P1320594

Hundreds of people have gathered at the Alamo in San Antonio to voice their support for the Second Amendment, and we are on the scene. I just showed up a few minutes ago, and Robert is on his way. Rest assured that we will keep you informed about what’s going on, any counter protests and what people at the event are saying. Keep refreshing this page for updates.

 

P1320603

P1320630

10:35 – Alex Jones has taken the stage and is whipping up the crowd. Looks like he has an AR-15 of some sort on his back with a Magpul PMAG.

P1320635

10:45 – His voice just gave out from screaming too much.

P1320679

 

10:57 – The only member of Moms Demand Action that I have managed to identify. Don’t see any others.

P1320699

11:00 – Robert has arrived and looks very… Texas.

11:15 – The MDA woman is being interviewed. Her argument: she’s not used to seeing guns in public and “it doesn’t make sense.”

12:56 – Nick in the lionesses’ den:

photo

1382206150687

1:08 – Rally is over, Robert is enjoying the RiverWalk before trudging back to Austin.

P1320662

P1320795

P1320721

No more updates.

128 Responses to Live from the Gun Rights Rally at the Alamo

  1. Stay safe out there. Also I’m curious to see how many protestors out there won’t cite the bible in their signs. Not bashing religion or anything but most anti-gunners think that only god fearing yokels care about gun rights and it would be nice to see more vocal pro-2a people who aren’t God fearing (just Gov fearing).

    • Gonna have to agree. There were audible moans amongst the applause at the Jan 19th rally here in Washington state when one of the speakers began reciting bible verses during his speech.

      Keep the religious stuff out of this fight.

      • Everyone, including me and you, has their religion. Some are more traditional and well defined. Others are less defined even to the point of self-delusion that it is not a religious point of view at all. The new term seems to be “worldview”. Everyone has one and it shapes who you are and how you think.

        Not wishing for someone to quote Bible verses is not a neutral position. It generally comes from someone pushing a humanist worldview on the rest of us. If you really believe in liberty then a few verses won’t offend you just as your lack of quoting them won’t offend me.

        • It annoys me plenty. The question is, do you want to gain converts to your religion, or to the gun movement? Because a lot of us who are interested in the second are tired of the first. You can be as unhappy with that as you want, but it doesn’t change anything.

        • My position comes from someone who showed up at a pro-2a rally, and was instead treated to a speaker who wanted to quote religious text and talk about abortion.

          This was all during a phase in the fight where anti-2a commenters in the media were accusing us still of clinging to bibles and guns… and there is somebody opening their mouth and flapping it in exactly such a pattern as the media had defined.

          Not to be rude, but I would assume that you could figure out why I was not excited about it.

        • Last I read it (and I have), the bible doesn’t weigh in on AK vs AR, or 1911 vs Glock [1]. No text regarding 2nd Amendment interpretation. It doesn’t even say “don’t live by the sword” but rather notes that those who live by them tend to die by them.

          I personally don’t really care to discuss my religious beliefs in a public forum – especially when the forum was established for something else, as in this case.

          [1] besides, we all know it should be Thompsons and CZs…

        • No, not wanting to hear bible verses is not a neutral position – but it is NOT “pushing” a secular humanist viewpoint or agenda. Were someone to try to burn, ban, or suppress the bible, that would be pushing a secular viewpoint.

          What not wanting to hear bible verses IS, is a request that Christians not “push” their viewpoint on the rest of us.

          The First Amendment confirms not only freedom OF religion, but also our right to freedom FROM religion

        • Leadbelly, demanding silence from Christians is doing exactly those things. Demanding that only the secular/humanist worldview be expressed in public and everyone else be silent is not a neutral position.

          I understand that type of speech is divisive. It always is and always has been. But, everyone has their motivation. This is mine. Please don’t be so quick to cut us loose. we wish to defend our liberty too.

          I usually don’t come out and preach in this forum. This is one of those rare points. When my core beliefs are spoken of in derisive terms I must speak in their defense.

        • What derisive terms?

          Drop the persecution complex man.

          We are complaining about the people that choose to interject religion into a non-religious protest.

        • “We are complaining about the people that choose to interject religion into a non-religious protest.”

          My whole point is that there is no such thing as “non-religious”. Everyone has a worldview. Everyone has a motivation. Everyone lives by certain standards, codes, values or whatever. Even hedonists have a belief. They worship their own pleasure.

          Don’t be angered by my motivations to be armed and protect liberty and I won’t be angered by yours however you express it.

        • Scottlac – you’ve just given the lie to your own position by saying there is no such thing as “non-religious”. This is the point of view that drives me nuts. I suppose it is natural that believers would feel that religion suffuses every aspect of existence. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but no, it doesn’t. If you really think that no one should be offended by being subjected to religious rants, please try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. How would you feel, as a Christian, if you lived in a majority Muslim country. Wouldn’t you get pretty tired of listening to what you might regard as nonsense being constantly spouted in every public arena? Even worse – how would you like it if a religion you disagreed with was quasi-official – accepted as the “truth” by the majority?

