You forgot to mention that someone who was shot four times by the gunman at Virginia Tech attended, and that someone who lost his sister there was pictured... and why they have chosen to take a side regarding guns on campus.

Does anyone know who the young lady who is depicted in these photos with the cut-off gloves and mesh top? She was terrific debating the VCDL guys and I never got the chance to thank her. - Ladd Everitt, CSGV

And for those who are interested, here is an extended clip of some of the debate that occurred on the North Plaza yesterday:

http://youtu.be/-3HgjcdnMsc

VCDL : "Defending your right to defend yourself". What a great organization.

And no she wasn't terrific debating the VCDL. That's a flat out lie.

I'd be shocked and a tad scared if the CSGV was successful in restricting fundamental 2nd amendment rights. What's next, restricting 1st amendment rights such as free speech or religion? Also, would love to know how people would defend themselves from criminals who bring guns on campus and kill people.

"I understand the need for self defense, but I honestly don't really see why there would be a need on a college campus for weapons."

This makes absolutely no sense. How does the need for self defense end once you get onto campus? Look at VA tech!!!!

if students were armed at VT, it could have resulted in a lot of innocents being shot. whole lot different shooting at targets than humans.

Ladd Everitt, when it's YOUR daughter that is raped and/or murdered that adds to the crime stats that are acceptably low enough for you, you very well may change your mind. Robert, even the worst of shootouts could not possibly have rendered morfe tragic results than April 16th already left us with. Quit focusing and feeling about GUNS for a moment and ponder your deepest politically incorrect logic for a while, then come back and think about what you're saying. MY gun can help me save MY life if necessary. The unarmed do not have this option. Their life ends the moment a criminal so callously decides. This is simple.

Ladd,
And yet NOTHING you said deals with the problem when it is UPON them. Your ideology has no business trumping ANYONE'S right to self defense. April 16th tends to overshadow that poor girl who was beheaded at Tech with a knife. Laws will never curtail evil. I choose to prepare to deal with evil and respect your choice not to, but please don't tell anyone that their life is not worth preparing to defend because you are uncomfortable with it.

Notso,
The good points are easy to make when logic and reason are on your side.

I attended Va Tech in the sixties and a lot of us kept guns in our dorm rooms. We'd go shooting on the weekends and some of the upperclassmen in our squadron hunted. If they had luck, there were skinned squirrels soaking in the head (restroom) sinks on Monday morning.
Political correctness manifested in a fear and loathing of guns contributes to mass slaughter of innocent and unarmed people. The murderer at Va Tech know he would not be facing anyone armed and so he chained the doors and took his time.
Had just one student been carrying a concealed weapon, the murderer could have been stopped before he killed so many.
"Concealed carry" on campus is a deterrent to murderers. Prohibiting guns on campus figures into the calculation of someone who wants to "take out as many as he can before he dies".
You prohibit guns on campus and you destroy both the deterrent and the means to stop a slaugher.

I suspect that has more to do with settlements that were signed and on-going litigation. I would hate to think that it is purely the conscience attempting to self-sooth by telling ones self that there was nothing one could do when in fact there was something that could have been done.

To Ladd Everitt, while the families affected by the VaTech tragedy have experienced great hurt, they haven't been awarded any superior reasoning or understanding of the issue or how to prevent further occurances. To use their agony and emotion as an argument in an intellectual discussion shows a lack substance for your position.
If fact, after reading all of your posts, I would not want you defending any of my positions on any subject. I can make better arguments for banning guns on campus than you have.
And by the way, squirrels are still tasty.

That concealed carrier was a security guard who went through more than Virginia's one-hour online "training" course to get her permit.

Those families have undoubtedly wondered how a severely mentally ill young man was able to legally purchase a small arsenal of firearms, including two assault rifles and three handguns.

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-10/us/shooter.youth_1_church-security-guard-smoke-bombs-shootings?_s=PM:US

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7764395?source=pkg

http://arvadapd.org/about-arvadapd/colorado-springs-pd--releases-gun-traces-98

These "nuts" are suicidal. You don't even seem to have a basic understanding of these tragedies.

And if we had gun laws like Mexico, the cartels wouldn't know where to get their guns.

You can get grenades at a gun store or a gun show? Or a full auto firearm? Sorry friend, but none that I've been to. Actually statistics show that about 17% of their weapons come from the US, once you remove the firearms that are taken from Mexican federal forces and Mexican
local law enforcement that get their weapons straight from the US government. Now, if we can at least get the ATF to quit giving guns to the Cartels, that might help.

