Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Calling out the Courant on their anti-gun bias

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Post imported post

    Sent this email:

    Subject: Open Carry Editorial

    Rich B
    Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM
    To: "Lumsden, Carolyn" <clumsden@courant.com>
    Carolyn,
    I know you said you administer the polls, so please feel free to point me in the right direction if you are not the correct person to ask about this.

    I notice that this editorial is being linked to pretty heavily:

    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...,3326416.story

    From (at least) these:
    http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...,2346909.story
    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...,5787009.story
    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/todaysbuzz/tuesday/


    This has to be one of the worst editorials I have ever seen on this topic, and possibly at all regardless of topic. I find it odd how heavily it is being linked to in all related stories, polls and editorials. There are other editorials that are not completely unsubstantiated and based purely on subjective opinions of people who have irrational fears of inanimate objects and paranoid delusions. The fact that it is also apparently an anonymous submission is curious as well.

    The idea of an editorial such as that one is to express someone's opinion, not to repeatedly state blatant lies and to give a paranoid and delusional person a soapbox. Why not advertise these pieces instead:

    http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...,2346909.story
    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...,5787009.story
    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...,7228805.story
    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...,2903418.story

    These pieces all have some things in common:

    - The author supplies their name.
    - They don't entirely consist of blatant lies and paranoid delusions.
    - They represent opinion, which is the idea of the editorials.

    Please consider the way the Courant is representing itself here. The Courant should have never published this editorial to begin with, but it certainly should not be advertising it amongst real opinions, journalism and in its polls.

    Thank you,
    Rich B
    Lumsden, Carolyn <CLumsden@courant.com> Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM
    To: Rich B
    I’ll be back to you soon, but on deadline, so please be patient. Carolyn
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Post imported post

    On a likely unrelated note, the Courant has switched their commenting system and all of our comments were deleted.

    Isn't that nice?
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    And meanwhile, from Pennsylvania's capitol (didn't Pennsylvania and Connecticut once wage war against each other a long time ago?), we have this from the Harrisburg Patriot-News:

    Gun rights activists are challenging municipal laws prohibiting people from carrying guns in parks

    The complete article is here: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...are_chall.html

    The opening snippet goes: The state law that lets just about anybody openly carry a loaded gun anywhere is butting up against municipal laws that outlaw guns from local parks where children play.

    Upper Allen Township is reversing its ban on guns in parks after a resident wrote officials that the ordinance is illegal. Manager Lou Fazekas said officials were aware earlier that the ban is at odds with the state’s Uniform Firearms Act, but decided against taking action until a resident raised a complaint.

    “It doesn’t matter how I feel,” Fazekas said. “We have to comply with state laws.”


    And another snippet goes: Pennsylvania, like 27 others, is an “open-carry” state, meaning people older than 18 don’t need a license to openly carry a loaded gun. A license is required for a concealed weapon. Only people prohibited by law from owning guns — mostly those with criminal backgrounds or mental instabilities — cannot carry. The only places open carry is banned under state law are schools, courthouses, Philadelphia, secure areas of airports and state parks.

    Only two errors spotted: You can open carry in Philadelphia if you have a license, and you can concealed carry in state parks if you have a license.

    Overall, a fairly balanced, unbiased article.




  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Post imported post

    Are you just bragging?

    That article brings up a very good point. We have to remember in CT that these laws and reservations have not been challenged in a long time. We should never be afraid to challenge anything we see that is questionable, it might just be that easy.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Not necessarily bragging, but I am pointing out that it is possible for Citizens to stand up to an oppressive government, whether it be state or federal.

    In Pennsylvania's case, open carry had to go all the way to the State Supreme Court for a ruling stating it was legal statewide, period.

    Concerning the local parks issue, (there are 67 counties composed of 931 townships and over 1,000 boroughs and cities) where local citizens have written letters to their local elected officials, attended council meetings, and in a few occasions taken the political entity to court to enforce state preemption over local restrictions. In one recent incident, a citizen actually filed criminal Official Oppression charges against a Borough Mayor, every single Borough Council Member, and the Borough Solicitor for failure to comply with the law stating only the State could regulate the bearing of arms, not the local municipality. Once it hit the news, the borough complied.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    I followed one of those links from the courant article over to the liberal huff post. Amazingly most of the replies were pro OC.:celebrate
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •