State’s Largest Gun Rights Group Protests Innsbrook Republican Rally
October 18, 2009 - 2:24 pm
By Trevor Dickerson
On Saturday afternoon, Republican Whip and Short Pump resident Eric Cantor hosted the 2009 Republican Round-Up, an annual rally at the Innsbrook SnagAJob Pavilion. Outside the gates, several hundred members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), protested the event’s venue choice.
VCDL is the state’s largest firearms rights group and has been successful in influencing legislation affecting gun owners’ rights in the past.
The Innsbrook SnagAJob Pavilion is private property, separate from the rest of the Innsbrook Corporate Center. The venue, home to popular Summer concert series Innsbrook After Hours, does not allow firearms at the concerts or any other event.
“Four years ago, a couple of our members showed up and were turned away because of their firearms,” VCDL board member Bruce Jackson said. “We found [the Republican Round-Up] another location and they turned that down and said, ‘Well it’s pro-gun but it doesn’t allow alcohol,’ and apparently drinking is more important than the Constitution to Eric Cantor.”
Jackson went on to explain that the organization then found another venue that was was both pro-gun and alcohol, as well as conveniently located, which was also turned down. “The truth is they are just not pro-gun,” Jackson said. “They are holding their event repeatedly at a place that bans firearms. We’re trying to prove to the Republican Party that firearms are important and need to be allowed in their events.”
VCDL claims to be a non-partisan group with members from all across the political spectrum, but many seemed to hold issue with the party as a whole solely for its decision to hold the Round-Up at the Innsbrook Pavilion.
“Part of the platform of the Republican Party is the protection of the Second Amendment,” VCDL President Philip Van Cleave said. “Yet every year, they pick this one anti-gun location where we can’t do an open carry. You either believe in the Second Amendment or you don’t, and they’re apparently trying to have a gun-free zone and we’re protesting that. We have people who are even willing to pay for a new location, but they are simply not willing to move.”
Van Cleave calls the party’s actions “hypocritical” and says the group will continue to protest with more members each year until their concerns are heard.
Interact: What do you make of the Republican Party’s venue decision? Do you think the VCDL should protest it? Leave your comments below.
I suspect the republican party doesn’t care to have firearms around during this event. VCDL is a very active group, and would absolutely participate.
Talk about firing their guns inward. The VCDL should spend their time protesting actual opponents of gun-rights.
Eric Cantor and the Virginia GOP continue to treat lawful gun owners like red-headed step-children of the conservative base.
They hate to been seen in public with us but they sure as hell love our votes.
Wake up GOP. Didn’t the last Presidential election teach you anything???
What is more fundamental: the rights of private owners of property or the rights of guest gunowners? Me thinks property rights triumph…
@Scott –
I believe what they are saying, is that republicans at this event ARE “actual opponents of gun-rights”, eh?
I don’t get it. So, a bunch of NRA-endorsed Republicans host an event where the property owner doesn’t allow guns and you get mad at them? Aren’t the property owners the people you actually have a beef with?
The property owners have the right to ban guns – that’s not the point. It’s the Republicans purposely CHOOSING to use such a location while being fully aware of the venue’s anti-gun policy.
The Republicans are trying to hide behind the skirts of the SnagAJob Pavilion (owned by Highwood Properties).
Because of the “no guns” policy, I wouldn’t attend anything at the SnagAJob pavilion, but that’s a different matter altogether.
I suspect that the GOP doesn’t care about this fringe group of a handful of voters that wants to parade around their insecurities. Most of the GOP doesn’t support this cause. And they certainly don’t want people with guns at their rallies. I for one, would not attend, if they allowed guns. I will definitely attend the events at SnagAJob pavilion. At least the local GOP has the guts to stand up for common sense.
I am not anti-gun, but I also strongly support any property owner that chooses to turn away gun toting patrons. Honestly, I have a hard time even supporting this ongoing fight between the pro-gun and anti-gun crowd. Don’t we have bigger problems than this? Problems in this country that extend further than whether or not you can pack heat at a public event? And why is it necessary for one to attend an Innsbrook After Hours concert, where beer is free flowing, with a firearm in tow?
