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
-
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.
she is indeed a liar. nobody cares whether i am aware of truth or not, but if i will declare the sky green i will be called a liar. besides, i am yet to meet a truthful lefty. if they aren't aware of that they are lying, they just have a mental disorder that when they convinced themselves of what the truth is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
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.
she is indeed a liar. nobody cares whether i am aware of truth or not, but if i will declare the sky green i will be called a liar. besides, i am yet to meet a truthful lefty. if they aren't aware of that they are lying, they just have a mental disorder that when they convinced themselves of what the truth is.
Actually, I've talked to some truthful lefties. They're not all bad. I've found that the best way to reason with them is to calmly discuss matters and ask them to be intellectually honest. This involves patiently listening to them while they spew out their recycled garbage that they don't even understand, then take their points one-by-one and carefully instruct them to be intellectually honest with themselves. When they get off-track, you again point out that they're not being intellectually honest with themselves.
Sometimes, when they take a few moments and actually think about what they just said and discover that they're lying to themselves intellectually, they don't like that. They don't mind lying to you and me, but they don't like lying to themselves.
Of course, you have to get past the lies they've been told that they hold as Gospel. That is the tough hurdle to overcome.
If they believe a lie and pass it off as factual, that's not really lying. That's just being uninformed, which is exactly what Ms. Dawid is at this point.
We'll see if she's a liar with future columns, since she's admitted that she got the "terminology" wrong.0 -
I do not know what a semi-automatic machine gun is but I WANT ONE!!!!!!!! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Da-Tank
I do not know what a semi-automatic machine gun is but I WANT ONE!!!!!!!!
So do I.
I'll cut you a deal. You find one, you tell me where to get it, and I'll do the same for you if I find one. Okay?0 -
I am the one who she originaly responded too, she wanted to know how people at Luby's in Tx and at Columbine felt about more gone control and I kindly pointed out Suzzana Hupp {who she claimed she knew about but still ignored Mrs. Hupp views on gun control} and a couple of fathers of Columbine victims who also were anti-gun control. She did have the decentcy to respond but her logic is still flawed. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
65 comments