2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: MuffinMan on July 01, 2015, 11:30:25 AM
-
Anyone see the article in Midweek 'The Right To Be Free From Guns' by E.J. Dionne?
page 14
http://www.midweek.com/pdf/MidWeek/0701/index.html (http://www.midweek.com/pdf/MidWeek/0701/index.html)
He uses the shooting in SC as the topic and goes on to say how unsafe we are with a gun in the home and then segways into suicide by gun. Explains that it is easier to save someone who attempts to commit suicide by another means than with a gun..
I say its easier to save them before they attempt it. If someone is contemplating suicide they are thinking about it regardless of having a gun. :wtf:
Bottom line....if the author doesn't like guns, he shouldn't get one. When bad guys break into his home, carjack, rob, or try to rape his family he can call 911 and wait if that makes him feel safer. ???
Just saying...
-
It's funny that they say that "the NRA is the enemy of freedom, by seeking to impose it's values on everyone else" when I guarantee that these are the same people that seek to force gay marriage down the throats of individuals with religious beliefs and morals.
His statement on suicide was also hilarious considering that in my 5 degrees of Hawaii separation I know 5 people that have attempted suicide. 2 by hanging (both successful) and 3 by firearms (1 successful, 2 with severely fucked up faces). The bottom line is, don't make bad decisions. There is nothing these people will ever be able to do to disarm myself or my family.
-
The author has a right to be a moron.
-
Author has the right to leave the USA.
-
How about my right to be free from the mailbox clogging midweek?
-
Problem with his arguments is that most KILLINGS have occurred in gun-free zones.
-
Problem with his arguments is that most KILLINGS have occurred in gun-free zones.
that's not the only problem, lol! Citing the Center for Gun Policy and Research is like citing a company that produces batteries for electric cars on the environmental impact of ICE engines.
-
Problem with his arguments is that most KILLINGS have occurred in gun-free zones.
Biggest problem with any of these Rainbows and Unicorns gun-free whackos is you can't stop criminals from getting guns. That means you are creating unarmed people for the criminals to easily intimidate and kill.
You can't make bad people harmless by making good people helpless.
-
I've tried to reason with liberals,
but truth is
you cant reason with stupid.
they dont have the correct facts
and they are just afraid of guns.
they have their heads so far up homObama's ass, that they can't see the truth.
you can show them facts and statistics that support the 2nd amendment, but in their eyes its the fear of guns that trumps the truth.
-
How about my right to be free from the mailbox clogging midweek?
Agreed!
-
How about my right to be free from the mailbox clogging midweek?
I told them at least two years ago to stop delivery because I didn't want to pay for the privilege of throwing their paper straight into the recycling bin.
Ironic that this is the only issue I've seen since.
MidWeek must be sending this issue out for free as a community service to demonstrate how willing some people are to blindly trust their government just a few days before we celebrate Independence day.
-
Its not even their writer. his article was literally filler. asked a friend who works there.
on the one hand, you wont be seeing him write for them ever again, probably.
on the other, they needed to fill space and specifically chose that opinions piece for that space.
-
.
-
A photographer for Midweek was at the Shooting Sports Fair taking pictures of people shooting. He took a picture of a kid I was helping shoot a S&W 15-22 then asked me about the gun. Even took notes, and asked the boys parents for permission to use his photograph.
I thought the story and pictures would be in this weeks issue. Maybe a later issue, or they got cold feet after the shooting in SC and decided to use the anti-gun piece instead.
I used this weeks issue to clean my guns........ :geekdanc:
-
What makes me heated about people like the author is that they stereotype ALL gun owners as criminals. I think as law-abiding gun owners we have a better character then the person without a gun. We gun owners in Hawaii have our background investigated, jump through all these asinine hoops just to exercise our right to own a gun. :grrr: Would you neighbor and/or friends do all that? Stand in line. Fill out all the paperwork. Wait. Go back again. Buy the gun. Go back again. That's a true test of patience and character.
-
MidWeek must be sending this issue out for free as a community service to demonstrate how willing some people are to blindly trust their government just a few days before we celebrate Independence day.
mauidog you are hitting the nail right on the head here! :thumbsup:
Biggest problem with any of these Rainbows and Unicorns gun-free whackos is you can't stop criminals from getting guns. That means you are creating unarmed people for the criminals to easily intimidate and kill.
You can't make bad people harmless by making good people helpless.
only thing in midweek's favor: grocery store advertisements, I'm trying to get a pound of cabbage for like $0.59 bro :D
-
MIDWEEK printing garbage again. Please write them and express your feelings on the untruths being touted.
