Portsmouth Herald Editorial Board Has An Integrity Deficit
Saturday, December 22, 2012 at 07:51AM "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
Hoplophobia —n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns (c. 1966, coined by Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek hoplites, weapon; see his book Principles of Personal Defense). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, nondescript fears, more, at mere thought of guns. Presence of working firearms may cause panic attack. Hoplophobe, hoplophobic.
Hoplophobes. The Editorial Staff of the Portsmouth Herald/Seacoast Online epitomizes the very notion of that word. With each sticky-sweet glass of Kool-Aid they drink, the self-convincing liberal pandering drunkenness sets ever deeper into their psyche of intellectual dishonesty. Moral Bankruptcy is the standard-bearer for their
brand of yellow journalism.
It is, in fact, an editorial and while editorials possess a point of view, most are slanted in a particular political bent left or right, conservative or liberal, pro-gun or anti-gun. However, despite stark vehement policy disagreements I might have, no editorial will ever draw the ire of this writer when they are at least, honest. I might think them dead wrong or totally off the mark, but that much I can still respect. Today's Portsmouth Herald/Seacoast Online Editorial is devoid of honesty and integrity.
The Portsmouth Herald Seacoast Online declares today, Time has come to curb gun violence Portsmouth Herald. Who would disagree? But then again, the time is long overdue to curb all violence, especially those acts of violence that go underreported because they do not involve firearms.
It took the deaths of 20 young children to do it, but the country is finally horrified enough to call for an end to the sale of assault weapons — and Washington is finally listening.
An end to the sale of assault [sic] weapons is the advocacy point. "Assault Weapons." A term that few has yet to define. And, when it is defined by the lamestream liberal media, it becomes abundantly clear the writers know NOTHING about which they write. These demagogues rely on the public ignorance and confusion between a firearm that fires full-auto and a firearm that fires semi-automatically. They do so to keep those emotional fires burning, not against pychos and crazies who obtain firearms and do their mass murder, but on the firearm itself.
Here, the Editorial staff grossly misleads its audience using examples of recent mass murders.
In August, two people were killed and eight were injured by a lone gunman in front of the Empire State Building. That same month, six people were killed at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis.
FACT: Both incidents involved handguns. not semi-automatic rifles at which the editorial takes aim. Jeffrey Johnson used a "handgun" outside of the empire state building, not an "assault [sic] weapon." New York City, with its uber strict "Sullivan Laws" some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and cops being present, didn't prevent Johnson from open firing. Mass Murder? where is the mass? two died, one of which was Johnson and some bystanders who were wounded were wounded by NYPD's finest. At the Sikh temple a Springfield XD handgun was used, again, not an assault weapon. So how do these two examples make the case for an Assault [sic] Weapons Ban?
In July, a man wearing a mask walked into a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and opened fire during a showing of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises." Twelve people were killed and 58 were wounded.
FACT: James Eagan Holmes used a Smith and Wesson Military & Police 15 (AR-15-style) rifle, A Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, and a couple of Glock handguns. This is the only example throughout the editorial where a scary black rifle was used. What the article also misdirects is that the 100-round "beta" magazine Holmes used, misfed at just under 30 rounds.
Thereafter, at court preceedings lawyers argued that Holmes was mentally ill, had stated his intent to kill people, and while under the care of a psychologist he gave her a notebook with egregious violent assertions. The Mental Health professional failed to make reports to Law enforcement and hid behind ambiguous Hipaa laws to the peril of the general public. Yet here we are resting the blame squarely on these inanimate amalgams of steel, carbon fiber and black anodized or parkerized-surfaced firearms.Only one example?
"In April, a gunman killed seven and wounded three people in a rampage at a Christian college in Oakland, Calif."
FACT: One L. Goh, the Christian School Shooter used a 45-caliber "handgun"...In California...a state pround of its gun laws...some of the toughest gun laws according to the Brady Campaign. Handgun again, not a black semi-automatic rifle.
And let us not forget the 9-year-old girl who was killed when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson, Ariz., in January 2011.
FACT: Jared Lee Loughner, a scizophrenic high school drop-out, U.S. Army reject, drug and alcohol user and all-around nutjob, used a "handgun." Not an assault rifle. The body count was not nearly high enough to be called a mass murder and it lingered in the news cycle because it involved a loved liberal congresswoman, not the little girl. She was just a kid! But what is so prominent about that whole day? Gabby Giffords being shot. Sans Black Rifle...
"Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., won't even bring up the subject. By being silent, Ayotte is failing to show she cares more about preventing 6-year-olds from being shot in the face than she does about being a rising star in the Republican Party."
That statement is not just shocking but is clear unethical journalism. I am willing to bet a years pay that Senator Ayotte went to her home, either looked at her young children or photos of her young children and was deeply and profoundly affected by this tragedy. Senator Kelly Ayotte has children that are around the age of the children of Newtown who were, "shot[sic] in the face" The same New Hampshire Attorney General who prosecuted a cop killer and attained a death sentence for that same cop killer!
The rank dishonesty of the Portsmouth Herald in using handgun examples and only one scary black gun example is a blatant sleight of hand. Its dishonest because there is no widespread call for a ban on handguns...the focus is the proverbial scary black rifle.
