Californians Turned Out to Peacefully Protest Saturday

I promised RF pictures from our Sacramento rally and here they are. The Capitol Building in Sacramento is really beautiful this time of year with the park area surrounding it. Saturday’s rally attendees got some great shots of the building. Although the mainstream media claimed hundreds, we believe the crowd peaked around 2,000 people. Most of those who attended were families. Kids and parents alike worked on coming up with creative signs. Make the jump for a sampling . . .

People can be so creative when that put their minds to it.

We had some pros photographing the event as well.

We wanted this to be family oriented and we got it! Clearly Pink Hello Kitty AR’s would have been a huge hit. If open carry were still legal in the Golden State.

As you can see, we were trying to be informative and teach people key differences in their logic. We had the honor of having Senator Jim Nielsen as a surprise guest speaker.

Last but not least, there is me. I honestly have never been so nervous in my entire life, speaking in front of cheering crowds with flags waving in the wind. I don’t think I messed up too badly, but let me tell you if this is what being a politician is like, now I know why they like it. Being in a TV or radio studio doesn’t even come close. We wanted to educate, inform, and inspire. I think we accomplished that.

 

46 Responses to Californians Turned Out to Peacefully Protest Saturday

  1. avatarMotoJB says:

    My daughter and I were there…

  2. avatarDon says:

    Well done! Sorry I couldn’t make it up from SoCal.

  3. avatarmymc says:

    Thank you!!

  4. avataramagi says:

    Unfortunately, the geopolitics of California dictate a very dire picture for our constitutional rights and virtually all forms of liberty: be it social and/or economic freedoms.

    +1 to all who attended, specifically in the face of such overwhelming odds.

  5. avatarIvy Mike says:

    The “say no to profiling” is interesting.

    Although technically there is little difference between “assault weapons” and more traditional weapons other than looks….

    The looks are rather important.

    The looks say “belligerence and aggression,” and were designed for an increasingly belligerent and aggressive (and unconstitutional) Standing Army in service of the WarStreet/Pentagon axis of evil as “a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.” (Smedley Butler, 1933)

    Then the gun culture bought into this stylized “belligerence and aggression,” even though it didn’t include the same functionality as the “high-class muscleman” (Butler, 1933) carried.

    What if the most “scary” weapon looked like this:
    http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg

    Would DiFi&LeftCo. have a more difficult time trying to ban guns? I think so. If a rifle is just as functional without all the stylizing, then why do it?

    Perception management. It’s important, and ignored to long by gun culture.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      If a rifle is just as functional without all the stylizing, then why do it?

      Especially when the “scary” stylizing is precisely what scares the womenfolk.

      Anybody with an answer?

      • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

        My daughter wants a pink cow girl up AR like nobodies business, so not sure which woman are scared, unless you are talking the hoplophibic ones, and there is little help for them. They sweat and get their panties in a wad at the site of a revolver.

        • avatarB says:

          The AR-15 design is purely functional. What design flourishes are there? Its a chunk of aluminum shaved down as light as it can go with some plastic bits added so you can hold the thing without getting burned. Its practically the Porsche of gun design, form following function. If anything, classic wood stock guns are the ones guilty of having too much style.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          The AR-15 design is purely functional.

          The “assault weapons” look was a marketing ploy to sell more guns, and it works.

          It’s not purely about functionality at all.

          It’s time to quit being in denial about this.

      • avatarChorbo-San says:

        Because, it isn’t. Magazine reloads are faster with the “scary” rifle, accuracy potential is increased with the “scary” rifle, the “scary” rifle will not swell or rot in moisture, and can easily mount accessories for a variety of purposes. A pistol grip is more comfortable to use, and the tube-style construction with collapsing stock allows for lesser perceived recoil (straight back) and better user-friendliness for people of all shapes and sizes.

        The pistol grip and rails are not for “looks.” The collapsing stock is not for “looks.” So please, tell me, what is so “scary” about the “scary” rifle in particular?

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          You’re going to have to pick a bone with the Blog owners.

          “Whereas the AR-15 and all of its many variants look mass produced and are stylistically cold as death, the Mini-14 – even with a synthetic stock – cuts a classic figure, even historic.”
          ~William C. Montgomery, The Truth About Guns

          Cold. As. Death.

          You can dance all you want about reality, but ignoring perception management–which can win or lose wars–is always stupid.

