I’m a pretty big fan of irony and juxtaposition.  It doesn’t get any better than a pro-gun rally at the Ohio Statehouse during the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Weekend.

Guns Across America is doing just that in several state capitols tomorrow.


According to the Facebook event page for Ohio, the group’s intent is to have a peaceful demonstration to stop any and all future gun control legislation.

Because nothing says peaceful demonstration like walking around downtown Columbus with an assault weapon strapped to your back.

The organizers of the group are being very careful about public perception.  There are many calls to very closely follow the law regarding concealed carry and open carry, not park in covered parking lots, not bring any Hitler signs, and my personal favorite “be careful to prevent any accidental discharges”.  They also want people to not wear so much camo, because – you know – they’re not militant or anything.  They just want to carry around AR-15s.  Which begs the question:  If you’re walking around with an assault weapon strapped to your back will not wearing camouflage make you look any LESS militant?

The political optics for this couldn’t be worse.  In addition to “Guns Across America”, there is also “Gun Appreciation Day“, where gun supporters are told to show up at their local gun store, gun range, or gun show with a copy of the Constitution, their American Flags, and “Hands off my Guns” signs.

Great timing guys!

  • Clearly they don’t have majority support as there were only 700 or so. Rosa Parks what?

  • Look up the difference between civil rights and political rights and come back.

  • Be tough to do because I’m not gay.

  • Well, my friend. Looks like the moron is on the other foot because photographic evidence proves that they did.

    I’m not familiar with an anti-Constitution rally on Monday. Can you send a link?

    I’ve not only read it, but even capitalize it when I write about it.

    I checked on the Intertube and the article is 9th grade level. So there.

  • That was a very polite response, Eric, especially considering he attacked your writing ability with a comment that started with a misspelled word.

    Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

  • “Timing”? Big events like this open policy windows. People want the problem of these shootings addressed. The NRA even suggested a policy change. *Everybody* does this; look at all the security state changes that came after 9/11. Or hell, look at our policy of exploiting unrest around the world to force capitalistic change on various countries (Poland, Chile, for example).

  • Good thing you weren’t at the one in Ohio where one gun shop owner accidently shot his business partner then. Congrats

  • ][

    No, they’re trying to get your identity so that they can step up personal attacks – site going by the initials F.R.

  • yeah. i was kidding. i saw it. not the first time i’ve been freeped.

  • Ry Sullivan

    I was writing to the author idiot. The universe is not Ericocentric

  • I AM the author. Idiot.

  • totenglocke

    That’s a correct statement, but irrelevant to the issue at hand. You claimed that they were violent and threatening people by peacefully assembling while holding inanimate objects.

  • Incorrect. I said militant. I never said violent of threatening. I still contend they could protest and exercise freedom of speech and assembly without firearms.

    Again, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

  • brnhut

    We appear to start from two very different viewpoints on the nature of humanity. It appears from your quote that you choose to believe humanity’s nature is basically good, and simply discussing issues will bring people to a common understanding and mutually beneficial arrangement in regard to profit, property, and justice. While discussion should be a first choice, my belief is that humanity is basically rooted in selfishness and self-interest and there are some people with whom you cannot reason. Those cases need to be deterred from destroying others’ wealth and family, and the ultimate deterrent is a threat against life. I choose to keep a weapon as a last resort against evil people, and choose the type of weapon because I should have the advantage against evil men. Not the other way around. This conclusion causes me to bristle against attempts to remove my defensive means and advantage against evil, because I believe my choice a logical one. Removing my defense because we are starting from different worldviews is immoral.

  • brnhut

    You misread my remark. I argue MLK chose to reason instead of using defensive force. Reasoning only works with reasonable people, and defensive force should be used for all others.

  • I like this. Sounds reasonable enough to me. I also disagree with your underlying view of humanity. That said, your choice to defend yourself in the way you do under certain limits (well regulated and such) is fine with me.

    Here’s the rub though. This same attitude of “to each his own” is seldom taken on the right when it comes to other rights that seem obvious to those with an opposing worldview. Gay marriage. Abortion. Et cetera…

    If I concede to you your point, is same returned to me? We, of course, also have to consider the general welfare as this was an underlying basis for the US Constitution to begin with.

    I do like the way you’ve put this and I’m persuaded by it.

  • brnhut

    Legislating that I must put myself at a disadvantage against criminals who will choose the best weapon available regardless of laws makes me a victim to both them and the law. I do not think my claim is absurd.

  • cargosquid

    MLK was a proud Republican gun owner.

  • cargosquid

    Please, explain how the rights of African Americans DON’T include 2nd Amendment rights.

  • Learn English first and then I’ll explain it fully to you. You obviously didn’t do what I asked Wrench Moran to do.

  • No. Please read the thread fully before commenting. This has been covered relative to gun ownership/use.

    MLK as a Republican is a tired old line used by current wingnuts to mitigate their crazy. It’s simply untrue to call Dr. King a Republican and it completely ignores historical context as I’ve pointed out before in this comment thread.

  • cargosquid

    Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, status as a member of the uniformed services, sexual orientation, or gender identity;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.

    Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

    Here ya go. Now…. since MLK advocated for BOTH for African Americans, you can get off of your high horse.

  • You looked it up and you still don’t see. Hilarious. You first tried to equate the struggle for civil rights under King with the protests about rights that haven’t even been taken away today. There is no equivalence.

    You see the difference yet?

  • totenglocke

    No, in a comment to another person, you clearly said that they were being violent by carrying firearms.

    ” I still contend they could protest and exercise freedom of speech and assembly without firearms.”

    Yes, they could, but it wouldn’t show that groups of people can go about in public with firearms without anyone being hurt. Also, notice how the police didn’t try to intimidate anyone at these rallies? Any time unarmed people are protesting, they usually get harassed and threatened (sometimes assaulted even) by the police – yet the police left these people alone.

  • Still incorrect. How you could turn that comment into me clearly saying they were “being violent by carrying firearms” speaks to an inability to understand plain English. I never said they were threatening people either. Some may FEEL threatened (and rightly so).

    I’ve been to several rallies and protests at and in the statehouse and never saw threatening behavior by police toward unarmed civilians.

    Bottom line I never claimed what you said I claimed. I’m glad the Cbus rally was without incident and still think their points could be made without carrying. Unless, of course, their main point of protest is to be able to have an AR strapped to their back at all times walking around in public – then it might be relevant.

  • brnhut

    Agreement from logical progression on one subject does not assure agreement on other subjects! Perhaps we’ll meet again…

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!