-Caveat Lector- CODDLING CRIMINALS: Do Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Janet Reno have a secret fondness for criminals? Given several recent events, that possibility has to be considered. It is no longer news that, every time some crazy goes on a rampage with a gun, Bill Clinton and Janet Reno (Hillary also joined the gun control chorus this time) will get on their soapboxes and decry "gun violence" -- which, we are supposed to believe, is worse than "non-gun violence" which also kills and maims -- and push for more and stronger, yet "reasonable", gun laws. As opposed to more and stronger unreasonable gun laws, presumably. But "reasonable", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If you lived in Atlanta when the news broke that the stock trader had killed a number of people and was still at large; or if you lived in Los Angeles this week and learned that someone had shot up a Jewish Community Center and was still at large, you might not consider it "reasonable" that you, as a law abiding citizen who obeys all of the leftist gun control laws, had no means to defend yourself or your family if those violent criminals showed up at your doorstep. Thanks to the Clinton-Reno-democrat troika, you are unarmed. But the criminal was armed. Because, by definition, criminals do not obey the law. You gun control extremists in Atlanta and Los Angeles, be honest. Admit it: Wouldn’t you have felt just a little bit safer if you had a loaded handgun in your nightstand drawer instead of that copy of the Brady Bill? According to media reports, the shooter in Los Angeles had a prior criminal conviction for assault, spent time in a mental institution, and admitted to harboring violent urges. Yet he had guns. And among those guns, according to the London Telegraph, was one Uzi submachine gun, an assault weapon which, thanks to Bill Clinton and the democrats in Congress, was supposed to be banned (actually, despite the hoopla from the Clintonoids and the propaganda from the media, a person with a criminal record and mental problems could not legally buy such a weapon since 1934). California has some of the toughest state gun control laws in the country, and no doubt over the next few days and weeks we will hear about all the other state and federal gun control laws which were violated and proven totally ineffective. Yet there stood Bill, Hillary, and Janet, demanding more laws, including a national registry of all handguns, even while admitting that no laws, and certainly not those laws now before the Congress, would have stopped the carnage which was the alleged basis for demanding those laws. No matter. More laws on the books, that’s what is needed. Useless? Of course. But more laws can’t do any harm, can they? Well, actually, they can. And do. Whenever one of these shooting incidents occurs, there is much talk of cultural influences, the loss of values and personal responsibility, the victimology culture, the violent and pandering media, and in keeping with our increasingly therapeutic culture, other so-called root cause explanations. And the usual political panderers blame the "widespread availability of guns". Never is that claim examined, it is simply taken on faith that guns are easier to obtain than ever. The reality, however, thanks to the proliferation of gun control laws, is that it has never been harder in the history of this country to legally obtain a firearm. Contrary to the media and gun-banner hype, school shootings, kids bringing guns to schools, and violence in general is going down. But high profile shooting sprees are increasing. There is one undeniable fact that is rarely mentioned: As gun control laws have increased, so have these high profile shooting rampages. Dare we consider the possibility that these shootings are increasing precisely because of the growing proliferation of gun control laws? Could it be that the mass shooters are getting bolder precisely because they know that their intended victims are increasingly less likely to be able to defend themselves? The dirty little secret of the gun control debate is that criminals, even more than leftist politicians, love gun control laws. To the extent that criminals vote, they probably vote in overwhelming numbers for democrats and gun control advocates. Because with each new restriction on gun ownership, fewer of their victims will be able to shoot back. And there is nothing that a criminal fears more – even more than being arrested for his crime and facing a revolving-door justice system -- than a potential victim who can shoot back. For the most part, criminals aren’t fools. They can estimate the costs and risks of their criminal activities. And when they face the potential of being shot by their intended victims, the cost and risk of their criminality goes up drastically. This is why there is a drop in violent crime in every jurisdiction that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons. Criminals prey on the helpless, the more helpless the better. A citizen disarmed by gun control laws is helpless against criminal attack, and Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, democrats, gun-banners, and other leftists are doing all they can do to render as many people as helpless as possible. Bill Clinton loves victims. He would like to turn our entire country into a nation of victims. Enough! We have the right to defend ourselves! So do the Clintons and Janet Reno have a secret fondness for criminals? By disarming the victims, and by failing to prosecute and jail criminals who are caught violating gun laws, one might conclude that the answer is yes. Then look at the judicial appointments of the Clinton administration. According to a study from a University of Houston political scientist, Clinton judicial appointees make liberal rulings in criminal cases 33% of the time, more often than judges appointed by Presidents Bush, Reagan, Ford, and Nixon. Only the judges appointed by Carter exceed the liberal record of Clinton’s appointees. A political scientist at the University of Massachusetts – hardly a conservative bastion – concluded that Clinton’s judicial appointees are "primarily moderate to liberal." And