        • avatarSomeTexan says:

          Ivy Mike, what you posted, is one man’s opinions. Yes there are many that find the AR scary to look at, but that is only ignorance. It would only be ignorance if you posted one argument about the AR or “scary rifle” and learned that most people reading these comments would not agree to your argument. You keep arguing so it is stupidity on your side that you are revealing, since you do not learn that the majority here do not agree with you.

      • avatarJoeG says:

        Ok, I’ll bite, but a question first:

        If one word suffices why use two, or a different word that means the same thing?

        To answer your question, all rifles are different. Different form, different function, same result; a bullet goes down range.

        Just as all speeches are different. Different words, different structure, same result; an idea is communicated.

        We should not give up something that others find “scary looking” simply because they are ignorant of this.

        That we are even subjected to potential laws from people who say things like ‘a barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up’ is absurd (thank you Carolyn McCarthy for being the example). We face potential bans of features and functions because non shooters do not know what these things are, nor why they exist. Some of what they want to ban are safety features (a barrel shroud is designed to prevent burns, not from fully automatic fire, but because 20 rounds through an AK in less than a minute will make the barrel HOT). But if you sell it as something that makes the rifle “moar dangerouser!” to people who do not know any better, it is much more likely that they will buy it than had you simply said “I just don’t like it”.

        Folding or collapsible stocks on rifles are not features designed to conceal the rifle, but to allow shooters of different physical dimensions to fire the same rifle (the collapsible stock on my AR allows my 5’4″ wife to fire the same rifle that I do, and I am 6’5″). Without it, either I or my wife must contend with incorrect stock length, or buy two rifles when one would suffice.

        Quite aside from that, we as shooters and gun owners have given up plenty to appease the needs of “the public welfare”, and it has not done anything to make us safer.

        Nobody needs a machine gun, register them! Ok, since 1934 we have required all full auto firearms in the US be registered with the federal government, and a special transfer tax be paid. In the 78 years since then (and counting) a legally owned machine gun has been used to commit murder precisely twice, and once was a Police Officer using a legally owned MAC10 to murder an informant.

        Nobody needs a machine gun! Ok, since 1986 we citizens have not been able to register a newly manufactured fully automatic weapon. We have the ones that have existed prior to 1986 (you think a criminal is going to pay $16,000 for a legal full auto AR?). In California, we don’t even have those, California requires a state issued license to own full auto weapons. The license application requires you to show “good cause” to own a full auto with the state DOJ deciding if your cause is good enough. No one has come up with a reason that they find good enough in several decades.

        Nobody needs foreign made guns (except shotguns)! We have the Gun Control Act of 1968 that put an end to importation of anything that doesn’t have a “sporting purpose” (which is whatever ATF decides it is) and created a class of prohibited persons that will never be allowed to own a firearm in their lives, despite some qualifying events being relatively minor and in truth harmless.

        Nobody needs an Assault Weapon or a high capacity magazine! We had a 10 year federal ban on the exact same weapons that Fienstein and Obama want to ban now (and make no mistake Obama has stated several times that he supports this and will push for it). And a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, like we had before. This despite the several studies that concluded that these exact bans did nothing to impact crime.

        Nobody needs an Assault Weapon!

        I think you see where this is going.

        Diane Feinstein and those of her ilk want all of your guns. Feinstein admitted it in 1994. They merely know that they can’t do it all at once.

        Now we have New York ramming through legislation to ban magazines with a more than 7 round capacity. As if 10 wasn’t arbitrary enough, now it must be 7!

        If we let them have one more inch it will never stop. Not until we are a mirror image of England, where the law abiding are now left to the mercy of the criminal.

        The basic problem is that the other side wants to use “perception management” to get what they want. We should not play their game.

        The simple answer to your question is; needs got nothing to do with it.

        And you are wrong about your assumption that modern rifles were designed to look scary. Form follows function, the AR15 and Glock pistol are the physical proof of that statement.

        Facts are the only thing relevant to this issue. The gun grabbers will do everything in their power to obfuscate the truth and turn this into an emotional plea, because they know that they cannot win when the masses have the actual facts in front of them.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          You make many good points, but you’re still in denial about my main thrust here, when you say:

          And you are wrong about your assumption that modern rifles were designed to look scary.

          No, I’m not. The Blog owners agree with me.

