Oh, the irony Monday morning, as I opened the Post-Bulletin's Morning Mail and found a Need-to-Know item about the gun violence dialogue Monday night.
Reading it, I found the situation to be quite duplicitous. About a week ago, Managing Editor Jay Furst chided someone who called a public meeting and then disinvited reporters. He was clearly proud of the fact he chose to ignore their request and went to the meeting. Yet, Furst moderates an open meeting to discuss gun violence and asks those who might carry a gun to such a meeting not to bring them, seeking the meeting to be a gun-free zone. The targets of mass gun violence have been what? Yes, gun-free zones.
Furst feels such a request is reasonable, but he didn't think it was reasonable for someone to ask the press not to attend a public meeting just a week ago. He adds that, "Police can ask to see the person's permit, and they'll check for permits tonight."
I had intended to participate but did not attend since Furst wanted it to be a gun-free zone. It appears Furst wanted a forum of like minds and obedient souls (unlike himself).
Please let the rest of us know, should you host a truly open forum.
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael "Matt" Mattingly
Rochester
