The Roanoke Times: RoundTable

Comments

# 1

[August 1, 2008 8:27 AM]

Henry

"I wonder when we, the people, will say "enough" and demand that our rights to go about our daily lives with a sense of peace and security be honored."

It will happen when wolves no longer feel safe to attack the sheep.

# 2

[August 1, 2008 9:40 AM]

Ed S.

Someone forgot to engage the brain before releasing the pen again. Christine Brownlie's column had great potential, but the winds caused by logic rapidly escaping her thoughts caused the column to blow way off course.

It would be just as bad to read a column about another issue, but written in the same manner. The article could describe a man rushing down the road at incredible speeds, loses control and hits some pedestrians on the sidewalk. The column could refer to the man several times. Maybe it would even note that the thousands of other drivers (all driving according to the law, of course) were horrified and enraged at the man's reckless actions. This man killed innocent people. In the end, the column would blame those chevy volts for traveling at such break-neck speeds. Darn that car! (The man was, obviously, in pain, and should not bear the burden of responsibility for his own actions.

The article cries of "right to feel safe". Think about that a moment. When do you not have a right to feel safe? You can feel safe all you want. *Feeling* safe does not mean you are safe. You think taking guns from innocent people is going to *make* you safe? Perhaps your emotional blinders have limited your vision to the stabbings, beatings, multiple assailants, rapes, robberies, lynchings, and multiple other crimes that happen daily. I have no such ignorance or illusion. I work to *make* my family safe, so that when they feel safe, there is actual *substance* behind that feeling.

How about instead of *wasting my time* trying to take away my options for ensuring the safety of my family, you divert your attention to *productive* methods of helping your family and others actually live safer. I do so every day, though my efforts are limited because I must divert a considerable portion of my attention and energy to those that want to take away my rights for their mistaken logic that feeling safe means being safe.

A gun is but a tool. It is neither the cause of or solution to a problem. It *is* one part of a total defensive strategy that has proven, when unfortunately necessary to employ, to save lives in dire circumstances. Should you decide not to incorporate that in your plan, that's your choice.

But don't deny the potentially life-saving option to my family.

# 3

[August 1, 2008 9:50 AM]

Bradford Wiles

I feel a letter to the editor coming on!

"Right to feel safe"?
"Freedom from fear"?

I can't find those in the Bill of Rights. However, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is in there.

Bradford Wiles

# 4

[August 1, 2008 12:02 PM]

Other John

A right to feel safe? Who would define such a "right" to begin with? There is absolutely no way that could ever happen because safety is a relative term. I feel safe walking through places where others may not, and the opposite may also be true too. So how would that actually happen? It can't, it's not possible. Even with a totalitarian military regime that had tanks on every street corner, there would people who still would not "feel" safe, probably because the government then would have total control. This guy used a gun, and unfortunately some folks feel it necessary to demonize the instrument, rather than the cause. This guy was filled with hate, and he could have used any number of tools to do what he did, with just as deadly a result as what happened. He could have used knives, his car, explosives, bricks, or cans of Campbells Soup to still injure and kill innocent people who didn't expect it. So do we ban all of those items too just so someone can feel safe? No, it's absurd to do so. Even something as dull and seemingly benign as a plastic spoon can be fashioned into a deadly weapon. There is evil in this world and evil people in it, and there is no way to prevent that from happening. The only thing we can do is take steps to protect ourselves and our families as best as we can and to be prepared for whatever may happen...and have faith that perhaps it won't.

# 5

[August 1, 2008 2:56 PM]

Blue John

I always feel SAFER when I'm packing a little heat.

Try it, you might like it!

# 6

[August 1, 2008 3:33 PM]

bobdog

Let's take a look at *why* this guy shot up a Unitarian Universalist church: We've got tv and radio wing-nuts who spew hatred and lies 24/7. This right-winger's library consisted of the books of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage, among others. If he's got their books, he probably also listened to/watched their shows.

Unitarian Universalism is considered a liberal religion and a peace church. An attack on a UU church (of which I am a member) is a hate crime, which I contend was fueled by right-wing talking heads who get rich from their incendary talk. It's time they be held accountable for the actions they incite.

