Boston Globe - High Noon for Gun Cotrol

Negotiator

Negotiator

Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
920
Likes
109
Location
Grafton, MA
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Anyone else irritated and more by today’s inane editorial in the Globe on the Heller judgment?

“Still, no right is absolute. Even the First Amendment, beloved of editorial writers, has limits. The right to free speech can be restricted where its full expression might cause harm: libel, obscenity, incitement to riot. Similarly, the court ruled that the Second Amendment can be restricted for reasons of public safety. The important work now is to determine what constitutes "reasonable" regulation of murderous weapons…Some Americans may feel safer owning a gun for self-defense. But guns will still kill 80 people today in homicides, suicides, or accidents. This ruling won't change that.”

I really object to the use of the type of language that is just so blatantly inflammatory. And of the 80 killed today, how many were killed by legally held firearms? How many were killed by illegally held or stolen firearms? How many people were beaten, stabbed , strangled, poisoned, electrocuted…?, How many were killed in self defence?

There is a mathematical principle called Simpson’s Paradox which refers to the reversal of the direction of a comparison or an association when data from several groups are combined to form a single group. The Globe can parse stats till the cows come home in their effort to maintain an anti position, but please, don’t insult the readers with this type of cheap shot.

I’ve stopped expecting to see a balanced view in the Globe, but this editorial just tipped me over the edge.[frown]
 
But guns will still kill 80 people today in homicides, suicides, or accidents. This ruling won't change that.”
Click to expand...

Actually... I'm betting that you see less murders of the inocent and more DEATHS of criminal.

That, my friends, is what i call a fair trade [smile]
 
I actually spent the time yesterday to view the gun grabber feed back on the Washington Post and New York Times until my head was about to explode. Almost every single post seemed as though it was written by an angry deranged person that had no command of the facts, history or comprehension of the Bill of Rights and each and every argument seemed to be saying the streets would turn into the Wild West, Gansters would now get more guns, bla, bla bla. I can't help but wonder if these people actually read the news either from one or several sources or whether their brains only compehend the parts they want to in any story.

Their response to this 2A news as a tragedy in their lives has been nothing short of childish and immature! The claims that this decision is another Bush screw up and that people should only be allowed muskets is nothing short of irrational. It's absolutely laughable to see their whole world fall down around them on this one issue but sad that they even have the right to vote.
 
I believe that drunk drivers kill much, much more than 80 people a day. They should ban alcohol and that will save all of those innocent lives...wait they did that, didn't work and made some people very rich...and violent, but rich nonetheless. If you can't take a man's wine away then what makes you think you can take away his gun? Be prepared to collect the bullets first.
 
Negotiator said:
..... The Globe can parse stats till the cows come home in their effort to maintain an anti position, but please, don’t insult the readers with this type of cheap shot.

I’ve stopped expecting to see a balanced view in the Globe, but this editorial just tipped me over the edge.[frown]
Click to expand...

Lets hope those cows come home sooner than later[wink]

/John
 
I believe we need a law that states any news paper, magazine, or other news source that uses facts that make no sense, aren't true should be executed by the populous in large.
 
Negotiator said:
Anyone else irritated and more by today’s inane editorial in the Globe on the Heller judgment?

“Still, no right is absolute. Even the First Amendment, beloved of editorial writers, has limits. The right to free speech can be restricted where its full expression might cause harm: libel, obscenity, incitement to riot. Similarly, the court ruled that the Second Amendment can be restricted for reasons of public safety. The important work now is to determine what constitutes "reasonable" regulation of murderous weapons…Some Americans may feel safer owning a gun for self-defense. But guns will still kill 80 people today in homicides, suicides, or accidents. This ruling won't change that.”

I really object to the use of the type of language that is just so blatantly inflammatory. And of the 80 killed today, how many were killed by legally held firearms? How many were killed by illegally held or stolen firearms? How many people were beaten, stabbed , strangled, poisoned, electrocuted…?, How many were killed in self defence?

There is a mathematical principle called Simpson’s Paradox which refers to the reversal of the direction of a comparison or an association when data from several groups are combined to form a single group. The Globe can parse stats till the cows come home in their effort to maintain an anti position, but please, don’t insult the readers with this type of cheap shot.

I’ve stopped expecting to see a balanced view in the Globe, but this editorial just tipped me over the edge.[frown]
Click to expand...

So mail the above to the Letters to the Editor section and let them know how you (we) feel. Wont change them, but the few letters I have sent in got published, and had follow ups from others agreeing with me. Lets them know not everyone in MA is a brain dead as they assume....[wink]
 
matt1956 said:
Ask that a**h*** if he feels the "freedom of the press" should come with restrictions.
Click to expand...

Even if it can be argued that there are constraints on free speech, you can
spell most of them out on a napkin with a pen. Someone should tell that
a**h*** to try to do the same thing with gun laws.

