Reston Group Will Protest at NRA Friday

Reston-Herndon Committee Against Gun Violence formed in response to Newtown shootings.

A group of Reston-area residents is joining together to oppose gun violence.

The newly formed Reston-Herndon Committee Against Gun Violence will protest at 9:30 a.m. Friday at the Fairfax headquarters of the National Rifle Association, 11250 Waples Mills Rd. 

"The committee was formed in response to the dreadful violence in Newtown, Ct., and in support of President Obama's commitment to reduce the mass murders associated with gun violence," says co-founder Joanna Simon.

"I have grandchildren the age of the children in Newtown," Simon said. "I have always been against gun violence, but this really hit home."

The group plans to dress in black and carry signs that deliver facts about the terrible toll gun violence has taken in this country, Simon said.

Members of the group attended the Saturday Million Moms March against Gun Violence in Washington, DC. They are also focused on signing petitions supporting the current legislation against gun violence, both nationally and in Virginia.

"The members feel that the probability of success is highest at the Federal level, though we will be working at the state level as well," Simon said. She says the group supports the Constitution's Second Amendment, but feels regulation of guns is within constitutional limits.

Want to get involved? Contact Joanna.simon@verizon.net or Sally Brodsky horwatt@aol.com

More on recent gun control debate:

Howell-sponsored gun show loophole bill dies in Virginia senate committee

Del. Ken Plum on Virginia gun laws

Sen. Mark Warner on national gun laws

Vice President  Joe Biden in Richmond to dicuss guns

DGeorge January 29, 2013 at 02:55 PM
I suppose they would prefer that this lady was raped and killed. Even the anti gun Clintons agree that 1.5 million people defend themselves annually. A woman in her early 50s was getting out of the shower when the bathroom lights suddenly went out. An intruder collided into her in the dark, causing her to fall backward into the shower and injure her back. She fought the man, but he put a knife to her throat. “She was telling him that she has money and please don’t hurt her,” said Police Cpl. Edwin Ritter, adding that the attack was an attempted sexual assault. The intruder forced the woman into her bedroom, but that’s exactly where she kept her .22-cal. pistol. She broke free, retrieved the gun and shot her would-be rapist several times. He ran outside, collapsed and died. “Thank God she’s okay and she had a weapon to protect herself with,” said a neighbor. “She’s a nice lady, just a sweet lady.” (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta, GA, 05/12/11)
Todd January 29, 2013 at 03:45 PM
Why do people think that something considered sensible would have any effect on senseless acts?
Java Master January 29, 2013 at 04:12 PM
Reasonable regulation of guns and gun owners in clealy within the scope of the Second Amendment, as this Supreme Court has affirmed, even while recognizing the right to keep and bear arms. Of course, the "reasonableness" issue will be litigated by all parties for some time to come. But it is clear the absolutist interpretations of the Second Amendment by the NRA and even more radical gun rights lobbyists are beyond the Supreme Court's ruling.
DGeorge January 29, 2013 at 04:46 PM
Absolutest interpretation would be........ what?
Java Master January 29, 2013 at 05:06 PM
You appear to be well versed in the subject matter, DGeorge, so you already know the answer to your question. And don't let the courthouse door hit you on your way out.
Charlie January 29, 2013 at 05:39 PM
Yes Java we believe in the constitution and the rights it provides. Are you saying that the Second Amendment is a radical idea?
Curmudgeon January 29, 2013 at 06:11 PM
>I'm sure this protest will have lots of media attention!< You know it - 1000 people marched for increased gun control in DC last Saturday and the coverage was inescapable. (Compare to Friday, when between 400,000 and 600,000 marched for a less-politically-correct reason.)
Susan January 29, 2013 at 06:17 PM
I don't follow some of this logic. Sorry. Where does it say that anyone wants to take away all your guns? Keep them if you feel they keep you safe. But regulation to help - of course not stop - keep them out of criminal or criminally insane hands. Bullets that pierce the policeman's vests....necessary, really? AK-47s? I'm not following. When the Constitution was written there was no idea of the types of ammunition available in today's market. Do you really think our forefathers would want that? Do you really think that you are the militia they were talking about? Sad that we can't have a decent conversation about this without hearing "rather be raped" and brining in abortion into a separate discussion. Deflecting the true problem here....
DGeorge January 29, 2013 at 06:42 PM
The Holder Justice Dept is prosecuting 40% less firearm related crimes than the previous administration. We should be prosecuting the laws that are on the books now and see how that works. Anyone caught with an illegal firearm should get the mandatory seven year sentence. In DC , Chicago and Detroit they ignore illegal gun crimes. A young man in DC was given probation for having an illegal handgun, six months later while stealing a car, he shot and killed a policeman. Stupid! How about protesting for the enforcement of the existing laws. Java, yes I do know the answer but I doubt you do.
Laura Ramon January 29, 2013 at 06:44 PM
Ms Harlow- you have to register to vote, to marry, to buy Sudafed any number of things. Most industry is regulated in one fashion or another- this is a tempest in a tea pot. Own as many guns as you are legally entitled to- just be prepared to provide a little information to do so.
Virginia Harlow January 29, 2013 at 06:53 PM
