Public Safety Wins When Citizens Are Armed
This morning's Virginian-Pilot Editorial Board again got it all wrong in their editorial piece, no pun intended, about gun rights. The editorial was clearly biased and not written by anyone who was at the time of the writing thinking clearly. They were dead wrong and dead off center and, if we follow their line of thinking, we could end up dead in the ground.
When it comes to race, social injustice, education, the war in Iraq, or any topic the editors support, they understand the concept of demonstration. Peaceful demonstration is a foundation of American justice and the sign of a healthy republic. We, the people, need to get our leaders to understand our point. That is what was going on at City Hall in Norfolk when VCDL members showed up openly, legally armed to state to council their views. Each person carrying a gun that day was the poster child for law-abiding citizen. They presented no threat to council nor to anyone else. On the contrary, City Hall Chambers during that meeting was probably one of the safest places to be in all Hampton Roads.
The editorial board had it wrong when it they wrote, "Luckily for the VCDL, those same members get to go home when they're done making trouble in Norfolk." I am a long-time member of VCDL, a resident of Norfolk, and I am pleased as dry powder that VCDL is vigilant regarding our gun rights in Virginia. Their mailing address (which was the minimal research Virginian-Pilot editors seem to have accomplished) is in Northern Virginia. Every organization, person, business, or other legal entity has an address where it conducts business. But VCDL members live throughout Virginia, with a good number of VCDL members Norfolk citizens. So, when we "go home," as the editorial said, we are in Norfolk. The editorial board's implication that VCDL has no right to come from Northern Virginia is hugely ingenuous, since the editors don't seem to mind when out of towners come in for any other type demonstration, i.e., peace demonstations, and editorials have, in fact, been highly supportive of such demonstrations with both "outsiders"and residents participating, just as was the case with the VCDL members in Norfolk. So why the puckered panties with VCDL? Answer: Biased thinking.
Another fallacy in the editorial thinking, if I may use the word "thinking" loosely in this context, is the belief that a right is something that needs control and that the police need not be aware of state law when it comes to guns owned by private citizens. That is a chilling, dangerous platform for an editorial board to support. One does not control a right in the sense implied by the Virginian-Pilot's Editorial Board. Officials do not get to decide when or how a right is exercised, unilaterally, as a couple Norfolk Police Officers attempted to do, repeatedly.
What the Editorial Board should have written about, had they actually been thinking of the issue, is the fact that a legally armed black man was repeatedly harassed for exercising, peacefully exercising, his inherent right. That is the travesty here, that an officer of the law picks an armed, remember, a legally armed, black man out of a large crowd of legally armed people, the rest being of the white persuasion, and they harass that one individual who is doing nothing different from the group other than being black. There goes the "rationale" of the entire editorial.
Virginian-Pilot Editorial writers are openly and objectionably biased in their thinking on this issue. The mere thought of a citizen carrying a gun frightens them to the extent they lose their normally unbiased views on issues and go off the deep end. I expect better from my local newspaper, I expect much better from supposed, self-described professional journalists.
COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Excellent post Archie. This
Excellent post Archie. This writer believes that The Norfolk Police Department has the ego of the Grand Canyon and are using their police powers arrest people for asserting their right under the law they disagree with.
so right
One man singled out (because of his color?) during a perfectly peaceful and lawful gathering. You know the worst travesty? There were probably several more illegal weapons illegally concealed within a block from where this all happened. So, I say, let us now jump on the bandwagon to take away the legal weapons leaving the outlaws even freer to practice their illegal ways. And certainly, let us make sure we do this in a manner that insults the the greatest number of law abiding people that we can.
They lean as left as they come
Yea Archie, I find it ironic that the Editorial Board of the Pilot always supports every other right except the second amendment, puts forth their opinion, maligns others in the process and then doesn't have the courage to sign anyone's name to their drivel. Nice, huh?
Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away!
Thanks for today's blog,
Thanks for today's blog, Archie. I'm hoping you will get as at least as many readers as that anonymous editorial.
About a week ago, a friend (50 year old woman) of my family was unloading groceries when about six young men pulled up, jumped out, and tried to drag her into their van. When she resisted, they beat her, then drove off as a neighbor came out to see what was going on. This was in a decent neighborhood in Chesapeake.
Police can't be everywhere. The important thing to remember is not that people with guns are dangerous - the WRONG people with guns are dangerous. I feel safer when I see a law-abiding armed citizen near me.
Irony . . . .
So what was the point, Noon? You should enlighten me. You spent so many of your words trying to belittle me that you neglected to stay on topic and tell me what you thought the point was.
BTW, they were not there for beer and they had no alcoholic beverages.
Somehow, going out for a
Somehow, going out for a couple of beers at Hooters doesn't seem to be a particulary effective method of demonstration to me. And you completely missed the point of the editorial in your fervor to belittle its authors, so you either fail at reading comprehension or honesty. You pick which. I know you have trouble with this but I'm an optimist so I'll try one more time: people who disagree with you aren't automtically evil or stupid. Believing that they are limits your intellectual horizons drastically. Perhaps you like it that way.