BAD Op Ed ???? in Roanoke Times

BAD Op Ed ???? in Roanoke Times

This is a discussion on BAD Op Ed ???? in Roanoke Times within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; An Op Ed page item by a member of the editorial staff??? Hum! Maybe no one else would support their point of view so they ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: BAD Op Ed ???? in Roanoke Times

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    BAD Op Ed ???? in Roanoke Times

    An Op Ed page item by a member of the editorial staff???

    Hum! Maybe no one else would support their point of view so they manufactured it.

    More guns, less safety - Roanoke.com

    More guns, less safety
    By Luanne Traud

    I spent the better part of a day recently hunting down and tracking the progress of a dozen or two gun bills making their way through the General Assembly.

    The results could be boiled down to this: Any attempt to regulate guns was killed outright. Most attempts to foster an anything-goes attitude for gun buyers was advanced.

    Given the sheer number of bills advancing and the breadth with which they would expand Virginia's already liberal gun laws, I couldn't help but be struck by this thought:

    What additional expansion would be pushed next year? Because there will always be more.

    I know what some of you are thinking: There goes one of them again. That liberal, pansy Roanoke Times editorial board, if given its druthers, would round up all guns and melt them down to cast a statue honoring the socialist god of journalists.

    Please, bear with me and hear me out. I will ask the same from those who also hold untrue and unfair caricatures of gun-toters as 'fraidy cats worried that harm is waiting around the next corner, bar stool or PTA meeting.

    I'm not anti-gun. I've been around them most of my life, had them in my home, even shot a few. But if I never handled another gun, it would be soon enough. They aren't a part of my life, but I can respect that others hold a differing view.

    I don't shrink or cringe from the sight and hold no more emotion toward a handgun than I do a toaster oven. The same, I suspect, is true of the vast majority of gun owners who have them for target practice, hunting or collecting and might or might not have a permit to carry concealed.

    Guns don't factor into most of our everyday lives. True, there is a minority of Virginians who wouldn't leave the house without one, and a minority for whom the sight of one locked in a gun case causes anxiety.

    Unfortunately, it is those minorities with their tug-of-war passions of must-have-it-all, shouldn't-have-any that have polluted the lawmaking process.

    If only our senators and delegates could legislate on a curve, toss the outliers and focus on the reasonable. But how can they when gun-rights organizations throw not only money but hysteria into every election cycle? Does it now strike those who stocked up on guns and ammunition after President Obama's election how foolish the claims were that he'd outlaw sales of either?

    Or how bizarre it was that the Democratic candidate in Virginia's gubernatorial race -- a huge friend of gun rights -- was discredited because he supported efforts to close the gun show loophole after the Virginia Tech massacre.

    And, yes, I know I'll hear from the vocal fringe arguing there isn't a loophole. Yet there is, and it's one that could be closed easily, with little fuss or inconvenience, but it won't be. Lawmakers of all stripes are too chicken to consider reasonable legislation lest they face the wrath of gun-rights advocates during re-election.

    We can save the gun show discussion for another year, as attempts this year to address it have been stymied.

    Instead, there seems a rush to allow more people to carry concealed weapons into ever more places. One bill in particular mixes guns and alcohol by allowing concealed carry in bars. Even if the gun-toter is legally barred from drinking, there would be no way to know someone is packing unless something bad happens.

    Former Gov. Tim Kaine vetoed this bill last year, but it's expected to be greeted warmly by Gov. Bob McDonnell.

    I've listened to supporters who portray all concealed-carriers as law-abiding citizens who wouldn't think of mixing a six-shooter and a shot of whiskey. How do they know?

    Thugs aren't the only ones who have killed people with guns. People with concealed carry permits have killed accidentally and intentionally. Doesn't matter which. Dead is dead.

    Another bill likely to pass would do away with the restriction limiting Virginians to one gun purchase a month. It could open the gates to mass buys that end up in the hands of criminals. Not every gun buyer is worthy of such blind trust.

    It occurs to me that those pushing for everloosening restrictions will win the day in Richmond this year. But lifting restrictions will prove fatal to their cause in the long run when bad things inevitably happen.

    I want for me and mine to be just as safe and secure as you want for you and yours. None of these bills gets us there.