Susan, criminals don't obey laws. Law abiding people do. Your solution would be to limit the ability of law-abiding people to protect themselves. Criminals will laugh and be emboldened. They know the laws...they just don't obey them.
Virginia Harlow January 29, 2013 at 07:01 PM
Ms. Ramon? Tempest in a teapot? Provide historical documentation that gun control or gun regulation or registration did NOT lead to the horrendous criminal acts perpetrated by totalitarian governments, and I might consider your point of view. History is pretty danged clear about the progression of disarmament and what can happen to the people. And don't bother with the tripe that "it couldn't happen here" as it has already. Many of the regulations you cite are clearly attempts to control the people. Gun control advocates aren't really trying to control guns! It's a people control ploy used to enhance further the outrageous grab for more and more power. If you are uncertain of the purpose of the Second Amendment, go read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, then try the Black Book of Communism, some Maoist history of China, etc. Include the buildup of Fascism in Germany before WWII. We've already had Wounded Knee, and other American atrocities, including Waco and Ruby Ridge, which were the causes of the Oklahoma City bombing that cost so many lives. Tempest in a teapot, indeed. Study your history. If you did, you'd want at least an AR-15.
Charlie January 29, 2013 at 09:05 PM
Bottom line we are talking about “People Violence” not “Gun Violence”. Killing a human being by any means is illegal in this country, well except with a scalpel which is Planned Parenthood or maybe by court order or maybe in war or maybe in self-defense. Ok, it’s ok to kill another human being if society says it’s ok. To the point, another law or two on guns won’t make any difference were killing is concerned. It only affects law abiding people. History has shown us that our Constitution is under constant assault by some people that would like to do away with all of it. Chip, Chip, Chip. I am not willing to give one inch on any of these assaults.
DGeorge January 29, 2013 at 09:27 PM
There is already conversation that the constitution has out lived its usefulness. Obama seems to have little use for it and dislikes its restrictions. I also am not willing to give one inch. As Virginia says, disarming the population is step one in controlling the population. First we must know where the guns are before we can confiscate them. For our own good of course. Homeland security has already stated that the Tea Party is a terrorist organization along with NRA members, anti abortionists, those that believe in self determination, along with of course the KKK and Neo Nazis. Strangely the communist party is not on that list. The next step is to eliminate dissension, and that has started by demonizing Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. The MSM should heed the cliche, " they came for jews and I did nothing because I was not a jew'.....................
Sally Singer Brodsky January 30, 2013 at 01:02 AM
Okay. The thing is, you have to get a license for your car. You also have to get some kind of insurance for your car against any damage you cause. AND you have to get a license to drive which license can be taken away if you drive drunk. I don't mind those restrictions on my right to drive. Why should I when those restrictions also lower the chances of my getting hurt. No one is saying these restrictions are panaceas...they just put up a small irritating wall against opportunities for harm.
Sally Singer Brodsky January 30, 2013 at 01:07 AM
No, actually, not. I am not in favor of taking away your guns. We have one. I can imagine certain circumstances (such as the need for a mass evacuation where I might have to defend myself) where I'd want to use it. In fact, in high school I got a sharpshooters medal using an M-1. I just want certain minimal requirements to be in force...like registration so that when the guns are not kept in safes, but then are used by someone who's gone off his rocker, we can hold the to account. Unfortunately, that poor mother whose son killed her paid a terrible price for not learning to keep her gun under lock and key.
Virginia Harlow January 30, 2013 at 02:12 AM
So, Sally, actually I'd say that poor mother was held personally to account. I see no necessity to hold all the law abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners to account for her stupidity. All that is assuming media reports were correct, and so far no official report has been released by law enforcement. Gun registration will serve only one purpose...to inform government where all the guns are. Evidently you think government will protect you and your family. But, even the courts will tell you that they cannot. In history, clearly we have seen that registration allows tyrannical government to confiscate, the next step. The police chief out in San Diego just did tell media "why, we could disarm everyone in just a few years!" so who will protect your family then? That mother who shot an intruder just recently had a semi-automatic pistol that held only 5 bullets, and she used every one, and the guy got himself to the hospital. She stopped him, but if there were two? Suppose there were two of them? Or a hoard coming after your only food supply? Are you so certain there's safety in your future? Show me where, in history, disarming the people had a positive affect on their safety? To the contrary, history has demonstrated how vulnerable people become when they can't protect themselves. You don't know who will be in charge in a few years. Media has scared folks, and government would love your guns!
DGeorge January 30, 2013 at 02:21 AM
AS Jefferson said; "A government that is big enough to give you what you want, is big enough to take what you have." The libs want us to make the Govt big enough to do that.
The Convict January 30, 2013 at 05:52 PM