-
Glad I live on another island that doesn't have this. I was gonna post voicing your opinion/feedback of this publication on Facebook for everyone to see. Granted I'm not really familiar with facebook, but noticed no way to post such comments.
-
Glad I live on another island that doesn't have this. I was gonna post voicing your opinion/feedback of this publication on Facebook for everyone to see. Granted I'm not really familiar with Facebook, but noticed no way to post such comments.
There is a Facebook post about this story under 'Hawaii CCW Initiative' .
They are trying to start a campaign to write to Midweek and express your feelings on the untruths in the article.
https://m.facebook.com/hawaiiCCWdrive
(https://m.facebook.com/hawaiiCCWdrive)
-
How about my right to be free from the mailbox clogging midweek?
IIRC from my time living on Oahu, midweek is produced by that bastion of unbiased news "reporting" the star-masturbator, or at least, was.
You know, the one that proudly hawked Obutthole memorabilia on the second or third page of the paper.
-
Anyone see the article in Midweek 'The Right To Be Free From Guns' by E.J. Dionne?
page 14
http://www.midweek.com/pdf/MidWeek/0701/index.html (http://www.midweek.com/pdf/MidWeek/0701/index.html)
He uses the shooting in SC as the topic and goes on to say how unsafe we are with a gun in the home and then segways into suicide by gun. Explains that it is easier to save someone who attempts to commit suicide by another means than with a gun..
I say its easier to save them before they attempt it. If someone is contemplating suicide they are thinking about it regardless of having a gun. :wtf:
Bottom line....if the author doesn't like guns, he shouldn't get one. When bad guys break into his home, carjack, rob, or try to rape his family he can call 911 and wait if that makes him feel safer. ???
Just saying...
Notice that he didn't use the "other" gunman in church situation in SC? You know, the one where an armed parishioner prevented a mass shooting by a shotgun wielding interloper?
Nor did he mention the recent homeowner that responded to a armed home invasion with an AK, repelling the intruders and preventing any harm to his family.....the bottom line is that these antigun whack jobs always conveniently forget to mention the "good" gun incidents.
Maybe someone should write an editorial and submit it to the Midweek?
-
Notice that he didn't use the "other" gunman in church situation in SC? You know, the one where an armed parishioner prevented a mass shooting by a shotgun wielding interloper?
Nor did he mention the recent homeowner that responded to a armed home invasion with an AK, repelling the intruders and preventing any harm to his family.....the bottom line is that these antigun whack jobs always conveniently forget to mention the "good" gun incidents.
Maybe someone should write an editorial and submit it to the Midweek?
Agreed, any volunteers?
-
Notice that he didn't use the "other" gunman in church situation in SC? You know, the one where an armed parishioner prevented a mass shooting by a shotgun wielding interloper?
Nor did he mention the recent homeowner that responded to a armed home invasion with an AK, repelling the intruders and preventing any harm to his family.....the bottom line is that these antigun whack jobs always conveniently forget to mention the "good" gun incidents.
Maybe someone should write an editorial and submit it to the Midweek?
Don't leave out
Former KHON2 anchor: husband shoots, kills armed robber at Albuquerque motel :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=19654.msg177765#msg177765
-
I just called Midweek and spoke to Dave Chapman who is the Editor-in-Chief. I tried very hard to get him to commit to allowing our side the same amount of space to debunk the lies in this article. And he refused to allow that. What he did say was that he would look forward to a letter to the editor of 200 words or less. I wonder if we each took one lie that this guy spewed out and debunked it in 200 words or less how many of these letters would he publish? BTW his email address is dchapman@midweek.com
-
Hey guys, every publication, every TV station, every radio station, is being subtly pushed into disseminating anti-gun propaganda lately. At least that's the way it looks from my point of view. I'm anticipating a big push by the antis, possibly even to the point of attempting to repeal or amend the second amendment. I have little doubt that the very first moment they feel the propaganda has been successful in convincing enough low information voters to feel that way (note the "feel") they will try. And if unsuccessful they will try again.
Remember: you can't reason a person out of a position he hasn't reasoned himself into. And they're counting on the fact that most voters don't reason anyhow.
I've said it before. I was around when GCA68 was being debated and the word on the street (range) was that they could never pass that --it was unconstitutional, doncha know. They never give up. They will keep trying.
Terry, 230RN
-
I wrote this quick 197 word rebuttal to the article. Tell me what you think and I'll e-mail it to the editor.
In regards to E. J. Dionne’s article “The Right to be Free From Guns” I want to clear up numerous untruths and his attempt to mislead the public.
1. Sandy Hook - The author speaks about changing long term attitudes about handgun ownership. Yet a handgun was only used by the killer to commit suicide.
2. Connecticut Study 1995 – The parts of this study he quotes were cherry picked in order to make his case. Research the study on the Internet and you’ll find vastly different results. Not telling the whole truth is the same as lying.
3. The author speaks about his “Progressive” friend that wants to build a “Social Movement” in order to make people believe that “Owning handguns makes us less safe”. Yet all the statistics compiled by the FBI over the last 30 years clearly show exactly the opposite trend. Look it up for yourself. Let’s face it, the killer chose a “Gun Free Zone” in order to do his killing. And when someone confronted him with a gun he cowardly killed himself.
The author clearly has an agenda and is willing to mislead and not tell the truth to get it across.
-
I wrote this quick 197 word rebuttal to the article. Tell me what you think and I'll e-mail it to the editor.
In regards to E. J. Dionne’s article “The Right to be Free From Guns” I want to clear up numerous untruths and his attempt to mislead the public.
1. Sandy Hook - The author speaks about changing long term attitudes about handgun ownership. Yet a handgun was only used by the killer to commit suicide.
2. Connecticut Study 1995 – The parts of this study he quotes were cherry picked in order to make his case. Research the study on the Internet and you’ll find vastly different results. Not telling the whole truth is the same as lying.
3. The author speaks about his “Progressive” friend that wants to build a “Social Movement” in order to make people believe that “Owning handguns makes us less safe”. Yet all the statistics compiled by the FBI over the last 30 years clearly show exactly the opposite trend. Look it up for yourself. Let’s face it, the killer chose a “Gun Free Zone” in order to do his killing. And when someone confronted him with a gun he cowardly killed himself.
The author clearly has an agenda and is willing to mislead and not tell the truth to get it across.
Looks good to me.
Maybe we could get someone in an official capacity from NRA, HRA, or 2A to write as well. Or maybe one of our supportive politicians or community leaders.
Thanks for taking the time to write a 'letter to the editor'
-
I just called Midweek and spoke to Dave Chapman who is the Editor-in-Chief. I tried very hard to get him to commit to allowing our side the same amount of space to debunk the lies in this article. And he refused to allow that. What he did say was that he would look forward to a letter to the editor of 200 words or less. I wonder if we each took one lie that this guy spewed out and debunked it in 200 words or less how many of these letters would he publish? BTW his email address is dchapman@midweek.com
you shouldnt be surprised, they dont just let anyone write editorials. all those articles by random writers you see are picked up from the news wires to fill space.
-
Looks good to me.
Maybe we could get someone in an official capacity from NRA, HRA, or 2A to write as well. Or maybe one of our supportive politicians or community leaders.
Thanks for taking the time to write a 'letter to the editor'
+1 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
"ARPH says nearly 2/3 of death by firearms violence are suicides"
Must be ALOT of depressed folks in Chicago and Detroit. :'(
"Make the Second Amendment Moot" ? :wacko:
Better to Make the First Amendment Moot so I don't have to listen to your incoherent ramblings.
No anti-gun propaganda in my house, my street, my city, state, country.
-
I may have to steal this from you. The local BI POS rag, West HawaiiToday typically regugitates Washington Post liberal garbage on a routine basis, so I expect this uber-liberal article to pop up. I or someone else may wish to rebut with your excellent retort.
I wrote this quick 197 word rebuttal to the article. Tell me what you think and I'll e-mail it to the editor.
In regards to E. J. Dionne’s article “The Right to be Free From Guns” I want to clear up numerous untruths and his attempt to mislead the public.
1. Sandy Hook - The author speaks about changing long term attitudes about handgun ownership. Yet a handgun was only used by the killer to commit suicide.
2. Connecticut Study 1995 – The parts of this study he quotes were cherry picked in order to make his case. Research the study on the Internet and you’ll find vastly different results. Not telling the whole truth is the same as lying.
3. The author speaks about his “Progressive” friend that wants to build a “Social Movement” in order to make people believe that “Owning handguns makes us less safe”. Yet all the statistics compiled by the FBI over the last 30 years clearly show exactly the opposite trend. Look it up for yourself. Let’s face it, the killer chose a “Gun Free Zone” in order to do his killing. And when someone confronted him with a gun he cowardly killed himself.
