Another Indy Star Anti-Gun Column

[rnmcguire]

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...ey=mod|newswell|text|Opinion|p&nclick_check=1

I've been a subscriber for years but this is enough for me. When this newspaper prints a large anti gun "Our Opinion" piece without revealing who wrote the article it tells me that this is the opinion of the paper itself. This is the second such artice in the last two weeks and along with the fact that now I have to pay for online access is too much. I'm canceling my subscription.

 

[rnmcguire]

Here's my email to the Star:

After many years as a customer I would like to cancel my subscription. This is due to a couple things. First of all I'm not happy with the rate increase for online content that is the same as what I'm already paying for in the print version. Why am I being charged for the same info twice? Secondly, I'm tired of the anti-gun stance expressed by the Star. Over the past two weeks I've read two articles titled "Our Opinion" with no author identified which express anti 2nd Amendment views. I don't think you would publish anti-1st Amendment columns. By printing an article in this fashion it is obvious to me that this is the opinion of the IndyStar and not an individual author. I'm not sure if you realize this but Indiana is a very pro-2nd Amendment state and therefore you're alienating much of your customer base with such biased articles. I don't think it's a smart move to turn anyone off to print media these days as many newspaper companies are closing their doors. I would like to have my delivery stopped as soon as my current month expires. Thank you for your assistance.

 

[halfmileharry]

I've cancelled my subscription as well. My concerns are basically the same as yours.
I guess I'm just naive thinking that a newspaper should report the news and not influence it.

 

[Birds Away]

When will this rag die?

 

[SmileDocHill]

When will this rag die?

When people stop owning house pets that are incapable of being house broken.

 

[rnmcguire]

I've cancelled my subscription as well. My concerns are basically the same as yours.
I guess I'm just naive thinking that a newspaper should report the news and not influence it.

Exactly, the paper should report the news. I've always tried to keep an open mind and respect the rights of others to publish their opinions in the paper as long as both sides of a topic were fairly allowed to express their views. When an organization prints something titled "Our Opinion" and doesn't identify a writer it's saying that this is their official stance. I choose not to do business with a company with such different values as my own.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If an employer has the legal authority to administer random drug tests for the sake of protecting himself and his workers and customers, how does he not have the constitutional right to prohibit deadly weapons or at least to demand knowledge of their presence?

Because there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There is no right to use drugs.

The property of the employer is not sacred. It was not sacred in Heart of Atlanta and it is not sacred here in the North. Governments and corporations must recognize and protect the constituional rights of citizens.

If that episode doesn't lead to re-examination of these ill-advised measures, let's hope the opponents and the legislature don't wait for another gun to go off, with an outcome not so lucky.

Wait, someone touches one off OFF the property of the employee and The Star wants to do what exactly? Hold a drum circle? Have an interpretative dance contest? What?

If there is any remedy it is mandatory firearms education in government schools to ensure that the "lemme show you this here raffle gon" accidents do not transpire again.

 

[bwframe]

...If there is any remedy it is mandatory firearms education in government schools to ensure that the "lemme show you this here raffle gon" accidents do not transpire again.

I was afraid that the publicity of this ND via lawsuit might blow up to hurt us.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It happened off the property. How is it relevant?

If anything it shows a state interest in mandatory firearms safety training in public schools so these accidents/incidents do not transpire again.

However, to link the ND/AD to the "guns at the workplace/parking lot" statute requires advanced journalist yoga.

 

[MTC]

Wait, someone touches one off OFF the property of the employee and The Star wants to do what exactly? Hold a drum circle? Have an interpretative dance contest? What?

"interpretative dance"

If there is any remedy it is mandatory firearms education in government schools to ensure that the "lemme show you this here raffle gon" accidents do not transpire again.

Hear, hear. (Though I don't share any optimism that such would be added to the curriculum, at least not without being heavily laced with "gunz-R-bad" propaganda.)

Irrelevant to the case at hand, yet on that separate (AD/ND) note, that sounds better than one (non)solution that comes to mind, which would unfortunately entail adding yet another statute to the code:

<sample>
IC 35-42-2-(10?)
Coonfingering

Section __ (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally removes his sidearm from its holster - or otherwise secured longarm from its stowed position - specifically for purposes of showing it off while uttering phrases such as, but not limited to, "This here's wut ah carry", "Ah got me one uh them there 'salt raffles", "Looky wut ah got", "Don't worry - it ain't loaded" *Blam* etc., commits coonfingering, a Class C misdemeanor.
(b) The offense in section (a) is a Class B misdemeanor if it results in a negligent discharge.

The offense in section (a) shall be punishable by mandatory minimum completion of one full semester - and that in section (b) by two full semesters - at an accredited School for Proper Gun Handling and Etiquette, tuition costs to be paid by the offender.

 

[bwframe]

<sample>
IC 35-42-2-(10?)
Coonfingering

Section __ (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally removes his sidearm from its holster - or otherwise secured longarm from its stowed position - specifically for purposes of showing it off while uttering phrases such as, but not limited to, "This here's wut ah carry", "Ah got me one uh them there 'salt raffles", "Looky wut ah got", "Don't worry - it ain't loaded" *Blam* etc., commits coonfingering, a Class C misdemeanor.
(b) The offense in section (a) is a Class B misdemeanor if it results in a negligent discharge.

The offense in section (a) shall be punishable by mandatory minimum completion of one full semester - and that in section (b) by two full semesters - at an accredited School for Proper Gun Handling and Etiquette, tuition costs to be paid by the offender.

"Looky wut ah got"

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yeah but the gun handling transpired OFF the employer's property.

Peas on this side, carrots over there.

I do not understand what the Star is complaining about.

 

[bwframe]

Yeah but the gun handling transpired OFF the employer's property.

I know, I know. That is everything.
Off property ND's are cool.

 

[Roadie]

One of the better comments..

If someone has an accident in their car, they shouldn't be able to bring their car to work. Correct?

 

[duger]

I also have canceled the paper they acted like they could care less .

 

[KLB]

One of the better comments..

Thanks

 

[indyjohn]

Ugh. Done. Calling tomorrow & cancelling my subscription.

 

[FatsMcKay]

It really blows that the ND occurred. Not blaming, things happen, but in a situation like this it is unfortunate

 

[TopDog]

The Red Star really just needs to go away. Just another liberal rag with no values.

 

[Ted]

Because there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There is no right to use drugs......

Wouldn't that rather be an enumerated right to keep and bear arms?

Certainly alcohol is a drug, and the provision that prohibited the manufacture and possession was repealed by virtue of the 21st amendment.......and there has never been a right to use alcohol.

There isn't enumerated rights to be married, to drink water, to comb one's hair either.....but I would argue that the right exists. The use of illicit drugs may, or may not be a right....depending upon the scholar that one asks.