Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
The fight is over. We lost.
On Thursday, the supervisors once again voted down ordinances that would have made it illegal to carry loaded rifles and shotguns around on public roads. The laws were proposed for safety reasons, to protect citizens and their property from dangers posed by illegal road hunters.
We know it’s after the fact but there were several points raised at the public hearing Wednesday night that we feel obligated to address.
First, to Mr. Nelson Atkins: Obviously, Mr. Atkins, you’re not familiar with newspapers. Referring to two editorials that appeared in the Rappahannock News, you charged us with substituting our opinions for news and suggested we put the bull back on the masthead to reflect our biased stance.
The dictionary defines editorial as an article in a newspaper or magazine giving the editor’s views or those of the person or persons in control of the paper.
An editorial is a statement of opinion and doesn’t pretend to be straight news. We adamantly defend our right to state our opinions.
In the future, Mr. Atkins, remember that pieces appearing to the left of “Our Rappahannock Heritage”
photographs, the articlesJwith the slightly liuger type, wider-fhargins and usually two word headlines are editorials. They are not straight news. If you don’t want to read our opinions, please skip this section of the paper.
Secondly to Mr. Robert Eastham: We were told personally by a native farmer that he was afraid—yes, afraid—to speak out publicly in support of the ordinances because he feared that his barn might be burned or his cattle shot. We were told by another family from your community, Wakefield District, that they were also afraid of retaliation should they publicly voice support for the gun ordinances. We suggest you check with your supervisor, Hubert Gilkey, and ask him if he was contacted by individuals who favored passage of the ordinances but were concerned about public identification. There has already been harassment since the meeting.
As for your contention that the proposed ordinances violate the constitutional right to bear arms, do you think laws prohibiting the carrying concealed weapons also violate this cherished right?
And, Mr. Eastham, if the game warden is guilty of unreasonable search and seizure should he stop a pick-up truck with rifles and shotguns poking
80.5%