I think some of you are missing the point.
The VCDL has no issue with the Snagajob pavilion exercising its right to ban firearms. That is their right, and the VCDL respects the rights of others. They may not agree with it, and they may not patronize the facility because of it, but they have no issue with anyone exercising any of their American rights.
What the VCDL questions is the Republican party’s decision to hold their event there. Why? Well, traditionally, the Republican party has been very vocal about their supportive views on the Second Amendment, and the right of all Americans to exercise that right if they chose choose. So the VCDL is questioning why the Republican party would choose a venue that does not allow American’s to exercise their right at its facility.
This is not unlike the NAACP questioning the new Baseball team’s decision to consider “Hambone” for a mascot name. Once the baseball owners understood the history of “hambone” to a large group of Americans, it rightfully pulled that name from consideration.
So the VCDL questioned the Republican party’s choice of venue, supposedly found a venue that supported all of the Republican party’s event needs as well as allowed VCDL members to carry their weapons, and still chose to hold the event in a venue that excluded a lot of their supporters.
Sounds weird, really. Why would you want to exclude their supporters?
The Richmond baseball team “powers that be” did the right thing in removing “Hambone” from consideration (which was such a totally stupid name to begin with it’s ridiculous, but I digress…) and the Republican party SHOULD HAVE done the same.
I believe in the 2nd amendment. However, the second amendment states the Government shall not infringe on your right to bear arms. Doesn’t state that owners of private property have to accept your firearms on their property.
I think they are going overboard on this one.
I am appalled at the so-called Republicans here labeling the VCDL as a “fringe group of a handful of voters” and asking “don’t we have bigger problems to worry about than this?” The GOP candidates consistently trumpet their support for the 2nd Amendment in order to get the votes of gun owners, but blatantly abandon those promises by hosting their rally at a gun-free venue. This is hypocrisy at its finest.
If you still don’t see the issue, it would be the same thing if a GOP candidate championed against abortion but then turning around and throwing a rally at an abortion clinic.
@Kim – Good point of clarification Kim. I think the issue itself quickly sparked the emotions of both sides and took the discussion from it’s original topic to the larger, more controversial pro-gun vs. anti-gun battle.
Specifically looking at this protest… I wonder if there were other reasons the Republican Roundup was not held at the alternate locations. It is Jackson’s claim that they are, in fact, NOT pro-gun because this event is routinely held where guns are not allowed. My response… It is possible for the Republican Party to be pro-gun without making it a top priority at their events. Maybe this topic is important to Jackson and the VCDL, but just because a party doesn’t actively promote your cause, it does not mean they are dismissing it.
Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the property rights of the SnagAJob Pavillion. This is not an issue of private property rights trumping the 2nd Amendment. Read that again out loud so you understand that. Get it? Good.
The issue is the Republicans choosing this venue to host their rally even though they are well aware that it is gun-free, thus abandoning an important part of their base and seemingly not caring about doing so since they do it every single year.
It’s time for gun-owners to support other candidates since the current GOP candidates obviously do not care about us.
I agree with Kim. I think most folks commenting here are missing the point of the protest. The VCDL was not protesting the rights of property owners to ban guns on their property. They’re protesting the fact that a party which typically operates on a platform of “pro-gun” is choosing to hold their event at a place where their pro-gun supporters will not attend, despite the fact they’ve been offered alternative locations.
Unfortunately there are plenty of folks are going to want to turn this into other arguments like “packing heat” at a concert. Yes, because all gun owners secretly think they’re starring in Miami Vice. Don’t forget that CHP holders are some of the most law-abiding citizens and have to jump through quite a few hoops (which I support) in order to be allowed to get the permit in the first place. Please don’t take the discussion off topic to prove a point that isn’t being argued (or in this case, protested).
The Second Ammendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I believe we should keep our firearms in our homes until such time as we are called to serve in our Militias. In colonial times it was important to have militia men keep their arms at home. If all arms were kept in a central armory, the enemy could more easily disarm the populous.
