Last month we ran a couple of letters from readers taking us to task for our editorial on the latest Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment rights.
We should have spiked their comments.
Heres why: The writers attacked us for a position we dont hold.
Our editorial views are fair game. We welcome letters that take issue with our editorials, partly because they enliven the opinion pages we prefer debates to lectures and partly because criticism tests the strength of our ideas.
But its just confusing when others characterize our position as the polar opposite of the view we hold.
The Heralds editorial board supports the Second Amendment and individual gun ownership. These recent writers criticized us for a stance against the Constitution that weve never taken.
Ive taken another look at our last editorial that caused the hubbub. Heres what it said in a nutshell.
The Supreme Court has ruled the Constitution is clear that gun ownership is an individual right.
If gun opponents dont like it, their only option is to repeal the Second Amendment.
And that has as much chance for success as the proverbial snowball.
Maybe the way we worded it sounded to some like we advocate repealing the Second Amendment. For the record we dont.
Similar stories:
Why we recommend -- if that's really what we do
Why we recommend -- if that's really what we do
Seven weeks ago, we offered an explanation of why we make recommendtions in political races.
It's a little soon, but we thought we'd revisit the subject today, since this year's recommendations will start appearing in tomorrow's paper.
The truth is, we run some version of this editorial at least once, maybe twice, every election year.
Why we recommend -- if that's really what we do
Why we recommend -- if that's really what we do
Seven weeks ago, we offered an explanation of why we make recommendtions in political races.
It's a little soon, but we thought we'd revisit the subject today, since this year's recommendations will start appearing in tomorrow's paper.
The truth is, we run some version of this editorial at least once, maybe twice, every election year.
Man charged with attempted murder
Man charged with attempted murder
Attempted murder charges have been filed against a Pasco man accused of beating and holding his girlfriend against her will.
Larry Dean Buck, 40, was arrested in January and faced a Nov. 2 trial in Franklin County Superior Court for second-degree assault and unlawful imprisonment.
Over Buck's objections, defense attorney Matt Rutt, asked for the trial to be continued to Nov. 30.
Reacting to Bensky
Reacting to Bensky
Martin Bensky writes (Letters, Nov. 28) that the citing of the Constitution by Tea Party people is "preaching an arrogant, ignorant message."
Apparently he believes it stupid to consider the basic law of the land when discussing important, fundamental issues of government. Never mind that it is the source of all of our rights as citizens. The not-so-subtle placement of his letter next to the Herald editorial that, as it happens, takes up the Second Amendment to the Constitution, invites the reader to judge who has written an "arrogant, ignorant message" -- Mr. Bensky or the Voice of the Mid-Columbia.
Unneeded wind turbines can't help environment
Unneeded wind turbines can't help environment
We knew this day was coming but still somehow hoped a voice of reason would provide a solution to a dilemma now faced by power companies.
Washington voters approved an initiative in 2006 that required power companies to create green energy or buy credits from others who do. And the first mandate, requiring many utilities to purchase 3 percent of their power from renewable sources, kicks in this month.
Unfortunately, hydropower isn't considered renewable under the initiative. If it were, every utility in the state already would meet the mandate.
Print
Email Story
