Wrote a letter to an idiot columnist in my paper..
This little diddy greeted me when I opened my morning paper: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5723179
So, I wrote this response:
Ms. Dawid,
I just read your column, "No need for assault weapons," in today's Denver Post. I noted that you are a former educator.
I assume that, over the course of your years as a teacher, you encouraged your students to research topics prior to writing about them. You state, in your second paragraph, the following:
"Eight years later, I revisit that horror and wonder -- repetitively and boringly -- why we allow access to multiple-magazine hanguns and semi-automatic machine guns."
With all due respect, Ms. Dawid, you come across as exceedingly uninformed. Semi-automatic firearms are NOT machine guns. Machine guns are fully-automatic and require a special Class 3 license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in order to even possess one. These licenses are very difficult to come by, and the BATF seriously investigates anyone before allowing them to have said license.
Cho did not have a machine gun. He had a semi-automatic weapon. I invite you, as an educator, to investigate and learn the differences between the two. Cho did not fire his weapons automatically, his Glock and Walther were not designed to do so.
You keep bringing up in your article the term "assault weapon." I'll invite you to define what an "assault weapon" is. If you are uanable to do so, with factual information, then I suggest that you follow some advice that I'm sure you've offered your students in the past: You shouldn't use words that you cannot define.
Moreover, you label firearms that you do not understand as "weapons of mass destruction." This label is false and misleading.
Does the Second Amendment entitle you or me to buy a handgun? You bet, and this right has been upheld by the United States Court of Appeals within just the last month.
In the future, before you compose misleading and erroneous information, it might behoove you to investigate facts rather than issuing baseless, emotional reactions and passing them off as factual. Were I grading your article, I would give you a failing grade due to a lack of research.
Sincerely,
xxxx
So, I wrote this response:
Ms. Dawid,
I just read your column, "No need for assault weapons," in today's Denver Post. I noted that you are a former educator.
I assume that, over the course of your years as a teacher, you encouraged your students to research topics prior to writing about them. You state, in your second paragraph, the following:
"Eight years later, I revisit that horror and wonder -- repetitively and boringly -- why we allow access to multiple-magazine hanguns and semi-automatic machine guns."
With all due respect, Ms. Dawid, you come across as exceedingly uninformed. Semi-automatic firearms are NOT machine guns. Machine guns are fully-automatic and require a special Class 3 license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in order to even possess one. These licenses are very difficult to come by, and the BATF seriously investigates anyone before allowing them to have said license.
Cho did not have a machine gun. He had a semi-automatic weapon. I invite you, as an educator, to investigate and learn the differences between the two. Cho did not fire his weapons automatically, his Glock and Walther were not designed to do so.
You keep bringing up in your article the term "assault weapon." I'll invite you to define what an "assault weapon" is. If you are uanable to do so, with factual information, then I suggest that you follow some advice that I'm sure you've offered your students in the past: You shouldn't use words that you cannot define.
Moreover, you label firearms that you do not understand as "weapons of mass destruction." This label is false and misleading.
Does the Second Amendment entitle you or me to buy a handgun? You bet, and this right has been upheld by the United States Court of Appeals within just the last month.
In the future, before you compose misleading and erroneous information, it might behoove you to investigate facts rather than issuing baseless, emotional reactions and passing them off as factual. Were I grading your article, I would give you a failing grade due to a lack of research.
Sincerely,
xxxx
0
-
I'm pretty much in agreement with you. I guess the semi-automatic machinegun is in the same category as the twenty-two caliber shotgun Nancy Grace keeps talking about.
However, let's not get so bogged down in her ignorance that you let her convince the uninformed that her basic argument is correct.
She ends her argument with "Ask the families of Columbine victims, or of our latest Columbine- and Killeen-style massacre, now available at your local higher ed campus."
Remind her to ask Suzanna Hupp, who lost her parents at Luby's in killenn Texas because her handgun was in her car in accordance with the law.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
I guess the semi-automatic machinegun is in the same category as the twenty-two caliber shotgun Nancy Grace keeps talking about.
[:D]
She would be the last one to know that a .22 can be a shotgun.0 -
Great read Spaniels, thanks.