Look at contemporary art from colonial times and you’ll seldom see men armed in non-combat or non-hunting situations. So why do we need to carry now?
And for the record, I’m in favor of gun ownership.
@Kamen Lee – Did you read what you just wrote? Sure, a party doesn’t have to actively promote something in order to support it but to completely ban constituents from exercising their rights at a rally most certainly means the party is dismissing the importance of that cause.
Trevor, did you ask for a response from the GOP about why they hold the event at that venue? It won’t matter to the VCDL, but it would matter to readers who want the full story.
@Scott B. – I was not able to get a response from the GOP at press time, but am working on a followup article to try and get their side of the story.
@Mark — You’re bringing up a point, on your own, just to debate it it would seem. I disagree with it needing to be kept at home until we are called on by our government, but that’s not what the protest (and original post) was about.
—–
Folks need to stop knee-jerking just because the word “gun” is contained in the post.
@Matt W. – If the debate is over “choosing to hold their event at a place where their pro-gun supporters will not attend”, I’d suggest that the GOP might have multiple criteria for choosing a venue, and “ability to carry guns” may be competing with other issues of equal or greater concern (convenience, parking, alcohol permit, etc.)
If the VCDL’s alternate venues met all these other concerns (and it’s not clear from the article that they did), then it would be easier to see their point. The article presents the VCDL perspective — comments from the GOP regarding the issue would have been illuminating.
@Jake – Yes, I read what I wrote. I think you are making a very large assumption to say that. I am sure the decision of venue was based on dozens of reasons. Maybe gun carrying was low on the list. The Republican party is identified by many ideals and values and it’s reasonable that they do not always make a statement of every value at their events.
@Mark – I agree it would have been.
I can say that the VCDL proposed other venues that met anything the GOP might have given as a response re: criteria for a venue. But I don’t have the ability to cite anything at this particular moment.
@Kamen Lee – I’d still say they have every right to protest it. *shrugs*
@Matt W., et., al. – yep, they had every right to protest. It’s important for groups to get their message(s) across to those who are doing the representing. No different than Pro Choicers, Pro Lifers, Gay rights, etc.
How cool that as Americans we can do such a thing!
Just remember what they were protesting about … keep it in perspective. It may be in the minds of the VCDL (and I’m certainly not trying to put words in their mouths, but trying to put myself in their shoes) that this isn’t all that different than a nudist group having a meeting at a facility that has a no shirt, no shoes no service policy. We welcome you, but you have to put your clothes on for your convention (or in the case of the VCDL, come on to the event, but leave your weapon at home or in the car). Just seems odd. The worst part of this to the VCDL group is, according to the article, is that they even brought the issue to the GOP’s attention way before the event, and even suggested other venues that they would feel included at, and they feel totally ignored.
Hope Treavor gets a quote from the GOP … it will be interesting to hear their thoughts and what was behind their decision to have their event at the SnagAJob Pavillion.
The Republican party is essentially no different, for better or worse than the Democrats. They both lie and then swear to it. If you want to really scorn the anti-gunners, join the Libertarians or a NEW GROUP. I would bet large sums of money if Obamer does not confiscate it for Cap and Burn, that the Tea Party group will be a new POLITICAL GROUP. Then watch all the miscreants s in both of the major parties squirm. It is a waste of time and resources to belong to either of the parties, i.e., DEMoPubs, they have been systematically looting The good old US of A for most of my life, 71 years and left unchecked will come into my great-grandchildrens lives and screw them up also.
I went to VCDL’s site and read their timeline of this particular issue since it began in 2005. It appeared to me that every response VCDL received from their communications with the GOP regarding this issue was reworded and rephrased to become a personal affront to all gunowners. It sounded as if the VCDL has been “picking a fight” with Eric Cantor and the GOP for 4 years over this. By the way, I am not a Cantor supporter. He has never responded to my calls or letters, either.
