I wrote an email to Yvonne Abraham after she wrote "AG faces sexist, antigay slurs after imposing gun ban", written July 30, 2016. Here is my letter along with her rather lame response.
This is biased journalism in the raw. She openly states what her PERSONAL views are. To me this is proof positive that MSM opinions are bought and paid for.
DevilDad, thanks for your note.
I disagree with you on the issues, but I purposely did not wade into the argument over the measure itself. My aim was to write instead about the vile rhetoric that accompanies disagreements over these issues. There is absolutely no excuse for such awfulness, no matter how wrong people think Healey is.
Thanks so much for being civil. I'm getting a lot of ugly communications myself lately, so I really mean it.
Yvonne.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM, DevilDad wrote:
08/03/2016
Dear Yvonne,
I writing in response to your article titled "AG faces sexist, antigay
slurs after imposing gun ban", written July 30, 2016.
There is no doubt that ad hominem attacks have no place in a matter as serious as gun control. The frustration on the part of law abiding gun owners, however, is very real. As a journalist, you know that there is more than one side to every story and this is no exception.
On July 20, 2016 the Attorney Generals Office unilaterally changed the
understanding and interpretation of the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban, which has been in effect since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was sunsetted in 2004. There was no legislative discussion and no due process. Only a "Guidance" statement issued by the AG at a press conference with no notice given to impacted individuals and organizations.
On that day, tens of thousands of law abiding gun owners and small businesses in Massachusetts were retroactively put in legal jeopardy simply for following the 20 year old established AWB law with the acquiescence and approval of the AGO.
What suddenly changed?
The AGO stated that the "Guidance" does not apply to individual "Assault Weapon" ownership prior to July 20, 2016, however they still are considered illegal to posses. Additionally, the AGO may change the guidance at any time. This certainly lacks clarity and is a tangible and serious threat to individual rights. People will react to this accordingly.
A couple of questions:
- Why is the AG puzzled by the strong negative reaction?
- What was the AG expecting for a reaction?
- Does the AG believe this will have any effect on real criminals?
- Why is the AGO so strongly targeting the law abiding gun owners?
Sincerely,
--
Yvonne Abraham Metro Columnist
The Boston Globe
@GlobeAbraham