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

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.

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     

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 

"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" ?   

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.

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


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?