
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, June 23, 1990                   TAG: 9006260393
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: C-2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: PATRICK L. AULTICE
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

ODD LOGIC ABOUT BILL OF RIGHTS

IT IS ALWAYS heartening to see that the Roanoke Times & World-News never considers itself out of the running for the coveted Handgun Control "Most Obedient Winged Monkey of the Year" award, despite competition from The New York Times, The Washington Post, the three major networks, and numerous "news" magazines.

The spiteful June 11 editorial rampage against military-style - oops! - "assault" weapons in general and the National Rifle Association in particular should score a generous number of points with the Capitol elites. Persist and persevere, and I'm sure somebody important will eventually take note. In the meantime, all the newspaper can expect are irritating little letters from members of the "Great Unwashed," such as myself.

I'm having a bit of a problem following the paper's logic, as it does not quite mesh with its adoration of the First Amendment in editorials June 12 and 13. Bear with me while I get this straight.

According to the June 11 editorial, I should not be able to buy an Uzi, although I'd like to, because it's no good for hunting and looks more intimidating than it should, and the paper really doesn't think I need one anyway. This is true even though I do not hunt and I want it for a self-defense weapon, and despite the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution about hunting, anyway. I should give up my Second Amendment rights because the paper thinks it is the best thing for everybody.

According to the June 12 editorial on the rap group 2 Live Crew, though, I should be able to listen to an album that "contain[s] references to violence against women and abusive sex, though they're tempered with humor . . . ", since " . . . it involves only adults" and "it involves no infliction of anything on anyone who doesn't want to hear it." I should not give up my First Amendment rights to access trash passing as art or to burn Old Glory because the editors think it is the best thing for everybody. (Particularly newspapers?)

Is it OK, then, that I might buy an Uzi, if I paint "adults only" on it and I do not inflict the business end on anyone who doesn't want to hear it? That is, anyone who's not nosing about my abode at odd hours or helping himself to my property, or otherwise threatening my well-being?

Now, I am certainly no match for the incredible logic and common sense and reasonableness that pour from this newspaper and the rest of our wonderful media people. But are the editors saying that if people abuse the First Amendment by pandering to gratuitous and senseless violence, glorifying sexual degradation, and teaching disrespect and hatred, that is OK and we should accept that as part of freedom; but if I buy an Uzi to protect myself from people who might choose to model their behavior after such First Amendment abuses, there is something wrong with me? That I should meekly accept "reasonable restrictions" on my weapons, but let them come after the editor's typewriter and there is going to be one hell of a fight? That it is all right to kill and poison and destroy our youth indirectly and by the millions with the First Amendmemt, but let one wacko who should have been in prison in the first place directly kill five innocents and we'll shut down the Second Amendment right now?

Well, these fellows are just way over my head. Sharp as a pin, yessir! If I could cast a vote for the "Most Obedient Winged Monkey" award, by golly, I'd vote for them. They deserve something - I'm just not sure what.

by CNB