I never really liked Ali Velshi, specifically because he never allows anyone to finish their point before jumping in with another question or trying to throw them off. But Philip seems to hold his own and come off as a well spoken and intelligent person with a valid opinion. The interview comes on the heels of the VCDL’s protests across campuses in the Commonwealth to raise awareness for campus carry efforts and in the wake of a murder suicide at Virginia Tech involving a law enforcement officer who was killed in the line of duty. One thing is for sure — people are starting to talk about this issue all across the nation.
Home Concealed Carry CNN interviews Virginia Citizens Defense League’s Philip Van Cleave about Carry on...
I liked it.
Ali Velshi seems to think that just because you are going to college, you immediately become a irresponsible and forgetful drunkard. Not everyone going to college is young and stupid, lots of people are going back to get certifications and/or change their career.
Also, what is up with his whole “responsible” series of questions? How could you ever prove whether someone was irresponsible beforehand? That is one of those human social qualities that is not tangible or legally provable in any way. Either that person is responsible and doesn’t do stupid shit, or they do and pay for it. If someone has a clear record, goes through the CHL permit process, and is approved, that is more than enough for me. If they screw up, the consequences would be just as bad for them on campus as off.
I don’t know why the MSM is so anti-gun, to me it makes them look like a bunch of idiots that ask questions that are solely meant to trip you up and bear no relevance to the actual topic at hand.
I think it comes from ignorance. Most of them are completely unfamiliar with guns and it’s a common thing to fear what you don’t understand. So they see guns as being dangerous items that exist for the sole purpose of killing.
I agree that Van Cleave did s nice job. He didn’t get all amped up and deflected Ali’s point about “responsibility” quite nicely. Came across as a good guy making solid points; perfect!
Mr. Van Cleave could have said something like, “Well, just going through the process of getting a concealed carry permit shows a certain degree of responsibility. Criminals do not bother to get a permit before they start carrying guns. There are also certain criteria that must be met (including a background check) before a carry permit gets approved.”
The interviewer said, “I’m not trying to make a point.” Then he continued making the point that college students are irresponsible. What a biased hypocrite!
I think Van Cleave also missed an important response to the main point the interviewer kept harping on: Even if we concede that there might be a higher incidence of recklessness in general among college kids, we have to weigh the risk that they might misuse a firearm against the current risk of students not being able to defend themselves. With a little statistics gathering I’m sure the answer is clear where the most risk lies.
What a dick. Reminds me why I haven’t watched CNN in years.
To borrow a tagline from the old “Lone Ranger” flicks:
“Who was that bespectacled douchebag?”
Keep in mind, though, that college students are *trained* to be irresponsible. Everything about the college experience is designed to *relieve* students of responsibilities. Dorms exist so that students don’t need take responsibility for paying rent or utilities. Cafeterias exist so they don’t need to worry about groceries. Fees for all sorts of services (gym memberships, health insurance, etc) are included in the tuition bill, so students don’t need be responsible for making decisions about those things. And payment on the tuition itself is often deferred until after graduation.
Ostensibly, all this is so students can focus on their studies. So they aren’t held responsible for *anything* except their performance in class. Of course, since they naturally become completely irresponsible in all other areas of their life, that irresponsibility naturally impacts their coursework as well. And instructors can’t do anything about it unless they fail half the class, which isn’t really an option as it’s tantamount to firing yourself.
You see, the university is really a mini nanny-state. And college students… see where I’m going with this? The real problem isn’t guns, it’s that colleges are doing their best to make sure students are unfit to handle them. And that’s not gonna change any time soon.
I teach at a university and would love to be able to carry on campus. I think a good compromise would be to allow campus carry, but also to allow universities to ban guns in dorms. Who knows? Maybe then the students staying in dorms would start to think that there might be advantages to *not* being a ward of the state. I mean, the university.
How many CCW-eligible students live in the dorms? Since you generally have to be 21 for a CCW, I doubt you’ll find a lot of that age group living in those closet-sized rabbit-boxes.
I particularly liked his point about theory vs. real world results. Someone should buy this guy a beer for remaining so calm in the face of a man trying to get a rise out of him.
Van Cleave did well holding his own and making Velshi eventually come across as the guy trying to force a point for the sake of forcing it. I do wish he would made a better point that while Velshi was correct that permit requirements may not be able to make a distinction between potentially irresponsible individuals and proven upright citizens, campus carry bans make a very important distinction in that the legally authorized carriers care about the bans, while those bent on shooting innocents don’t.
Applying oneself sufficiently enough to get into college exhibits a degree of personal responsibility in and of itself. And, as another poster opined, so does the act of obtaining a permit — which is not granted unless responsible gun handling has been demonstrated via a certificate of training, as well as demonstration of a responsible past behavior via a background check.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees that the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. And, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that it is “an individual right.”
So what part of “bear arms” is unclear? And, what part of “infringe” is unclear?
Just because most campuses are typically bastions of liberal-left, anti-American ideology does not mean that the Constitution does not apply at Universities — no matter how much the Constitution seems to be despised by a super-majority of most faculties.
Conversely, where in the Constitution does it give them the right to put my life or my child’s life at risk by stripping us of our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by illegally depriving us of our Constitutionally guaranteed right to defend the same?
Comments are closed.