The author clearly has an agenda and is willing to mislead and not tell the truth to get it across.
-
No one has the right to be free from being annoyed by others, this is the fictitious right that the left keeps trying to bring up. And that is all my firearms would ever be to the author, unless he becomes a physical threat to me. This is clearly exemplified by the fact that I have to read a lame article such as his, it annoyed me but did he violate my civil rights by doing so, nope. As long as he is not a physical threat to me or my family, I will never be a threat to him with a gun or otherwise.
Moderate sarcasm and over simplification follows to make a point: Now maybe the author feels threatened by gun owners because of his own violent feelings towards us? Something like "I hate all you pro-gunners because you do not agree with my point of view and because of what someone that you have no relationship with did with a gun thing. I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger... if you didn't have that gun thing." So 1) he falsely believes that everyone is like him and hates those different from themselves and would do them harm, 2) guns are actually good because they keep psychos like him from outright attacking us.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ae/b1/29/aeb129694b01ed1e14775acc0456bcd6.jpg)
-
I may have to steal this from you. The local BI POS rag, West HawaiiToday typically regugitates Washington Post liberal garbage on a routine basis, so I expect this uber-liberal article to pop up. I or someone else may wish to rebut with your excellent retort.
You are more than welcome to use it. If no one speaks up most peole will think that article was okay.
-
Just received an e-mail from the editor. He needed my location in order to publish it. Looks like it will be published. Not sure when, tho?
-
Just received an e-mail from the editor. He needed my location in order to publish it. Looks like it will be published. Not sure when, tho?
Or...maybe they want to come and collect your guns..........hehe :shake:
All kidding aside, a sincere thank you for taking the time to write to the editor.
Thank you
-
Apparently the editorial was not limited to the MidWeek. Here's a reply to that editorial...
http://www.theledger.com/article/20150706/EDIT02/150709688/1037/EDIT
"Concerning "The Right to Be Free from Guns" [E.J. Dionne column, op-ed, June 29], the point is not about gun control but the methodology many "progressive," liberal and politically correct thinkers choose to use when pushing their agendas. This is dishonest and manipulative, a tactic being used for more than the gun control issue...."
-
Apparently the editorial was not limited to the MidWeek. Here's a reply to that editorial...
This Dionne character writes a far-left column for the Washington Post and is frequently picked up by liberal newsrags. His articles are usually guaranteed to raise your blood pressure. His previous one was "Acceleration of History" applauding the continued abuses of the Supreme court in tearing the country apart in furtherance of the liberal agenda.
-
Apparently the editorial was not limited to the MidWeek. Here's a reply to that editorial...
http://www.theledger.com/article/20150706/EDIT02/150709688/1037/EDIT
"Concerning "The Right to Be Free from Guns" [E.J. Dionne column, op-ed, June 29], the point is not about gun control but the methodology many "progressive," liberal and politically correct thinkers choose to use when pushing their agendas. This is dishonest and manipulative, a tactic being used for more than the gun control issue...."
it wasnt. it was a syndicated column they ran to fill space.
if you notice in midweek, they have a lot of random writers who only show up every few weeks, some who disappear entirely. that's because they use news wire services to fill the space that they sell for ads. they dont have enough columnists to fill the paper by themselves, because they sell more ad space than they have writers.
-
I put Midweek to good use. Use it when I'm cleaning my firearms after the range. Midweek is free, stopped subscribing to the Star Ad since there are shills for Barry and his puppets.
-
I'm so FU#%ING PISSED right now!!! I just received this e-mail from the editor of Midweek:
DAVE:
Just fyi, the Charleston killer did not shoot himself -- he's in jail. Makes me wonder about the rest of your letter's accuracy...
Makes me wonder what Charleston has to do with anything? I don't even remember the origiinal article even mentioning Charleston? What pisses me off the most is what gives him the right to question anything I wrote? And then write to me. I didn't write to him. He just invited himself into a conversation I was not having with him.
Am I off on this?
-
I'm so FU#%ING PISSED right now!!! I just received this e-mail from the editor of Midweek:
DAVE:
Just fyi, the Charleston killer did not shoot himself -- he's in jail. Makes me wonder about the rest of your letter's accuracy...
Makes me wonder what Charleston has to do with anything? I don't even remember the origiinal article even mentioning Charleston? What pisses me off the most is what gives him the right to question anything I wrote? And then write to me. I didn't write to him. He just invited himself into a conversation I was not having with him.
Am I off on this?
