Defensive Carry banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Please join us if you can.

dave

PS: Also please send to your friends who might be able to attend and post on any other RKBA forum, on which you are active.

From VA-ALERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Stanton with Students For Concealed Carry on Campus at Virginia Tech just sent me [PHILIP VAN CLEAVE -- PRESIDENT VCDL] this urgent email:


Dear Fellow Protectors of Freedom -

Our self-defense rights are under fire here at Virginia Tech, and we're asking for your help in protecting them. The "Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention" is holding its first event of the semester, and they are making it clear that their idea of preventing violence is achieved by disarming good people. The event involves a screening of ABC's horribly-biased 20/20 special "If I Only Had a Gun" (see critiques at the end of this letter) followed by a panel discussion with Q&A - and of course, the panel is loaded with anti-gun folks. [PHILIP VAN CLEAVE -- PRESIDENT VCDL: They are ALL anti-gun - Josh Horowitz, Andrew Goddard, Lori Haas, and Omar Samaha. Leave it to the antis to be dishonest by loading the entire "panel" with those who agree with only one side.]

So, since the show is biased and the panel is loaded, in response we need to load the audience with people who understand and respect the right to bear arms and the right of self-defense. I understand this is short notice, but since we just learned of the event, we too are having to make adjustments to attend. If you can make time on Thursday night for this, here's what we need people to do:

1) Expert Speakers -- If you are a CHP instructor, police officer, lawyer, author, or otherwise trained and knowledgeable supporter of Second Amendment rights and issues, we need you to speak up and engage the biased "panel" that they have arranged.

2) Audience Supporters -- They claim they already have 50 attendees to their event that aims to disarm everyone in the name of "peace and non- violence" - we need to greatly outnumber them and show that the large majority of Americans support the right to bear arms. We need you to listen to the discussion and applaud for those statements that you support. Please email us quickly to let us know you're coming ([email protected] ).

3) Helpers and Coordinators -- Since we expect a lot of people will come to the event who are unfamiliar with the campus, we are asking people to coordinate and carpool if possible to help everyone find their way around. Also, we may need people to help hand out information and direct people to the event at Squires Student Center.

Event info:Thursday, Sept 24th 7-9pm (please arrive 30-60 min early to ensure good seating)Haymarket Theatre, in Squires Student Center on Virginia Tech campus (Event Services - Ticket Office | University Unions & Student Activities | Virginia Tech )Open to the public, respectful attire requested, 500 seats available, and handicapped accessibleAlso see the attached brochure on event

Event host: "The Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention" and "Students for Non-Violence"http://www.cpsvp.vt.edu/index.html - Note that nowhere in their goals and mission do they talk about guns - are they trying to hide this part of their agenda, but it's coming out in their first major event? A few of us attended their first meeting, as we were interested in the organization, but they directly attacked our group while we were in the room saying that we wanted to "give out guns to unstable students" - what a lie! [PHILIP VAN CLEAVE -- PRESIDENT VCDL: Anti-gunners lying with a straight face? I'm shocked.]

Notwithstanding, if you attend, please be respectful of everyone regardless of whether or not they agree with you. Make points succinctly and clearly, be respectful and courteous, and let them be the ones to lose their cool when they see how that their objectives are based on false premises [PHILIP VAN CLEAVE -- PRESIDENT VCDL: No sweat - VCDL members have that down to an art form.]; keep your cool just like you do when you are carrying. Also, remember that we all have the same goal - to make the world a safer place - we just disagree on how it should be done. We are just going to show that our side has a lot more support and reason behind it! [PHILIP VAN CLEAVE -- PRESIDENT VCDL: Ken is being overly generous. Their real goal is not about safety, but dictating and controlling the lives of others. Their trickery in setting up this loaded "panel" discussion is absolute proof of that.]

We hope to see you there, please bring others along with you, and send any questions, comments, and RSVP's to [email protected]. Also, please forward this message to other supporters right now - we need everyone! This event is BIG so please make arrangements to make it out – our rights are under attack yet again.

Ken StantonVice President of Leadership and FounderAlyson BoycePresident and Campus LeaderStudents for Concealed Carry on Campus at Virginia Techwww.sccc.org.vt.eduhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Students-for-Concealed-Carry-on-Campus-at-Virginia-Tech/127977409312

More information:Some critiques of the ABC 20/20 Special:http://www.examiner.com/x-2323-LA-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d11-If-I- Only-Had-A-Gun-misfires-for-2020-when-they-cannot-stay-on-topichttp://thepatriotbyte.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-seeing-clearly-2020s-gun-hit-piece.htmlhttp://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights- Examiner~y2009m4d13-Myths-of-armed-selfdefense-If-I-only-hadthe-truth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
"Peace activists" LOL. The left is sure adept at conceiving nice sounding names and mottos that really mean the opposite of what they are pushing. I'd attend, but I'll be vacationing in the Peoples Democratic Republic of North Korea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
As a Va. Tech alimni I would love to be there, however, I live in SC and can.t make it, please try and keep us up to date on this event. Thanks for posting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,177 Posts
I hope you guys can get the numbers,the only problem is the panel will probably shoot down your replys and probably only call on people in the audience they have planted to ask questions.Nothing like a prearranged Q&A they have scripted
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Good luck with the meeting. I wouldnt expect they would let anyone from SCCC on the panel because they are afraid of not controling the situation
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
441 Posts
I have forwarded it to Dr. Piazza at Front Sight and to Gun Owners of America and to other Pro 2A people/ organizations.