Trinity +++0 -
So guns are WMD's? Does that mean they found WMD's in Iraq?
You notice how she says we regulate who drives and how we drink, but she doesn't meantion all the deaths by DUI's.0 -
My e-mail to her:
If I may quote your article about killing:
"People will always want to kill one another. I accept this truth as I near 50, so let's examine how technology facilitates killing. We regulate the way we drive; we say who can and cannot drink alcohol, who can and cannot vote. We can't legislate out of existence the desire to kill, but we can legislate, limit, ban and regulate the machinery of death by bullet."
So in effect you are saying we don't kill by car or drinking because we regulate it. Some facts for you:
From the NHTSA website:
In 2003 there were 17,013 alcohol related fatalities.
45 states, the Disctrict of Columbia and Puerto Rico had laws making it illegal to drive with a BAC of 0.08 g/dl or higher.
Of the 17,013 crashes, 8,341 drivers had a BAC of 0.08 or higher.
21 percent of the children 0 - 14 years old who were killed in motor vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol related crashes. 47% (209 children) were passengers in vehicles with drivers who had been drinking and had BAC levels of 0.01 or higher, an additional 118 children were killed in vehicles with drivers who had not been drinking but were involved in crashes with vehicles that had drivers with BAC of 0.01 or higher.
Another 59 children who were killed were pedestrians or pedalcyclysts who were struck by drivers with a BAC of 0.01 or higher.
27% of the people who had been drinking had previous records of Driving while Intoxicated, 24% had recorded suspensions.
Virginia had 943 fatalities in 2003, of those 39% (364) were alcohol related.
Obviously we have done a great job of regulating alcohol and driving. Yet we do not see the bleeding hearts such as you crying over those deaths.
As a former educator you should know better, for being informed I give your article a grade of F for being uninformed and rabble rousing inflammatory I give your article A+0 -
She's just like the idiot reporter that said Cho had a 9mm and a 22mm pistol. 22mm pistol[?] Can you imagine a pistol with nearly a one inch bore. What a bunch of idiots.
About as bad as the California politician that said the S&W 500 Mag Revolver could take out a tank and should be banned. These people actually think that a 500 Mag cartridge is the same as the .50 BMG.[:(!]
Supposedly educated people that make fools of themselves by speaking on subjects they know nothing about.
Smitty0 -
quote:Originally posted by Smitty500mag
Can you imagine a pistol with nearly a one inch bore.
Yes, I can. Where do I pick one up? I'm drooling.0 -
spaniel,
Too long... you could have just said, "There's people who know what they're talking about and those who don't - you don't."[;)][}:)]
See what silly advice that really is?0 -
who is Annie Dawid:
http://www.lclark.edu/~dawid/
M.A. Creative Writing--San Francisco State University, 1986.
B.A. Journalism--San Francisco State University. 1982.
cancerous cell that's been affecting CO. very sad how many of them transplanted over to Denver and Boulder area in the last decade or so.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
spaniel,
Too long... you could have just said, "There's people who know what they're talking about and those who don't - you don't."[;)][}:)]
See what silly advice that really is?
Actually, the advice isn't silly. It is still right-on.
I rather enjoyed elaborating and showing her what a brainwashed fool she is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
who is Annie Dawid:
http://www.lclark.edu/~dawid/
M.A. Creative Writing--San Francisco State University, 1986.
B.A. Journalism--San Francisco State University. 1982.
cancerous cell that's been affecting CO. very sad how many of them transplanted over to Denver and Boulder area in the last decade or so.
LMAO.
She's a JOURNALIST that doesn't know how to verify facts, and she's got a Masters in Creative Writing.
Well, let's see, her maniacal rant was rather creative, so I guess she did well in school.0 -
quote:
Remind her to ask Suzanna Hupp, who lost her parents at Luby's in killenn Texas because her handgun was in her car in accordance with the law.
She gave an interview for the morning show on 890 WLS in Chicago today. I had never heard of her before but what she said happened, was heartbreaking and angered me even further.
For those who have not heard her story, her father was shot by the gunman first. Her mother went over to cradle her husband and the gunman came back around to them. He aimed the gun at her head, she put her head down and he pulled the trigger. If that isn't sickening enough, the cops were in the building next door!!!!