-Mike
 
You really didn't expect the anti-gun crowd to roll over and play dead. did you? There is too much money involved. Too much power in being able to control the proletariats lives. They're not going away. They'll just regroup, take a different tack and continue being a pain in our collective glutius maximus. Our job is to keep them at bay, defeated at every turn while being civilized as not to irritate the naivete populus (those that vote for Obama).[rolleyes]
 
You have a right to NOT buy their rag. Vote with your pocketbook. I have bought exactly two Boston Globes in twentyfive years and the only reason I bought those two was for the real estate sections......prior to the internet.

I wouldn't wrap my garbage in their newspaper let alone pay to read their tripe on a regular basis.
 
Finalygotabeltfed said:
You have a right to NOT buy their rag. Vote with your pocketbook. I have bought exactly two Boston Globes in twentyfive years and the only reason I bought those two was for the real estate sections......prior to the internet.

I wouldn't wrap my garbage in their newspaper let alone pay to read their tripe on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

I buy it for the comics section and the crossword [grin]
 
Finalygotabeltfed said:
You have a right to NOT buy their rag. Vote with your pocketbook. I have bought exactly two Boston Globes in twentyfive years and the only reason I bought those two was for the real estate sections......prior to the internet.

I wouldn't wrap my garbage in their newspaper let alone pay to read their tripe on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

From now on I think I will replace my toilet paper with the daily editions of the Globe.
 
John2 said:
You really didn't expect the anti-gun crowd to roll over and play dead. did you? There is too much money involved. Too much power in being able to control the proletariats lives. They're not going away. They'll just regroup, take a different tack and continue being a pain in our collective glutius maximus. Our job is to keep them at bay, defeated at every turn while being civilized as not to irritate the naivete populus (those that vote for Obama).[rolleyes]
Click to expand...

No, I have no expectations about the anti crowd rolling over. What burns my gluteus maximus is the attitude of the anti crowd toward what they stereotypically call “gun people”. What does that mean to the anti crowd? Rabid right wing Republicans? Crazy survivalists? Antiestablishmentarianism compound dwellers? What do they think when they say this? I am a “gun person” and proud of it. I’m also over educated and would probably be labeled a lib by folks who don’t know me well, having been a professor at a very liberal school in Boston, which shall remain nameless. I have people who are no longer friends since they found out I have guns in the house – they won’t come to visit as they fear the “Murderous Weapons” my wife and I have made an intelligent ( i.e. we thought about it, thought about the responsibilities AND possible ramifications) to have in the house. I have other non gun friends who go on and on about how guns create more problems for their owners than they are worth, including some who state that more often than not, gun owners get shot by their own weapons, so why on earth would I want to own such terrible things. I do so for several reasons, such as I can, I enjoy shooting, I get pleasure of ownership and I am exercising my right to protect myself and my loved ones. The anti crowd can exercise and enjoy their right to free speech the same way I can exercise my rights under the Second Amendment.

I wish ( and I know this unrealistic, but then it’s a wish, so it can be) that there was a sensible debate with the anti crowd that involves educating them to see the real facts about gun ownership and the types of people that do indeed own ( and carry) firearms. Some that I have introduced into shooting are surprised that the other shooter are, well, er, like them – normal , well adjusted, polite, educated , thinking human beings and not some bunch of knuckle dragging beer swilling dullards. Well maybe not the beer swilling. It is Friday, after all and I’m going home for a cold one.[grin]

British by birth
Christian by faith
American by choice

God bless America
 
Finalygotabeltfed said:
You have a right to NOT buy their rag. Vote with your pocketbook. I have bought exactly two Boston Globes in twentyfive years and the only reason I bought those two was for the real estate sections......prior to the internet.

I wouldn't wrap my garbage in their newspaper let alone pay to read their tripe on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

If you really want to vote with your pocketbook contact the advertisers and let them know why you won't purchase their products. The cost of the newspaper is peanuts.
 
06LemansC6 said:
If you really want to vote with your pocketbook contact the advertisers and let them know why you won't purchase their products. The cost of the newspaper is peanuts.
Click to expand...

And you get what you pay for, or less........

The contents of the newspaper is shit so why would I or anyone else buy it?

The whole advertising chain is only as good as its weakest link, and that link is the Globe. If nobody buys their paper, advertisers see a drop in sales of the paper and turn elsewhere to advertise their products. Its not the advertisers that I have issue with, they use whats available.........its the Globe writers and editors.
 

Similar threads

Hanover High teacher accused of threatening to bring gun to school
2
Replies
32
Views
619
Devils Paintbrush
Devils Paintbrush
Washington state high-capacity magazine ban remains on books for now
Replies
1
Views
117
pastera
pastera
LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
267
M1911
M1911
Hi Cap Mags for Browning High Power aluminum followers
Replies
3
Views
170
Picton
Picton
Boston gang member who posed with guns on Snapchat goes to prison
2
Replies
31
Views
871
1sern
1
Back
Top Bottom