It is pointless for me to go back and restate the Second Amendment argument. I made a compelling case in my entry, A Common Thread that throughout the world, gun control has not stemmed the tide of mass murders. In my entry, Connecticut And It's Tough Gun Control Laws, I reviewed what we already know: tough laws do not prevent this kind of violence. Plainly put, Gun control and gun free zones are "kill zones" for mass murders. The empirical evidence supports that. The only thing left for the anti-gun liberals to do is to resort to gutter politics, yellow journalism and the very cowardice we read today in the Portsmouth Herald/Seacoast Online.
cross-posted at Granite Grok
Reader Comments (11)
Any common ground? Any limit? Any?
Do yourself a favor Jim, step out of your ignorance and learn something about firearms, projectiles, ammunition and shooting. You come reply to this stuff sounding like a rank ignoramus and you don't have a clue what your talking about. You probably watch too much TV.
And for the record, I generally do not purchase much ammunition...I load my own...its more accurate, I can adjust the power of the loads within the data and its about 1/3 to 1.2 the cost...So its fair to say, I know what I am talking about.
You and your gun friends will lose more than you want to unless you join the majority of Americans, AND the majority of gun owners, AND the majority of NRA members, who support reasonable limits.
To do otherwise is ignorant.
Jim, You say, "You and your gun friends will lose more than you want to unless you join the majority of Americans, AND the majority of gun owners, AND the majority of NRA members, who support reasonable limits."
That, is a telling statement. I accept your premise that the stated goal is to "take away" and impose limits on law-abiding citizens. It is your way to misplace blame and responsbility for this tragic event. You use the word "majority three times in that post. The problem is you all are going to see how really wrong you are. NONE of the arguments against guns or the second amendment has changed one lick in the last 40 years. NOT ONE.
The emotional viscera surrounding this recent mass murder is driving the cultural debate as it always does. So many Democrats and Liberals ran in the other direction, not wanting to take on the NRA, its members and the vast citizenry who believe in a fundamental second amendment right. Even President Obama! So go right ahead...wake up that sleeping Giant with your plethora or restrictions and confiscations and laws on people who obeys the law in the first place and continue to ignore the criminality we so ubiquitously displayed in the never ending news cycle.
What I find utterly despicable is the families who could not be left alone long enough to bury their children from this tragedy before the lame stream media swarmed in like vultures.
Rick, the debate isn't about "confiscation" of guns. It's about stopping the selling of assault weapons. And high-capacity clips. And having track of the guns sold at gun sales. Isn't there common ground by you on that?
Fortunately, for the majority of sane NRA members and American patriots, there is, and they're on my side that "...well regulated..." means something, and there should be limitations.
You're losing your arguments, and I can read the anger in your writing because of it.
He who cannot distinguish between informed passion and ripe anger is doomed to be history's errant judge.
So, I understand your pain, Rick.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day comes in three weeks!
You stated in your last post....
"on equality, gay marriage is being accepted, we have a citizenry that has risen for sane gun regulations and limitations, Democrats swept the November 6th election, President Barack Obama will have another term in office, women are winning equality in the workplace and politics, our state said no to the anti-labor lobby, we have greater religious diversity, and acceptance, than ever, we're getting out of two foreign wars, immigrants from elsewhere are being welcomed again, and Americans insist following the Constitution by defending their right to vote. The Tea Party is almost no more. Republican right-wingers are being wedged out by reasonable and responsible Republican mainstreamers..."
That, my friend...is a very broad view and clearly, outside the scope, breadth and depth of this entry which I took time to write.
What is clear is that you want to be the maker and arbiter of the rules governing the public debate. The problem I see in that is that I won't follow those rules...especially when they intermittently change to suit your agenda.
Just to steer this back to the context about which I wrote. It is my thesis that the Portsmouth Herald is dishonest. They call for an assault weapons ban and support that with errant facts, i.e. mass murders committed with handguns, not black scary rifles the hoplophobes fear. I challenged them point by point. I stated clearly why the information was erroneous and I gave clearly verifiable data that can be supported with a mere Google search.
For all the posts back and forth, I have indulged you to some degree. You have posed inane questions regarding size of guns, ammunition without providing a context to your questions.
When I addressed what you wrote, you shifted the conversation to assessing me as "being emotional."
When I responded to that in a light-hearted fashion, you again shifted only this time to what appears to me is some broad-sweeping progressive score card. I am guessing here, but I am beginning to think perhaps it is "you" who is being emotional, now.
If you want to talk about the entry...I would be more than happy to. But further commentary about all of this other crap, I am not going to waste my time on.
Has it ever come to you that I just don't accept the assumptions of your arguments here? Blogging -- opinion writing -- isn't a debating society where one goes point by point in "refuting" everything that someone says to make his or her argument. It's to make a point of view, and you have yours, and I have mine.
Just because you make certain assumptions that you contend are "fact," which you find on Google or Faux News or wherever, doesn't mean I'll fall for them. Nor do I have to respond point by point when you write something.
You always have the choice -- not to engage, or even ignore -- or block -- my viewpoint. Your decision. I do find it interesting that when those who have more "conservative" viewpoints, whether on gun control, gay marriage and equality, or the science of climate change and evolution, to mention a few that have been on NHInsider.com in the past couple of months they, try to hide behind myths or just attack "libs," or the unpatriotic left.
Case in point is your "thesis" that The Portsmouth Herald is "dishonest," whatever that means. I don't know who you think reads that kind of rhetoric or monologue, except for me and a handful of others. But those are assumptions I won't accept. Nor let go without discussing the other side.