So do guns at the rallies, with an implicit threat of violence, help - or do they hurt?
Glenn,
Surely you are not saying that the mere
presence of a firearm somehow "implies" violence? I believe that the exact opposite was shown, that a firearm
can be present and
no violence occurred at either event.
Further, I believe it made that statement rather concisely.
Subtle point that passes folks by.
Really? and by what standard do you measure that ?
It has incited at least 8+ pages of discussion on this fora alone, numerous media accounts, and likely an immeasurable amount of "water cooler" chatter, and thus far, save the posts that "smell of fear" in this thread, seems to have encouraged others to join the cause. Those who are incensed were likely already predisposed anti-2A to some degree, or are merely fearful of some sort of "backlash". Either way, a statement was clearly made.
That as well as other open-carry-as-political-statement behavior led to "The Panther Bill." The end of open carry in California,
Sorry to spoil your "spoiler" but, it was the
outright verbal and
published threats, coupled with a
clearly violent agenda that accomplished that, not merely someone open-carrying, you have extremely over-simplified the matter, and it has no bearing on these events.
I wonder what some of you people would of said if I had carried my AR to an event that Bush was speaking at, even if I stayed within the legal limits of the law...
You mean the
same as these guys did? then I would say good on ya'
oh yeah, did I mention I am a real life socialist.
Then you are in good company, as it is becoming an increasingly large crowd.