Roanoke Times (VA) calls for repeal of 2nd Amendent

You would think that the Roanoke Times would have learned its lesson after the last incident.

I suggest buying the paper. of the 10,623 active THR members, if we all donated just $10 we could make an offer of $106,000 for the rag. WE would have plenty of outlet for pro 2a discussion and a classified adds section second to none. Oleg could provide wonderful artwrk & pictures and other s could help to provide content. With the diversity of members we could have a paper rivaling any. Special sections of THR topics would be great and our advertising partners would have a built in market.

Or better yet offer shares in the new venture. I'd be in for $110-$1,000 worth of stock in such a venture, plus they have a web site that can be incorporated into THR.

Here are the Demographics:

Country United States
State Virginia
County Independent City
Government
- Mayor Nelson Harris
Area
- City 43 sq mi (111.4 km²)
Elevation 1,175 ft (358 m)
Population (2005)
- City 92,631
- Metro 295,700

The paper's circulation is:
Roanoke Times
Circulation. 97,000 Morning. 106,000 Sunday

that article of constitutional faith in the psyche of many gunpowder patriots

Click to expand...

I think I just got a new addition to my sig line!

Naturally, I didn't read the rest of that drivel...

I have lived and worked in SW Virginia for the last 51 years,and I have relatives that live all over the state,I also have a sister who worked for the paper in question for over ten years, all of them agree with what I said about Virginia,but I will admit that I could be wrong,but it ain't likely.
In this end of the state,you can carry a gun in a gun rack,or on your side,and nobody has a panic attack.Try that in NOVA.


992

the sacred Second Amendment pre-empts the naïve notion that regulating the proliferation of firearms in civil society serves the greater purpose of public safety and ordered liberty.

Click to expand...

I wish he was correct. Actually VA could unilaterally ban firearms by changing its own Constitution. Until or unless the 2A is deemed applicable via the 14A, VA can do what it wants to.

By the same token, if the 2A were repealed, it would not prevent States from supporting firearms ownership by their residents.

If the second amendment was repealed, the rights it enumerates would be excersised. "They" don't want that.

Man, I wish I had a subscription to that paper. That way I could enjoy calling in and cancelling directly to the editor, and telling him why.

It doesn't seem the Roanoke Times is in touch with its local population. The paper was a good read several years ago. Then the quality of the writers went to hell. I guess Christian Trejbal is not the only idiot at the Roanoke Times. If these anti-gun writers were put in a situation where they had to defend their own lives I am sure they would be singing a different song. Let a hurricane destroy Roanoke like Katrina did New Orleans and these gun haters would change their minds...quick !!!

For better or worse, the militia qualifier has been sufficiently ambiguous that courts have avoided the "either/or" solutio

Click to expand...

You'd think a journalist writing about the 2nd amendment would be more up to date on the news. I guess we shouldn't expect anything else from the RT.

"all of them agree with what I said about Virginia,but I will admit that I could be wrong,but it ain't likely."

"In this end of the state,you can carry a gun in a gun rack,or on your side,and nobody has a panic attack.Try that in NOVA."

Do you even know what NoVA is? It sure as heck ain't everyplace north of Blacksburg. You're fooling yourself if you think there's any truth to that kind of talk. All y'all got to stop hanging out with them liberals when you travel the state and get to know how the other half lives. Hang out with some of the farmers - Mennonites, Amish or otherwise - in Augusta or Rockingham County, or some of the watermen on the Northern Neck and maybe you'll see the error of your ways.

John

2nd A

The 2nd amendment doesn't bestow the right to have guns, because the people already have that right(that's why it says -"the right of the people...shall not be infringed"). The founding fathers considered the right of a person to be able to defend himself to be inalienable and were quite familiar with the results of a weapons for the elite(nobility) only policy. As gentlemen of intellect and property, some may have considered it a courtesy not to be armed(at least openly) at certain occasions, but not in the farthest reaches of my imagination do I believe that the overwhelming majority would have accepted the absurd(to them at that time) idea of not being able to possess a gun. The typical blissninny and pandering politician's deconstuction of the 2nd A is a crock of a most foul and corrupted crap the smell of which is the only real force of argument they can produce. The "militia " part is in there to reassure the various states that they will not be at the mercy of a conniving federal government which might attempt by circumvention to de facto prohibit them from assembling an armed force upon need.
What I really don't get about this all, though, is why "gun deaths" are so high profile, when, from what I read, if we "paint by numbers" , so to speak, there are other agents of death more urgently in need of attention. Medical errors come to mind, as do auto accidents, not to even get into what kind of tally is racked up by the stress of living in the inhumane society we have become. Once again, it's a matter of some clown trying to get over by convincing the herd that he or she can actually do something about the problem by passing a law-doesn't matter what the trouble is; just make another law to the point where we are all owned body and soul by the new nobility. And that seems to be just where the crowd wishes to go and belongs.

I found comfort in the writer's grudging acknowledgment of the fact that the 2A confers an individual right...however, it really burns my arse that he thinks I have a menacing fascination. I have never so much as thrown a punch in my 29 years on this earth...what in the hell makes him think I am going to do much worse with a firearm? I wonder if they still scratch their heads and wonder why the public's confidence in and opinion of the mainstream media has gone in the toilet the last few years.

Its interesting that he considers the current state of affairs a lack of substantial limits on the absolute right to bear arms. I guess 22,000 gun control laws in the nation do not substantially limit our rights. Let him visit IL where we have to have a government issued ID card just to own a gun, look at a gun in a gun store, buy ammo, etc. and under no circumstances can we carry a concealed weapon (the only exceptions to this are city alderman in Chicago). And of course his arguement continues the delusion that restricting gun ownership for honest citizens will magically stop the criminals from their criminal use of firearms. I'm 63 years old and have been trying all of my life to change the anti-gun attitudes of many of my family members, usually with no avail. Some of them have never touched a gun, let alone fired or owned one, and have such fear of guns that they want to take them away from everyone else. I think we are lucky that it is such a difficult process to change the constitution or we might have lost our 2A rights a long time ago.

Seems to me the Roanoke Times may start using the "gun issue" as a way to boost readership and bring in more advertising.