Gun Lovers Stage Peaceful Protests At State Capitals Nationwide

[U.P. Cinnabar]

https://apnews.com/f225474319c3457aa177b11c8737c3d6

Gun rights advocates rally at state capitols across US

DOVER, Del. (AP) — Gun rights supporters — many carrying rifles and ammunition — gathered at state capitols across the U.S. on Saturday to push back against efforts to pass stricter gun-control laws that they fear threaten their constitutional right to bear arms.

From Delaware to Wyoming, hundreds gathered at peaceful protests to listen to speakers who warned that any restrictions on gun ownership or use eventually could lead to a ban on gun ownership, which is guaranteed under the Second Amendment.


“If you have a building and you take a brick out every so often, after a while you’re not going to have a building,” said Westley Williams, who carried an AR-15 rifle as he joined about 100 people braving blustery weather in Cheyenne, Wyoming, for a pro-gun-rights rally in front of the state supreme court building.

Dave Gulya, one of the organizers of a rally in Augusta, Maine, said about 800 people showed up at the statehouse — a gun-free zone — to make the point that “we are law-abiding.”

Saturday’s protests were planned in dozens of state capitols less than three weeks after hundreds of thousands marched in Washington, New York and elsewhere to demand tougher gun laws after the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17. Organizers of those protests demanded a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and called for universal background checks on potential gun owners.

Cause for alarm, or no?

[NecronLord]

Persons congregate peacefully and break no laws? In what way are they 'thugs?'

[Formless]

Persons congregate peacefully and break no laws? In what way are they 'thugs?'

Because being an advocate for gun ownership rights and having Right Wing political views automatically makes you a thug, obviously!

I mean, they are gun rights advocates, of course they have guns on them. All that matters is whether they were legally carrying them. If not, then they would be doing their own point a disservice. But unquestionably they have a right to protest if advocates for gun control likewise have a right to protest. That's how a democracy works, Cinnabar!

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Persons congregate peacefully and break no laws? In what way are they 'thugs?'

Because being an advocate for gun ownership rights and having Right Wing political views automatically makes you a thug, obviously!

That's right. 168 dead men, women and children in OKC can't be wrong.

I mean, they are hostis humani generis, of course they have guns on them. All that matters is whether they were legally carrying them. If not, then they would be doing their own point a disservice. But unquestionably they have a right to protest if advocates for gun control likewise have a right to protest. That's how a democracy works for the entitled one percent, Cinnabar!

Gun rights advocates and other sworn enemies of humanity call it peaceful protest, decent human beings call it bullying. Not my fault if they or you don't want to face the truth

[Jub]

Persons congregate peacefully and break no laws? In what way are they 'thugs?'

Because being an advocate for gun ownership rights and having Right Wing political views automatically makes you a thug, obviously!

That's right. 168 dead men, women and children in OKC can't be wrong.

I mean, they are hostis humani generis, of course they have guns on them. All that matters is whether they were legally carrying them. If not, then they would be doing their own point a disservice. But unquestionably they have a right to protest if advocates for gun control likewise have a right to protest. That's how a democracy works for the entitled one percent, Cinnabar!

Gun rights advocates and other sworn enemies of humanity call it peaceful protest, decent human beings call it bullying. Not my fault if they or you don't want to face the truth

Look, I'm pretty hardline when it comes to thinking that America needs fewer firearms in circulation but you're hysterical right now.

Peaceful protest is no less peaceful just because the protestors are armed. They only become violent when they use those weapons or make open threats to do so.

[Formless]

Don't bother, Jub. I wasn't expecting a coherent or rational response from him. He is the one who chose to give this an inherently contradictory and flat out biased title, after all. Folks like him are the reason gun control advocates never get anywhere, so I'm fine with him continuing to make himself look like a moron.

[Jub]

Don't bother, Jub. I wasn't expecting a coherent or rational response from him. He is the one who chose to give this an inherently contradictory and flat out biased title, after all. Folks like him are the reason gun control advocates never get anywhere, so I'm fine with him continuing to make himself look like a moron.

I know, I don't think I've ever seen anything remotely useful or well thought out posted by UPC but it's like a charity case, every once in a while you have to try to offer something.

[TheFeniX]

So, the Courthouse proper (inside) was a gun free zone? I have to assume so and there was nothing illegal about carrying outside.

Right below the cut-off:

During a pro-gun-rights gathering in Atlanta on Saturday, more than a quarter of the estimated 160 rally-goers carried weapons, as well as flags and signs saying “Don’t Tread On Me” as they listened to speakers talk about the right to bear arms.