a larger percentage of Clinton nominees have garnered the American Bar Association’s top professional rating than the nominees of any president since Eisenhower. That would be the same ABA which saw nothing wrong with inviting Bill Clinton – determined by a court to have committed perjury and obstructed justice, and referred by the judge of that court for disbarment proceedings -- to address their annual convention last week. So much for their commitment to the Rule of Law. And consider this additional fact. On the very same day that Bill Clinton was on his soapbox demanding more gun control laws, he took another significant action. Over the objections of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorneys who prosecuted the them, Clinton offered to commute the jail sentences of a number of criminals who had been convicted of, among other things, gun law violations. These convicts, members of the Puerto Rican group FALN, had been sentenced to prison terms ranging from 35 to 90 years in the early 1980s. According to law enforcement authorities, the FALN was responsible for 130 bomb attacks in the United States, and at least six killings. According to administration officials, none of those offered clemency were involved directly in any deaths. No doubt those maimed and the relatives of those killed in FALN attacks were happy to hear that. It has even been suggested that the clemency offer was made to pander to New York’s Puerto Rican voters, so they will support Hillary’s Senate run. One wonders how New York’s citizens of Puerto Rican descent, the vast majority of whom obey the law, like being lumped in with a group of convicted felons by Bill Clinton. There is a possibility that this clemency will never actually happen, however, because the convicts are objecting to the conditions of the clemency, which include renouncing the use of violence, obeying a weapon ban, and avoiding meeting with leaders of the Puerto Rico independence movement. Given Clinton’s opposition to the Second Amendment rights of people who have never been convicted of any crime, it will be interesting to see what he decides about the Second Amendment rights of convicted felons. New York Democrat Jose Serrano praised Clinton’s offer of clemency to those convicts, whom he called "political prisoners". Serrano also, it must be noted, voted in favor of amendments to the recent House gun control bill that would impose additional restrictions on law abiding citizens, such as mandatory child safety locks, and even voted against an amendment which would allow qualified retired law enforcement officers from carrying concealed weapons. Releasing convicted felons onto the streets of America, now there’s something that any good democrat can get behind! But law abiding American citizens owning and being able to use guns for self-defense? Never! "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. … Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. …as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. … Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves." -- John R. Lott, Jr., professor of criminal deterrence, law, and economics at the University of Chicago Law School; author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" (1998). Professor Lott, quoted above, was merely validating with data a fact which the Founders of our nation, and those of past, wiser and more rational generations, instinctively knew: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity...will respect the less important and arbitrary ones... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- quoted from Enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria's "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764, translated by Thomas Jefferson and copied into his "Commonplace Book" of great quotations. LEFT-WING HYPOCRISY: One has to wonder how leftists manage to keep from getting just a little bit queasy from the constant flip-flops of their ideologues as they try to justify their contradictory ideology. The hypocrisy of the feminist movement in vociferously attacking sexual harassment when it suited their political purpose, and then giving Bill Clinton a free pass because it suited their political purpose, has been endlessly commented upon and needs no further elucidation. Anything they say in the future has already been rendered irrelevant because of it. Less noted is the hypocrisy of the so-called "Constitutional experts" who crept out from under their rocks to defend Bill Clinton during the impeachment drama. Because they thought it suited their purpose at the time – preserving Clinton in office – they scoured the writings of the Founders to cull quotes which, they believed, reinforced their claims that Clinton’s conduct should not have been the basis for impeachment (they studiously avoided anything the Founders wrote about integrity in office, of course). Suddenly, they became strict constructionists. This from the bunch which has led the charge in re-interpreting the Constitution when that suited their purpose, giving us the ludicrous concept of a "living Constitution" which changes to fit the politically correct fashion of the moment. Impeachment? Let’s see what the Founders had to say, and scrupulously abide by their literal words. Well then, lets see what the Founders had to say about the right to keep and bear arms. Oh, no, we can’t do that! Whatever the Founders said about that is irrelevant. We must re-interpret the Constitution to bring it into conformity with "enlightened" modern times. Some entrepreneur could make a fortune selling airsickness bags to the left; that is, if leftists had any sense of integrity or honor. They don’t. CONGRESS ACTION: August 15, 1999 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. Kim Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] CONGRESS ACTION NEWSLETTER is available at: http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/ Bard Visit me at: The Center for Exposing Corruption in the Federal Government http://www.xld.com/public/center/center.htm Federal Government defined: ....a benefit/subsidy protection racket! DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