    Traud is a member of The Roanoke Times editorial board.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,085
    Yeah this guy probably thinks he's being reasonable. He is subscribing to the philosophy that we should just let the majority decide what is reasonable. He neglects the fact that murder is already illegal and criminals already (officially) can't have guns. He doesn't get the basic simple fact that more laws don't deter crime, but they do punish those who obey the law. He should go to Vermont, where there are no laws like those he wants on the books at all. I hope he makes it out without some roving gang members armed by someone who went to the gun show and took advantage of the loophole to buy them an arsenal.

  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    I replied

    I posted the following on her blog:

    You are taking at face value the the National Council to Control Handguns'
    notion that having more gun control laws and, therefore, fewer guns, means
    that crime must necessarily decrease.
    History has not been kind to your delusion, however. In recent decades, the
    severity of gun control laws has been diminished at the federal, state, and
    local levels, the number of guns has increased by over four million a year on
    average Yet today, the nation's murder and total violent crime rates are at
    45-year and 35-year lows, respectively.

    If it is safety you seek, follow the facts, not the Brady bunch's manta and
    support the freedom to defend oneself.

    Comment by DaveH - February 21, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
    Feel free to join in @ http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/rou...#comment-87275
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  4. #4
    Member Array uncballzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    125
    I'll say it's a bad op-ed to the point that there is no evidence in his column to support his argument at all, as say, compared to DaveH's reply to the column. Unfortunately, it's this "lazy journalism" that's becoming the norm, and the sheep that still blindly listen.
    BLONDIE: You may run the risks, my friend, but I do the cutting. If we cut down my percentage... cigar? Liable to interfere with my aim.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,232
    Dave,
    Excellent reply,

    To a short-sighted maroon....
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array Divebum47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    763
    Not every gun buyer is worthy of such blind trust.
    The same can be said for most editorial staff.
    "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894
    why is it that every single gun control advocate starts a diatribe with "I'm not anti-gun"
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Jmac00 View Post
    why is it that every single gun control advocate starts a diatribe with "I'm not anti-gun"
    Because these people are liars. Some are just blatantly lying to you, and many others probably have convinced themselves that they're ok with your freedoms, just as long as you only exercise them how they want you to.

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member Array Rugergirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Jmac00 View Post
    why is it that every single gun control advocate starts a diatribe with "I'm not anti-gun"
    Maybe they should begin with I'm not as ignorant as you think, I'm worse"

    I'm just saying....
    Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,081
    Is there such thing as a good Op Ed in the RT?
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  11. #11
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote: But lifting restrictions will prove fatal to their cause in the long run when bad things inevitably happen.

    They keep saying this, and "blood will run in the streets over parking spots" etc. but then it never happens.

    But on our side, we say you can't let them have one step because they will keep pushing for more, and won't stop until guns are banned completely, and that does turn out to be true. The far out there people will even tell you that is their ultimate goal. So who is being unreasonable?
    Walk softly ...

  12. #12
    pax
    pax is offline
    Senior Member Array pax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    WA state
    Posts
    506
    I have long said that the real problem in gun politics is that our extremists aren't extreme enough.

    Think about it: if Extreme Position (EP) #1 is "Nobody should have any guns" and EP #2 is "Everybody should be allowed to have whatever guns they like," then the mid-point becomes, "Ban some guns and regulate others."

    On the other hand, if EP #1 is "Nobody should have any guns," and EP #2 is "Everybody must have guns," then the midpoint becomes -- the Second Amendment.

    pax
    Kathy Jackson
    My website: Cornered Cat

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,090
    Pax, you've hit the nail on the head yet again.


    The results could be boiled down to this: Any attempt to regulate guns was killed outright.
    Depends on the facts of the bill, as much as anything. If the dang thing wasn't worth the Charmin it was written on, in terms of liberties, then it should have been killed outright. And that goes for any statute of any sort. Don't know if that was the case, here. Though if that is what occurred, then Virginian citizens are still smart as a whip.


    Given the sheer number of bills advancing and the breadth with which they would expand Virginia's already liberal gun laws ...
    A liberal getting bent over liberalism? Ironic, that.


    Or how bizarre it was that the Democratic candidate in Virginia's gubernatorial race -- a huge friend of gun rights -- was discredited because he supported efforts to close the gun show loophole after the Virginia Tech massacre.
    Perhaps because such shows had zero to do with the felon's ability to acquire his firearms. Piggy-backing the push to disallow FTF firearms acquisition at gun shows was merely political opportunism. It wasn't relevant to VT or any number of recent felonious crimes.

    And, yes, I know I'll hear from the vocal fringe ...
    Unpopularity seems to be all it takes to be claimed as "fringe" these days. Don't like the idea? Then label it and castigate it until it withers and dies.

    Lawmakers of all stripes are too chicken to consider reasonable legislation lest they face the wrath of gun-rights advocates during re-election.
    The muttons wouldn't listen, not until their cushy little assignments were placed on the table. Which is Lesson #1 as to where their loyalties lie. We should see that for what it is. It's about all ye need know about the level of fight that exists. Disrespect and mistrust citizens to that degree? Then you'll get eliminated, pure and simple.

    So be it, if that's what it takes for them to act Constitutionally and appropriately on the matter of citizens arming themselves against criminals the legal muttons won't or can't address.


    Even if the gun-toter is legally barred from drinking, there would be no way to know someone is packing unless something bad happens.
    And that's as it should be. Because, until that time, no crime has occurred. Until that time, only unwarranted fear has occurred.

    In the USA, a person is innocent until proven guilty. In spite of such fear-induced statutes that seek to criminalize people for what it is feared some criminals in our midst might do.


    I've listened to supporters who portray all concealed-carriers as law-abiding citizens who wouldn't think of mixing a six-shooter and a shot of whiskey. How do they know?
    Via the actions of a person. IF, and ONLY if, a person engages in a crime is that person a criminal. NOT until then.


    ... one gun purchase a month. It could open the gates to mass buys that end up in the hands of criminals. Not every gun buyer is worthy of such blind trust.
    Abusing the rights of all citizens over the fears of a few is simply not an acceptable means of governance. As it stands, nobody is "blindly" trusted.


    But lifting restrictions will prove fatal to their cause in the long run when bad things inevitably happen.
    So long as specific statutes continue to have little to do with keeping firearms from criminals, such statutes should not exist.

    So long as criminals continue to acquire weapons outside the law no matter how many thousands of laws are created, one more law won't magically fix it.

    So long as "innocent until proven guilty" remains true, then a citizen shall not be inhibited and barred to within an inch of his life (as is done in DC, Chicago, all of Wisconsin).

    If those primarily affected are citizens, then a statute has no reason to exist.


    I want for me and mine to be just as safe and secure as you want for you and yours. None of these bills gets us there.
    And very few of the recent hundreds have done much, either. Criminals are still acquiring arms, via the black market or otherwise.

    Were we to achieve such aggressive absolutism as is policy in the U.K. and elsewhere, what's clear by those ugly experiments is that criminals won't fail to acquire their weaponry illegally even in such Draconian, autocratic, absolutist states. It would take more naivete than words could express to believe that more and more and more statutes here could possibly result in any different result than the U.K. has proved to be so.

    Traud is a member of The Roanoke Times editorial board.
    Fail to support citizens in their goal to defend against crime ... and you'll get eliminated. Just like the legislative muttons who have failed us all, these past years, who have been ejected from office being seen for what they are.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894
    Lawmakers of all stripes are too chicken to consider reasonable legislation lest they face the wrath of gun-rights advocates during re-election
    what does this quote really say to us???

    To me it says the liberal left CAN NOT find a majority of people to agree with them.

    So they print OP-ED pieces to try and sway the uneducated. The problem is the liberal left is running out of uneducated people
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,789
    Another discussion on another board, but this opinion fits here too. So I'll share.

    Nobody said freedom and liberty were the safest option, just the best for each individual person. Tyranny and governmental control has it's own dangers. I prefer to trust my freedom and responsibility to my own hands, not my governments. And I'll take the chance that the next guy will respect that like I do, and prepare if he does not. Some folks will too readily give their freedom away for perceived safety. As Ben F said they will get neither. The safety we might gain on one hand by getting rid of guns is not worth the danger we would face from not having them on the other hand.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Roanoke Times Op Ed -- Roanoke Va
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2010, 01:45 PM
  2. Good Letter-to-Editor -- Roanoke Times, Roanoke Va
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 26th, 2010, 06:18 PM
  3. Letter-to-Editor -- Roanoke Times, Roanoke Va
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 25th, 2010, 10:23 AM
  4. Two Pro Letters to The Editor -- Roanoke Times Roanoke VA,
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 27th, 2009, 08:44 PM
  5. Editorial -- Roanoke Times, Roanoke Virginia
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2009, 12:35 PM

Search tags for this page

bad op ed topics

,

bad op-ed topics

,

would like to see targets of roanoke toaster ovens

Click on a term to search for related topics.