I wish I were able to attend. These "people' plan this stuff out for probably weeks in advance and then let their opposition know about it with just days/hours notice.

That is just slime, it also shows the cowardice and lack of substance that they themselves hold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
As a VT alum I'd like to attend as well, but I have an appointment Thursday evening. I hope those able to attend are heard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Good Pro-RKBA showing.

Well, it went well -- albeit:

No pro-RKBA members of the panel

The TV coverage was a hatchet job, on the two stations that I taped

I doubt if anyone changed their mind.

However,

- The crowd was very small considering 30,000+ full-time students (a fairly small auditorium, less that half full)

- about half that audience wore blaze orange "Guns Save Lives" button/stickers and were respectful and presented themselves quite well

- the vast majority of the Qs in the Q&A were from people wearing blaze orange "Guns Save Lives" button/stickers

- the questions were hard and for the most part well articulated

- the "loaded" panel showed frustration that it wasn't a anti-RKBA love fest

- the moderator got more frustrated

- the "head" of the "Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention" got frustrated enough to intervene and take over the mike for a long ramble of hopeful wishing.

IMHO, "Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention" now know they do not have a bully pulpit to hype their agenda. :danceban:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Congratulations on the event. Sounds like it was a success.

IMHO, "Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention" now know they do not have a bully pulpit to hype their agenda.
Dave:

You know, the prevention of violence (against me and mine) is exactly the goal I have each and every time I reach for my life-saving gear. Never once have I wished violence upon anyone, while carrying the means of defending against violent attack.

I'd be willing to bet that the primary goal of nearly all CHL carriers is to avoid such violence.

If this organization's goal is truly about violence prevention, then we're all on the same side of that debate, all in agreement that violence is best prevented.

They simply need to realize that disarmament of potential victims won't ever ensure victimless crimes. It'll only ensure defenseless victims, which itself will only ensure increased violence against those victims.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
I'd be willing to bet that the primary goal of nearly all CHL carriers is to avoid such violence.

If this organization's goal is truly about violence prevention, then we're all on the same side of that debate, all in agreement that violence is best prevented. [emphases added]
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Absolutely

However, one panel member is openly against any form of gun ownership. In her closing remarks, she laid her goal for this presentation on the table, figuratively. She made a pitch to rally students at VT to vote against the local State Senator who is on record that he votes the way the majority of his constituency wants -- e.g., pro-RKBA. This whole issue of students voting against the local residence is a touchy one.

Two claim to be pro-RKBA arms "w/ reasonable restrictions." However, in their panel presentations last night (and in their presentations to the State Legislators, which I have set though, before) their real agenda creeps out. Their goal is much like Washington DC, e.g., a very limited range of firearms kept in the home, only. When pushed for carry outside the home, they come back to maybe w/ ongoing/repetitive training/proficiency mandates that would rival SWATs regimens. They ignore/deny knowledge of FBI studies showing most LEOs do not have that level of training/proficiency (which the 20/20 show that started the presentation ignores, also).

The forth panel member, is a lawyer/book author, who is very slick at deflecting questions and even more slick at gratuitous analogies and useing rhetorical question to deflect the questions ask him (e.g., The right to vote is a right also, but it isn't exercised anytime/any place/any how each individual wants....) BTW, that's one he really likes.


They simply need to realize that disarmament of potential victims won't ever ensure victimless crimes. It'll only ensure defenseless victims, which itself will only ensure increased violence against those victims.
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Again ABSOLUTELY
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
50,603 Posts
Congrats on the efforts, and I agree...probably not many minds were changed...:22a:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Control

A friend, who was there also, just called and made an observation, which I had not put into word and which I thought I'd share.

"If you ever need evidence that the gun control crowd is about "control" as much as it's about "guns", last night was a dozy. That woman's [the moderator's] time enforcement [un-even] was bad enough, but when that guy [the "head" of the "Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention"] took over the microphone -- that iced it."

Or words very close to that.

:congrats: to my friend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
"Peace Studies"...?

For a "study in peace" look at anybody who successfully used a firearm to quash an attempted rape, mugging, carjacking, home invasion, robbery, etc., etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
"Peace Studies"...?

For a "study in peace" look at anybody who successfully used a firearm to quash an attempted rape, mugging, carjacking, home invasion, robbery, etc., etc.
:yup:

Any study of peace and non-violence must also consider such actions from the viewpoint of the potential victim in violent encounters. The victim is, of course, the person with the most to gain by stopping the violence at that instant. In fact, the stopping of the violence being perpetrated against the victim via whatever means necessary is NOT itself violence. Rather, it is the cessation of violence.

Any "study" that utterly ignores this entire class of people as peaceful people demanding to be treated non-violently isn't worth spit.

You can deal with me in two ways: in peace, or via force. I refuse to be dealt with via force. That you choose to see my refusal as "violence" is your problem; the refusal, itself, is my problem. I can live with that. Can you?


Marko Kloos says it well in Reason Vs. Force:
Reason Vs. Force

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the muggers potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top