That's right. We don't know for sure how many weapons from the US go to Mexico. But we do know that a large portion of their weapons come from other places and you will never be able to close that off. Simple supply and demand concepts. And yes, if they need to, they can easily make their own.

Why don't you do this? Go down to a firing range, rent a firearm and shoot it yourself. Get some instruction. You'll find that it's really not the boogey man you're led to believe.

Ladd, an example of law that is a failure and disaster would be all of the church and school shootings where armed resistance to the madmen had been made illegal. How can you claim I want anarchy when I am calmly working to restore our liberties through all of the proper and legal means? I hardly think anarchists would get a CHP in the first place, much less promote and teach responsible firearms ownership and education. You are the angry one spewing venom at me because I don't subcribe to your asinine idea that we will ever legislate firearms out of existence. Anyone with a reasonable amount of aptitude as a machinist can make a firearm even after you legislate the hundreds of millions that are out there into you own recreational collection. I'm appalled that you would rather another massacre happen while we make another 100 years of ineffective laws rather than giving your fellow man the opportunity to live at the moment right before he (or she) becomes another statistic. There was no blood in the streets when local gun control was ended in Virginia 7 years ago, there was no blood in the state parks when carry was legalized there, crime dropped 5% in restaurants that serve alcohol when concealed carry was legalized over a year ago, no bloodshed in the state forests when carry was allowed there, and no bloodbaths have occurred in the places of worship since self-defense was declared "sufficient reason" to carry there. I'm kind of wondering if you carry concealed. ???

Ladd, not to sound insulting, but WOW, that is an ignorant comment. You are saying I don't have the right use personal violence to save my own life?! Go tell some girl that if you're being violently raped, don't shoot your attacker, scratch his eyes, strike him or commit any violent act to save yourself. I, personally, do not even squash bugs, but there is no way I'm going to sit back and rely on some "Laddgislation" to protect me or my family. We are worth more than a statistic that you feel is "safe enough". As for what our Founders thought: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Ladd, I can't imagine that debating pro-gun activists is a successful endeaver for you. You must get your ears pinned back every time. You are all over the map and always on the attack. You never defend any challenge or advance any counter argument. If you can't respond with logic or rational statements, you simple ignore and attack with something else. I hope you aren't the best the anti-gun lobby has for a spokesman.

Ladd, over 50% of my concealed handgun permit students are female. Women are the most rapidly-growing segment of the gun owning community. I see a lot of women and minorities at gun shows. CHP classes are VERY popular with the 18-35 crowd. The right of self defense is universal to everyone. As far as the right to use lethal force in public, not only are you deciding whether someone's life is worth protecting, but now also that it is not worth protecting in public. Maybe defend yourself in your home, but it's better to die for what Ladd believes in if you're out somewhere??? That doesn't fly with me. Whether my life is threatened in private or public, the response will be the same. I'm still thinking you might carry.... hmmmm....

Oh, I certainly wouldn't claim to be the best. I think the many gun violence survivors we work with are the best spokespeople for this issue, because they know the personal pain of losing a loved one because of weak gun laws. They have a deep understanding of the consequences of our insane laws that I - by the grace of God - do not. Our goal is the same, though. Making sure that future Americans will not have to stand in their shoes because madmen were able to gain easy access to guns. We WILL get there one day, of that I am sure.

With gun control support at an all time low and states removing more and more restrictive gun control laws that were passed over the last 30 years, I feel pretty good about where we're headed. Just look, in the last 2 years 2 more states now no longer require permits to conceal carry and Illinois is the last state to not allow any concealed carry, and that is expected to change in the next couple of years. As we look at it, all the restrictions didn't occur over a year or 2 and it will take that long to remove them. Keep up the good work guys.

Another example of where we're headed... President Obama has been totally unable to muster any support of more restrictive gun control laws. If anything says something, that does, even when he controlled both houses of congress. Once we have more time with more universities that allow guns on public campuses, we will get that taken care of also, it just takes awhile.

If you're really interested in lowering the gun death count, put your energy into figuring out how to keep gangs from killing each other, that accounts for well over half of those deaths. You will never stop them from getting something to kill each other until you get to the root of the problem.