The constitution is a large document. We have a large population to accomodate in this country. VCDL why do you feel like you have to defend yourself with a gun every time you walk out the door? Like you always say, guns don’t kill people, people do. And people who feel like they need a gun for personal protection every time they walk out ttheir front doors sound paranoid and scary to me. Or is just politics as usual, and publicity for VCDL? .
@Kamen Lee –
One point that has not been mentioned yet is that once a viable alternative location was found several of our members offered to reimburse the seventh district Republicans for any increase in expenses.
This was not a spur of the moment decision – we tried working with them for four years. Last year we discussed holding a protest and decided to wait one more year to see if we could work out an agreement.
I note that Cantor told the press that there were 150 in attendance at his fund raiser. If that is an accurate number then we had more in attendance than he did. If they had been allowed to attend Rep. Cantor’s festivities I have to wonder how that would have impacted the money he raised.
I question the assumption being made here – that in order to be “pro-gun” you have to go out of your way to accommodate a small minority of gun owners who want to carry guns with them 24/7 (whether it’s a concert, a school, a day care center, whatever). I don’t agree with that at all. The issue is far bigger than that, and VCDL does not speak for all gun owners.
Julie: I’m a retired police officer. You ask why folks feel the need to be armed everytime they walk out the door. I’m sure that there are many women who walked out their doors on the last day of their lives, before being raped and murdered, who felt the same way. The same for the countless victims of violent crime who never expected to be put in that tragic situation.
Do you think those women and others would have given ANYTHING to have the means to defend themselves against their attackers? I’d bet the answer is yes. And for those who say a gun is useless for defense, I ask, if it’s so useless for you, why is it so effective for the criminal? This theory that you can’t effectivly use a firearm against a criminal is BS. Let me say it again. it’s BS.
You never know when or where criminals will strike. Carrying a gun is like having an insurance policy on your house. You don’t expect your house to burn down, but if it does you’re very glad you had that insurance. Same with a gun. You never expect to use it, but if you’re ever put in a life threatening situation you’ll be very glad you had it.
VCDL to my knowledge has never “picked a fight” but will step into the breach to right a wrong while others ignore the problem. People that bury their heads in the sand and suggest that guns only be carried when the need is anticipated scare me – if I actually anticipated the need, I would avoid that location.
The point and only point is that 7th district Republican committee has repeatedly ignored/rebuffed gun owners wishes to be included in this event with the empty excuse that Snagajob pavilion was the only suitable location – in spite of the fact that others were offered and there were those willing to pay for any extra cost.
The most telling words of all were heard from the lips (paraphrased) of a principle speaker: “You will see protesters out there, DO NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THEM.” To insult and ignore such a large bloc of voters sounds more than foolish to me.
@Julie. The constitution is not a large document. Compare it to the proposed health care bill (at lats count 1,012 pages) and it is the supreme law of the land. Some mentioned that the founders didn’t carry their guns with them unless there was a need. You don’t know when there will be a need, which is why Massachusetts (yes, Massachusetts) law used to require men to bring a gun to church! And if I carry a gun, I have no need to be paranoid. Rather, someone who is afraid of a lawabiding citizen carrying for their and others protection is the one who is paranoid. I grew up in Virginia and now live in Arizona, where open and concealed carry are both legal, just as in Va. I am a life member of the AzCDL and fully support our sister orginization there in Va.
For Julie. It is not that we are paranoid, or even remotely obsessing on the fact that we MIGHT need a firearm for our own protection. To simply put it, it is for anyones protection. I myself would gladly put myself in harms way to defend someone elses life. Why? It is my duty, my obligation as an armed American. There may not always be a policeman around. Also, they have no obligation to protect ANY individual citizen. Some might still say there is a one in a million chance that some phsyco will attack me. My response is, to quote Benjamin Franklin, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Also, yes, there are people out there that carry weapons, open or concealed that have no business doing so. BUT, there are a heck of alot more that can stop those types. Anyways, back to the story at hand. It is not that the VCDL is against the owners of private property not allowing firearms on their premesis. It is because Republicans are most known for their siding WITH the Second Amendment and should reasonably agree to move their venue to a PRO- gun site. I’m sure they have their own reasons, BUT they should make them known to their constituents. That’s all I’ve got to say about that.
Oh my. What a mess. I think I see something in this story that everyone has missed. What the republicans are saying is that we do not wish to have a party where booze is drunk in quantity and guns in everyones pocket. While I personally do not quite agree with this I can understand it. However we must look at it from all angles possible. Some normally good people should not have a gun handy while drinking. I SAID SOME! Most people can and will cope. Even though they have create for themselves a gun free zone by staying in that zone instead of moveing, it is more likely that a person armed and having had too much to drink will lose his or her temper over something and do something they never would do otherwise than to be invaded by terrorist types or simply some deranged individual with a grudge against something. So while I am inclined to disagree with the people doing this i can understand their reasoning and respect it. This other group I can also not quite agree with. Both sides of the issue are denying the others right to free choice. This is the same thing as declaring a college a gun free zone. According to the polls this is not what the majourity wants. In this country, the majourity is not really supposed to rule. The majourity must also, to a small extent, respect the others viewpoint. TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. This is part of civility.
in our country right now, our employees think they are our rulers. NOT!!! If we do not slap them back and or fire them we will lose our country and we will do it in the next year. Pay attention! Forget this petty stuff. our enemies are enjoying our infatuation of petty matters while the big stuff gets ignored. Stuff like the nationalizing of our banking system, auto industry, and soon health care. Treaties about to be signed that will destroy our freedoms completely and forever. A so called president that seems to wish to be our furer. A very racist black man who apologizes to our enemies and bows to our supposed friends that are in reality our enemies. A man who wishes everyone to be addressed not as MR> OR MRS> but as Comrad. think about it.
WOW @Calrance (sic) Lee Cline I sure hope you don’t own a gun.
Freedom Rally Report…
The Freedom Rally held outside of Richmond Saturday went well. It was hard to get an accurate count because we were so spread out and people were coming and going throughout the course of the afternoon and evening, but, from my wanderings and taking…
I have to agree with Dave on his statement, you don’t get fire insurence expecting your’e house to “burn-down” you get it incase it does. The same with having a gun 24/7. You have it in case some loonnetick targets YOU. As for the republicans responsable for holding this event where people who like to carry their gun “24/7″ as some have stated, have no real intrest in protecting your’e rights, they just want your’e votes so they can continue collecting those big fat pay checks that your’e tax-dollers supply. I say it’s time we vote out all these democRATS & repubTARDS, and start sending the message that they work for us and not the other way around as they seem to think. As for the people who want to call supporters of the 2nd amendment GUN nuts I have one thing to say “MOVE TO CUBA” and let fiedel protect you the way he protects his people, get the picture. AMERICA love it or leave it the choice is up to you, but don’t infring on the rights of those of us who believe in being free. The bill of rights belong to all of us not just the ones who want to pick and chose which ones they like and disreguard the rest. As far as I’m concerned wev’e already lost enough of our rights and it’s time to say enough is enough QUIT TAMPERING and TRAMPLEING our CONSTITUTION
and our “GOD” given rights as American citizens. It’s not just about guns it’s about freedom
as-well, and for those of you who would give -up your’e freedom for security deserve neither.
After all if you don’t believe in gun ownership, thats your’e right, but don’t infring on mine, if I
choose too. Thats what makes this country great we have the choice to own or not to own,
not make someones mind-up for them. “DON’T TREAD ON ME” remember that. or shall not
be INFRINGED it’s all in there and that’s what these PUBLIC SERVENTS have forgottin.
“WAKE UP AMERICA YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE A ****.
Whoa @Ron 1212. Another good argument for why someone who should not have a gun. You are a mad person. Why are you shouting? And don’t you have spell check?
@Clarance – Va law prohibits those carrying guns (openly or concealed) from being under the influence of alcohol. We VCDL members did not want to attend the Republican Roundup to drink, but to associate with Republicans at a fundraising event where we might have the opportunity to add our comments to theirs as they raised funds for Cong. Cantor and other Republicans in the 7th District. Because alcohol was being served under the auspices of an ABC Board license those who would have been there carrying firearms would not be allowed, again by Va law, to carry concealed. That fact is one of the legislative issues VCDL members would like to see addressed in the next General Assembly session, and members of the Republican Party are the ones most likely to introduce and support legislation addressing that issue.
However, after five (5) long years of being stopped at the door, VCDL decided it was time to ask the question: is booze and the Snag-A-Job Pavillion more important than those who you have historically referred to as your most ardent supporters? Well, the 7th District Republican Committee answered lound and clear on Saturday, October 17, 2009. The answer was – booze and the Snag-A-Job Pavillion.
So much for the old saw about smoke-filled back rooms. It looks more like booze-filled meadows are the places where deals are struck and decisions made about who will or will not be represented by the Republican Party.
Hey pETE; Mr. Cline probably dosn’t own a GUN he probably owns more than one and good for him, he makes up a malita all by himself and we need more people like HIM and fewer like
YOU. I hope you know how to say hiel oBAMA, because that’s where wer’e heading with this clown, or what ever tyrent dictater takes over when he sells us to the U.N. But I’m sure you won’t mind you KOOL-AID drinking FOOL.Don’t you get it it’s not ABOUT GUN CONTROL it’s about PEOPLE CONTROL I’E. you and me. Weather you like guns or not that’s not the point we have rights in this country and I’ll respect your’e right not to own a gun if that’s your’e choice, but you should respect my right if I choose to own one, notice I said you should respect my right, not you have to respect mine. See how that works we don’t tell each other how to live, we just live. But for some reason or another some people want to give up their
rights and they don’t mind giving up mine in the proccess. That’s where I say if you want
government control, MOVE TO CUBA. Like the old saying “AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEVE IT”.
I was trying to be nice pETERHEAD but you are an azs wipe
Democrats want the USA to do the same thing like the Libs did in Washington DC, where only the thugs and criminals have guns. The law abiding citizens can’t defend themselves!
IF YOU WERE TO APPLY COMMONSENSE TO THIS DEBATE Y’ALL WOULD UNDERSTAND,ITS ALL VERY CLEAR AND IN ENGLISH.
A history of the VCDL’s multiple requests that Eric Cantor move the venue of the Roundup may add some light for those who are confused over our motives: http://www.vcdl.org/static/innsbrook.html
I’m not a gun owner but I certainly believe in the 2nd Amendment. I know that Eric Cantor has held quite a few “Roundups” in Innsbrook, some, probably most, before Snag-A-Job owned the property. Do you honestly think that the major reason this site was chosen this time as it has been in the past was to deny gun owners the right to participate? If it was important to gun owners to participate in this meeting, why couldn’t they attend without carrying their guns to this particular event? I know, I know, gun owners believe they should be able to take their guns anywhere and everywhere they go. I get that. Ontheissues.org reports that, “Cantor scores A by NRA on pro-gun rights policies.” Everybody take a step back and put this in perspective…and while you’re at it, take a minute to check out what the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue’s stance is on the 2nd Amendment. Maybe that’s where the focus of everyone’s ire on this issue should be directed.
“…apparently drinking is more important than the Constitution to Eric Cantor.” Love it. I think the Constitution would win over drinking for me personally, but drinking would definitely beat guns. Get over it gun people, if you must be able to kill someone instantly at all times, just watch the show from outside the gates with the people who can’t afford $10 to get in.
For all of you that just don’t get it – imagine if the 7th District Committee and Eric Cantor, who support the First Amendment as much as they support the second, decided to hold the Republican Roundup at a convenient and cost-effective location that did not allow Catholics, or Muslims, or Jews? Or at a convenient and cost-effective location that did not allow blogging? Or taking photographs? Or required you to submit potential comments in writing and in advance for approval by the site owners? Would any of those private-property owner imposed limitations bother you? Would you be bothered by the fact that the 7th District Republican Committee and Eric Cantor chose that site 4 years in a row – when they knew of those private property owner imposed restrictions all those years – continued to choose that site because it was “convenient” and “cost effective”?
Hey! What’s so bothersome about giving up one little Constitutional right in order to show your support of a political candidate or three or four who say they support your Constitutional rights? It’s only for an afternoon – year after year after year after year. What’s the big deal? We know that after the Round-Up we can go back to exercising our Constitutional rights elsewhere! And it’s not the 7th District Commitee’s fault, or Eric Cantor’s fault, that the private property owner is the one who decided you cannot exercise your Constitutional right on their property.
And that one location is the ONLY ONE that is convenient, and cost-effective, and has parking, and can get an Alcohol Control Board event license, in the entire 7th Congressional District. And we know because the 7th District Committee has conducted an exhaustive search – NOT! – for an alternative site that will allow people coming to the Round-Up to exercise all of their Constitutional rights.
But no, you apologists want to focus on guns instead of rights.
Looking at some of these comments, I wonder why VCDL members would possibly think Virginia residents would want them armed and near them or their families. Let’s keep in mind, too, that you can have a misdemeanor criminal record (and mental health issues) and get a concealed handgun permit in Virginia. Finally, the prospect of Phil Van Cleave being raped at the Republican Round-Up is as disturbing as it is laughable.
For Tommy, Melissa, and Julie: it is because of our love for our feliow man that we carry our firearms continually. If you’ll allow me; I’ll say that another way: it is because we love you that we are willing to arm ourselves and be the deterrent to criminal activity that would readily prey upon you if we were all unarmed. For they; the criminal element; would not deprive themselves of the similar means to exploit your disadvantage; and if you have any question about that; just ask the families of the victims of that element for those testimonies.
Let me encourage you; read Dave the former active duty police officer’s comments and understand them fully. It is because we love you that we are also willing to put ourselves in harms way to alleviate the tragic circumstances that could befall you and your loved ones, if no one was armed. You entirely mis-understand, if you think we carry only for ourselves. No; we also carry for you.
For greater love has no man than this; that a man would lay down his life for his friend.
God bless.
Why is it so difficult for some folks to see that this is about PRINCIPLE? It is about action speaking louder than words.
I don’t care if a property owner chooses to excercise their right to deny firearms. I will simply excercise my right to do business elsewhere. However, this isn’t about the property owners, it is about our representatives!
What I care about, again, is simply PRINCIPLE. The GOP in that area has been made aware, year after year, that they are offending voters who would normally support them. In this particular case, they actually managed to offend more voters OUTSIDE their chosen venue than those who attended. My question – Why? If the numbers present represent percentages of constituents, shouldn’t the party reconsider? After all, they are supposed to be of the people, by the people and FOR the people. These numbers tell me that the overwhelming percentage of constituents are in favor of a venue that recognizes our rights. Why is it so difficult to meet that request?
For those that still question the need to carry at a Republican function, I refer you back to the word Principle. You may not feel a need to carry when or where I do, but I acknowledge that you have the right to leave your gun at home if you want to. I just ask that you acknowledge my right NOT to leave mine at home, since I am granted that right. We are BOTH granted that right by the 2nd Amendment and I believe in the “…not be infringed.” part. The fact that you CHOOSE not to excercise that right at all times does not mean that I am somehow mentally defective because I CHOOSE to excercise it to the greatest extent possible.
Jeff W., thank you for the love, and God Bless you, too. Dave, I see your point, and I thank you. I am not retired, but I’ve lived for almost 1/2 a century and have never needed to be defended with a gun. For that I am very thankful.
It is my choice and my right to not carry a gun. It’s not that I didn’t grow up with guns, have never shot a gun, or know people who carry guns. I have all of those things. I’ve been hunting, I’ve been skeet shooting, I believe in the right to carry a firearm. However, I feel like guns shouldn’t be everywhere I go, because I’m not carrying. it isn’t a good way to solve disputes, in my opinion.
I would not be comfortable in a venue where I know everyone is packing. I don’t know who the good guys are or who the bad guys are. I just know if no one there has a gun, it’s a lot less likely anyone will be killed.
I concur with Julie. I appreciate your thoughtful comments about love, Jeff W., but then I look above and see Pete being called an “azs wipe” when he objects to an angry rant about carrying a gun 24/7. I think the bottom line here is that you are not loving anyone when you refuse to respect their views on this issue when they differ from yours. You might think it’s a safer environment when everyone in a room (non-law enforcement) is carrying a loaded handgun. Others might – legitimately – feel differently and be very uncomfortable about that prospect. Finally, regarding victims of gun violence, I’ve always found that they are the last people to argue for freer access to guns, the families from the Virginia Tech and Appalachian Law School shootings being an obvious example.
Thank you, too, Julie; for your comments. The good guys are the guys who lay down their lives for you; from seemingly small insignificant ways; to much larger personal sacrifices that usually are quite unexpected.
The bad guys are the ones who abuse you; from deceptive smiling faces sometimes; hiding poised-to-strike-at-your-vulnerabilities schemes; to blatant cold callous calculating extreme indifference for any minute portion of your life soulless men. Avoid these guys at all costs; and if by happenstance you are incidentally exposed to one of them in an adverse confrontation; I pray for Providence to provide a good guy to your defense.
Thank you again for your kind expressions; God bless!
Tommy, I totally agree; and perhaps seemingly gave the wrong impression if you understood me to presume upon anyone’s choice to not carry; or when empowered lawfully; to deny me or anyone else carry in or at any particular venue. I totally respect that choice, and right. I would not presume upon anyone that which I would not want anyone to presume upon me. Do unto others, right?
For this particular occasion, there was a peaceful protest of the 7th District Republican Committee’s decision on holding their event at a place of gathering that is an affront to those of us who carry. It is simply because we believe that even though the Party has identified as a plank of their platform an item we believe to be of national security; that is; an unalienable right, the Second Amendment, that which we hold dear (and again, not only for our own sakes; but for all; and our posterity); and has solicited our support of them as a result; we now wonder if they are capitulating their support of us because of their behavior of holding their gathering at the aforementioned place; not allowing a debate or more than reasonable ageeable alternative, and perhaps even as much as marginalizing us in the process.
However, even having said all that; I understand that it is our affinity to emote this way; and that some might not be so passionately inclined; I respect that. We are simply trying to ensure that our voices are heard.
Even so; the love for you still stands sure; as I believe that is an unalienable right as well.
I can’t even in the minutest way imagine the horror that the VT families have suffered (though I lost a sister to drowning at age 8; and a father to aneurysm at age 11); and hope never to experience the same in my own family. However; I can’t help but wonder that the families would never have become a part of this debate, had carry been allowed in that carryless venue.
God bless.
Gosh. Republicans are so unintelligent sometimes… Thank you for really representing your party! What exactly are you protesting? The right to not have common sense but still have the right to own a pistol in public? Where Eric Cantor chooses where to have his “Republican Roundup” is his business. Not yours! Also, would you have any problems if he decided to host it at a local school? If yes, then you have mental issues and don’t deserve to own a gun in the first place. This is just another example of right wing idiots at their finest, protesting about another pointless argument. At least this protest isn’t about something more meaningful, like oh I don’t know, maybe the President. Seriously, thank you for representing your “fine gun owning selves.” I would not want you around my children if you idiots think you have the right to carry a gun anywhere, even if that includes a school…
@ Jeff. Oh yes. “I can’t even in the minutest way imagine the horror that the VT families have suffered (though I lost a sister to drowning at age 8; and a father to aneurysm at age 11); and hope never to experience the same in my own family. However; I can’t help but wonder that the families would never have become a part of this debate, had carry been allowed in that carryless venue.”
ARE YOU SERIOUS!? Oh yes. That’s the answer to our kids safety. Imagine a world where DRUNK FRAT BOYS are allowed to carry GUNS! People, really? Again. You pro-gun supporters sometimes take things a little too far…