"more than a quarter" : maybe I shouldn't read too much into that. Seems loaded. Really, you could say 3/4 of the protesters weren't armed.

Has there ever been a shooting at any of these rallys? Honest question and hard to google. I can't find anything. And I can't really find myself too worked up that people exercised their right to protest completely legally, even though you'd never find me slinging a rifle in public.

I could be offended at the title and idea that supporters of gun rights are thugs and enemies of humanity, but it's not like it's anything new.

[Broomstick]

Crap, take any random group of people in a public place in my state and it's likely 1/4 (or more) will be carrying a gun, they just aren't obvious about it. One third of Americans are legal gun owners and while quite a few of those would not attend such a rally or carry a gun in public the fact that at a pro-gun rights rally 1/4 have guns is surprising only because I'd expect the number to be higher.

That's right. 168 dead men, women and children in OKC can't be wrong.

Uh... what? If you're talking about the bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City that wasn't done with guns, it was done with a bomb made of diesel fuel and fertilizer. Or is there some other OKC masscre you're referring to with a death toll of 168?

And WTF with calling other posters Nazis? Seriously, dude, try decaff.

[Raw Shark]

Maybe this is my Colorado privilege showing, but speaking as an armed thug, I don't personally feel like my right to bear arms is in any kind of danger. I can walk down the street to the range with a weapon on my hip and nobody even blinks unless I draw it. I taught a minor how to shoot with bottle targets in my back alley. I kinda-sorta date a girl who wears one everywhere but the shower, and I'm not 100% sure about that. I don't decry the right to peaceful protest, I just have better things to protest peacefully.

[Steve]

Uh... what? If you're talking about the bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City that wasn't done with guns, it was done with a bomb made of diesel fuel and fertilizer. Or is there some other OKC masscre you're referring to with a death toll of 168?

And WTF with calling other posters Nazis? Seriously, dude, try decaff.

I think he's arguing that McVeigh and Nichols were gun rights advocates, ergo the entire movement opposing gun control are culpable for political violence as they perpetrated.

[Ralin]

I think he's arguing that McVeigh and Nichols were gun rights advocates, ergo the entire movement opposing gun control are culpable for political violence as they perpetrated.

Sort of like how Karl Marx was in favor of working class people having access to to firearms, ergo unions, labor activists and supporters of the welfare state are responsible for gun violence and also Stalin.

This is fun.

[Zixinus]

So a protest happened. This is barely news.

Dave Gulya, one of the organizers of a rally in Augusta, Maine, said about 800 people showed up at the statehouse — a gun-free zone — to make the point that “we are law-abiding.”

I'm a bit confused. Does this mean they shown up armed or not armed?

Because being an advocate for gun ownership rights and having Right Wing political views automatically makes you a thug, obviously!

No, no. The issue with this king of gun control talk is simple: all that matters is mass shootings. Are you for or against stopping mass shootings? No, because you believe that people have rights to guns? THEN YOU'RE A MONSTER BECAUSE YOU ARE AN OBSTACLE TO STOPPING MASS SHOOTINGS!

[loomer]

Persons congregate peacefully and break no laws? In what way are they 'thugs?'

Because being an advocate for gun ownership rights and having Right Wing political views automatically makes you a thug, obviously!

That's right. 168 dead men, women and children in OKC can't be wrong.

I mean, they are hostis humani generis, of course they have guns on them. All that matters is whether they were legally carrying them. If not, then they would be doing their own point a disservice. But unquestionably they have a right to protest if advocates for gun control likewise have a right to protest. That's how a democracy works for the entitled one percent, Cinnabar!

Gun rights advocates and other sworn enemies of humanity call it peaceful protest, decent human beings call it bullying. Not my fault if they or you don't want to face the truth

As a decent human being, allow me to extend a sincere offer to you to go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on. Comparing people peacefully exercising a lawful right you disagree with to a calculated decision to cause a mass murder by a white supremacist is not only disingenuous, it's outright disgusting. You have removed yourself from the pool of decent human beings and joined the 'sworn enemies of humanity' by doing so.

[Broomstick]

Dave Gulya, one of the organizers of a rally in Augusta, Maine, said about 800 people showed up at the statehouse — a gun-free zone — to make the point that “we are law-abiding.”

I'm a bit confused. Does this mean they shown up armed or not armed?