"As I noted above, I never see any women when I'm debating pro-gun activists."

Too bad.

Look up Suzanna Hupp. Look up Jeanne Assam.

Ladd, I must give you credit for being willing to identify yourself as a helpless potential victim as you wish for others to be. I certainly hope for your child/children's sake that tragedy doesn't come to them before they are of age to make up their own mind(s) about gun ownership since you are not able to protect them from some of the more violent potential crime. I will not leave my family to chance.

You never answered my question.

If the 2nd amendment is very clear about "not infringing", but you want to do away with it, then what's next?

Ladd, do you think I should be allowed to carry? I'm an instructor with 25+ years of shooting experience and a squeaky clean criminal background check. No, I am NOT an atypical CHP holder.

Remember when the Tea Party was just getting started and they had a 2nd Amendment rally in Alexandria? I saw a guy carrying a gun in Starbucks. I turned around and walked out, as did a bunch of other people. To all you gun toters out there, I have no way to tell the difference between you and a nut bag who is planning to shoot the place up. To all you businesses, colleges and other places who wnat my money, I won't be coming in if armed people are there.

Anna, here's a simple way to tell. Criminals generally do not open carry! A felon will go to prison for 5 years in Virginia for carrying. As for concealed carry, there are over 250,000 Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit holders among the 8,100,000 residents, guaranteeing that is virtually impossible to go to Wal-Mart, Kroger, Food Lion, the libraries, most banks, most private businesses, government buildings, college campuses, and pretty much all public spaces where there are not people lawfully carrying concealed. I guess it didn't bother you when you didn't know.

Ladd, you said, "weak gun laws". Which law is weak? How is it weak? What would make it a strong law? You also mentioned "insane laws". Which law is insane? What makes it insane? You said, "madmen were able to gain easy access to guns". What state has forgotten to prohibit "madmen" from gaining easy access to guns?
Do you know what you are talking about? Perhaps it is enforcement of existing laws you are trying to address. Please clarify and try to be specific.

So let's follow the gun rights advocates' argument to its logic conclusion. If every man, woman, and child in the United States carried a hand gun on their hip every place they went every hour of the day, we would all be safer? Please explain.

I was one of those protesters that Ladd spoke to. The video that he provided is heavily edited to take several comments out of context.

Not only that, but he refused to answer several questions that I asked of him, in addition to refusing to let me finish my responses to his questions.

At one point, I told him that the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens, to which he asked me how I know that. I started to walk him through the evidence. He had earlier cited that according to the FBI there are about 17000 homicides in the US each year. Of course, he neglected to mention that only about half of those involve a firearm, but let's assume that every single one of them was committed with a handgun.

Studies show that there are anywhere from 50 million to 120 million handguns in the US today. At the time, I cited the more conservative 50 million number. If we assume that every homicide is committed with a different handgun, then we get 17000/50000000 = 0.00034 = 0.034% of all handguns used for homicides. That comes to roughly 1 in 3000 handguns will be used in a homicide in any given year.

And remember, that's a very conservative estimate, assuming no handgun is used for a double homicide, and all homicides are committed only with handguns. That means that over an average lifetime, only 1 in 40 handguns will be used in a homicide.

1 in 40 handguns over an average lifetime involved in a homicide means that over 75 years 97.5% of all handguns will not be used to commit murder. And that's not even considering that the number of handguns in the US is increasing every year.

Additionally, Ladd refused to answer one very simple question: Virginia Tech had a policy prohibiting students from having firearms on campus. How did that policy stop or prevent Cho from killing 32 people, and injuring another 25? How was that policy in any way effective on April 15, 2007?

Such policies are only obeyed by the law-abiding citizens, and they are the ones who you don't need to worry about.

To illustrate my point as well, consider this: George Mason University has a policy against allowing outside groups to conduct protests on campus unless an on-campus group sponsors them. We were sponsored by not one, but two on-campus groups, which is why Mason had already set aside a reserved space for our protest.

Who sponsored your counter-protest? Where was your designated area? Did you even bother to find out if Mason had a policy that would allow you to protest there?

VCDL strongly advocates following the laws and the rules, to the letter. We represent the law-abiding gun owners in Virginia who have a vested interest in being able to protect themselves and their families.

How much do you try to follow the laws and rules?

