12 August 2019
The mere printing of an opinion piece should never be construed as either an endorsement by editorial or a disavowal of the sentiments expressed therein. However, there are certain signals that editors may employ to imply one or the other. Placing a letter at the end of a column without editorial comment, allowing the correspondent the last word, is one plus sign. A parodical header or accompanying graphic is an effective minus. Bold type echoing the theme of the letter at the top of the column is a big plus.
That big plus was found in Friday’s Enquirer, in which the editors seemed to endorse correspondent JH’s antiquarian interpretation of the Bill of Rights. In her narrow view of Eighteenth Century technology and social intercourse, the only protections the Second Amendment would offer those of us in the Militia (the general citizenry, again using 18th century terminology, or “the people”) would be in our use of sticks, knives, pitchforks, and flintlocks. No Colt 45s or AK 47s or AR-15s for us!
Applying this narrow logic to the First Amendment I must wonder whether she and the Enquirer’s editors would likewise restrict the Enquirer et al to block-printing, cuneiform, and movable type, and outlaw all electric means of mass communication along with those dreadful “assault weapons” and “Saturday Night Specials.”