# It is wrong to bring guns to a protest **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751 "2010-04-20T15:38:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/221 "2010-04-22T02:10:48Z")
> [@sinjin](#): > > When people conjecture such stupid stuff as this it usually means that that’s what’s going thru their own minds. Are you secretly hoping that the feds open up on your redneck friends or that bad boys attack you so you all are justified in using ultimate force to defend yourself thereby justifying your walking around armed and dangerous at all times? > > Sheesh, I’m a 55 year old woman who’s been around the world and I’ve never felt even close to as threatened as you apparently are. Grow a pair and stop hiding behind your gun. Tone it down–a lot. If you have to appeal to emotions to make your point, your point may not be as strong as you suppose. If you have to resort to insults, then you may not even have a point. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/222 "2010-04-22T02:14:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Tone it down–a lot. > > If you have to appeal to emotions to make your point, your point may not be as strong as you suppose. If you have to resort to insults, then you may not even have a point. > > [/Moderating] Why didn’t you tell Bricker to tone it down? > [@](#): > > Or do you secretly fume at the lack, and find yourself thinking, “Fuck, I wish those redneck assholes would just get it over with and start shooting so I could throw a killing or two back in Bricker’s face!” Note I didn’t even use bad words. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/223 "2010-04-22T02:16:12Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > If we ever have a government capable of being intimidated by a double handful of guys exercising their constitutional rights, we’re in deep shit. One APC coulda dusted everybody there. In seconds. Well yeah, but do the dudes at that rally know that? 😃 Plenty of pro-gun folks think they can fight off the government when the _Kenyan-islamo-socialist-nazi-facists_ take over. Now mind you, I don’t believe that they couldn’t cause some trouble, I mean a hunting rifle will still punch through any helmet we’re using, but I do question the idea of them winning. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/224 "2010-04-22T03:23:58Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Well yeah, but do the dudes at that rally know that? 😃 > > Plenty of pro-gun folks think they can fight off the government when the _Kenyan-islamo-socialist-nazi-facists_ take over. > > Now mind you, I don’t believe that they couldn’t cause some trouble, I mean a hunting rifle will still punch through any helmet we’re using, but I do question the idea of them winning. Some years ago I started a thread asking pretty much the same question- ie, are there really significant numbers of people in the US who honestly think they can fight the military and win, armed with nothing but a bolt-action hunting rifle and a Colt. 45? The answer, worringly, was “Yes”. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/225 "2010-04-22T10:51:39Z")
If bringing guns to a pro-Second Amendment rally is logical, does the same apply to those bringing them to an [anti-HCR town hall rally](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/08/18/msnbc-no-mention-black-gun-owner-among-racist-protesters)? Are they “just exercising their rights” as they claim, or can we at least agree that _these guys_ were intending to intimidate? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/226 "2010-04-22T11:01:57Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Some years ago I started a thread asking pretty much the same question- ie, are there really significant numbers of people in the US who honestly think they can fight the military and win, armed with nothing but a bolt-action hunting rifle and a Colt. 45? > > The answer, worringly, was “Yes”. More worrying still, some of these people are actually looking forward to it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/227 "2010-04-22T12:08:30Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > First, let’s all keep in mind I’m answering a hypothetical about people _waving their guns in the air_. I have no idea if it has anything to do with the protest at all, and actually I kind of doubt it, because it wouldn’t surprise me if waving around weapons like that in public were illegal _itself_. > Secondly, nothing could convince me that fear of people who are actually waving weapons in the air is misplaced. After a certain point the assumption that people are in _control_ is misplaced, and while that point may be after the “carrying to a rally” point, it’s certainly before the “waving the weapons around” point. I see. And when did the conversation narrow to waving guns in the air? Becauseit now appears that you and I are in agreement. Waving guns in the air is a threatening behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Clawdio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d07c76/32.png) [@Clawdio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clawdio)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/228 "2010-04-22T13:35:56Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Is the demonstration about the right to carry swords, Molotov Cocktails or bricks? No, it was about the right to keep and bear arms. > > I can’t believe that you would even pretend to be astonished that people would exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (where legal) during a rally in support of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And who was intimidated, exactly? The people who were there were people who supported the right. In the same way that I would not attend a pro-abortion rally, who would attend something in support of that which they disagree with? Are you saying that it is OK to carry at an Anti Gun-Control protest… but not at another type of protest? I believe the discussion is about carrying at **any** type of protest, and the idea that a protest with guns, has become something other than a simple rally or protest. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/229 "2010-04-22T17:14:06Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Thought so. Bye. Feel free to leave anytime. > [@Oakminster](#): > > If we ever have a government capable of being intimidated by a double handful of guys exercising their constitutional rights, we’re in deep shit. One APC coulda dusted everybody there. In seconds. Nobody’s saying that these guys are wise or thought this through - quite the opposite, in fact! > [@Bricker](#): > > I see. > > And when did the conversation narrow to waving guns in the air? It became about waving guns in the air when **Oakminster** mentioned (unprompted) that he’d be inclinded to do so, and I responded with the internet version of shock. And from there it progressed. > [@Bricker](#): > > Becauseit now appears that you and I are in agreement. Waving guns in the air is a threatening behavior. Well, you are a smart guy; it was always inevitable that you’d come around to my position eventually. 😃 Okay, so we’ve established a baseline - waving guns in the air is a threatening behavior. Therefore, it logically follows that guns at rallys _can_ be threatening, despite the amazing power of the second amendment to make them legal to carry, and thus the second amendment should never be mentioned in this context in this thread again. The second amendment isn’t what prevents doing things with guns at rallies from being a bad idea. Now that we’ve gotten that red herring out of the way, the question becomes, what _is_ threatening behavior? Well, I’d say it obviously depends on two factors: whether the person intends to intimidate, and what other people are likely to consider intimidating. After all, if everybody was cool and calm about people waving guns in the air, it _wouldn’t_ be intimitaing behavior, right? I think that any idiot, even gun-carrying ones, knows that many people find the mere sight of guns intimidating. That’s the _whole point_ of the open-carry movement, after all; to work towards desensitizing the population to the sight of guns, which would be unnecessary if the populace weren’t sensitive. People know that even a _single gun_ is intimidating to people in some areas. It’s not even credible to claim that people are unaware that an overtly over-armed crowd is going to be intimidating to even more people. Seriously, that’s not even a believe I can entertain for the sake of argument. Of course the sight of the armed mob is can be intimidating, you know it, I know it, we all know it. Which leaves only the question of whether the _intent_ was to intimidate. Which seriously don’t think is much of a question. Parallels to gay pride parades are actually apt - I’m quite confident that gay pride parades are _meant_ to shock, or at least were originally. They’re meant to crack the ‘pretending it’s not happening’ facade, which had been perniciously in force for hundreds of years. (This intent may have faded in time, to be replaced by tradition nowadays.) I think that bringing guns to a rally is meant to leverage the visual effect of guns, just as gay pride parades leveraged the visual effect of leather. And the visual effect of guns is intimidation (despite speciuous claims to the contrary). This goes x10 when the guns are carried by a group in force that is strident towards a particular goal - a display of excess armament is a statement that the people packing the weapons are ready and willing to use them. I am of the opinion that this is so obvious that denials of it are grounded in just that: denial. It is of course relevent to ask who the intended target of the intimidation is - it’s likely not everyone, since they probably don’t intend to intimidate like-minded people. (In fact they likely hoped to embolden such types.) I actually agree that they probably intended to intimidate the government - and that they probably haven’t thought that through very hard. Sure they might want to intimidate peasents who support gun control _too_, but I think they definitely had sending a message to the government on their list. And I just want to add that I find it amusing that the lack of a counter-protest was brought up (not by you) as evidence that nobody was intimidated, when the point has been that such an armed crowd could easily be considered _dangerous_. What, the anti-gun people are expected to spontaneously walk up and start shouting back at the mob of armed maniacs? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/230 "2010-04-22T17:40:44Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It became about waving guns in the air when **Oakminster** mentioned (unprompted) that he’d be inclinded to do so, and I responded with the internet version of shock. And from there it progressed. And that comment was in reference to Moses/Heston’s “cold dead hands” speech, where, if I remember correctly, he gave the line, and then raised a rifle to the sky. Didn’t wave it around recklessly. Didn’t threaten anybody. Had I been in that crowd, and carrying a rifle, I would have joined him in the salute. And that’s all it was. A salute. Not really any different t from raising a fist to the sky at a rock concert. IT communicates “YEAH! Right On! I agree!”