To refresh your memory, the ant-2A writer evoked Charleston early in the article, and the shooter's picture was splashed top-center ... evil, offensive Confederate flag and all!
None of that matters, since what you posted here as your response had nothing about Charleston. I think the editor's seeing-eye dog's eyes were tired when he read it!
-
The problem for me is that I was limited to 200 words. And the majority of the article was to be rid of handguns. So I concentrated on Sandy Hook which was also mentioned in the beginning of the article. Sandy Hook killer used a rifle. Which is why I concentrated and on it.
I reread the article after I wrote this. What I want to do is to is to let him know charleston never entered my rebuttal. He brought it up not me.
-
Here was my reply to that scumbag editor-in-chief of that throw away leftwing rag called Midweek:
"Mr. Chapman,
I have a question for you. What does Charleston have to do with anything I wrote? I was limited to only 200 words. I did not have enough room to discuss anything related to Charleston. So I did only what I could do under the circumstances and I wrote ONLY about Sandy Hook. If you actually read what I wrote, you will see nothing at all mentioned in what I wrote regarding Charleston. Believe me, I wanted to write about Charleston. But I could not due to YOUR 200 word limitation on the number of my words. Limiting my free speech so to speak.
So let's talk about the words you put into my mouth. Yes the Charleston killer is in jail. So what? It has nothing to do with me nor what I wrote. Yet with the words you just put into my mouth you attempt to discredit me by questioning the accuracy of what I stated. I told no lies. Fact check it for yourself. The Sandy Hook killer was a coward and used a handgun to kill himself when the good guys with guns came to stop him. He used a rifle to kill everyone else. How can you question what I stated when it is the truth? The point is you can't unless you put words into my mouth. It seems like a pretty cowardly act on your part if you ask me.
So what am I supposed to take from your e-mail? Are you trying to put words into my mouth purposely in order to try and discredit me? Or were you mistaken? I hope it is the latter. If it was just a misunderstanding I expect an apology. If I don't receive one I will expect that it was done purposely. And the point is also, you should have never sent that email in the first place. Who invited you into my conversation? You stuck your nose in where it doesn't belong. I highly doubt your job description includes sending emails to people trying to discredit those who want to have a say about the lies the original author told. Oh, let me ask. Did you fact check anything the original author wrote about? I find it quite hypocritical that you would question something I wrote and not do the same for the original author's statements.
The biggest point of the original article was to try and take away handguns from the people who have a right to own them. The SCOTUS ruled on that just recently. Our second amendment rights are an individual right protected under our Constitution. He lies and claims he has a right to not be around handguns. Well, guess what, there is no right to not be around guns. If he wants to not be around guns he has numerous choices. He should choose to live in Detroit, Chicago, New York, or Washington D.C. where they have the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and the lowest gun ownership per population. Oh, did I mention that these cities also have the highest murder rates using guns in the U.S.? Yes, the FBI statistics bear this out. Fact check it by accessing the FBI findings directly from the FBI website and not some liberal hack website who interprets the statistics to bend to his/her agenda. Or maybe the author should choose a gun free church where the Charleston killer admitted choosing because no one was armed. The Charleston killer tried to get into a school but couldn't because of the armed security around the school. Google it. Fact check it. You see all killers are cowards at heart. And they want the easiest kills that can have. Why else do you think they choose a place where guns are not allowed? Gun free zones are nothing but a playground for evil psychopaths to live out their fantasies. BTW, it just came out that the strict gun control laws put into place to keep guns out of the hands of the Charleston killer failed to do so. That is because gun control laws don't work. Again, the FBI statistics bear this out. Considering the facts of the case it's amazing to me that the author would use Sandy Hook as an example as to why we should eliminate handguns from citizens to protect themselves when the Sandy Hook killer used a rifle to kill children in a gun free zone.
One last point, the FBI murder statistics also bear out that when you put more guns into the hands of the common law abiding stabile citizen, gun violence and gun murder rates go down. Furthermore, the statistics also show that when concealed or open carry laws are enacted, gun violence and murder rates go down even farther. Remember this, a good guy with a gun is the ONLY way to stop a bad guy with a gun. Just think about how many childrens lives a teacher who was carrying a concealed weapon could have saved if the Sandy Hook school were not a gun free zone. Same goes for Charleston.
To summarize, you stuck your nose into something where it did not belong. Then you put words into my mouth. Your words have nothing to do with what I wrote about. You then attempt to discredit the accuracy of my statements based on those words. Maybe your supervisor should hear about this? Or was it your liberal supervisor who encouraged you to do this? Either way, I expect an apology if it was a mistake. Unless of course you did it on purpose.
