This Little Light Of Mine

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Shameful Editorial In The New Maine Times


I am totally amazed at the uneducated, ignorant editorial written in The New Maine Times on February 19, 2013!
Let me dissect it here for everyone to see.
On Tuesday, the Maine Legislature passed 'emergency' legislation to prevent people from knowing whether our neighbors are able to murder us at the bank, at restaurants, in our cars, in our schools.
These neighbors, and we use the term advisedly, are people who have concealed carry permits for their handguns.  They can bring these guns into a local coffee shop, they can bring them onto mass transit, they can carry them virtually anywhere that doesn't have a metal detector, and even then, in some cases, they can bring them right through because the state, in its infinite wisdom, decided to grant these people a 'permit'.
Well, these are the same neighbors who have had these concealed guns for quite some time now, and have any of them done any murdering anywhere? Why has it changed that these neighbors who have had these concealed guns who haven’t done anything wrong, broken any laws or even attempted to do anything to harm anyone, just because an emergency bill to protect them from people with this kind of attitude has been passed? Let me tell you the definition of CONCEALED.

concealed  past participle, past tense of con·ceal (Verb)
 Verb
1.Keep from sight; hide.
2. Keep (something) secret; prevent from being known or noticed: "love that they had to conceal from others".  

You see, the whole reasoning for the concealed part is so that others do NOT know that you have whatever you’re trying to conceal! In this case, a gun. And to be able to get a concealed gun permit, you have to pass a thorough background check and must  demonstrate a knowledge of handgun safety to be able to carry a concealed gun. It is NOT an easy thing to get. They don’t just give a permit to anyone who asks for one!   CLICK HERE FOR THE MAINE LAWS ON THIS!
Also, these remarks given above in this editorial suggests that ‘our neighbors’ are just a bunch of murderous thugs just waiting to kill at a moment’s fancy to do so! How little this writer thinks of her neighbors!!! 


Now some people need guns ... police, for instance.  I think we could all agree to that.  And in some limited cases, women who have been the victims of domestic violence should  have the right to carry, but the better solution there is to throw the scumbag in jail and throw away the key.  I think we might even all agree to that.
This is a very limited list of who this writer thinks should be able to carry a gun.  There are many varying reasons to carry and yes, protection is the main reason for doing so.  But to limit this to only police and only certain domestic abuse women, is very judgmental at best! What about those who carry large amount of money to and from banking institutes? What about a P.I.?  What about body guards? These are just a few other examples.
And to say “but the better solution there is to throw the scumbag in jail and throw away the key” is just totally asinine stupid! For one, to throw away the key is to give a life sentence to someone who hasn’t committed murder! And for two, in a civilized society, the time must fit the crime. And as horrendous as it is for a man to beat up a woman, it is still a lesser crime than murder. So, the man WILL be released at some point. And yes, a woman who is on the receiving end of this kind of brutality should be able to carry an equalizer, definitely!


But the average joe with little man syndrome has no need to carry a gun about.  This is Maine, for heaven's sake.  You don't even have to lock your car or your house when you leave.  You certainly don't have to carry a gun in your ample waistband.
My God! This is really judgmental! The average joe “with a little man syndrome”??? This writer sure seems to have a hatred against men! First, the average joe has the constitutional right to carry a gun. Second, the average joe also includes the average jane. Does SHE have a little man syndrome? That is just so ignorantly insulting and I can’t believe that a so call editor of a newspaper would  even think it proper to publish such a sentiment for all to read. And to think that just because we live in Maine, it means that we don’t have to lock our cars or house when we leave them, is also uninformed and ignorant. You need to take off your rose colored glasses and get a reality check missy! In Winslow  the police chief in 2010 stated: ''The sad thing about this is, there were 65 burglaries, and not one was broken into (forcibly),'' Winslow Police Chief Richard Grindall said. ''We want to emphasize that people need to lock up their cars.'' Also, Maine statistics show that in 2013, the crime rate in Maine is expected to be higher than 2010. Check here for the numbers. You will find a city by city chart. Plenty of evidence that we here in Maine DO need to lock up our vehicles and houses when we leave them! So, you go right ahead and believe your own delusions lady, but don’t pass on erroneous information to your readers. That isn’t ethical nor nice to do!!!