I'm a big advocate of the First Amendment that gives these crazies the right to their hate-filled talk, but IF WE STOP LISTENING/WATCHING, IF WE LET THE RADIO/TV STATIONS KNOW WE DON'T LIKE THIS KIND OF PROGRAMMING, IF WE BOYCOTT THEIR ADVERTISERS, their hate speech will stop and they will crawl back into their holes until they figure out another unethical way to get rich off the backs of lower and middle class Americans.

Maybe if those of you who advocate gun ownership would also work to curb violence and hate crimes, there would be less gun violence.

# 7

[August 1, 2008 4:20 PM]

Danny

bobdog,
WOW! You pretty much threw everyone but the kitchen sink in there to point blame at. But, there was one glaring omission in the blame-game you were playing: The GUNMAN!!! How is it that he has no part of the blame.
Blaming TV / Radio Show hosts for this is no better than people blaming music for kids doing bad things. Where is the accountability anymore? I'm bipolar, but still realize that there are repercussions for my actions. Maybe I should become a liberal so that I can go out and do whatever I want, then blame it on everything else: my illness, those darn Republicans who won't universalize health care..whoever else pops into my mind at the moment. But, the reality is that I, and I alone, am responsible for my actions. I know it seems like a crazy thought, but, hey...I am bipolar...

# 8

[August 1, 2008 4:46 PM]

Henry

Bobdog

He also read the newspaper. Uh-oh!

Actually, he dated a woman who was UU. His neighbors say he was anti-religion.

# 9

[August 1, 2008 4:52 PM]

Josh

Bobdog,

Here's a name you've probably never heard of:

Matthew Murray.

Remember the shooting/murder at Ted Haggard's New Life Church in Colorado Springs last December? It's understandable if you don't, because that story was hustled off the MSM front-burner inside of 24 hours. If you were out of town, you missed it.

Why would that be?

Simple. The story didn't fit the liberal template of the MSM at all. In fact, it would have shattered the template.

Why?

The guy who shot up New Life, killing one, and injuring four, Matthew Murray, was a GAY man who was found to have 500,000 porn images on his hard drive, many of them of children. What's more, he sent hate letters to New Life, saying how much he hated Christians.

http://veronicadelacruz.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/messages-from-the-church-shooter/

This Unitarian Church story in Tennessee has been going strong for five days now. Many folks are saying the same things you are. But I wonder, Bobdog, if, had you known of the Murray shootings, if you would have called CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, all the purveyors of left-wing hatred toward Christians to account for their hate-filled vitriol?

Would you like justice to be meted out to vile people like Keith Olbermann or Bill Moyers? How about some boycotts agains these liberal hate mongers and their stations Hmmm?

# 10

[August 1, 2008 5:16 PM]

Will

The right wing nuts write all their pieces and talk all their talk in hopes of whipping people up into a frenzy.

Then when something catastrophic happens like an individual taking the actions that the shooter did at the church...they all go running behind the door saying "the guy was a nut case. We're not responsible even though we want words to have great influence on peoples actions and reactions."

If children are influences by the words and deeds of adults, why is it not safe to presume that adults are not also influenced the same way.

# 11

[August 1, 2008 6:26 PM]

Jim

What on earth does a psychotic have to do with law-abiding Constitutionally protected gun owners?

The following links show how knives in the wrong hands do nasty work:

http://www.rudyfoto.com/machete.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/31/canada.bus/index.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/31/2261415.htm

So what's next? A ban on knives and we're forced to only use sporks in the future?

How about deaths by swimming pools?

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/are-you-ready-for-swimming-pool-season/

What about deaths by motor vehicle? These are the leading cause of death (source: CDC). Should we outlaw cars?

How about bicycles?
"children 14 to 15 years of age were found to be 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than they are to die from gun accidents." - http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor12.html

It looks like life has risks in many different forms, and we are not able to control it after all. Well I'll be damned.

# 12

[August 1, 2008 7:52 PM]

Ed S.

bobdog:
"Maybe if those of you who advocate gun ownership would also work to curb violence and hate crimes, there would be less gun violence."

I'll be first to step to the plate. Not only do I spend a considerable amount of my personal time teaching firearms safety and advocating individual liberties, but as I've said before I also step to the plate in community involvement. I am a community activist, Coordinator of my HOA Neighborhood Watch, member of the police Citizen Advisory Committee, give free instruction on crime awareness to neighbors, and put words to action by generally being aware in the neighborhood, actively investigate suspicious activity, and report such activities and crimes to the police. I hope you can claim similar experience.