Yeah, it is ironic how our side goes out of our way to do everything lawfully, above board, and follow the rules to protest, but the anti-rights side screaming for more laws and rules doesn't follow the rules at all. It must be a tough job editing their video clips for logic, reason, or other offensive realities.

The argument that is frequently made is that the more handguns there are in public hands the safer we will all be. If everyone who could legally buy a gun decided to carry it in public how will this make us safer? How do I know that the person next to me with a gun doesn't have a mental problem, or has anger or impulse control issues, or doesn't really know how to handle a fire arm safely? Yes, criminals can get guns and are dangerous but so is the average person in the right circumstance. And don't tell me that you - the "good" person - will be able to gun down anyone who becomes threatening. Anyone who has been in a firefight knows it isn't that easy. It just defies logic and a basic understanding of the diversity of human behavior that society would be safer if more people openly carried guns. Having a gun in your own home or business to protect yourself is one thing but promoting the idea that as many people as possible should openly carry a gun is an invitation to more violence and fear driven anarchy.

Michael, nearly everyone of age has a driver's license and despite the thousands upon thousands of wrecks each year and the undisputed lethal potential of car crashes, no one is worrying about who is in the car next to them. We protect ourselves by wearing a seatbelt. We don't worry in fear about who is carrying a gun, but we wear a holstered gun to deal with whatever random criminal might be... just in case. I am not lobbying for as many people as possible to be armed, but for as many people who lawfully have the right to have the choice rather than for someone else to decide whether their life is worth defending. No, I "the good person" have no intention of telling you I "will be able to gun down anyone who becomes threatening." That's an overactive imagination. I simply demand the right to be able to carry a firearm to protect myself and my family. As for this nonsense of WHERE you think I should be allowed to protect myself, I'll have none of your idea that my life is okay to protect when crime comes to my house or business, but not when crime comes to me at an ATM, on campus, or just walking down the sidewalk. I'm not going to give up the chance to live and have to die for what you believe in.

As for "defying logic", oh my goodness, have you even read this thread? Logic is EXCLUSIVELY represented on our side. Please don't confuse logic with your emotions.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will discuss his reasons for supporting the GMU Gun Ban at the November 17 membership meeting of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). http://patch.com/A-nKyz

"...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason

When seconds matter the most, the cops are only minutes away .....

The 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution doesn't have a provision that says "these rights do not apply to people who have anger problems" .

The Virginia Universities have had a “back door” bypass of rules and regulations:

Cuccinelli said he wishes Virginia’s General Assembly would bring gun laws back under their governance, and not allow agencies to decide for themselves. He said this should be one of VCDL’s goals for the next legislative session. “Let’s get rid of the patchwork and see the General Assembly take over all Second Amendment issues,” he said.

Now we can close this loop hole and end the abuse!

How is it consistent to argue for limited government while advocating 140 legislators take over everything from communities to universities?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards.
Mark Twain

What part of, “Shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? A corrected past wrong is just that. An example of how when we stand up for our rights, those with untenable positions often quietly reverse to the corrected course.

To Will Radle: let us come back to reality for a moment. Bazookas are not needed for personal defense on campus. The issue is carrying handguns on campus. I, for one, would like for everyone holding a valid conceal carry permit to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon on any campus in Virginia. If nothing else, it would be a deterence factor against shootings such as the tragedy at Va Tech. If the perp wasn't deterred he could then be stopped by students and teachers with concealed weapons. No more allowing perps hours to walk through a chained shut campus hall killing students and teachers because he knew no one would be armed. It's as simple and emotional as that.

To Will Radle: I think you have your wish. Va law allows for local establishments to post signs prohibiting guns in their establishments. The Navy Federal Credit Union does that, so I do business with banks. You can't take a gun to church unless the leader of your congregation approves. (I still go to church, though.)
As for legislators never traveling to Fairfax County, a lot of them started out here becase we sent them to Richmond. The state is the proper level to establish gun laws, anything lower would make it impossible for law abiding citizens to not break a horrible patchwork of rules and regulations.

Come on Mr. Radle. Why are your comments always twisting my words. Suddenly I'm suppose to name banks that "encourage customers to carry weapons into their local branches to transact business." Where did that come from? Don't you listen? My point is that local banks don't prohibit guns. Whereas they can if they want to. I thought that was apparent. If I have to spell out everything to you I might as well be talking to a teenager.

Will Radle talks about "The preferences of students from Tazewell ." Will, I am from Tazewell County. There is STILL an unlawful ordinance on the books there that gives the mayor the right to disarm the people in the event of an emergency. I know absolutely no one that thinks this is right or suppors it. If we didn't have the Dillon Rule here to prevent the localities from abusing our rights, the rules would change like the weather in Florida...every 5 miles and 5 minutes.

Liberty actually took a "baby step" toward their name sake. Don't worry, there's still a healthy victim zone since permit holders are still disarmed at the parking lots, essentially. Allowing liberty at Liberty tramples no one's RIGHTS. If Falwell was the one that wanted to put a price tag on the lives of the Liberty community, then yes, he was wrong. Wrong, but still had the right to misname his PRIVATE school.

If our second amendment doesn't extend from muskets to Bazookas, does your first amendment extend from your post-it note to your hi-tech laptop and wireless internet?

"by legislators who may never travel to GMU and Fairfax County." I'd travel there more if it weren't for the crime :)

"You can't take a gun to church unless the leader of your congregation approves." Not so Observer. As of April 8th of this year, our Attorney General clarified that "self defense" is "good and sufficient cause" to carry in a "worship service." The permission is not necessary. Being private property, though, the church could post a weapon ban policy. If not posted, you're good.

“Observer, can you name any banks that encourage customers to carry weapons into their local branches to transact business?”

Well, here in the New River Valley, First Bank of Virginia, Freedom First Credit Union, Wachovia, and New River Banks. New River Bank put up a ban in a knee-jerk reaction to April 16th, but I lobbied them to do away with it. Their President said “The more we thought about it, the less sense it made.” Now, none of them are posted.

“I support the findings of the Virginia Tech Review Panel and advocate for legislators to implement their recommendations. Yet, I want to help ensure your voice is heard and responsible action is taken.”

I gave away hundreds of “Guns Save Lives” stickers as did others and over 1,600 flyers were given out at The Libertarians at VT/VCDL rally at Virginia Tech last Thursday. We were widely welcome. There were 18 counter protesters at their peak. Regardless of whatever you’ve been lead to believe about how the Virginia Tech community feels about gun rights, last week confirmed that those folks want their rights!

The anti-rights folks deny reality to the bitter end. I'm a Tech alum too that now lives and works in the area and actually heard those shots on April 16th from about a block away. I knew that my mother, father, and many friends were on that campus and were disarmed by campus policy. The sickening part... It could happen again just as easily! I cannot understand how the university's leadership is unwilling to trust, not only the adult students that already have CHPs, but their own otherwise trusted and respected faculty and staff. Lets see, 32 executed in cold blood.... let's "upgrade" from a policy to a regulation so that when the gunman gets inside the building we can ask him to leave and then if he deosn't he can be charged with a class 4 midemeanor that carries a maximum $250 fine. I bet if that were in place then, Cho would have stayed home and studied!

Oh, FYI Observer, the LAW never did change. When Attorney General Cuccinelli opined that the policy was unenforceable against vistors and still not a criminal offense for faculty, staff, and students, it was obvious that the "emporer had no clothes" and that sent all these universities clamoring for a regulation which has the force of law. The move has nothing whatsoever to do with safety; it is all about being fashionable, politically correct, and showing the emotion-fueled anti-rights community that the schools are "doing something about it" by doing something to the good people, the only people who will honor whatever they come up with. Someone had to be their scapegoat in light of the opinion and they opted to make it the lawful carriers.

Will, all the county growth rates aside, I'm just calling it as it is. A 32-person execution happened at VT where guns are kept as far and as inaccessible to their owners as possible, but a crazy gunman was finally stopped by students at Appalachian School of Law where the students at least had guns in their cars, like Liberty now allows. Perhaps the two that died could have been saved if the students were carrying on their person. It is not sophomoric to identify a disarmamnet area. Why call it something prettier and nondescript in the context of what we're discussing? There is nothing stopping crime at GMU and their regulation only tells the criminals that the buildings' law-abiders are disarmed for their protection. A few people being raped, robbed, and mudered here and there isn't "safe enough" if you're one of them.
Yes, our rights as protected under the First and Second Amendments are the same. I advocate for your rights to speak and carry all the same, but I will not tolerate someone claiming that their comfort level around guns trumps my right to self defense. Gun controllers are all about trying to fix what's not broken...regulating the good people because we will comply and therefore demonstrating "doing something" about the problem to make themselves feel better. It's just wrong.

