The problem is that you are refusing to stick with the question asked.
The AG is obliged to respond to the question put before him. While he is not obliged to remain within the four corners of the specific question, it is rare for any attorney to go beyond those four corners until they become either state or federal supreme court justices.
Whether or not we was robbed or not when the question was posed, we are stuck with the opinion until and unless a different question is posed that more squarely addresses the issue from a different direction such that the AG will see it as not being a "mere recitation" of a previously asked question.
You sayyet completely ignore the fact that both Heller and McDonald both are limited to the question of possessing a handgun in the home - they have nothing to do with the carry of firearms outside the walls of the dwelling, not even onto the curtilige of the home. Your doing so is much more disingenuous than anything the AG's opinion may have worked towards.d) Cites “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” which may no longer be a legally valid argument given McDonald.( also disingenuous given (e))
e) mentions the 2A, but ignores Heller. Odd, because the same quote as in (d) is used in Heller, which also states specifically that a handgun may be used for self defense, however the types of restrictions listed in Heller are not similar to this particular land, as it is not "sensitive" enough to require a firearms ban by VA law. This is disingenuous as the 2A wasn't incorporated yet.
Although I do not get a referrral fee for doing so, I'm going to suggest that you attend the next law lecture User ofers. He not only covers the specific statutes, Administrative Code, and case law, but does a fair presentation on how to undersatand all that on your own. The same recommendation goes for anyone else who has any questions about the hows and whys of firearms laws.