They came in just as they shot her mother and fired a shot into the ceiling. The guy ran out and had a brief firefight with them before commiting suicide.
Suzanna and four other people, including a victim who was killed and the store owner, had guns in their cars.
The story made me hate the anti-gun crowd even further.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
spaniel,
Too long... you could have just said, "There's people who know what they're talking about and those who don't - you don't."[;)][}:)]
See what silly advice that really is?
Actually, the advice isn't silly. It is still right-on.
I rather enjoyed elaborating and showing her what a brainwashed fool she is.
Elaboration is what makes an article... Which is why I didn't really understand why you advocated summing up one of mine in one sentence.[?] As a writer, you should know that ideas can be expressed in more than a byline.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
spaniel,
Too long... you could have just said, "There's people who know what they're talking about and those who don't - you don't."[;)][}:)]
See what silly advice that really is?
Actually, the advice isn't silly. It is still right-on.
I rather enjoyed elaborating and showing her what a brainwashed fool she is.
Elaboration is what makes an article... Which is why I didn't really understand why you advocated summing up one of mine in one sentence.[?] As a writer, you should know that ideas can be expressed in more than a byline.[;)]
Sigh.
EMM, you really need to take some of the stuff I say with a grain of salt.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by Smitty500mag
Can you imagine a pistol with nearly a one inch bore.
Yes, I can. Where do I pick one up? I'm drooling.
Should I put it up for auction?[:o)]
0 -
I am thinking about getting one of those "multiple magazine pistols" They sound really cool 0 -
quote:Spaniels: I'm glad you wrote to her.
Yup!...I'm sure...folks like y'all is always thankful for what other folk have done for 'em...0 -
quote:Originally posted by HeavyBarrel
WHAT THE HELL IS A "SEMI-AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN"?
An assault rifle.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
An assault rifle.
as opposed to a defense rifle, i presume...0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsavo303
I am thinking about getting one of those "multiple magazine pistols" They sound really cool
Aren't they? Those and the one-inch bore guns, and you'd need to put it on wheels to carry it around.0 -
Well well well... I don't believe it, but I got a response from her:
quote:Thank you for taking the time to read my column, and for correcting my
inaccurate gun terminology.
It seems, from local and national media, that there are two camps into
which responses to gun massacres fall:
a) more guns in the hands of more people will prevent future massacres
and
b) fewer guns in the hands of fewer people (excepting law enforcement)
will prevent them.
I don't think anyone in camp A is converting to camp B.
When I wrote the column, I did know about the woman whose parents were
killed in Killeen, who worked for concealed weapons permit.
Here is a different response by a survivor, Tom Mauser, whose son was
killed at Columbine. I quote from today's Denver Post:
"Opponents say when we have more guns, we'll be safe. But we've been
headed that direction a long time. We have more guns. And we're not
safe. When do we realize it hasn't been a good direction for us?"
(cont'd from front page article).
Again, thanks for the communication.
Sincerely,
Annie Dawid
Of course, she's still an idiot, but at least she had the decency to respond.0 -
I got the same response from her. But I never mentioned the woman in Kilean. 0 -
i reread that response about 5 times and still don't get what is the point of her rambling. what an idiot, indeed. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by yawarakai
I got the same response from her. But I never mentioned the woman in Kilean.
Neither did I. It looks like she penned a "general" response and it appears as though she got smacked with a few central themes to her lunacy.
quote:Originally posted by sneakyrussian
i reread that response about 5 times and still don't get what is the point of her rambling. what an idiot, indeed.
Yep, I know what you mean.
And, because Tom Mauser, an anti-gun zealot says so, and we should all bow before him because he lost a son at Columbine, it must be Gospel.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by sneakyrussian
i reread that response about 5 times and still don't get what is the point of her rambling. what an idiot, indeed.
Yep, I know what you mean.
And, because Tom Mauser, an anti-gun zealot says so, and we should all bow before him because he lost a son at Columbine, it must be Gospel.
