Driving on a Costco run today in Kirkland WA (it’s an Eastside suburb of Seattle) with my family, I saw a group of maybe 20 boisterous middle aged folks waving signs. What the hey are they protesting until I saw a sign “The 2nd protecsthe 1st” and several people openly carrying assault style rifles. [Gotta love the irony of people that can’t even spell “protect” have our backs against the tyranny of government]
There was one police car nearby with an officer standing on the sidewalk maybe 30 feet away from the demonstrators.
You know what bugged me about all of that? Painting with a broad brush and all. While it probably isn’t the intent of pro gun enthusiasts, but they are an armed mob. Mob is not the right word, but they certainly don’t give off the vibe of responsible gun owner you’d be welcomed to walk up to and have a GD style debate with. Plenty of other demonstrators can be downright hostile but they don’t openly pack heat. Not this group, nosiree Bob, they were boisterously in your face, and backed up with the courage of Smith and Wesson.
And not that one correlates with the other, but then of course less than a mile away camped outside of Costco was a “impeach Nobama” table with posters of Obama sporting a hitler stache. Kirkland is a class act I tells ya.
I know that there are posters on this board who defend the brandishing of firearms at public rallies, but being a liberal, I tend to agree with Ronald Reagan on this issue:
From the point of view of a strong Second Amendment supporter, at what point does carrying a weapon in public go too far?
I’ve heard talk that the remedy for shootings is to have more armed people out there. These armed citizens would defend the public against the shooters.
So how does it work? If you’re inconspicuously armed and you see a guy carrying a AK-47 and some bandoliers of ammo heading towards the food court at the local shopping mall, are you supposed to stop him or salute him as a fellow believer?
If it makes you feel any better, the people with the Obama-Hitler-'stashe poster were probably Larouchies, and everyone whose opinion matters stopped paying attention to them decades ago.
I don’t like the overt style of trying to change things in ways that alienate the folks that might be on the fence about a controversial issue. Preaching to the choir is a waste of time, and borderline voters will be turned off by activists carrying military-looking weapons. These folks aren’t helping.
The absurd notion that “the 2nd protects the 1st” is chiefly held by mental midgets. It would be perfect irony if someone in the crowd got spooked and shot someone else, leading to everyone in the crowd opening fire on everyone else.
20 or 30 people on one small street corner shouting loudly, frantically waving their signs and holding weapons seemed pretty boisterous to me as I drove in the lane next to them at 25 mpg. Not sure on amplification but I could definitely hear them inside a mini van full of loud kids. YMMV.
IMHO, bringing the guns along is counter-productive. You want to show that for every spree-killer and criminal, there are thousands and thousands of law-abiding gun owners: people who keep their sport and home defense weapons in a safe, appropriate place. So just bring your (spell-checked) signs and that will make your point, unless you want to look like overaged children who got the guns for Christmas but not the paper-fiber cowboy hat or molded plastic army helmet to go with it.
You could hear them because you were right next to them. But still, that’s pretty sedate as political demonstrations go–you just got bug-eyed by seeing the guns.
I agree that this group was presenting poorly, and rifles in this context are part of that.
If there weren’t people who were trying to outlaw those guns, there wouldn’t be a reason for this type of demonstration. I’m sure they will back off if you (the general you) back off.
