"ASW" wrote in news:c28Eb.17041$P%1.15827504
@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...2whisplead.htm

I hope that you don't support the Free Speech limits imposed by the so
called "Campaign Finance Reform".

As usual, the liberals and democrats (they are "one in the same") will
circumvent the law by having their cronies in the major media carry
"stories" that ostensibly are factual (documentaries on abortion safety
from the vantage of all those lives lost due to back alley abortionists,
or the destruction that firearms cause in American Society with officials
from the CDC). These stories will serve to push their agenda, they will
broadcast these stories from the vantage of being "informational", they
will highlight the courageous Congressmen and Congresswomen that
championed these causes, and they will coincidentally be broadcast right
at election time.

As I have written once before, a study cited by the AMA said that a
homeowner is more likely to use a firearm to kill a relative in his home
than he is to kill an intruder. It's probably true. But where the study
is flawed is that interventions by firearm owners (stopping an intruder)
usually don't require the homeowner to shoot the intruder, simply to
brandish the firearm. The study made no attempt to determine the number
of deaths that would ensue if the homeowner's firearm was absent.

There are over 1,000,000 law abiding citizens that use firearms every
year to thwart crime. Likely, in the absence of firearms, the number of
people victimized by criminals would result in deaths far exceeding the
number of relatives killed by a firearm in the home.

If the media does the story about the study, in the absence of a
counterbalance of facts, they can easily sway politics and opinion
without the need for direct sponsorship of political ads. This is why the
Free Speech restriction, upheld by the idiotic supreme court, is such
anathema.

Remember that this is the same supreme court that believes that
pornography is a protected right, but the rantings of people legitimately
buying air time to purchase ads to discourage people from voting for a
candidate that they don't support is not. This is in direct opposition to
the 1St Amendment, and there is no one to appeal to, with the exception
of congress, which is too cowardly to override this ruling.

"Free Speech, it's just for liberals!"

Dr. Artaud


--
To know and to be, this is not even a question, there is no alternative.
You see it clearly in the loneliest little avenues between particles and
waves, shunned even by the gregarious quark and unknown by the various
strands of time, so big it cannot be seen, yet so little it is immovable,
lies the fabric of the ultimate reality gripped in the tiny fist of the
all or nothing."