Most, if not all, government buildings in the US do not allow guns insides, therefore, can be called "gun free zones" (when I went to court we had to pass through metal detectors and security to enter the building, for example). It is still legal to possess guns outside the building. I am assuming the protesters did not bring guns into the building.

[Steve]

No, no. The issue with this king of gun control talk is simple: all that matters is mass shootings. Are you for or against stopping mass shootings? No, because you believe that people have rights to guns? THEN YOU'RE A MONSTER BECAUSE YOU ARE AN OBSTACLE TO STOPPING MASS SHOOTINGS!

But doesn't this presuppose that gun control measures alone will completely thwart mass shootings? The entire argument by gun rights activists is that it will not, that all such measures will accomplish is to punish law-abiding civilians while criminals (including, presumably, prospective school shooters) will still arm themselves in violation of the law.

And frankly your language is just as inciting. "If you're against gun control you are against stopping mass shootings and you are a monster!" It's the same thing being protested against by posters disagreeing with the title and OP: a declaration of "agree with me or be labeled as evil!"

[TheFeniX]

No, no. The issue with this king of gun control talk is simple: all that matters is mass shootings. Are you for or against stopping mass shootings? No, because you believe that people have rights to guns? THEN YOU'RE A MONSTER BECAUSE YOU ARE AN OBSTACLE TO STOPPING MASS SHOOTINGS!

But doesn't this presuppose that gun control measures alone will completely thwart mass shootings? The entire argument by gun rights activists is that it will not, that all such measures will accomplish is to punish law-abiding civilians while criminals (including, presumably, prospective school shooters) will still arm themselves in violation of the law.

And frankly your language is just as inciting. "If you're against gun control you are against stopping mass shootings and you are a monster!" It's the same thing being protested against by posters disagreeing with the title and OP: a declaration of "agree with me or be labeled as evil!"

Pretty sure he's being sarcastic.

Since the evidence shows that shooters have always gone with what was available. Such as the Columbine shooters taking whatever their girlfriend could legally purchase and them ending up with some subpar weaponry. Even had they had AR-15s it isn't a given they would have had a higher bodycount as the shooting spree itself was Plan B and they were selective about their targets.

ARs are popular in ONE specific aspect of crime and honestly, like the youtube shooter showed, they aren't the end-all. And, even if a ban goes through, it won't accomplish anything and will just further hurt gun control legislation down the road.

[K. A. Pital]

That was too inflammatory even for me.

Changed it to "gun lovers" - think it's spot on, not really insulting to people who like guns, and doesn't mean they're thugs or bandits of some kind. Some people do have dangerous hobbies, doesn't make them thugs straightaway.

[SCRawl]

Also, Cinnabar, unless you're given more specific information to go on -- for instance, a strongly indicated or explicitly avowed sympathy for such -- you will not refer to your fellow members of SDN as "Nazis" in quote attribution.

[Zixinus]

No, no. The issue with this king of gun control talk is simple: all that matters is mass shootings. Are you for or against stopping mass shootings? No, because you believe that people have rights to guns? THEN YOU'RE A MONSTER BECAUSE YOU ARE AN OBSTACLE TO STOPPING MASS SHOOTINGS!

But doesn't this presuppose that gun control measures alone will completely thwart mass shootings? The entire argument by gun rights activists is that it will not, that all such measures will accomplish is to punish law-abiding civilians while criminals (including, presumably, prospective school shooters) will still arm themselves in violation of the law.

And frankly your language is just as inciting. "If you're against gun control you are against stopping mass shootings and you are a monster!" It's the same thing being protested against by posters disagreeing with the title and OP: a declaration of "agree with me or be labeled as evil!"

Sorry, I meant to put the all-caps part in quotation marks. The part you quoted? Does NOT reflect my personal opinion of gun control, merely my opinion on the logic on the issue as I see it in some others (particularly Cinnabar's). What you see there is an underlying logic that is prevalent, although not universally and unconditionally accepted, among pro-gun proponents I've seen and argued with.

As for the argument that gun control measures will only punish law abiding citizens? Well, it depends on the severity of the exact gun-control measures in place. Fixing the NCIS, fixing the legislature and general enforcing-bureaucracy regarding gun ownership, actually stringently enforcing background checks would be good and probably help prevent guns falling into the wrong hands. Which is often what happened with spree shooters, who usually used common, regular, civilian guns.