. It does not mean “Fear me, oh timid liberals, for I am mighty”. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/231 "2010-04-22T17:45:57Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > a display of excess armament So a display of adequate armament woulda been OK? Who gets to decide how much is adequate? Can I bring one gun? Two? Ten? Does it make a difference if the weapons use the same ammunition? Lot of people I know like to have a pistol and a rifle chambered for the same round. Is that cool? A .357 magnum revolver and a .357 magnum carbine? Would you prefer I swap the pistol for a 9mm, or a .45? Or swap the rifle for a shotgun? Could you even tell the difference? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/232 "2010-04-22T18:13:36Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I think that any idiot, even gun-carrying ones, knows that many people find the mere sight of guns intimidating. That’s the _whole point_ of the open-carry movement, after all; to work towards desensitizing the population to the sight of guns, which would be unnecessary if the populace weren’t sensitive. That might be the argument they make, but the whole point of open-carry it seems, is to show potential attackers what big guns you have, in the hope they’ll move on to weaker targets. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/233 "2010-04-22T18:31:15Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > So a display of adequate armament woulda been OK? Who gets to decide how much is adequate? Can I bring one gun? Two? Ten? Does it make a difference if the weapons use the same ammunition? Lot of people I know like to have a pistol and a rifle chambered for the same round. Is that cool? A .357 magnum revolver and a .357 magnum carbine? Would you prefer I swap the pistol for a 9mm, or a .45? Or swap the rifle for a shotgun? Could you even tell the difference? Adequete armament means, by definition, the necessary amount. Which raises the question, necessary for **what**? Option 1: To deal with random shooters that might pop up in sight of the rally, because the world is a dangerous place, y’know. Adequate armament: three guns in the whole crowd. And no unloaded guns at all. Unless there were cops or the like keeping an eye on the protest, then “no guns at all of any kind” is the adequate amount. Option 2: To deal with the onslaught of rabid anti-gun liberals who were inevitably going to attack the protest. Adequate armament: depends on the desired result. The anti-gun attackers won’t have guns, so clubs are adequate to suppress them until the cops arrive; make your signs of strong wood. If you want them dead, then everybody should have a gun, or two, or ten. And no unloaded guns at all. Option 3: To deal with the military when the government inevitably sent them to attack the protest. Adequate armament: doesn’t exist. They’re doomed. Better stay home and cower. Oh, and unloaded guns are **certainly** no help at all (not that much of anything _would_ be). Option 4: To intimidate and scare innocent people: What they had was a pretty good amount - you didn’t see any counter-protest, did you? Unloaded guns work okay for this, though loaded guns are better. Option 5: To get people on the internet to think you’re idiots: they had just the right amount, and unloaded guns work perfectly. > [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > That might be the argument they make, but the whole point of open-carry it seems, is to show potential attackers what big guns you have, in the hope they’ll move on to weaker targets. **Airman Doors, USAF** wants to have a chat with you. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/234 "2010-04-23T08:59:04Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > make your signs of strong wood Are we talking about the gay pride marches again? ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/235 "2010-04-23T19:46:15Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > With respect - come on, guys. No one is arguing that these folks should not have been _permitted_ to bring their guns to their demonstration. I’m saying that their conduct was legal, but assinine. It was assinine because guns are not mere protest placards (even strongly worded ones), a crowd with guns is qualitatively different from a crowd with banners, and that it’s incredibly inappropriate to bring a loaded gun to a word-fight. The unarmed, peaceful protest is a hallmark of democracy - the armed protest, even when not violent, is not a part of that tradition. I disagree. Depending on the context, carrying a gun may be expressive conduct, and appropriate to bring to a protest. I think article you linked to in the opening post describes a context where carrying a gun is expressive conduct and appropriate. Furthermore, armed peaceful protest is also a hallmark of democracy, at least it has been in our experience with republic constitutionalism. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751/236 "2010-04-24T08:40:12Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > I disagree. Depending on the context, carrying a gun may be expressive conduct, and appropriate to bring to a protest. The thing that’s being argued by many is that the “Expression” the conduct of carrying a gun to a protest is can be seen as “I have a gun and if you don’t do what I want… well, I might decide to use it.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-wrong-to-bring-guns-to-a-protest/536751.md?page=11)