"Otherwise, please show us your fleet of M1 Abrams." is not sophomoric.

Will Radle says, "If a law violates your inalienable rights, then challenge it in the courts rather than legislating against local community values."

One of the biggest problems is that the elite are determining the values of the community...see my example about Tazewell. You know as well as I do that the bulk of our representation is in Northern Virginia, like you said the 1 million people in Fairfax County is an 1/8th of the state. It will take the votes to do anything anyway. How can you have a problem with that? Back to the elitist thing.

Do you have acceptable limitations on our first amendment? Wouldn't you agree that since people will always find a way to express themselves, that you would only be selectively silencing the most lawful among us to restrict speech?

If I'm provoking logical thought....

No we do not derive rights from the constitution, but the constitution affirms the people's natural rights. It seems to prove the inconvenient truth for those who feel their "guns scare me therefore they're bad" philosophies reign supreme over our rights.

Mr. Radle, you answered mine about like Sen. Edwards didn't answer my questions at his campaign stops. It worked for him, so I can't blame you for the political circle-speak. I was asking them rhetorically, anyway. For the moment ignoring the Weapons of Mass Destruction, tanks, aircraft carriers, missiles, and all that other stuff that anti-rights folks typically use to try to paint the pro-rights folks as anarchists, I was sticking with firearms just to keep it in the context of carry rights like on college campuses, K-12 schools, and the other places there is no reason we should not be allowed to carry.

I never said you were an elitist, but it is very clear that you are comfortable with the elite depriving the strong, solid majority who want their rights. The Virginia Tech community wants its rights, but the few in charge want to regulate otherwise. The community's values are not being allowed to go forth there.

My concealed handgun permit class has people from all across the spectrum, male, female, every race, religion, political party, and everything else. They all want their rights, though.

Oh, and I have no use for your idea of allowing partisan and personal politics in our General Assembly to run roughshod over our rights and them challenge them in court. That's an awful idea.

Will, I have thougthfully read and responded to every one of your posts. Perhaps not with the soft, moderate, politically-correct speech you would hope for. Being an aspiring politician, I suppose that's what you hope for. I am not going to draw a line on the second amendment, but do choose to focus on gun rights as that's where I can be more effective. If you believe that the majority of Virginians don't want their rights, then you sir are the one that is not listening. An unbiased gun rights poll tips in our favor every time. The slimmest margin I have seen in recent times is on Virginia Tech's Collegiate Times poll where gun owners still won 80-20%. In the other polls we win 90-10 or 95-5. I even saw one that was 97-3 with a very significant number of votes. These poll are scattered about the state too.

It is clear to me that Will Radle's active listening is predicated on Will Radle's ideals of common sense and that is the filter through which Will Radle derives "community values." I'm glad to see that you have advanced to taking out your aggressions on others with the pen.

John WIlburn's assertion that people support victimization of students simply because we do not agree with him is baseless and crass.

Who is violating your rights when you cannot clearly define them yourself?

The great majority of universities prohibit concealed carry. More information can be found at the following link:

http://www.studentsforgunfreeschools.org/SGFSWhyOurCampuses-Electronic.pdf

See my response to observer above. What is wrong with a place that enjoys uneventful discreet concealed carry all around it, but then has a tragedy, the likes of which we have never seen and does nothing about it? Another mass murder could happen again there next week and there is absolutely nothing to stop it. That disappoints me.

As for defining rights.... that's not how it works sir. Presumably, you have made a pledge of allegiance to the American flag. The last line says "...with liberty and justice for all." The justice part seems to be uneventful, oftentimes not even worthy of a talking pont, but liberty is mentioned first and for good reason! Our rights are not what the government defines them to be, but rather should be what the government protects for it's people.

When I see an engineered, anti-rights subcomittee of three in our legislature snuff our gun rights, yes, I will call that a violation. Also, when a university confirms the obvious, that they are not responsible for the safety of individual students, but then syas the student will be arbitrarily denied defensive measures that are a proven need, yes, I will call that a violation. When municipalities willfully continue to prohibit our lawful carry despite losing that autority 7 years ago, yes, I will call that a violation. And as long as people want banks to have armed guards protect their money at the banks, but not their childen at school, I will continue to see these as problems.

