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"