Skip to content

Columnist demonstrates Canadian bias on gun ownership

Mr. Zemanek’s attack on National Firearms Association president Sheldon Clare illustrates the bias that Canadians gun owners suffer on a continual basis from the media.

Re: Rick Zemanek’s March 2 column, Do our gun laws really need fixing?

Mr. Zemanek’s attack on National Firearms Association president Sheldon Clare illustrates the bias that Canadians gun owners suffer on a continual basis from the media.

A responsible journalist, upon visiting this particular issue, would have encouraged the readers to log onto the website in which Mr. Clare was featured in an interview, and then decide for themselves the merits of his ideas. I personally found everything he stated to be perfectly reasonable, but then I don’t look at the world through hoplophobic lenses made by one-hour anti-gun crafters.

The sheer numbers of the National Firearms Association membership should command some respect from the media, and as much as the media would like to present them as pot-bellied hillbillies sitting around a wood-burning stove cleaning their assault rifles, the reality is that there are numerous highly educated and internationally recognized and respected members belonging to the NFA. I encourage the reader to log onto the websites of both Canada’s NFA as well as the American National Rifle Association and discover their true mission statements, untainted by left-wing bias.

This would be an appropriate time to complain about the Advocate’s editorial policy in regards to letters to the editor. Although they claim the right to edit letters prior to publication they do not seek the approval of the letter writer for the edited version prior to publication. Their editing can change the whole tone and much of the content of the letter. As an example, one of my recent letters had the introductory section eliminated, leaving the reader with the impression that I was anti-police when nothing could be further from the truth.

Freedom of the press should never be allowed to trump individual freedom of expression within allowable limits. For this reason, I will no longer contribute to these editorial pages as I am not given the opportunity to play on a level field.

Readers should always be leery of bias, whether from the Advocate editors or letter writers like myself. There is a wealth of truthful information on the Internet and readers should turn to it to be fully informed of all sides of the issues.

Terrence Rawlyck

Lacombe