Just recently, someone was arrested outside a local Starbucks when he confessed to the police that he was carrying a gun, but had not yet received his concealed carry permit.  When he showed back up to get his stuff, the police had already given him back the gun.  They'd never have even known the joker had the gun if he hadn't confessed that his permit hadn't come in the mail yet.  The only rationale the guy apparently had for even owning a gun in the first place was impressing the chick-barristas, and they didn't seem too damn impressed.
But it's always nice to know a marginal personality is hanging around the coffee shop where one spends time with a gun, isn't it?
Well, no, in fact, it's not all the comforting.
This happening could have happened for several reasons, and without the full story, it is difficult to speculate as to what the reason might be.  Why did this man tell the police he had a gun? Could have been because the police DID know he had one as they are trained to recognize a ‘gun lump’ when they see one and asked him about it. The reason the police gave back his gun to him is because by law, they need to. It is his property and it needs to be given back. And, apparently since they gave it back and let him go, his gun permit was approved, it was just in the mail. So technically, he had the right to carry the gun! 
And what you don’t seem to understand is this, there need not be any other rationale to carry a gun than to just want to carry one! It is a constitutional right, period!  And when did you become a psychologist to be able to label this man a ‘marginal personality’? If you are one, then I want to see your credentials. I want to know where you got your education.  I want to know where in your class you stand in rank. Was it the top 10? The top third? How long have you practiced psychology? What is your success ratio to non-success?  Where are you licensed to practice and where are all the places you have practiced? Have you ever had a malpractice suit filed against you? If so, what was the outcome? Have you ever had your license revoked? If so, why? Think this is a rigorous list of background checking questions? It’s nothing compared to what is done for a concealed weapons permit!  I know one thing, it is not very comforting knowing that there are uneducated and ignorant people about our gun rights like you out and about where my children and grandchildren can be exposed to! You are more dangerous to their well-being than a concealed armed citizen is! Because at least most armed citizens are responsible and go unnoticed where as ignorance like your editorial just breeds fear and hatred and can be read!


What's even less comforting is the contortions the Legislature went through to 'protect' people who have ... well, protection already ... from the rest of us, who are just ordinary people with kitchen knives and the odd baseball bat
First, pushing through an emergency bill  has happened many times in our legislature and I’ve never seen you call it “contortions” before! Why is it called that now that it just happens to be a bill you don’t like? And really? "To protect people who have protection already from the rest of us"? First, what needed protection wasn’t just a PHYSICAL attack, which the gun would give protection from. The protection needed in this case was from the disclosure of who they are so they are protected from the actions of those who are ignorant, like you! Because there are people out there who would harass, rob, attack and injure, even kill, those people out of ignorance or just because they are criminals and that’s what they do! Besides, remember the definition of concealed? It’s SUPPOSED to be a secret.  Not only for the protection of the one carrying but for the protection of the rest of us. Why? Cause of the unneeded, unwarranted, irrational reactions that rises up among the rest of us who are uneducated and ignorant about responsible gun ownership, like you have shown!


And they did it by upholding a nebulous second amendment right at the expense of a very, very clear first amendment right.
What is so unclear about the 2nd amendment pray tell? Here it is:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok…lets break this down.
A well regulated militia…what does this mean?
Well regulated = thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.
Militia = a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service.

Since this is followed by the words, being necessary to the security of a free state, the militia being mentioned is the STATE militia.
Now, who makes up a state militia? In the definition it states a body of citizens or a pool of citizens. In this case, STATE citizens. The PEOPLE of the state! 

Now, the next section of this amendment…
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, here again it is stating that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, and we just deduced who the people are….the citizens of the state, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.... meaning we have the right to own guns AND have them on our persons….shall NOT BE INFRINGED! This means that the PEOPLES’ right to own AND BEAR guns shall not be limited, undermined or encroached upon. (infringed is defined as: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy").
So please tell me, what is so hazy about this? Did you not graduate from high school? Can you not understand the written word? The 2nd amendment is quite clearly saying that the states have their right to have a militia which is made up of its citizens, its people, who have the complete right to own and BEAR arms! And that this right shall NOT be LIMITED, UNDERMINED or ENCROACHED UPON!!!! This is INDISPUTABLE!



