1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Editor does NOT want citizen to talk to Congress

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by pyrdek, Jan 30, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pyrdek

    pyrdek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,295
    UPDATE IS POSTED BELOW ORIGINAL POSTING.

    There is a meeting with our two U.S. Representative scheduled for 7:00 P.M. At Bob's Gun Shop this evening. Bob's is located a couple miles north of Edinboro, PA on Rt. 99 The topic is gun control laws.

    Okay that is nice but what is really revealing is the Erie Times News bias against gun owners talking to their elected officials. The editorial today excoriated the two Reps for even so much as considering talking to the citizens of NW PA. Here are a few lines from their editorial. If anyone still thinks that this paper is anything other than a bald face arrogant elitist mouthpiece for the anti-gun groups, this editorial should remove all doubt.

    I wonder if their arguments would be the same if the meeting were about restricting the free speech rights that the media are so determined not be infringed! After all, the forefathers never could have envisioned electrically run, computer controlled printing presses capable of rapid firing out millions of pages every hour. Nor could the forefathers envision one person speaking to 100 million people from a platform comprised of nothing but electrons. Maybe we should ban those modern things since "The fore father could never have envisioned such things in the hands of the people of the country."

    Kelly, Thompson shouldn't be at gun forum

    Excerpts:
    Lawmakers, gunshot victims and ordinary citizens appalled by the Dec. 14 massacre of first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary School are careful to explain that any new legislation will not restrict the constitutional right to bear arms. Those who support an overhaul of gun legislation to ban ownership of military-style assault weapons and to regulate the sale of high-capacity magazines stress that those who own guns to hunt, for self-defense and for target practice, just to name a few reasons, have nothing to fear….

    In McDowell's view, government has become the enemy, and citizens need military assault weapons to confront that enemy. Think about what McDowell is asserting, and ponder what it would mean if others who disagree with government action and legislation embraced a similar philosophy. Should people who oppose cuts to education spending arm themselves? Should groups that favor legislation to address climate change stock up on AR-15 rifles? Should abortion opponents or supporters carry semi-automatic guns when they attend protests?…

    Boldt [ed one of the organizers for the meeting] says that those at the meeting will learn about federal gun-control legislation "straight from the U.S. congressmen in person." By agreeing to attend this forum, Kelly and Thompson lend an air of authority to a meeting that is sure to be volatile and testy.

    You can read the editorial for yourself
    Click Here

    UPDATE ON THE MEETING

    Here is the report which was aired on one Erie TV station about the meeting that the Erie Times News was so upset about.

    Just a quick report. The crowd was very well mannered and respectful, both of the people at the meeting and of the facility. When the probably close to 500 people left, there was an orderly exit from the parking lot and along the road side where cars were parked probably close to a half-mile long. Inside the building there was not a water bottle or screw on cap even, or a candy wrapper or anything left as trash. If you were not there you would never know it had people stacked shoulder to shoulder across the entire range.

    Oh yes, although the Erie TV stations felt it newsworthy, that same Erie newspaper did not have a single word of coverage. Instead they had anti-gun articles on their on-line edition tonight. Yea, fair and accurate reporting on the newspaper's part is not a concern of theirs.

    TV Stations coverage available Here
     
  2. Big Jack

    Big Jack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,735
    Location:
    Erie, Pa
    Thanks, Joe for your thread. It's obvious that the local newspaper is a very one-sided element that unfortunatly has the distribution to spread their outlook with little resistance. I sent a letter to Casey and to Kelly expressing my opinion and their answers only tell me they favor the legislation currently before them. They will vote for the restrictions by their words. If we don't "flood" their offices with e-mails and post cards expressing our position, they will blindly follow their flop-eared dictator.
    I would like to think we could sway their vote. The inanimate "GUN" can lay there and rust away and never harm a soul without a fool behind the trigger.
    Just think of all the laws against illegal drugs..hasn't slowed them down a bit. Just enforce the present laws!!!

    Big Jack
     
  3. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    <i>"Lawmakers, gunshot victims and ordinary citizens appalled by the Dec. 14 massacre of first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary School are careful to explain that any new legislation will not restrict the constitutional right to bear arms. Those who support an overhaul of gun legislation to ban ownership of military-style assault weapons and to regulate the sale of high-capacity magazines stress that those who own guns to hunt, for self-defense and for target practice, just to name a few reasons, have nothing to fear…."</i>

    Will not restrict the constitutional right to bear arms?

    This is like saying making blacks sit in the back of the bus does not violate their right to ride the bus.
     
  4. pyrdek

    pyrdek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,295
    Second Update:
    Today the printed edition of the newspaper actually had the headline "Gun owners air worries". I guess they finally did have to admit that there was a meeting between the two Congressmen and their constituents. with a about five column inches on the front page. The follow-up on page 4 had about 10 column inches on the meeting. This same page also had a larger amount of space devoted to a picture of "Gabby" Giffords and her testimony before the Senate hearing. This was about twice the space of the gun owners meeting coverage.

    There was also an article, taking up about 2/3s of the amount of space for the meeting article. This additional article was about a group of 20 members, from "Erie's Faith Community" who said "proponents of gun regulations aren't being heard." They also felt that the meeting, by being held at a shooting range, was not at an "appropriate location". They felt intimidated and did not attend the meeting with the Congressmen. I personally wonder what they would think is an appropriate location. It must be tough to live in fear of maybe half the population of the country and base all your reactions on those fears rather than logical thought, analysis and action.

    Incidentally, the paper, in its editorial mentioned how the meeting would be heated. Funny thing that. The meeting I attended was very civil and respectful. Funny that the newspaper made no mention of the behavior of the attendees.

    By the way. the two edge columns of this sheet also had gun related articles. One side had articles on the bus driver killing hostage taking shooter, a girl fatally shot in Chicago, and the one person killed in a Phoenix shooting. The fourth article in this column was all about Obama making "first trip" to pitch for gun proposals.

    The inside edge column had a "Fact Check" article. In case you didn't get their message yet, their "Fact Check" promoted Biden's statement with only a very mild rebuke for using the term 98% of the people, according to a New York Times poll said there should be tighter restrictions on gun ownership. Their "Fact Check" showed the number should be around 92% that favor a background check on potential gun buyers. My guess is that since everyone is a POTENTIAL gun buyer, what he means is that everyone should have to have a background check.

    If I had to score the fairness of the coverage by the paper, the most generous rating I could give it would be maybe 3 out of 10. And they probably only did as much as they did to keep from losing even more subscribers.

    I was talking with an aide to Rep. Thompson after the meeting and I said that with every right comes a duty to exercise that right responsibly. That applies to gun owners but when will the media hold themselves to, or, be held to that same level of responsible reporting.
     
  5. bill1949

    bill1949 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,734
    Typical elitist media trash...Bill
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.