From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Clinton: "I am adamantly opposed to legalization of drugs!"
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:27:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns


In <1992Oct16.174302.24448@cbnewse.cb.att.com> Mark Anderson states:

|In article  rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
 
|>I like the part about "fear gun regulation" as if it weren't about
|>some BAN on firearms. Well, it _IS_ about BANNING firearms; Chicago
|>has banned new handguns, and many semi-auto rifles as well. 

|Chicago is banning firearms because of the ever increasing murder rate.
|Every day people are getting killed and its making the news and
|alot of people are very concerned about it.  

Wrong. Chicago is banning firearms because certain pressure groups
and the news media have decided that you shouldn't have the right
to exercise your liberties, because they feel threatened by the
armed citizen.

Did Chicago show that all the registered handguns and assault rifles
legally owned were responsible for the increase in murders? No. 

In fact, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership did a study
of Chicago that was conducted by Jay Edward Simkin, entitled
"Murder in Chicago 1965-1990: The Futility of Gun Control." Mr. Simkin
also published a piece on the Wall Street Journal editorial page some
time back on this.

The first part of the report is the "CONCLUSIONS."

	The long term rise in the percentage of murders with prior
	criminal records in gneral - and those with criminal records
	considered relevant to the murder - suggests that research
	is needed to see if a given type or types of prior criminal
	acts may be a precursor to murder. (See Graph 1)
	
	In 19 of the 25 years surveyed, the number of handguns abused
	to commit murder, rose more slowly or fell more quickly than
	did the number of homicides, suggesting that the incidence of
	murder is independent of the presence or absence of firearms.
	
	Chicago's 1982 handgun registration ban appears to have ended
	a strong "down-trend" in the abuse of handguns by murders that
	began in the mid-1970s. (See Graph 2)
	
	Murderers abused 9mm and semi-automatic .45 pistols, seven
	times less often than the .38 revolver in the 1980s.
	
	Murderers' abuse of long firearms (rifles and shotguns) has
	fallen from low to negligible, especially for rifles other
	than .22 cal rimfire.
	
|The only way to protect your right to own a gun is to find a way to
|decrease the number of murders.  Whenever the nightly news interviews
|some "expert" on this subject, they always seem to advocate gun control
|as the only way to stop this.  You and I know this is silly but the
|more this misinformation gets repeated, the more it gets believed.
|We still live in a democracy (somewhat) and if the majority of people
|feel strongly about banning guns, guns will be banned.  No matter
|who you elect to office.

Well, you are wrong. The best way to preserve your right to own a gun
is to ensure the constitutions of the State of Illinois and the United
States are respected, both in the legislature and judiciary.

Why are handguns banned in Morton Grove, IL? Because they had some
problem with criminals using handguns to kill people? No. The reason
handguns are banned in Morton Grove is because the Democratic judges
on the Illinois Supreme Court outnumbered the Republican judges. The
Democrats, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the clear evidence
of the transcripts of the Illinois Consitutional Convention in the
early 1970s, showing that handguns were indeed protected, was irrelevant.

The Democrats spat on the citizens of the State of Illinois, and
the news media cheered. Oh, by the way, it was Republican "Pate" Phillips
that was responsible for ensuring we in the State of Illinois had a
"right to keep and bear arms" provision; too bad he didn't forsee how
low anti-gunners would sink to deny the citizens their rights.

|Vote for people who will reduce the public demand to ban guns.  

It would be better to vote for people who view their pledge to
uphold the Constitution, and who recognize that a Constitutional
Republic like the U.S. has, as something serious to uphold.

Rich Williamson is such a person.

|This can only be acheived through reason and the dismantling of the
|drug war apparatus.

|   Vote for Carol Mosely Braun.

You mean the Carol Moseley Braun that refuses to give her 1988 tax
returns to the Chicago Tribune so that the Chicago Tribune might
verify her denial of one of Rich Williamson's accusations? The Carol
Moseley Braun that kept Cook County money in interest-free accounts of
politically connected financial institutions? 