As one of many active members in the individual rights community, I know, personally, many others who can share similar qualifications. Some (not all) are also public figures such as police officers and EMS.

In fact, if you paid (unbiased) attention, you would understand that the personal liberties movement (regarding Second Amendment liberties) is ENTIRELY ANTI-CRIME. How much more anti-crime can you get than helping neighbors protect themselves and watching out for their rights?

I would note that I go one better than your last statement ("gun violence"). I don't care if a gun was involved or not...I work against *all* violence, not just a small segment of violence.

Will, I've only listened to a bit of the "right wing nuts" (assuming Glenn Beck would fall into that category). I agree with some of his stuff, and some stuff I find silly to ridiculous. Perhaps I haven't listened long enough, but I haven't heard anyone say "kill those that don't agree with me". Yes, words such as "stupid", "un-American", etc... fly. But I have yet to hear one of those popular in the media advocate violence. I think you and I can agree that speakers on both sides use strong words, but neither advocate violence against the other.

# 13

[August 1, 2008 8:10 PM]

Josh

Christine Brownlie uses the word "gun" more times than she refers to the person using the gun.

It's pathetic when somebody is ostensibly grieving but their words belie a political agenda. It makes you think they are crying crocodile tears.

I get the same feeling when I hear Cindy Sheehan talking about her son, then calling President Bush a nazi or talking about the war for oil, or saying 9-11 was orchestrated. It's amazing how, through her grief, she can still summon the presence to parrot crazy left-wing talking points.

I get the same feeling with Brownlie.

# 14

[August 1, 2008 9:19 PM]

Henry

Geez Will, study the facts. The guy was stalking his ex-wife who was a member of that church. He wasn't a "conservative". He didn't like religion in general.

In short, he was an anti-religion nut.

# 15

[August 1, 2008 10:34 PM]

bobdog

I don't know where you guys got info about his ex-wife. This is how rumors get started. Have you been listening to Sean Hannity again?

I just did a search, and the only mention of his wife is that she had to get a protective order. She was not a member of this church. (see below)

Again, the reasons stated: hatred of liberals and gays; hatred of people who vote for liberals; no job.

from knoxnews.com:
"Owen said Adkisson's stated hatred of the liberal movement was not necessarily connected to any hostility toward Christianity or religion per say, but rather the political advocacy of the church."

from baltimoresun.com:
"Court records from neighboring Anderson County indicate that Adkisson threatened violence against his wife several years ago. In March 2000, Liza Alexander, then his wife, obtained an order of protection against him after telling a judge that Adkisson had threatened 'to blow my brains out and then blow his own brains out.'

"The woman's written request for protection, which was reviewed by the Associated Press, said she was 'in fear for my life and what he might do.'"

>>>No mention that she's a member of that church or even a UU.

I get that the right-wing doesn't want to claim this guy as one of their own, but stop making up stories to explain his motives.

# 16

[August 1, 2008 11:05 PM]

Henry

Ex-wife member of church

http://www.wate.com/global/story.asp?s=8752217

# 17

[August 2, 2008 1:25 AM]

Dan Radmacher

(FIFTH) ex-wife was ONCE a member of the church. They divorced in 2000. She hasn't attended the church in years.

Amazing the details you leave out, Henry.

# 18

[August 2, 2008 6:56 AM]

HERB KREBS

Dan,
Amamzng the details that were left out?
Boy if that isnt calling the kettle black.
Lets talk about all the details that were left out in the Bush interview with NBC.
You guys took that to heart and ran with it.
The problem with liberals is they pick and chose everything they can. It is never takin in its full context.
The Bible, The constitution, etc....
Until you lefties start making people responsible for their actions nothing can be solved.
I have read enough of the EB columns and listened to enough if thier shows to come to one conclusion.
If a person on the right does something he is held accountable by the right. If someone on the left or right does something it is someone elses fault or societies fault.
I could name hundreds of times this has been done maybe thousands.
Just look at Ms. Brownlie and Bobbog the only left wingers blogging here. They blame everyone except the shooter. Looks like you backed them.
You guys are like glass, I can see right through you.
You want society to be on your terms and not the Constitution terms.