          “Whereas the AR-15 and all of its many variants look mass produced and are stylistically cold as death, the Mini-14 – even with a synthetic stock – cuts a classic figure, even historic.”
          ~William C. Montgomery, The Truth About Guns

          C o l d . A s . D e a t h .

          That’s the perception that is fueling the gun-grabbers.

          Perception Management. It can win or lose wars. It’s time to get a handle on it.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Thanks. I already pictured that pinko gun today, and it proves my point.

          Perception is important.

          If you want to claim it isn’t, buy that gun, take it to the range with your buddies, and start preaching pure functionality.

          Let me know how many you convert to buying that gun to be just like you.

        • avatarMotoJB says:

          Actually I disagree…don’t think that you proved anything The pink rifle still is an Ar15 that holds 30 rounds and is as deadly as it’s “cold as death” cousin. Gun grabbers and anti’s won’t give a crap what color it is, or how many hello kitty stickers it has on it. Lastly, come on, your argument doesn’t fly – of course men won’t want pink hello kitty ar’s. Women just like their crap beautified all the time…you’re grasping. Even if we put nice wood furniture on AR’s it won’t change any anti’s “perception”. The perception that is the most troubling is that these semi auto rifles are somehow more deadly than most others, when they are not. I even had some anti fool on CNN argue with me the other day…he called AR’s, “semi-auto assault machine guns”. Face palm. It’s not perception we have a problem with, it’s education.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          If I’m wrong, purchase one. See how things go at the range.

          And you are wrong about your assumption that modern rifles were designed to look scary.

          No, it’s been clarified by one of the blog authors here. “Assault weapon” in reference to semi-autos wasn’t a gun-grabber tactic, it was a sales tactic of the firearms industry.

          I wish I could find that link, because it debunks some serious bullshit about “assault weapons” perceptions that people blame on the grabbers.

      • avatarNot Jimbo says:

        An AR-15 is lighter, more ergonomic and more accurate than a Mini-14. The only valid reason to choose the Ruger would be for aesthetic preference. The AR design is simply better from a practical standpoint.
        The Mini-14 will send rounds downrange, pretty well, accurately enough for most purposes and it looks cool in its own right. But the AR is just better.

  6. avatarChuckN says:

    MSM: “OMG! The carnage! The blood! The agony!
    Legislators running for their lives! Childrens’
    psyches sacrificed! The capital looted! Duels,
    lynchings, shootouts, slaughtered animals,
    wedgies! This is what happens when you
    allow gun-nuts to assemble!”

    “Wait. What was that. Non of this actually
    happened? Are you sure?”

    “Well, can we report it like this anyway?”

  7. avatarIvy Mike says:

    “I want a kinder, and gentler nation.” ~George W. Bush

    He won an election with that.

    If people want to ban this sort of stuff, merey on looks:
    http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mini14-upgrade.gif

    Why not quit antagonizing them, and be satisfied with an Elmer Fudd lookin’ “Ranch Rifle?”
    http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg

    Perception management.

    Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Mt. 10:16

  8. avatarGuilene Regnier says:

    Why not a ranch rifle? Have you ever been in a gun fight? Fire power rules. The most ammo wins. You do not want an inferior weapon. Would you settle for and Elmer Fudd car or truck? No, I thought not. They are antagonizing our basic freedoms. That is why!

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      Sorry, maam, but a “black, angry, aggressively” stylized mini-14 has no more firepower potential than a kinder, gentler looking “Ranch Rifle.” Same functionality, same everything, except one thing: looks.

      Want to win a war? Better learn some perception management.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      The AR-15 is THE NEW RANCH RIFLE..
      Let’s start with that.

      • avatarCoyote Gray says:

        Today’s kindler gentler Ranch Rifle is tomorrows deadly “Wild, Wild West Cowboy Rifle” that isn’t needed in a civilized society. The goal of anti’s isn’t gun safety or to reduce gun crime, it’s gun elimination. Else they’d go after handguns first. Strategically, they are attempting to kill 2 A with a million nicks. The so called “Assault Weapon” is simply low hanging fruit.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          I’m trying to do new thinking, not echo-chamber the same memes around again and again.

          The so called “Assault Weapon” was a marketing ploy by the gun manufacturers to mimic real assault weapons.

          • Perception, not mere functionality, sells guns.
          • Perception, not mere functionality, bans guns.