Regards,
Dave"
-
Inspector's letter is in midweek!
-
To refresh your memory, the ant-2A writer evoked Charleston early in the article, and the shooter's picture was splashed top-center ... evil, offensive Confederate flag and all!
None of that matters, since what you posted here as your response had nothing about Charleston. I think the editor's seeing-eye dog's eyes were tired when he read it!
Little did I know what was going on behind the scenes. I encourage all of you to pick up your copy of the Midweek that came in your mailbox yesterday. My letter to the editor was printed in there. It was printed word for word, except that the scumbag low life editor in chief of that POS called Midweek added one word to my statement changing it completely. Turning it into a LIE. Here is what they printed:
"......3. The author speaks about his “Progressive” friend that wants to build a “Social Movement” in order to make people believe that “Owning handguns makes us less safe”. Yet all the statistics compiled by the FBI over the last 30 years clearly show exactly the opposite trend. Look it up for yourself. Let’s face it, the Charleston killer chose a “Gun Free Zone” in order to do his killing. And when someone confronted him with a gun he cowardly killed himself."
Notice anything different? They added the word "Charleston" to my letter. Changing the whole meaning and lying to the public. I guess the LEFT WING SOCIALISTS over there at Midweek were hurt by the truth I wrote so much that they felt the need to change my words and lie to the public. The worst part about this is they lied and are trying to discredit me and make me out to be the liar here. I knew something was up when I got that e-mail back from that scumbag editor-in-chief of this leftist Socialist rag.
-
Inspector's letter is in midweek!
Yes it is. But look what they did to it!!!! I am so outraged that they would change my words and create a lie to the public.
-
I am right in the middle of writing a nasty e-mail to the president of Midweek. I'll post it when I think it is ready for prime time. I am afraid though that it may be that the president of Midweek is in on it too.
-
I may have to steal this from you. The local BI POS rag, West HawaiiToday typically regugitates Washington Post liberal garbage on a routine basis, so I expect this uber-liberal article to pop up. I or someone else may wish to rebut with your excellent retort.
BTW Rob,
I meant to tell you, if you want a voice over on my forum The Kona Forum you are welcome to sign up and I'll make a special place for you to write anything you want to about any of the BI rags. Including and especially the West Hawaii Today and Big Island Chronicle. The Kona Forum is not as popular as it once was but I still get around 4,000 unique visitors a month. Most of which come from IP addresses from within Hawaii. So someone is still reading it regularly. Let me know if you want your own space. http://www.konaforum.com/forum/index.php
-
I am right in the middle of writing a nasty e-mail to the president of Midweek. I'll post it when I think it is ready for prime time. I am afraid though that it may be that the president of Midweek is in on it too.
i would go up the whole chain of command
all the way to the mainland and beyond
-
I am right in the middle of writing a nasty e-mail to the president of Midweek. I'll post it when I think it is ready for prime time.
+1 :thumbsup:
-
Here is what I wrote BEFORE I send it. I will be sending it today so please comment if you would like to anything added/removed:
"Dear Mr. Francis,
I am writing you in regards to the letter to the editor that I wrote that appeared in the 7/15/2015 issue of Midweek. I was informed about an article entitled: “The Right to be Free From Guns” which was publish a couple of weeks ago. I called up your paper and spoke with Don Chapman your Editor in Chief. I asked him for similar space in your magazine in order to debunk and call out the lies that the author wrote. Mr. Chapman informed me that you only print articles that come off some feed or something like that and I could not have equal space. But he encouraged me to write a letter to the editor. Which I am limited to only 200 words. While I was frustrated, I agreed and found 200 words is not much. So I could only hit the highlights. I have formatted this e-mail with black lettering with my words to you. I used Blue lettering for what I wrote to Mr. Chapman. I used green lettering for what was written in Midweek. And I used purple lettering to show what Mr. Chapman wrote to me.
On July 3, 2015 here is what I wrote and then e-mailed directly to Mr. Chapman.
"In regards to E. J. Dionne’s article “The Right to be Free From Guns” I want to clear up numerous untruths and his attempt to mislead the public.
1. Sandy Hook - The author speaks about changing long term attitudes about handgun ownership. Yet a handgun was only used by the killer to commit suicide.
2. Connecticut Study 1995 – The parts of this study he quotes were cherry picked in order to make his case. Research the study on the Internet and you’ll find vastly different results. Not telling the whole truth is the same as lying.
