It’s a commentary, not an “article”. Besides, lots of articles get it wrong. The incorrect “facts” it presented are pretty minor. People mess them up all the time.
It’s also a fact she was fired. That doesn’t mean the statement on it was prejudiced. I thought it was simply stating so and in a way, incredulous that a person in such a state had the fortitude to do the job needed.
The bottom line was the last paragraph. He wonders IF you’re not allowed to have guns yourself, if you should not be provided some kind of armed protection, even if in the 3rd-party indirect sense.
I understand it is commentary, however, in that regard we’ve seen a complete and utter disregard for facts over the last few years. In particular when it comes to things like “armed citizens”. I’ve personally sat in a radio station to debate the likes the clowns from “Handgun Control, Inc” and the various Brady law incarnations and they bring numbers and statistics with them all the time, just as we did.
The difference was, we presented our material in context, at least at those debates where someone BOTHERED to show up...
My point here is that over the course of the last week there have been numerous articles written on this subject, the vast majority of which have been outside of Colorado here, and also by main stream papers with a Liberal leaning.
None of them have completely presented the facts as they happened accurately nor have they NOT worked to discredit Ms. Assam.
I’m sorry, regardless of the “editorial” commentary, at least the editor of a newspaper (the person directly responsible for ensuring accuracy in his paper) should get the facts straight. As for his comments on her previous status as a law enforcement officer, he “SPUN” the comments to a negative connotation.
I see what you’re saying about “I thought it was simply stating so and in a way, incredulous that a person in such a state had the fortitude to do the job needed.” and I agree that the remark can certainly be interpreted that way. This is precisely though, why I have an issue with it.
My dad used to say “S@#* or get off the pot” — to mean, make a decision one way or the other, right or wrong. Don’t come down the middle of a situation and vacillate about the decision.
In the case of writers who like to hide the meaning, or simply sound more ‘educated’ than they really are about a subject, they will “leave things open to interpretation” — which in the long run causes problems for their readers.
To me, it smacks of someone who is at odds with himself on his feelings on this.
Pointing out the last remark is actually what I found worst about the whole article, though I didn’t mention that.
The fact that he brings that up is fine - I’ve said it too. I EXPECT where I work for our security forces to be there when we need them. The difference is, THEY ARE.
In REAL LIFE, in civilian situations, that isn’t the case and never will be. However, by ‘mandating’ or suggesting that the LAW ought to mandate it is certainly a Leftist idealism.
After all, who should, in their opinion have guns? The Cops and Military. That’s it, not you or I. And that’s one of the sneaky-bastard writers’ tricks of the trade.
Plant an idea, and let it take root, that way they are not culpable when something happens.