At least 20 Colleges and/or Universities allow lawful carry and no shootouts happen there. Virginia's own Blue Ridge Community College is one of them. Carry is already happening on most campuses, but many won't admit it for fear of expulsion or firing.

We've already seen the known and the complete failure of gun ban policy. Now, the majority should be heard as lawful carry cannot make for the disaster that a "gun-free zone" did allow.

Mr. Radle, When three known anti-rights Senators control a committee that is appointed by anti-rights senate majority with rules designed specifically to advance their personal agendas, the problem is the leadership. Virginia's governors tend to get a lot done whether they are my pick or not. I think a lot of that is because they are not running for reelection. Some of these long time senators need to go; they are getting far too much support from the unknowing that they shake hands with and pander to.

I have news for you, there is nothing stopping these people from carrying on any campus now! No deranged killer is going to stay off campus simply by making a trespass charge if he refuses to leave. Ted Bundy wouldn't be a household name if campuses were lawfully armed. Just because you are willing to give up extents to your first amendment and I am not willing to offer up limits on my second amendment doesn't make my position any less viable. If you give up 5% of your rights every time, you lose much more over time. The carniverous gun controllers are always hungry. I listen, but not answer to Will Radle.

Providing you are eligible, do you carry Will? I have read that New York's Charles Schumer carries. He is one of government's most prolific deniers of rights and the poster child of elitism.

Will, I have news for you, you DO NOT speak for the community. The voters made sure of it.

Are you leaving, Will? Out of ammo? Sorry to see you go. I was enjoying watching John take you to the intellectual cleaners.

And the debate goes to John Wilburn by a knockout.

Thanks Observer, but the win goes to gun owners' rights; I am just one voice in a sea of many that are fed up with those in the Ivory Towers (and those that aspire to be) who do not respect our rights. Want to help? Perhaps be less of an Observer and let your voice for liberty be heard!

Regards,
John

Frankly, there is nothing to win debating with Will. I was only hoping to infuse some logic and reason to dillute the emotion on this thread. If I've inspired Observer to know that his pro-liberty voice is needed as opposed to letting others speak for him under the guise of collective "community values", then it has been a worthwhile exercise to post here.

"Please tell us why you oppose preventing felons and persons with mental health disabilities from easily acquiring firearms"

They're ALWAYS going to get firearms. Let's make a law....another shooting, guess it didn't work, so how about another law....oh, another shooting...guess that didn't work either. I just don't think we need to keep perpetuating this fairytale that new Iaw X has crime at bay, disarm the citizens, and then let it happen again. That has been going on for 100 years. You blew off my question about carry, but I don't really care....maybe you weren't listening :) As many car crashes as we see every day, I sure don't see a movement to crack down on the licensing of bad drivers! And cars are far deadlier than guns.

I wasn't "debating you" as everyone is certainly free to engage in the thread. After saying that Lynchburg's Liberty University trampled its community's rights by listening to the community and allowing carry there, you certainly have no room to talk. You say you stand for "conservative values" ?!?!?!?! Thanks also for "letting me" express my first amendment right. Thankfully, I do not have to wait until you let me to express my second amendment right. I'm not telling anyone how to live, but I'll not have you and all of your supposed community support tell me how to live either. It is good for people to know how their local politicians feel about the issues, though. My need to defend myself is just as valid in Fairfax as it is here.

Our country in unique in the world in that our Founding Fathers trusted their citizens and tried to limit government, not the people. My, how far we’ve strayed away from that. I also firmly believe that without the Second Amendment, there wouldn’t be a First! Why must I curb my freedoms to accommodate others?

I have a picture that's captioned: "Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British. He shot them."

Could you even imagine asking our forefathers who literally risked life and limb to be free to disarm becaue it makes a few people uncomfortable? I don't buy the progressive community value argumnet that despises one's adhering to core principles of liberty and asks them to check his/her rights selectively at the door.

Poor Will doesn't know when to just stay on the mat. Just because we're well armed, doesn't mean we aren't merciful.

I don't know who captioned it, but it makes a good point and shows how logical it is that Amendment 1 is followed directly by Amendment 2. The right is human and univeral, not manufactured by any government. The British were just denying it.

An overwhelming majority of Virginia voters favor banning guns on college campuses, See the results of Quinnipiac's statewide poll released Thursday: http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/302726

A. Will Radle, Jr.
Creating a Culture of Listening
FairfaxAdvocates@gmail.com