The Bangor Daily News had every right to petition the state for information in the public domain.  They are the press, and as such, have an entirely indisputible first amendment right to do what the press does ... ferret out public domain information, and, if they wish, publish it.  This emergency legislation ... and let's be honest, what was the emergency here anyway? ... completely undermined the BDN's right to a free press, and the New Maine Times' right, and the New York Times' right, and even Fox News' right. 
Yes…the BDN does have the right to gather information in the public domain. But they also need to weigh the public right to know versus the individual right to privacy, responsibly as well. And as we discussed above, the whole reason for CONCEALEMENT is to remain private.  
“Just because information is public does not make it newsworthy. People own guns for a wide range of law-abiding reasons. If you are not breaking the law, there is no compelling reason to publish the data.
Publishing gun owners' names makes them targets for theft or public ridicule. It is journalistic arrogance to abuse public record privilege, just as it is to air 911 calls for no reason or to publish the home addresses of police or judges without cause," Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, said in a statement Wednesday.
 
In other words, publishing this info in a newspaper gives criminals a map as where to go and rob to attain firearms. It also sets up a situation for those who are ignorant to be able to ridicule them just for exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. This editorial being a prime example of such! It also compromises their safety, because now they are targets of criminal activities. If you are SO interested in knowing who owns guns and are carrying them, then why don’t YOU go to your local town/city hall to find out this information yourself? Why does it need to be PUBLICLY and WIDELY announced? THIS was the emergency and thus the need of the legislation quickly being passed! This issue needs to be discussed and the safety of the gun owners needed to be immediately addressed so that NO ONE gets harmed while this is being discussed!  Apparently you have been safe thus far. You haven’t been murdered. Shot at or otherwise harmed. So why is it NOW you’re so concerned that you will be? Apparently, your neighbors have been VERY responsible with their guns, so why do you now attack their credibility and responsibility? This is irresponsible and irrational behavior on your part and maybe someone should possibly question YOUR personality’s margins!


A constitutional challenge is coming, and the legislators should have realized that they can't get away with this indefinitely.  But for some unknown and unhappy reason, the second amendment seems to be more equal than the other constitutional protections.  This cannot stand.
They ARE aware that this legislation is not an indefinite thing…that is why it is limited to only a 60 DAY lifespan. It gives our legislators 60 days to reword the law so that EVERYBODY is protected, to INCLUDE the gun owners!! I think that is quite fair. 
And on the contrary, it is the 1st amendment here being more equal over the 2nd amendment as the BDN was not being responsible in weighing their right to free press and the right for the safety of the individual who is exercising their right to bear arms! Not until the people stood up and shouted, that is! If people are so anxious to know who among them have a concealed weapon permit, let them go and find it out for themselves. But to openly, publicly and widely publish this information just serves to inflame and promote needless fear among the public and puts the safety of law abiding and responsible citizens at needless and unwarranted risk! It's akin to shouting "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. And THIS cannot stand!
Also, it's not that the 2nd amendment is trumping all the others. It's the one UNDER ATTACK! And if the government manages to take that one away, it will definitely be the death knell of all the others! Cause the ONLY thing that is giving the BDN their 1st amendment right to do as you so inadequately and inaccurately complain that they weren't allowed to do, is the fact that we the people are still armed to be able to enforce it!!!
SHAME ON YOU Maine News Times!! If you're going to give a PERSONAL opinion on matters at least do some journalistic research before doing so, and put it as an article, instead of an editorial. An editor should hold her/himself to a higher standard of journalistic (as well as personal) ethics and responsibility than what has been done here.

1 comment:

  1. Arguing wit Gina on gun control is like arguing with a rock. Lately, her tack as been "You claim to need the guns to overthrow a tyrannical government, yet x,y, and z happened and you didn't do that." Circular logic, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Eventually, she'll crash the NMT whenever the sugar-daddy grant runs out.

    ReplyDelete