Sorry about that last post - seems Word Wrap was off (trying it again - mods please delete first if possible):
Was just emailed the article from someone in Toronto who got it from a lady in Montreal with some nonsense about "look what the right wing extremists are doing" before the link.
Here was my reply - thought it might be worth sharing if anyone gets the same or just for a chuckle:
Where should I begin? The article is a total distortion of events - not uncommon to the Times. The way they've spun it this time there's not even a semblance of truth left in it.
Here's what really happened: The guy had a cable show sponsored exclusively by Remington, an arms manufacturer. Well, he spoke up against his sole sponsor's product on air and they terminated their sponsorship. Whether he's right or not, this was to be expected and wasn't the result of a movement. If your sole sponsor is Krispy Kreme you only start telling people to get on the excercise bike and lay off the doughnuts after you've lined up another sponsor.
In the company's statement:
"As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Remington Arms Company, Inc., has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington."
Do you really think that gun advocates care either way what some nitwit hunter with a local TV show with a weekly audience of 300 thinks? They'd realize that they'd be making a celebrity of him by responding? Of course, to the Gnu Yak Thymes, he's a "famous hunter" because this description helps the Times make a point they apparently can't while reporting the truth.
The fact that the NYT calls freerepublic.com a "Gun Forum" shows just how myopic and disinterested they are. If it's not from New York and doesn't have a New York way of thinking it doesn't exist. Never mind that the city was a liberal-made slum until a guy came along with some conservative principles (at least in terms of business/taxes = employment and crime prevention/educational programs to curb offense).
As to the substance of the issue - which, again, has nothing to do with this case other than being the reason for the Times' distortion of news to change people's opinions:
Every time gun control is imposed in an area already filled with guns the crime rate goes up. Why? Simple logic. The criminals don't give up their guns. Law abiding citizens do, further emboldening the criminals. Try comparing the per capita murder rate in Toronto to present day or even post-Dinkins New York. You'll be shocked. By contrast, rural areas in which there are more guns than people have some of the lowest crime rates anywhere in North America. It's all about community and nothing about guns with the exception of guns giving pause to criminals.
This story isn't about right wing extremists. It's a story about left winged extremist editors, reporters and a publisher who distort and spue news to suit further their own world views and a public that has been duped more than one too many times.
Well put.