# 19

[August 2, 2008 8:03 AM]

Henry

Just an amazing coincidence huh? He goes to shoot up a Unitaran Church and just happens to shoot up the one his stalked ex-wife attended and where she possibly received support.

# 20

[August 2, 2008 9:00 AM]

C Ramsey

You're all missing the point. This individual made a choice to take up arms and go into a church with the intent of slaughtering helpless people. It matters not whether you ascribe to the soft-hearted notion that the man acted because of the pain in his heart or the more cynical, religious notion that he was simply evil. The shooter's motivations couldn't be less relevant when you are the one he is shooting at.

The reality of it is, this is the world we live in. At times sad and depressing, but it is reality.

And a newsflash (though I know news is something you'll seldom find in this paper), the gun didn't overcome his free will and make him do it.

Even if you ignore the Constituional violation, the only way the anti-gun movement makes sense is if you could magically remove all of guns from existence. But here in the real world, where most of us live, that is simply not a possibility.

The FBI estimates that there are 200,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US. If you add in military and law enforcement weapons, there are approximately 12 firearms for every man, woman and child in the US. We can't find, identify and deal with with forty million living, breathing, walking, talking illegal aliens. Do you really think we can find TWO HUNDRED MILLION inanimate objects that can be even more easily hidden?

So instead, a law barring guns, aside from sacrificing a freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, would simply mean the people who chose not to break the law would not have guns.

But do you really think someone who was planning a crime so serious as murder would be bothered by what, in comparison, would be a relatively minor, gun law?

And again, let's at least try to be rational when assigning blame. It's not the gun's fault. Despite many people's personal prejudices and irrational fears, guns are no more good or bad than are axes, hammers, screwdrivers or ballpoint pens. They are tools. They can be used for good or bad. Yet from some of the statements here, some of you seem to think we should have countless prison cells occupied solely by guns.

The left blames the right and the right blames the left, while society continues to crumble. Tolerance is the key. Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly didn't make this guy go off. And like it or not, the conservatives are every bit as entitled to their beliefs as are the liberals. Unfortunately it is often the case that those who most often espouse tolerance are only tolerant of their own points of view.

But the simple fact is, there are predators in the world that, given the opportunity, will do harm to their fellow man (or woman). The good people, left or right, have a choice to make. If the moment comes, are you willing to fight for your life? If you are, should you be denied the means to do so because of the political philosophies of those who aren't?

# 21

[August 2, 2008 9:37 AM]

Ed S.

C. Ramsey:
"the only way the anti-gun movement makes sense is if you could magically remove all of guns from existence."

I think you are a bit incorrect on this point. Even if all guns were magically removed from existence, the anti-gun movement STILL FAILS. It does not address the NUMEROUS other crimes that occur (beatings, stabbings, rapes) or take into account other factors such as multiple assailants or physical disability of the victim that shifts the balance of power. I guess this "Darwinian Anarchy" situation is fine for the anti-gun movement, but I believe in a bit more civilized approach - give the good the power to triumph over evil.

Taking away all guns means that the stronger get what they want, and crime continues to go on. And while you may say that the good far outnumber the bad (a true statement in itself), that does not always translate into the good unifying to quash the bad.

# 22

[August 2, 2008 10:38 AM]

Blue John

The link Henry provided stated that the man drank heavily. I wonder if booze may have been a contributing factor.

# 23

[August 2, 2008 12:53 PM]

Ed S.

Blue, good point. I think the popular cry her is "Anything but the person is responsible!"

But where were all of these people when memorials were being built to the likes of Washington, Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr.? Because, obviously, if we cannot blame evil men for evil deeds, why give credit to good men for good deeds? Their deeds must have been a result of other factors...not their own free will and effort. [I'll put the word *sarcasm* here, because some people will miss the obvious point]

Some people continue to amaze me.

# 24

[August 2, 2008 4:05 PM]

Nick

Ms. Brownlie has found a whole plethora of 'rights' in the Constitution that I do not see."...rights to go about our daily lives with a sense of peace and security..." ? Oh please, if you are looking for the perfect world where everyone gets along and there's no violence or suffering, you're on the wrong planet.