Winston Wolf
New member
A female reporter for The Arizona Tribune asked to interview me during the Phoenix Patriots Park MMM counter protest.
I obliged with only one condition: I gave her a wink and asked her to report it fairly. She did.
However, I learned a powerful lesson in granting these interviews. She was firing off a lot of great questions and I was on quite a roll. Everything was flowing so perfectly except I overlooked one thing (and this is important you'll see why below) I spoke too fast.
To get our message across it needs to be conveyed clearly. We need to make certain a reporter doesn't convolute the message, either on purpose or by accidentally. Here is an excerpt published in today's front page of the Tribune relating to my interview.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>GUNS: Hundreds rally at Phoenix park
By Charlene Koski Tribune
Many of the issues the AIMS (Armed Informed Mothers' March) marchers voiced, such as gun education for children, echoed the sentiments of Mom marchers. The difference Steve Flores of Mesa said is that the AIMS marchers believe new legislation isn't the answer. He said current laws are adequate, but not appropriately enforced.
Flores carried a gun in a holster on his hip, wore a shirt that proclaimed his membership in the National Rifle Association and held a sign that read "Nicole Simpson should have had a gun."
"If a tyrannical government bans them, criminals will still have guns. Trigger locks wouldn't have prevented Columbine. We teach our children to be safe around pools and safe sex. Why not about guns?…Frivolous laws won't do anything to reduce crime. A criminal is not going to register his gun… you cannot legislate good parenting," he said[/quote]
I was much more thorough than published but heck at least it was!
I must clarify the tyrannical government statement:
She asked my interpretation of the Second Amendment. Oh man, here was my chance I thought, so I went into the entire Founding Fathers intent when framing the US Constitution, touching on the clarification spelled out in the Federalist Papers. Explained to her that it was their intent to empower the people so that a tyrannical government wouldn't overcome the people. But you all know that. She just couldn't write as fast as I was speaking (I was trying to jam as much fact down her throat as time would allow).
So she merged it with my answer to her next question. She asked "if guns were banned wouldn't crime rates go down?" my answer …criminals will still have guns. See the disconnect?
My 15 minutes of fame. I was the hero at work today.
It just jazzes to become more active. I still say there were as many counter protesters than MMM's and they were certainly more passionate for their cause.
I obliged with only one condition: I gave her a wink and asked her to report it fairly. She did.
However, I learned a powerful lesson in granting these interviews. She was firing off a lot of great questions and I was on quite a roll. Everything was flowing so perfectly except I overlooked one thing (and this is important you'll see why below) I spoke too fast.
To get our message across it needs to be conveyed clearly. We need to make certain a reporter doesn't convolute the message, either on purpose or by accidentally. Here is an excerpt published in today's front page of the Tribune relating to my interview.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>GUNS: Hundreds rally at Phoenix park
By Charlene Koski Tribune
Many of the issues the AIMS (Armed Informed Mothers' March) marchers voiced, such as gun education for children, echoed the sentiments of Mom marchers. The difference Steve Flores of Mesa said is that the AIMS marchers believe new legislation isn't the answer. He said current laws are adequate, but not appropriately enforced.
Flores carried a gun in a holster on his hip, wore a shirt that proclaimed his membership in the National Rifle Association and held a sign that read "Nicole Simpson should have had a gun."
"If a tyrannical government bans them, criminals will still have guns. Trigger locks wouldn't have prevented Columbine. We teach our children to be safe around pools and safe sex. Why not about guns?…Frivolous laws won't do anything to reduce crime. A criminal is not going to register his gun… you cannot legislate good parenting," he said[/quote]
I was much more thorough than published but heck at least it was!
I must clarify the tyrannical government statement:
She asked my interpretation of the Second Amendment. Oh man, here was my chance I thought, so I went into the entire Founding Fathers intent when framing the US Constitution, touching on the clarification spelled out in the Federalist Papers. Explained to her that it was their intent to empower the people so that a tyrannical government wouldn't overcome the people. But you all know that. She just couldn't write as fast as I was speaking (I was trying to jam as much fact down her throat as time would allow).
So she merged it with my answer to her next question. She asked "if guns were banned wouldn't crime rates go down?" my answer …criminals will still have guns. See the disconnect?
My 15 minutes of fame. I was the hero at work today.
It just jazzes to become more active. I still say there were as many counter protesters than MMM's and they were certainly more passionate for their cause.