Washington Times strikes again!

[USAFRavenR6]

Has anyone else seen their latest article??? This one is amazing, in a bad way.

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighb...nds-about-pass-strict-gun-control-beretta-ma/

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Has anyone else seen their latest article??? This one is amazing, in a bad way.

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighb...nds-about-pass-strict-gun-control-beretta-ma/

Post not! Times be! There is a difference.
Still a piss poor article.

 

[Half-cocked]

That's the Times, not the Post. And yes, the writer of that article is either incredibly delusional, stupid, clueless, or some grand combination of all 3.

 

[JasonB]

60 pro gun people huh?

 

[USAFRavenR6]

Good catch guys, I was pissed and saw Washington and came here to share immediately! This article is complete and utter horse shit. How can we hammer this author???

 

[Ironsighter]

Here is the bio of the author:

"Catherine Poe has been a Liberal for as long as she can remember. Last year, Catherine was named one of the top Progressives in Maryland along with Senator Barbara Mikulski and Congresswoman Donna Edwards. She has been a guest of President Obama in the Rose Garden.
As past president of Long Island NOW, she worked to reform women's prisons in New York, open the construction trades to women, change laws to safeguard battered women, and protect the rights of rape victims.
Long active in Democratic politics, she served as the presidentof the Talbot Democrats in Maryland for six years and fought to getthe Health Care Reform bill passed.
Catherine has been published in a diverse range of newspapers and magazines, including Newsday, Star Democrat, Rocky Mountain News, Yellowstone News, and the Massachusetts Review.
If Catherine has learned anything over the years it is that progressive change does not come easily, but in baby steps."

 

[monsternav]

Down at the bottom is some info about her:
"She can also be heard on Democrats for America's Future."

So her delusions are to be expected.

 

[pcfixer]

I sent her a message.

I know the truth. Worse, I am spreading the truth.
The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. This is apparent from the Second Amendment:
“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.”
I have checked a historical dictionary and “infringe” means the same thing now as it did in 1791. According to Supreme Court cases going back to the early 1800s the Constitution was written so the voters could understand it:
“In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”
McDonald v City of Chicago 561 US 3025 (2010
I am a qualified voter and in fact I do vote.
I understand what “shall not be infringed” means. Let me put it in folksy lingo; it means to keep your cotton picking hands off my guns and my ammo. The feds have been infringing this fundamental God-given right since 1934.
The federal government’s asserted authority to regulate fire arms under the Commerce clause does not hold up. Principles of construction hold that specific clauses take priority over general clauses. The Commerce Clause is a general clause the Second Amendment is a specific clause. Had the Framers wanted to allow the federal government this power they could have said “…shall not be infringed [except though the regulation of Commerce...]” or specifically mentioned firearms in the Commerce clause.
More importantly history supports this interpretation. In addition to the historical duties of the militia, under the American system of government the militia of the several states was also to counter balance and protect the states and citizens from any attempted incursion into their rights by the federal government and it standing army. In fact in federalist No. 28 Alexander Hamilton lays out a war strategy and battle plan for the states against the federal government.
The Second Amendment eliminated the primary means by which the federal government could interfere with the citizens’ personal duty and right under the principle of Allegiance and Protection to answer the call for their participation in the posse comitatus and the state’s militia including to defend against the federal government. This is a personal fundamental right.
Yes, I understand the National Guard is not the state’s militia but rather an unconstitutional national militia that answers to the beck and call of the federal government. More on this issue later.
The current discussion should not be what and how much gun control Congress is going to enact it should be how quickly will you repeal the current unconstitutional gun control laws and restore the states' militia! Regulation of firearms is in the hands of the states exclusively.
The bible tells us: what God has joined together let no man put asunder.
My right to self-defense of myself, my family, my fellow citizens, my state and my Republic is a fundamental God given right. Federal laws which conflicts with my God given inalienable fundamental rights are immoral and ineffective. I practice moral obedience.
A friend of mine has stated “When my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw.” I will be an outlaw as well. But, the real outlaws and traitors will be those who under color of law set out to deprive the American people of their inalienable rights. (I also know what “inalienable” means.)
My friend has a motto:
“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”
All good Americans are duty bound to follow this motto.
Do not make me an outlaw.
Pass it on my fellow patriots.
For the sake of Liberty,

 

[mxrider]

I can't even begin to fathom how many errors are in this article.....2000 supporters of the bill Friday? yet only 37 (I think) signed up to testify? Freedom of speech sometimes amazes me

 

[ZX672]

2000 anti gun and 60 pro gun? Flat out lies, and she will never be held accountable....