The Tax-You-Tough-Shit Carol Moseley Braun?

	In the legislature, suburban feminism's newfound darling voted
	to make it tougher to get signatures for tax-cut petitions.
	That's far from the populism of today. Joined at the hip with
	the state's AFL-CIO, she voted for 13 of 14 tax hikes in one
	recent term - on used cars, phone calls, gasohol, auto rentals,
	real estate and landfill operations, among others. She blusters
	that they all were Jim Thonpson increases. Not so: In 1987, she
	thought up a few pork barrel items he had neglected. She wanted
	to force Illinois businesses to report even more than they
	must now on the work environment. Big Labor asked and got her
	vote for plant-closing legislation.

	She's bright, tough, with a 14,000-kilowatt magnetism - which 
	comes at quite a taxpayer cost, let it be added.
	
	For if current polls are right, voters swayed by her charisma
	will make Paul Simon the more conservative U.S. senator of the
	two. Simon would never have voted to weaken taxpayers' tax-cut
	initiatives, or approved a measure allowing non-home-rule 
	municipalities to hike taxes without referendums, or tried to
	stop the state Compensation Review Board from potentially
	blocking pay hikes for legislators and state constitutional
	officers. Braun did.
	
	Simon would never have challenged the speaker of his own House
	in a lawsuit charging his own party with discrimination. She
	did. Simon would have hesitated, but she didn't, to ask taxpayers
	to finance gubernatorial elections.
	
	Media scrutiny is needed because if liberal North Shore big
	businessmen were to ask these questions on their own they would
	suffer domestic recriminations as to be reminiscent of
	Prometheus chained to his rock.
	
	Thus, media should respond to a higher call. If she is not
	questioned and gets elected, and male Illinoisans discover what
	Carol Braun does in the Senate, marriages may disrupt. I can
	hear it on suburban decks now: "You said she was pro-choice
	but not that her taxes threaten all of us here in Flossmor!"
	
	["Braun's understandably mum on liberal record," Crain's Chicago
	Business, August 31, 1991, Thomas F. Roeser, p. 13]
	
The You-Got-Me-By-The-Ovaries Mr. Trail Lawyer Carol Moseley Braun?

	Several political action committees, corporations and individual
	attorneys are putting their money where the candidates' mouths
	are. Illinois State Board of Elections records show that in the
	most recent reporting period, from April 1 to June 30, the
	Association of Trial Lawyers of America logged in two seperate
	contributions to Braun for $5,000 each.
	
	Notably such big-name law firms as O'Malveny & Meyers, Rudnick &
	Wolfe and Arent, Fox, Kinter, Plotkin & Kahn also waited
	in with contributions for $1,000 or more. Braun's total
	contributions for the last quarter were $1.7 million.
	
	'In contrast, Braun believes "the current judicial system works
	well to protect the rights of individuals and groups. Our
	system allows people who feel they have suffered an injustice to
	address wrongs in a way that protects all involved. To suggest
	major reforms for problems that stretch outside of the legal 
	arena is unnecessary."

	----------------------------------------------------------------
	Braun and Williamson on tort reform:
	
				Braun			Williamson
			
	Caps on			opposes			favors
	punitive damages

	Mandatory exchange	opposes			opposes
	of core documents

	Some form of loser-	opposes			favors
	pays rule
	
	Biggest problem with	backlog			lost concepts of
	civil justice system				"fault" and
							"responsibility
							and replaced with
							notion that
							"someone else
							must pay"
							
	Most important step	change judicial		abolish joint and
	to improve system	selection process	several liability

	[Senate candidates provide clear-cut choice on issue of tort
	reform, Cris Carmody, Chicago Law Bulletin, 
	September 3, 1992, p. 3]
	
That Carol Mosley Braun?

Oh.

|Mark Anderson
Newsgroups: alt.drugs