          The perception–of both sides–is that they are more scary, belligerent, aggressive.

          Now there is blowback against that more scary, belligerent, aggressive looks.

          It might not be fair, but if you walk down a street dressed one way, compared to being dressed another, you have a lot more chance of getting arrested by the cops when somebody calls you in. I know it isn’t fair. I know they’re functionally the same.

          Perception management. It can keep you out of jail. Can it keep your firearms?

      • avatarLeo338 says:

        First it was the standing army or some bs like that. Now it’s perception management. Great! Now we get to hear about it 10 times a day. No one gives a sh*t about anything he says but that doesn’t stop him from repeating it.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          You don’t care about the complete 2A or winning this current battle against the anti-gun folks? Why not, dipstick?

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        No, it’s not perceived as a Fuddesque “ranch rifle.” Nearly everybody perceives this. Pro-gun people admittedly acknowledge it and mockingly call it a “scary black rifle” and anti-gun people realize it when they try to prohibit it by its looks.

        While functionally the same, its perceived as different as walking down the street in a navy blue blazer and tan khaki trousers compared to camo cargo pants and a black hoodie.

        Which look will affect people’s perceptions more positively if you see a “Now Hiring” sign and walk it and inquire?

        And sure, go into all the technicalities you want about extra pockets on the cargo pants and the modern zipper on a hoodie, and how you’re just as good of a person, and nobody has the right to judge me by my dress, but the difference in perception remains.

        And one fellow has a much better chance of getting hired. Or voted into office. Or winning a political battle.

        Is such perception fair? No. Is it real? Oh yeah.

  9. avatarSixpack70 says:

    After all of these events, we can’t become complacent. More of these events are needed and more education on firearms. It is tough to stem the tide of confiscationist (maybe a new term for them?) propaganda, but at least we have our 1A rights to continue to fight with. Even if they relent, as in VT, more effort must be placed to ensure they don’t attempt to regain any momentum. It is going to be an uphill battle due to the ideology of the MSM and their barrage of misinformation to the American public. I truly believe that the American people will make the decision to uphold our freedoms when given the facts.

  10. avatarLance says:

    Very good glad you sent pics.

  11. avatarkb says:

    LOL @ “Lighter, Assault Lighter”

  12. avatarCatahoula Cave Man says:

    In the picture with Senator Jim Nielsen, where can I get a flag or banner with that image!?

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      You should be able to save the picture off of this website.
      To that end the background banner was made by some local Tea Party folks in SoCal. They worked through the night and then drove all the way to be there.

  13. avatareugene says:

    good job on everything! too bad I was out of town with the wife. Seemed like everything was peaceful.

    Were there any counter-protestors?

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      I think there was one, but she may have been brought by the media in an attempt to offer a balance point!

  14. Great job! I really wanted to make it but ended up sick in bed. This is just starting, I am sure there will be other rallies on the horizon. The anti gun folks are really anti people folks! This is not about guns!

  15. avatarAccur81 says:

    Excellent! Sorry I wasn’t able to make it up from SoCal. My wife is super pregnant and has an upper respiratory infection of some sort.

  16. avatarLSUTigersFan says:

    There is hope for California!!!

  17. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    Rest assured TTAGer’s, for those who attended the rally’s this is day 1.
    There are lots of other things in the works, and we are looking at many options. As our plans and ideas are set into action, you all will be on the front lines with us.

    All of this was started over the last few weeks as many of us saw what was happening and understood that we can not be silent anymore. We understood that we needed to be proactive, and on the offense, not defense of this issue.

    We are 100% grass roots, all of this was done by you, not some PR firm in Washington or a group of lobbyists with money. This was the first time that I can remember that the American people spoke out on a gun related issue, and there was no input from anyone inside the beltway.

    We now have contacts within government, and also local Sheriffs and others who stand for our constitution. We will leverage those to make change, and hopefully time the progress of the citizen disarmament groups. You have to understand we are late players. The MAIG, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, etc etc are well funded, organized and working with the main stream media.

    This is sort of like a David heading off to face Goliath. We have confidence, and with our continued work we will prevail. We are taking this one step at a time. As we grow we want to gain a positive reputation. We want to be the voice of the people, and most of all we want to be effective! We will get there with all your help.

    Thank you again for all those that attended any of the rally’s.

  18. avatarg says:

    Love the signs and pictures of families. GJ, Californians!

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.