3. The author speaks about his “Progressive” friend that wants to build a “Social Movement” in order to make people believe that “Owning handguns makes us less safe”. Yet all the statistics compiled by the FBI over the last 30 years clearly show exactly the opposite trend. Look it up for yourself. Let’s face it, the killer chose a “Gun Free Zone” in order to do his killing. And when someone confronted him with a gun he cowardly killed himself.
The author clearly has an agenda and is willing to mislead and not tell the truth to get it across."
Then on July 10, 2015 I received the following e-mail from Mr. Chapman:
"DAVE:
Just fyi, the Charleston killer did not shoot himself -- he's in jail. Makes me wonder about the rest of your letter's accuracy...
Don Chapman
Editor-in-Chief
MidWeek
Honolulu Star-Advertiser
500 Ala Moana Blvd.
Suite 7-500
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 529-4869
Fax: (808) 585-6324
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive this message
for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to
anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have
received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and
delete the message. Thank you very much."
To be honest I never expected your editor in chief to stick his nose into my business. But he lied by putting words into my mouth. And then he tried to discredit me by using his lie. If you read what I wrote I never once mentioned Charleston in my letter because there was not enough room. It is true that the Charleston killer is in jail. But if you read my item number 3 I clearly am speaking ONLY about the Sandy Hook killer who killed himself with a handgun when confronted by a good guy with a gun. NOT the Charleston killer who is still in jail. Mr. Chapman lied and tried to discredit me with his lie.
This REALLY made me mad. So I wrote Mr. Chapman a nasty e-mail on July 11, 2015:
"Mr. Chapman,
I have a question for you. What does Charleston have to do with anything I wrote? I was limited to only 200 words. I did not have enough room to discuss anything related to Charleston. So I did only what I could do under the circumstances and I wrote ONLY about Sandy Hook. If you actually read what I wrote, you will see nothing at all mentioned in what I wrote regarding Charleston. Believe me, I wanted to write about Charleston. But I could not due to YOUR 200 word limitation on the number of my words. Limiting my free speech so to speak.
So let's talk about the words you put into my mouth. Yes the Charleston killer is in jail. So what? It has nothing to do with me nor what I wrote. Yet with the words you just put into my mouth you attempt to discredit me by questioning the accuracy of what I stated. I told no lies. Fact check it for yourself. The Sandy Hook killer was a coward and used a handgun to kill himself when the good guys with guns came to stop him. He used a rifle to kill everyone else. How can you question what I stated when it is the truth? The point is you can't unless you put words into my mouth. It seems like a pretty cowardly act on your part if you ask me.
So what am I supposed to take from your e-mail? Are you trying to put words into my mouth purposely in order to try and discredit me? Or were you mistaken? I hope it is the latter. If it was just a misunderstanding I expect an apology. If I don't receive one I will expect that it was done purposely. And the point is also, you should have never sent that email in the first place. Who invited you into my conversation? You stuck your nose in where it doesn't belong. I highly doubt your job description includes sending emails to people trying to discredit those who want to have a say about the lies the original author told. Oh, let me ask. Did you fact check anything the original author wrote about? I find it quite hypocritical that you would question something I wrote and not do the same for the original author's statements.
The biggest point of the original article was to try and take away handguns from the people who have a right to own them. The SCOTUS ruled on that just recently. Our second amendment rights are an individual right protected under our Constitution. He lies and claims he has a right to not be around handguns. Well, guess what, there is no right to not be around guns. If he wants to not be around guns he has numerous choices. He should choose to live in Detroit, Chicago, New York, or Washington D.C. where they have the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and the lowest gun ownership per population. Oh, did I mention that these cities also have the highest murder rates using guns in the U.S.? Yes, the FBI statistics bear this out. Fact check it by accessing the FBI findings directly from the FBI website and not some liberal hack website who interprets the statistics to bend to his/her agenda. Or maybe the author should choose a gun free church where the Charleston killer admitted choosing because no one was armed. The Charleston killer tried to get into a school but couldn't because of the armed security around the school. Google it. Fact check it. You see all killers are cowards at heart. And they want the easiest kills that can have. Why else do you think they choose a place where guns are not allowed? Gun free zones are nothing but a playground for evil psychopaths to live out their fantasies. BTW, it just came out that the strict gun control laws put into place to keep guns out of the hands of the Charleston killer failed to do so. That is because gun control laws don't work. Again, the FBI statistics bear this out. Considering the facts of the case it's amazing to me that the author would use Sandy Hook as an example as to why we should eliminate handguns from citizens to protect themselves when the Sandy Hook killer used a rifle to kill children in a gun free zone.