 

[Echo]

Send her a message and lets show her there are more than "60" anti-gun control

As always, use facts and logic not emotion. Anger, yelling and ranting is seen as just crazy talk.

 

[seawolf823]

60 pro gun people huh?

Where do these people get their numbers???? The bad thing is there was a ;ive stream and I watched most of it and in the time I watched I think I saw 1 or 2 anti's testify. I don't know how these writers get jobs when they can't even F***ing count.

 

[USAFRavenR6]

Pcfixer, nice write up!

Echo, looks like a fire mission! Let the flaming begin!!!!

 

[nedsurf]

Duplicate thread. Catherine Poe is a good Ministry of Truth employee.

 

[zmayhem]

Had to comment on it...what an idiot and a liar.

 

[Ironsighter]

I sent:

"Ms. Poe,

t's clear from your bio that you're not a friend of the Second Amendment, but since you're using the First Amendment as a communication tool, you need to at least make an attempt at presenting factual information.

I have been at every gun-related event in Annapolis since 6 February. I was there last Friday to testify and I was privy to photographs and information on the anti-2A rally that was held on 1 March. I don't know how you can claim 2,000 people at the 1 March rally. My observations of the photographs and webcams put the number well below that, in the few hundred at best. Even the Washington Post, not known as a friend of the Second Amendment, put the figure in the "hundreds." See this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...d5b8f6-8297-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html

Meanwhile, INSIDE, over 1,300 people signed up to testify AGAINST the bill, while only 32 signed up to testify in opposition.

If you have an ounce of integrity, you'll do some real research and post a correction to all the factual errors in your "article," including the attendance numbers.

The ends do not justify the means, Ms. Poe. You're deliberately supplying false information to bolster your cause and to denigrate me and my fellow 2A supporters.

 

[Jaybeez]

good news everybody! all they have left is complete fantasy.

keep up the heat.

 

[Ironsighter]

I also sent the following to one of the editors of the Washington Times:

"Mr. Cella,

I read an article on the recent Second-Amendment-related rallies in Annapolis penned by Ms. Catharine Poe in an "Ad Lib" section of your paper.

It's clear from Ms. Poe's biography that she's no friend to Pro-2A advocates, but her information is so slanted and incorrect that I believe it places the integrity and accuracy of your newspaper in jeopardy.

For example, Ms. Poe claims 2,000 attendees at the Governor's rally on 1 March, but I was there to testify and there was no such crowd. Even your competitor the Post, no friend to the 2nd Amendment themselves, put the crowd in the "hundreds" as shown in the article in this link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...d5b8f6-8297-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html

There are other factual errors in the article, but I'll not enumerate them here. Suffice it to say that Ms. Poe's "progressive' and "liberal" stances noted in the bio available on your site make it clear that she is engaging in stilted and inaccurate reporting.

I don't care if you agree with my stance on the issue, but you should care about the journalistic integrity of your publication.

You should issue a corrected article, preferably written by someone with at least a passing familiarity with ethics and accuracy."

 

[fabsroman]

That's the Times, not the Post. And yes, the writer of that article is either incredibly delusional, stupid, clueless, or some grand combination of all 3.

Have to read the fine print.

"She can also be heard on Democrats for America's Future."

Newspapers should not allow politically biased journalists to write mud like that and ignore all facts. This is why the media is just a laughing stock nowadays. Just the number of people signed up to testify against the bill shows that there was WAY more than 60 pro-gun supporters there.

Like my mom says, "The dumb ones will give you all the trouble in life."

 

[Hyp81]

Sent her an email.

Hi Catherine,

I read your article re: the gun control debate in Annapolis. I am a proud gun owner, and life-long Maryland citizen. There were over 1300 pro-second amendment folks in Annapolis on Friday to testify AGAINST the gun bills... and only 30 some who testified in support. I would strongly suggest that you check your facts and report the whole truth-- if there were only 60 folks outside supporting our state's Second Amendment rights, it is because 1300 of the rest of us were inside waiting to testify against these bills. The second amendment says that our right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. It is high time that we stop tolerating government infringements into our personal and civil freedoms. As a reporter-- a person for whom the first amendment of the Bill of Rights is essential-- I would hope that you would join us in saying enough is enough and the government, both state and federal, needs to confine itself to the roles mandated by our founding fathers and stop reaching for more power in additional aspects of our lives. We have the right and duty to defend ourselves and our family against those who would threaten us, and the government has no right to prohibit us from doing so. This battle is far from over, and those of us in Maryland who value the 2nd amendment and our constitutional freedoms are prepared to fight for as long as we have to to ensure that our children and grandchildren will enjoy the same rights that we do currently.