Turning gun ownership from a casual right to a privilege akin to the right of owning a car would also greatly reduce it too (and I do believe that gun ownership SHOULD be a privilege, barring certain circumstances*). This is what most other countries handle it and generally, mass shootings tend to be far less frequent and less severe among them.

I don't believe that the issue can be so easily fixed, as it is one that has numerous roots that are worthwhile handling and/or are part of greater issues too. Such as the availability of black market firearms, mental healthcare and lack of thereof, the fact that news cycles treat the spree killer as some sort of anti-celebrity that inspires more of the same, etc.

[TheFeniX]

Owning a car is more a right than owning a gun is. Just because Gun Rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights seemingly means very little in practice. There's pretty much nothing, except specific judgements* made against you, to stop you from buying a car. Financing will be held up by lack of a Driver's License because you can't get insured, so they have no way to protect their investment. That said, if you had cash to buy either a junker for $500 or a Lambo for $500,000, there's very few people who would not sell the vehicle to you. As for guns, the ways in which even even a "gun crazy" place like the U.S. restricts both the purchasing and ownership of a gun is far more stringent by comparison.

Side Note: Coughing up $500,000 cash for a vehicle will likely get the attention of authorities, though for reasons unrelated to buying a car.

*I've heard cases of judges making it a criminal offense for repeat DUI/traffic offenders to own a car (because they have shown they will re-offend), but I've never seen it in writing. Not even age can hold up the process. It might be hard to find someone willing to sell a junker to a 14-year-old, but there's nothing illegal about it.

EDIT: I should add, I personally would not sell a vehicle to someone without a Driver's License. Or actually, SOME form of legal ID. I've sold a couple vehicles privately and made copies of the photo IDs and had them sign a bill of sale with the VIN of the vehicle on it because if they don't transfer the title, that comes back on me and I have my evidence to hand over (and have had to do so) to authorities. CYA. That said, just taking cash and giving them the car and title is not shady in the least... it's just stupid.

[Elheru Aran]

Cinnabar... bro... you seem like a reasonable guy for the most part. Don't pull a Coffee, I'd like to keep seeing you here.

Regarding the issue in question: This has happened before, IIRC. It's going to keep happening as long as gun rights/control is a major political issue in this country. Do I think the gun rights guys can be kind of dicks about it? Yeah. There's frankly little to no reason to open-carry a long-gun to the grocery store. Never mind showing up to liberal protests well-heeled, which is just begging for trouble. That goes for anybody protesting armed IMO, whether it's gun right Spartofreedomerica beardos or pagan Viking beardos waving axes and spears (not that the latter has happened AFAIK, but it could).

But, as far as I'm concerned, if they are legally permitted to carry wherever they are protesting, and they are legally protesting, it's not worth complaining about unless the context of the protest indicates that they're looking for trouble (Charlottesville anybody?). In fact, complaining about it just brings more attention to the protests and enables them to make their case more widely.

[Highlord Laan]

Gun rights advocates and other sworn enemies of humanity call it peaceful protest, decent human beings call it bullying. Not my fault if they or you don't want to face the truth

As both a decent human being and apparent armed thug and armed thug sympathizer, I invite you to eat a dick you worthless fucking shitbag.

Oh, did I trigger you? Good. I was certainly fucking trying. Go crying back to your kind on tumblr.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Persons congregate peacefully and break no laws? In what way are they 'thugs?'

Because being an advocate for gun ownership rights and having Right Wing political views automatically makes you a thug, obviously!

That's right. 168 dead men, women and children in OKC can't be wrong.

I mean, they are hostis humani generis, of course they have guns on them. All that matters is whether they were legally carrying them. If not, then they would be doing their own point a disservice. But unquestionably they have a right to protest if advocates for gun control likewise have a right to protest. That's how a democracy works for the entitled one percent, Cinnabar!

Gun rights advocates and other sworn enemies of humanity call it peaceful protest, decent human beings call it bullying. Not my fault if they or you don't want to face the truth

Um. You were asked why they're thugs. You don't just get to come back with "but they're thugs"

[ray245]

While I don't agree with what U.P. Cinnabar did, I have to comment a little about the current state of political discussion in the US. It feels like this is part of an ongoing trend where an appeal to morality is the basic principle of political debate, rather than facts and nuanced discussion.

Such a reaction is not entirely surprising given this context. The polarisation of debate or a lack of one in the first place feels like people can only see their political opponents as nothing but evil people.

And in a sense, I'll argue that even sites have SDN have contributed to this kind of environment. I think we ourselves have become too used to framing political discussion entirely in moralistic terms.