examples all day of direct and indirect losses of firearm rights due to the war on drugs.
As for terrorism, the founders version of an entirely armed people, local militias, and willingness and capability to defeat tyranny foreign and domestic fits nicely in to the modern international and post 9/11 definition of terrorism. The definition our own government uses in classifying foreign terrorists!
Just by being tied to any group involved in an insurgency or struggle, even against ruthless dictators or tyrants, makes someone a "terrorist".
Just knowing or having contact with such a "terrorist" gives someone the title of "has links to terrorist organizations" or "has links to terrorists" or "links to terrorist activity" and subjects them to international economic and military action.
By modern government definition our founders intended a nation of "terrorists". Something to keep in mind with anti-terrorism legislation passing left and right.
Restrictive governments around the world would love to be able to give their citizens few rights, and disarm them all, and subject them all to constant screening for weapons and other methods of resistance to "protect" them from "terrorists".
Anytime you let the government take others' liberties, you eventually lose rights indirectly as a result of the law, the case law, and the legal decisions necessary to uphold the loss of their liberties.
Much more than just Demos, voted for him it seems...