Have you ever read the text of the Second Amendment? If you believe the 2nd Amendment can not be "interpreted" and "restricted", that it is somehow a "absolute" right, then we have to allow gun sales to felons and the insane because there is no exclusion for these groups in the second amendment. Now, you might make the argument that in order to own a gun, you have to join a militia, since 2A does reference these groups but I'm pretty sure that some nut will decide to charter Al Qaeda as a militia, in which case we would have to sell guns to terrorists ...all because it's a Constitutionally guaranteed "absolute" right.
The Convict January 30, 2013 at 05:56 PM
You have to register in order to use the internet. You have to register to use your telephone. You have to register even to vote. Krikeys, you can't even be born or die in America without being registered. Why not register guns and gun owners?
The Convict January 30, 2013 at 05:57 PM
That's a silly argument. Why have speed limits if people are just going to ignore them?
The Convict January 30, 2013 at 06:02 PM
This really is a straw man argument. Of course it's really difficult to stop somebody who is hellbent on breaking the law. And, of course, you can't make insanity illegal. Still, the point of registration is to keep guns flowing into the hands of those who can and will use them legally, while making it more difficult for people who would use them for illegal purposes.
DGeorge January 30, 2013 at 07:31 PM
I think background checks are fine. Registration only tells the Government where all the guns are, so at some future date they can collect them. It serves no other useful purpose. You still refuse to confront the fact that 2.5 million americans defend themselves annually from violent crime. If you don't like that number, think its too high then use the Anti-gun peoples figure of 1.5 million. Convict, it will never be difficult for criminals to obtain guns. They are criminals for cripes sake. What will registration do to deter criminals? Enforce the laws that are on the books. The Holder Justice dept has prosecuted 40% less gun crimes that the previous administration. Lets use the tools we already have before we go off half cocked (pun intended) and pass even more laws.
Virginia Harlow January 30, 2013 at 09:13 PM
DGeorge, the Holder Justice Department was part of the Fast and Furious scandal, and that just could be one of the main reasons they haven't bothered to prosecute...they would have to prosecute themselves. Out of control government, not accountable to the people, will never protect the people. Convict just doesn't seem to get that. His arguments are all straw men, or red herrings. Show proof that registration ANYWHERE ELSE IN HISTORY has served as a way to lessen violence... if you can't - then get the facts straight and back off. People have a right to self defense. It's not a "privilege" and it's God given.
The Convict January 30, 2013 at 10:57 PM
I can not believe how simple minded you two can be. What do you think our streets would be like if we didn't require people to register their vehicles, require licensing (registration) of drivers and that vehicles undergo an annual safety inspection? Do you think our roads would somehow be safer because any fool could buy a car without having any form of oversight? I know, I know. Driving a car is a privelege. BTW, do you think we have a right to keep guns out of the hands of the insane, felons and terrorists? I ask because, if you believe this to be true, then you necessarily accept that the government has the responsibility and authority to set limits on who may and may not own Arms.
Virginia Harlow January 31, 2013 at 03:18 AM
Convict, your "if/then" arguments are simply childish. Did you not read and comprehend what "we two" have said? You did not respond in any way to the issue at hand. If you truly believe government will protect you, it's you who are simple minded. The Founding Fathers acknowledged that government cannot be trusted. That's why they wrote a Constitution to LIMIT the power of government. Much more recent history demonstrates the issue clearly. You are looking for a simple solution...... take rights away from law-abiding citizens in order to achieve some sort of safety. Criminals and the insane don't obey laws. Only law-abiding citizens do. Your solution will leave the innocent more vulnerable, not more safe! Your piling on law after law after law is foolish and destructive of our liberties, and those of our children and grandchildren. You won't keep guns our of the hands of the insane, felons or terrorists by making laws. Waste of time...and only hurts the innocent. Those you wish to control will not comply.
Greendayer February 05, 2013 at 01:16 PM
Umm . . . there were only 4 protesters.
Java Master February 05, 2013 at 02:53 PM
I wrote in plain language and in complete sentences. Where you got that idea, I haven't a clue. Bottom line is that we must look to the ruling of the supreme court to identify the contours of the rights, privileges and limitations of the 2nd amendment, and not the blandishments of the NRA or its allies in the radical gun lobby .
Virginia Harlow February 05, 2013 at 07:07 PM
Java, "shall not be infringed" means by the Supreme Court either. "Shall not" is very clear. "Infringed" is very crystal clear. It's all clear enough for 4th graders to understand. We don't need to look to some imagined "superiors" to decide it has a different meaning. Oh, I realize the bastardization of the language, swapping meanings of words has worked very well for progressive types throughout history, but in this case, there are too many of us that already know how that has worked in history. And that's really the bottom line. The Constitution limits government.
Java Master February 07, 2013 at 03:13 AM
Virginia, you have proven my case beautifully.


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