Just read (i just read) some of Tom Mauser's rants. I guess Michael Savage is right after all -- liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. I wonder what will it take for the rest of the country to get off of their asses and get rid of these kind of a$$wipes.0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by sneakyrussian
i reread that response about 5 times and still don't get what is the point of her rambling. what an idiot, indeed.
Yep, I know what you mean.
And, because Tom Mauser, an anti-gun zealot says so, and we should all bow before him because he lost a son at Columbine, it must be Gospel.
Just read some of Tom Mauser's rants. I guess Michael Savage is right after all -- liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. I wonder what will it take for the rest of the country to get off of their asses and get rid of these kind of a$$wipes.
Unfortunately, Mauser is a hero to the gun-grabbing left. I have received some very nasty e-mails because of what I write in my Blog whenever I mention him. Apparently, I'm supposed to give the guy a pass because he lost a son at Columbine, and I'm heartless because I fail to do so.
Mauser has turned into a two-bit thug that apparently believes his son will come back when America is defenseless.0 -
quote:Thank you for taking the time to read my column, and for correcting my inaccurate gun terminology.
It seems, from local and national media, that there are two camps into which responses to gun massacres fall:
a) more guns in the hands of more people will prevent future massacres and
b) fewer guns in the hands of fewer people (excepting law enforcement) will prevent them. I don't think anyone in camp A is converting to camp B.
When I wrote the column, I did know about the woman whose parents were killed in Killeen, who worked for concealed weapons permit. Here is a different response by a survivor, Tom Mauser, whose son was killed at Columbine. I quote from today's Denver Post:
"Opponents say when we have more guns, we'll be safe. But we've been headed that direction a long time. We have more guns. And we're not safe. When do we realize it hasn't been a good direction for us?"
(cont'd from front page article).
Again, thanks for the communication.
Sincerely,
Annie Dawid
I had no trouble at all understanding what this woman is telling you. Even though you don't have the mental capacity or are just too stubborn to come around to her way of thinking, she knows she is right and you are wrong so she will continue her campaign to make Earth a safe place to live.
If she and Tom Mauser are looking for safety, they have chosen the wrong planet to live on.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Thank you for taking the time to read my column, and for correcting my inaccurate gun terminology.
It seems, from local and national media, that there are two camps into which responses to gun massacres fall:
a) more guns in the hands of more people will prevent future massacres and
b) fewer guns in the hands of fewer people (excepting law enforcement) will prevent them. I don't think anyone in camp A is converting to camp B.
When I wrote the column, I did know about the woman whose parents were killed in Killeen, who worked for concealed weapons permit. Here is a different response by a survivor, Tom Mauser, whose son was killed at Columbine. I quote from today's Denver Post:
"Opponents say when we have more guns, we'll be safe. But we've been headed that direction a long time. We have more guns. And we're not safe. When do we realize it hasn't been a good direction for us?"
(cont'd from front page article).
Again, thanks for the communication.
Sincerely,
Annie Dawid
I had no trouble at all understanding what this woman is telling you. Even though you don't have the mental capacity or are just too stubborn to come around to her way of thinking, she knows she is right and you are wrong so she will continue her campaign to make Earth a safe place to live.
If she and Tom Mauser are looking for safety, they have chosen the wrong planet to live on.
Okay, let's review who is stupid.
She makes a bunch of unwarranted and completely false statements about firearms.
We correct her.
She then admits not understanding some basic terms, doesn't apologize for lying or talking about things she doesn't understand, and then assigns godhood to Mauser because he lost a son at Columbine.
Hmmm. Yep, I'm the dumb one here, I just don't understand.0 -
spanielsells, you're preaching to the choir here, son. I agree with you all the way, except for her being a liar. In order for her to be a liar, she would have to know what she says isn't true. I don't think she has the intellect to understand the truth, so she can't be a liar. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
spanielsells, you're preaching to the choir here, son. I agree with you all the way, except for her being a liar. In order for her to be a liar, she would have to know what she says isn't true. I don't think she has the intellect to understand the truth, so she can't be a liar.
Perhaps you're right.
Yet, she spent untold numbers of years TEACHING young adults (barely). Think of all the minds she's fu^%ed up.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
65 comments