One last point, the FBI murder statistics also bear out that when you put more guns into the hands of the common law abiding stabile citizen, gun violence and gun murder rates go down. Furthermore, the statistics also show that when concealed or open carry laws are enacted, gun violence and murder rates go down even farther. Remember this, a good guy with a gun is the ONLY way to stop a bad guy with a gun. Just think about how many childrens lives a teacher who was carrying a concealed weapon could have saved if the Sandy Hook school were not a gun free zone. Same goes for Charleston.
To summarize, you stuck your nose into something where it did not belong. Then you put words into my mouth. Your words have nothing to do with what I wrote about. You then attempt to discredit the accuracy of my statements based on those words. Maybe your supervisor should hear about this? Or was it your liberal supervisor who encouraged you to do this? Either way, I expect an apology if it was a mistake. Unless of course you did it on purpose.
Regards,
Dave"
Then on July 13, 2015 I received the following from Mr. Chapman:
"Thanks for the follow up...
Don Chapman
Editor-in-Chief
MidWeek
Honolulu Star-Advertiser
500 Ala Moana Blvd.
Suite 7-500
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 529-4869
Fax: (808) 585-6324
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive this message
for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to
anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have
received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and
delete the message. Thank you very much."
Now, let's fast forward to today when I open up the July 15, 2015 edition of Midweek. There is my letter to the editor. I was REALLY surprised that you printed it. Until I read the whole thing. Here is the part I think you should see:
"...3. The author speaks about his “Progressive” friend that wants to build a “Social Movement” in order to make people believe that “Owning handguns makes us less safe”. Yet all the statistics compiled by the FBI over the last 30 years clearly show exactly the opposite trend. Look it up for yourself. Let’s face it, the Charleston killer chose a “Gun Free Zone” in order to do his killing. And when someone confronted him with a gun he cowardly killed himself.
The author clearly has an agenda and is willing to mislead and not tell the truth to get it across."
Mr. Francis, do you see the word in red? That word was added to my original letter to the editor by someone on your staff. Probably Mr. Chapman. Which not only changes the meaning of what I was wrote, it is also a lie. AND YOUR MAGAZINE PRINTED THIS LIE!!! Now it not only appears I am a liar in public I am a laughing stock in front of my peers. Because of YOUR LIE. It is obvious this was done on purpose to discredit me. Because the truth hurts people and apparently I struck a chord with someone on your staff. I clearly do not deserve to be treated like this. And it is obvious to me that Mr. Chapman or someone on your staff was upset enough about the truth and decided to do something to try and discredit me.
It is obvious to me by Mr. Chapman's reply and lack of an apology that he or someone on your staff did this on purpose and Mr. Chapman was in on it. I don't appreciate it. I don't understand why your editorial staff felt the need to add one word to my letter in order to change the meaning and lie? And I really don't understand why you would allow this to happen? This really goes against the integrity of your paper and your staff. It brings into the light how much the left hates conservatives such as myself and to what lengths they will go to try and discredit them.
I would appreciate the following:
1. A full explanation of your editorial staff's behavior from you.
2. I would appreciate an apology from you and the perpetrator.
3. I would appreciate a public retraction of the lie.
And I would appreciate you doing this in writing. Is all this too much to ask to right this wrong?
Regards,
Dave"
-
Good letter, Inspector. Thank you for taking the time to debunk that letter and following up on their lies.
Just a couple of comments...
1. The letter looks rather lengthy. Is there anything that can be done to make the letter more concise? Or perhaps, BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front). Somewhere in the top of the letter, explain to Francis why he should read this letter. Explain why this letter is for him and not for the Editor in Chief. Perhaps something up top like "The Editor in Chief or a staff in Midweek (and Midweek itself) changed my response to an article which discredits what I wrote" or something similar.
2. Colors might not show up if photocopied in black and white.
2.1. Indent the references to make the whole letter easier to read.
2.2. Besides just using the red font, underline, italicize and bold the word "Charlston".
What do you think?
-
Interesting to note that Dennis Francis is the "President" of Midweek. But they do not publish his e-mail address for obvious reasons. It took me a while but I finally figured out his correct e-mail address. I found out he is also the "President and Publisher" of Star Advertiser. Hehehehehe :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Great work Inspector. This should shake them up. If not, lets all disseminate this info far and wide!