|
For media Press kit | Fact sheets
| Contact
|
Defining issues Here they are -- the big four issues: Guns: right to self-defense | Drug re-legalization Competitive education | Social (in)Security Note: Answers to questions about other specific issues can be found on the FAQ page. For more information on topics such as abortion, terrorism, the Middle East, and more, please click here. Guns: the right to self-defense A handful of women push for "common sense gun laws." Not Stephanie. Why? Because "common sense gun laws" are nonsensical and don't work. They are based upon emotion, not fact. Guns and crime go hand in hand so before diving into gun facts, it is necessary to share some real-life facts. Fact: Stephanie's close friend was raped. Fact: Another one of her friends was brutally raped. Fact: And so was another one her friends. Fact: Stephanie's Chicago neighbor had a CHUNK OF CONCRETE smashed into her face by street thugs. Fact: Stephanie has survived a break-in while home alone. Fact: Stephanie has been assaulted. Fact: Friends of Stephanie's have been shot at. Fact: Stephanie has been shot at. Okay, let's pause for a moment. You may think that banning guns will solve all this mayhem. But think again. Increases in gun ownership actually produce less crime. These facts will explain why... Fact: Handguns are illegal in Chicago (thank you, Mayor Daley). Fact: Gun control keeps guns in the hands of cops and criminals. Fact: Criminals like cities in which the citizens are not armed. Fact: Crime is rampant in Chicago. Fact: Gun control does not work. Legal or illegal, criminals will get guns if they so desire. Most of these individuals obtain guns by stealing them. Criminals don't buy firearms at gun shows where EVERY purchaser MUST fill out a government registration form and is subject to a background check. Criminals don't take gun safety courses. Nor do they care about the over 20,000+ gun laws on the books. They don't use gun locks, either. And gun safety laws don't apply to criminals, either. Restrictive gun laws do more harm than good. Like so many federal laws and programs, government interference into any matter is a good intention, but wrong approach. Restrictive gun laws prevent citizens from having access to a means of self-defense. A better approach to violence would be to penalize the perpetrator. Punish the thugs who decided to smash Stephanie's neighbor in the face with a chunk of concrete. Imprison those who violently attack or kill the innocent. Lock up the criminals, not the guns. BY LAW, THE POLICE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROTECT YOU. Like Thelma and Louise, candidate Sailor enjoys being independent woman and understands the importance of self-defense. She's aware that police are not required by law to protect her (Whitten vs. D.C.). In fact, an overwhelming percentage of police officers support allowing citizens the right to conceal carry a firearm. After all, you call 911 because the cop has a gun. More guns = less crime. States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crime. Guns reduce crime by creating a deterrent for criminals. Which is why in cities and states with restrictive gun laws, crime increases, thus turning unarmed people into easy prey. When it comes to personal safety, Stephanie knows it's up to her to take matters into her own hands. Stephanie recognizes that most people can't afford the luxury of armed bodyguards. (Unless, of course, you're a politician like Chicago's Mayor Daley or member of the Hollywood elite such as Rosie O'Donnell.) Stephanie Sailor 100% supports your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. More importantly, she supports your basic human right to self-defense. After all, it is up to we, the people, to protect ourselves from thugs, rapists, or even a government gone astray. --back to top-- Drug re-legalization Let's go back in history for a moment. Once upon a time, all drugs were legal. That 'twas a time when crime was sparse and gangsters were unemployed. Al Capone thrived during the Prohibition. Today's gangbangers thrive during the War on Drugs. Prohibition failed. So has the War on Drugs. After enduring a tremendous flux in organized crime (and a devastating loss of human life in gang-related violence), politicians came to their senses and ended the failing war on alcohol in 1933. Isn't about time we do the same for the failing war on drugs? Illegal markets breed violence -- and actually encourage it -- as businesspeople are left to settle disputes via gunfire, rather than through contracts or the courts. The corrolation between the underground drug business and violence is unavoidable. Fact: The most violent episodes in this past century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs. It's bad enough when an innocent life is lost in gang crossfire. What's equally devastating is when the government itself uses guns to murder its own citizens in the name of the Drug War. Is there no end to this terror? And have we forgotten that the illegalization of drugs is