Armed Protesters Gather at GMU

Virginia Citizens Defense League protested the university's policy excluding students and faculty from carrying guns on campus.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) protested at Wednesday. VCDL members and volunteers were visibly and legally armed. Anti-gun advocates from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence counter-protested.

The university has a ban on weapons for all students and faculty. However, those who aren't students or faculty may carry guns on campus, if they have the proper permit.  The Constitution of Virginia protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms from government infringement.  An overview of Virginia's gun laws are posted by the Virginia State Police.

"I kind of understand both sides, I'm not really lenient towards either," said Julie Manausa, a conflict analysis major at Mason. "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."

Others disagree.  In a preelection debate at , he did not believe in any type of gun control measures and viewed them as an infringement of individual rights. “Criminals will still continue to get guns, regardless,” he said. Kane also said that the Virginia Tech shootings could have been averted if students had been allowed to carry guns on campus.

According to their website, "VCDL is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental human right of all Virginians to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 13 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia."

"The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence seeks to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy," says their website.

Will Radle November 25, 2011 at 03:36 PM
John, your statements keep asserting people who do not share your perspective support the victimization of students. If a law violates your inalienable rights, then challenge it in the courts rather than legislating against local community values.
Will Radle November 25, 2011 at 04:18 PM
Agreed, my assertion is not sophomoric when persons believe we should enable felons & persons with mental health disabilities to carry by eliminating background checks and continuing to exempt private sales. In this public forum, I asked you to define acceptable limitations. How is your position reasonable when you say, "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?" Is your goal to persuade or to provoke? A side note: we derive no rights from the US Constitution as your wording implies.
John Wilburn November 25, 2011 at 05:55 PM
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.
Will Radle November 26, 2011 at 02:15 PM
Fairfax County is growing along with Northern Virginia and trendlines show we will continue to expand our influence in the General Assembly. Any legislation implemented ignoring the local community values of Northern Virginia will be overcome eventually. We have established precedents limiting freedom of speech and you probably already know about standards for decency and regulations against inciting riots. Clearly, I am not an elitist. Actively listening, responding to commentaries on public blogs and in community newspapers, and taking responsible action are just some of my methods of providing models for accessible, accountable government. It is time for us to work together across political and ideological lines to create effective, sustainable solutions to the challenges confronting our community and Commonwealth. Now, that I have answered your questions, will you answer mine? Where is the line of reasonable limitation? A. Will Radle, Jr. Creating a Culture of Listening http://fairfaxstation.patch.com/blog_posts/creating-a-culture-of-listening FairfaxAdvocates@gmail.com http://YouTube.com/WillRadle1
John Wilburn November 26, 2011 at 03:15 PM
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 Radle November 26, 2011 at 04:36 PM
Common sense. Community values. Active listening. John Wilburn apparently considers these concepts too advanced for a simple conversation. He makes assertions he refuses to defend; fails to answer a simple question while presenting several that have been answered; and then makes misleading statements about responses given. Talking further to John apparently is a waste of time. HE DOES NOT LISTEN. He simply wants to provoke people. He represents the insularity of our present culture.
John Wilburn November 26, 2011 at 05:39 PM
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.
Will Radle November 26, 2011 at 05:54 PM
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?
Will Radle November 26, 2011 at 06:16 PM
The great majority of universities prohibit concealed carry. More information can be found at the following link: http://www.studentsforgunfreeschools.org/SGFSWhyOurCampuses-Electronic.pdf
John Wilburn November 26, 2011 at 06:18 PM
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.
John Wilburn November 26, 2011 at 06:24 PM
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.
Will Radle November 26, 2011 at 06:44 PM
John, if you had your way every felon or person with a mental health disability could conceal carry anywhere including university campuses. You asked me to define limitations on our rights as protected under the First Amendment; I did. Now, you continue your repetitive rant. Obviously, your refusal to answer a simple question is getting no where. Here, you assert your rights were snuffed by the longest serving legislative body in the Western Hemisphere. Then, what are you arguing? As you imply, the issue is dead.
Will Radle November 26, 2011 at 07:03 PM
John, we have over 4,310 colleges and universities in the US. Nearly all of them have had NO shootouts and do not authorize weapons. Many of them have multiple campuses. Of the 20 you reference, how many prohibited weapons on campus previously and had a shootout? ZERO. I do not take your concern lightly. However, your stance against the protection of local community values remains a hypocrisy.
John Wilburn November 26, 2011 at 07:06 PM
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 Radle November 26, 2011 at 07:22 PM
John, "I have news for you", we're done listening to your repetitive rant of baseless, crass arguments against our community.
John Wilburn November 26, 2011 at 08:17 PM
Will, I have news for you, you DO NOT speak for the community. The voters made sure of it.
Observer November 26, 2011 at 08:20 PM
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.
John Wilburn November 26, 2011 at 08:52 PM
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
Will Radle November 26, 2011 at 09:10 PM
Today, George Mason University continues to reflect the local community values of Northern Virginia and Fairfax County. Still, you have not defended your position opposing background checks on all firearm sales including private sales to prevent sales to felons and persons with mental health disabilities. Your inability to defend your closely held beliefs has enabled you to win what, exactly?
John Wilburn November 26, 2011 at 09:19 PM
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.
Will Radle November 26, 2011 at 09:45 PM
See, that's your mistake, John. You thought you were debating me. I only asked a simple question that you never addressed. We let you show everyone how irrational and extreme your argument remains. We let you show how much you do not care for our local communty's values. Please tell us why you oppose preventing felons and persons with mental health disabilities from easily acquiring firearms. Your repetitive, obtuse arguments do not persuade anyone. I continue to stand for conservative values of enabling people in local communities to speak for their community. What is right for Fairfax County may not be best for Tazewell County. But, it's unfortunate you want to come here and tell us how to live.
Will Radle November 26, 2011 at 10:18 PM
John, are you asserting the 24 year incumbent who received votes from 17.90 percent of registered voters speaks for the community? On the issue of weapons on school campus, we agree, our community's values are important. We also agree felons and persons with mental health disabilities should not acquire firearms as easily as you recommend. Your assertion is without merit as I never have said I speak for the 1.1 million Virginians who reside in Fairfax County; I have said I actively listen.
John Wilburn November 26, 2011 at 10:20 PM
"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.
Joe Brenchick November 27, 2011 at 08:36 AM
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?
John Wilburn November 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM
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.
Will Radle November 27, 2011 at 02:15 PM
John wants felons & persons with mental health disabilities carrying automatic firearms. No questions asked. Anything else is a violation of his rights as protected by the US Constitution. Everyone else here agrees, or remains silent. The weapons of George Washington's era were very different. The culture was different. He felt obligated to let strangers sleep in his house and feed them in the morning when they were traveling. He lived in a very different culture than our modern society.
John Wilburn November 27, 2011 at 06:22 PM
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.
TBG November 27, 2011 at 06:48 PM
Whoever captioned that picture is only showing his ignorance: Washington didn't have the right to free speech. That's one reason we fought the British in the first place.
John Wilburn November 27, 2011 at 07:01 PM
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.
Will Radle December 24, 2011 at 03:41 AM
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


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »