Comments on: State’s Largest Gun Rights Group Protests Innsbrook Republican Rally http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/ The Official Guide To Richmond's Far West End Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:48:28 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mark http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/comment-page-2/#comment-14845 Mark Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:10:16 +0000 http://www.downtownshortpump.com/?p=2355#comment-14845 @ 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…

Reply | Quote
]]> By: Mark http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/comment-page-2/#comment-14844 Mark Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:05:58 +0000 http://www.downtownshortpump.com/?p=2355#comment-14844 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...<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('14844','Mark'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('14844','Mark','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...'); return false;">Quote</a></div> 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…
Reply | Quote
]]> By: Jeff W. http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/comment-page-2/#comment-11221 Jeff W. Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:14:01 +0000 http://www.downtownshortpump.com/?p=2355#comment-11221 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.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('11221','Jeff W.'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('11221','Jeff W.','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?\r\n\r\nFor 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.\r\n\r\nHowever, 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.\r\n\r\nEven so; the love for you still stands sure; as I believe that is an unalienable right as well. :-)\r\n\r\nI 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.\r\n\r\nGod bless.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> 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.

Reply | Quote
]]> By: Jeff W. http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/comment-page-2/#comment-11218 Jeff W. Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:31:43 +0000 http://www.downtownshortpump.com/?p=2355#comment-11218 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!<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('11218','Jeff W.'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('11218','Jeff W.','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. :-)\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nThank you again for your kind expressions; God bless!'); return false;">Quote</a></div> 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!

Reply | Quote
]]> By: Tommy http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/comment-page-2/#comment-10951 Tommy Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:14:41 +0000 http://www.downtownshortpump.com/?p=2355#comment-10951 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.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('10951','Tommy'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('10951','Tommy','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.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> 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.
Reply | Quote
]]> By: Julie http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/comment-page-2/#comment-10950 Julie Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:45:49 +0000 http://www.downtownshortpump.com/?p=2355#comment-10950 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.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('10950','Julie'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('10950','Julie','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.\r\n\r\nIt 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. \r\n\r\nI 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.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> 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.

Reply | Quote
]]> By: Michael Guyer http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/comment-page-1/#comment-10946 Michael Guyer Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:03 +0000 http://www.downtownshortpump.com/?p=2355#comment-10946 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.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('10946','Michael Guyer'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('10946','Michael Guyer','Why is it so difficult for some folks to see that this is about PRINCIPLE? It is about action speaking louder than words.\r\n 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!\r\n 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?\r\n 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.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> 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.
Reply | Quote
]]> By: Jeff W. http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/comment-page-1/#comment-10928 Jeff W. Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:50:54 +0000 http://www.downtownshortpump.com/?p=2355#comment-10928 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.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('10928','Jeff W.'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('10928','Jeff W.','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. \r\n\r\nLet 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. \r\n\r\nFor greater love has no man than this; that a man would lay down his life for his friend. \r\n\r\nGod bless.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> 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.

Reply | Quote
]]> By: Tommy http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/comment-page-1/#comment-10919 Tommy Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:11:38 +0000 http://www.downtownshortpump.com/?p=2355#comment-10919 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.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('10919','Tommy'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('10919','Tommy','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.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> 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.
Reply | Quote
]]> By: Paul http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/18/states-largest-gun-rights-group-protests-innsbrook-republican-rally/comment-page-1/#comment-10904 Paul Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:46:36 +0000 http://www.downtownshortpump.com/?p=2355#comment-10904 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.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('10904','Paul'); return false;">Reply</a> | <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('10904','Paul','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\"?\r\n\r\nHey! 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.\r\n\r\nAnd 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.\r\n\r\nBut no, you apologists want to focus on guns instead of rights.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> 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.

Reply | Quote
]]>