🚀 go-pugleaf

> This is not a simple case of violation of rights.  This is a case
> where two different rights have come into conflict:  The right of
> the accused individual to a fair trial versus the right of the
> collective to a free press.  There is a lot of room for debate
> over which right is more important, but when the rights of the
> collective don't mesh with the rights of the individual I like
> it when the individual wins.
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Wells
>   creator of the banned group "alt.fan.karla-homolka" and glad
>   to be living in a country where the rights of the individual
>   person are valued above all else.
> 
The rights of the individual? We have the rights of Paul Teale 
versus the rights of me. I have never been accused of murder.
Or versus the rights of you. What about our right to freedom of
speech? Should the accused right to a fair trial supercede the
right of the un-accused to freedom on speech?
I have lived in Canada all my life and have seen our rights 
continually assaulted by the rulers here (and abroad).
Freedom of Speech is nothing but an empty phrase here.
The lies of Gun Control advocates will soon make us all incapable of
defending our country against tyranny from government, Candadian
or World. Our right to self-defense is almost gone. Canada is possibly
on the road to subjugation to a UN world government and when gun
control is complete, we will be twiddling our thumbs, waiting for the
sound of jackboots on the front porch.

     It was the curious position of the controlling MassMedia
    that prompted me to examine my own position on Gun Control.
    Whenever the different(and yet the same) Mediae are in full
    agreement with each other AND the government, my alarm goes off.
        I had originally been in favour of Gun Control and never
    really considered the chance I could be wrong. All the  bits and
    bytes subtly channeled in from the MassMedia had given me a
    "borrowed" opinion. From the constant barrage of Crime in the
    Streets to the "expert" opinions of Media Gurus, a picture
    developed of an evil handgun at large. Once I realized the
    source of this picture I knew I better take a closer look.
        Further examination, with attention to detail, was
    essential. The MassMedia has not attempted to do this. When they
    have offered any discussion at all on Gun Control, it has been
    completely one-sided. That is, they are solidly in favour of
    removing firearms from law-abiding citizens. They seem to
    believe that it is more important to follow the Government
    lead than offer a stimulating and unbiased conversation. Even
    as the public's trust in the MassMedia fades to black.

       Myths of Gun Control:

       It is a FACT that Gun Control legislation has NO positive
   influence on crime, although the government and the Media would
   like to convince us otherwise. Politicians, lawmakers, special
   interest groups in Canada and the U.S. wish to remove the guns
   from law-abiding citizens. When only the military and police have
   guns it's called a POLICE STATE! Is this what they want?
       *WHY* is the Media in full agreement with our rulers when
   they know all the facts prove that Gun Control INCREASES violent
   crime because criminals know that their victim is unarmed.
      When Canadian gun control legislation was enacted in 1978
   immediately violent crime went UP! Prior to this legislation the
   violent crime rate was on a downward trend! The rate of violent
   crime is higher in Canada than in the U.S., where gun control is
   not yet so  rampant!
      As of 1991, in the U.S., the violent crime rate was 758 acts
   per 100,000 people. In Canada, the rate was 1099 per 100,000!
   From 1978(year of gun control legislation) to 1989, the violent
   crime rate in Canada increased over 80%!
   Canadian Source - Uniform Crime Reporting  Survey, Canadian
   Center for Justice Statistics, catalogue 85-002.
   U.S. Source "Uniform Crime Report" United  States 1991, Federal
   Bureau of Investigation, p.58.

      The right to life (which few will argue against) implies a
   right to self-defense.  The right of self-defense implies a right
   to employ the means for that self-defense which are optimally
   effective. Any artificial limitation on that right by the
   government - especially in the light of that government's
   simultaneous disavowal of any responsibility for your personal
   well-being - is morally outrageous.
    In 13 U.S. states, citizens who wish to carry arms may do so,
   having met certain requirements.  Consider Florida, which in 1987
   enacted a concealed-carry law guaranteeing a gun permit to any
   resident who is at least 21, has no record of crime, mental
   illness or drug or alcohol abuse, and has completed a firearms
   safety course.  Florida's  homicide rate dropped following the
   enactment of this law, as did the rate in Oregon after the
   enactment of a similar law.  Through June  1993, there had been
   160,823 permits issued in Florida.  Only 530, or  0.33 percent,
   of the applicants have been denied permits.  This indicates the
   law is serving the law-abiding.  Only 16 permits, less than
   1/1OOth of 1 percent have been rescinded because of the
   commission, after issuance, of a crime involving a firearm.
     "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human
      freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of
      the slave."
        - William Pitt, 1763

     While it is sad and true that nearly 60 children, under the age
 of 15, are killed by handgun accidents in the U.S. every year, more
 than that die of household poisons by age 5.
 (National Safety Council "Accident Facts.") - USA .
     Using the logic of gun-control advocates, one would think that
 household poisons should have been outlawed by now. If parents
 abdicate their role as guardian(ie. not instilling good safety
 practices in their children, leaving guns and poison around for
 children to play  with) this would seem to be a fault in parents
 rather than the guns or poisons. Anything can be used properly, or
 abused. No one is suggesting banning motor vehicles yet they are
 involved in an enormously large number of deaths and injuries every
 day. However we are intelligent enough to realize that cars and
 trucks do not go out and prowl the streets and highways under their
 own command. Just as guns do not mischieviously crawl around
 shooting up the country by their own power. Blaming guns for the
 violent acts of criminals is akin to blaming matches and gasoline
 for the arsonists criminal activity. Should we then outlaw matches
 and gasoline? Wouldn't it make more sense to blame the PEOPLE
 behind the actions? And put them where they belong, not allowing
 them to walk so quickly back out the jail door to go and repeat
 their crimes again and again?
    Many people are sickened by the idea of having to protect
 themselves with lethal force. They haven't yet come to grips
 with the fact that we live in a far from peaceful world. Sure, if
 Nature dictated that humans were peaceful and would never think of
 stomping on their fellow humans, if rulers like Hitler and Stalin
 could never rise - again and again, if governments never abused the
 power they've been temporarily granted, sure then you wouldn't need
 guns in the world. But Nature is not so gentle. The nature of
 humans is that some will be meek and some will be willing to use
 whatever means necessary to control other humans. "Those who beat
 their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't"
  - Author unknown . This IS the law of nature, whether we like it
 or not. If we just stick our head in the sand, our backside is a
 wide open target! Those of us who don't want to own firearms for
 self-defence should consider learning how to plough.
    It could be argued (and often is) that a well-armed society is a
 polite society. A wheelchair-bound elderly lady would have the
 great "equalizer" if some thug broke into her home to rob, rape,
 or murder her. All criminals wince at the thought of coming upon a
 well-armed victim!
    Something has gone seriously wrong with the criminal justice
 system. How can our governments allow violent offenders to walk?
 A better question might be, WHY do they allow them to walk?
 Some argue that it's too costly to keep criminals behind bars.
 You might want to ask their victims if this is true. Some believe
 that more crime will serve to justify the whole Gun Control Agenda,
 and so crime is not only allowed to proliferate, but it is
 encouraged. Don't sluff this one off. Many people of all stripes
 have begun to suspect this and not without facts to back them up!

So Justin, don't forget about the rights of law-abiding citizens
when you discuss the issue of rights.