unconstitutional? By calling for the repeal of anti-drug laws, the Libertarian Party does not endorse drug use. The LP does, however, support people having the right to choose what they want to put into their bodies, as long as they do so without harming another person. As for drug criminalization, the LP recognizes that the illegalization of drugs does far more harm than good. Criminalizing drug use: --makes criminals out of peaceful drug users. --tears apart families, as users are removed from their children and imprisoned. --drives up drug prices to astronomical rates. --invites those willing to commit crimes to go into the illegal drug market, thanks to high prices. --increases competition between rival gangs. --causes illness and death, thanks to a market in which buyers have no protection against a shoddy product. In other words, Consumer Reports can't rate a illegal drug provider. --costs the taxpayers billions. --costs the lives of American children and adults, thanks to gang violence. --destroys civil liberties (police entrapment, --damages relations with foreign countries. And in the end, criminalizing drug use does not prevent people from purchasing, using, or selling drugs. The solution: re-legalize drugs. Then police officers will be able to expend their energies on violent career criminals, rather than peaceful drug users. Muggers, rapists, or child molesters will occupy prison cells, instead of marijuana smokers. Repealing drug laws would increase the likelihood that those with drug abuse problems will seek help. Additionally, those who want to help them would have more resources available to do so. --back to top-- Competitive education For too many of America’s children -- particularly those from poor neighborhoods -- going to school is like going to prison. Or entering a war zone. Most people would choose to avoid that setting. Unfortunately, not everyone is afforded such a choice. Then again, some are. In fact, a significant amount of our top government officials avoid sending their very own children to government-run institutions. Even public school teachers are sending their children to better, more competitive private schools. A government-run education, aka "public education," is a good intention, but wrong approach. There is no question that young people should have access to an exceptional education. It's a question of who should be providing it. The government has failed miserably in this endeavor. Politicians know it. Teachers know it. And those who are trapped in public school with no choice (minorities, poor families, and inner-city parents) know it. Now is the time end the government’s monopoly on education. Like most government institutions, public schools hold little or no accountability for inept and incompetent employees. Tenure is the heart of a teacher’s salary increase, rather than competency and ambition. Market-driven businesses reward their employees for their dedication, innovation, and efficiency. The same should be done for public schools. Without competition, government-run schools lack incentive to strive for improvement. And that means we’re shortchanging our children. The solution -- two things: 1. Remove politics from education. This is economical, since free market schooling delivers a better education at less than half the cost of government-run schools. Removing politics from schools means means getting the government out of the educational process altogether. This will be a slow and arduous task but in the mean time, until public schools are truly reformed, students and parents should be permitted to use vouchers to decide whether or not they want to attend a government-run school or competitive private school. 2. Dramatically reduce taxes so that parents have the ability to finance their children's education directly. Today, poor children are forced into ghetto schools because their parents seldom have enough money to pay both property taxes and tuition. With a drop in taxation comes an income increase. Which means more spending money for a private, competitive school. It’s time to give all children school choice. After all, it’s your tax dollars that fund government-run schools. And it is parents and educators –- not the government -– who know what’s best for their kids. --back to top-- Social Security When a business misspends all the money from the employees' retirement fund it's called fraud. When our government does the same thing, it's called Social Security. Just about everyone agrees that the government should retire the retirement plan. Fact: the government needed to dip into your savings to pay for a budget deficit they created. This is hailed as "Social Security." Let’s fix Social Security so Americans will no longer feel insecure, knowing that their money won’t be waiting for them when they retire. Solution: Retire the retirement plan. End Social Security. Let citizens have control over their retirement funds through private companies, not a government-run program. --back to top-- [People before politicians -- please give to charity] |