          All that those of us who do not subscribe to religious belief want is for you folks to quit assuming that your particular superstition is welcome everywhere. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard a “secular humanist” start spouting his philosophy in public in any situation not
          directly related to a debate on religion in public life. On the other hand, it is next to impossible to avoid being preached at by Christians, no matter where you go. It’s getting better – at least children aren’t being subjected to religious indoctrination in public schools any more.

        • Leadbelly says:

          “The First Amendment confirms not only freedom OF religion, but also our right to freedom FROM religion”

          True, but FIRST it protects Freedom of Speech. So, yeah, the zealots have a right to stand on their soapbox and announce their foolishness to the world and I’m not allowed to use force to stop them from speaking, but I’m certainly allowed to ridicule them, yawning, belching and farting through their presentation. (I have freedom of speech too!) But by the same token, they are prohibited from using their guns, or government guns, or anybody else’s guns, to force their religion on anyone.

          The operative word here being “force.”

        • Oh well, I didn’t really expect anyone here to think this far outside the box and try to understand. I would like everyone to notice that I wasn’t the one to bring it up, the very first comment did. Danny did and Jeff seconded.

          Leadbelly said- “Wouldn’t you get pretty tired of listening to what you might regard as nonsense being constantly spouted in every public arena? Even worse – how would you like it if a religion you disagreed with was quasi-official – accepted as the “truth” by the majority?”

          Actually I do. I live in a country that is dominated by secularists who are intolerant of religious truth. I live in a country that is increasingly hostile to my views. I live in a country where government officials constantly stifle free religious PUBLIC speech. I live in a country that is consistently stifling religious expressions in public. I live in a country that tells me to keep my religion private and don’t dare bring it outside my home. I live in a country that constantly threatens to confiscate my children if I dare to educate them as I wish. I live in a country where, yet again, Christmas nativity displays will soon be removed from public land and now are being removed from private land because they are in public view. I live in a country that tells me to conceal my faith and do not carry it outside my home.

          All I ask is that you consider that and consider your own religious views regardless of how little thought you put into them.

        • Without the Christian religion there would be no U.S. of A. with a Constitution to begin with. It’s all about that religion.

        • re: the idea of freedom *from* religion vs. freedom *of*…

          I’m not religious, and I don’t appreciate being preached at, but I do NOT have the right to be “free” from said preaching.

          There’s no more right to freedom from religion than there is freedom from violence. What the First and Second Amendments both protect is freedom *of* — as in freedom of choice. We have the right to make our own decisions, free from state or majority coercion.

          The right to be free from something is not an individual right at all. You can’t be free from the beliefs or actions of other people without taking away their freedom to act and believe according to their own conscience.

      • David, please list all the mentions of the word “God” in the Constitution. Now please review all the places where religion is mentioned. I think what you’ll actually find is the consistent message the Constitution has about religion is “keep it out of government and keep the government away from it”.

        • One of the things the Founding Fathers wanted to safeguard against was the “Divine Right of Kings,” the idea that Kings got their authority directly from God, to the degree that when they needed a new king, the High Priest did the crowning.

    • Religious signs were in attendance but all of the speeches were gun/big gov related only other than the occasional “god-given rights” quote. Very focused.

      • Doesn’t bother me if people refer to the fact that we are “endowed by the Creator” with rights. As for the USA not existing without Christianity, that’s a two-edged sword. My ancestors came here under threat of being drawn and quartered for practicing their religion, a threat carried out regularly by the established Church of England, and before that by Catholics. History isn’t simple.

      • I see what you did there 😉

        But agreed, personally I am an agnostic/atheist, I am not a preachy pushy kind either, live and let live is my motto when it comes to religion. But I personally would be much less inclined to come to a gun rally if I knew that I was going to be preached to about Christianity. I have 0 desire to listen to somebody bible thump to me, and there are fewer ways to push somebody who is not religious away from a cause then to try to inject religion into it.

        If you want to talk about guns and use bible verses at your next bible study that is one thing, have at it. But if you want to draw the largest support base you possibly can then you need to keep out as much of the other noise that could turn people off as possible. Don’t talk about religion, non-gun/freedom related politics, or even sports, you are bound to drive SOMEBODY off that could be a potential ally.

      • +1. Being a FUDD is about selling out and taking it, not about what kind of guns you own. AR and AK owners can be FUDDs too if they say “I don’t need a 30 round mag; 10 will do.”

        • Even “I don’t need a thirty round mag” doesn’t make you a Fudd, unless the (either spoken or unspoken) rest of that statement is “… so I don’t care if they ban ’em” or (even worse) “… so they oughta be banned.”

          I personally have no use for a 3,000 round mag (a bit bulky and heavy) BUT I refuse to countenance any attempt to ban them. Period.

        • I think I qualify as “quasi-fudd tacticool” .

          I own some of the lancer 30 round translucent magazines, which I admit I bought solely for the “cool factor”. Funny thing is, when I shoot my AR, I actually prefer the 20 round metal magazines. I haven’t used the lancer mags more than a couple of times since I bought them.

        • Its not a “low quality” issue or anything like that – the lancers function just fine. I just like the smaller magazine.

        • You are not a Fudd for prefering the 20 round mags. There are some contexts where they make more sense. You only become a fudd when you don’t care whether someone bans the thirties.

    • He would be a FUDD sitting a home watching this on TV and saying “why don’t these idiots just give up on these EBRs! Nobody needs more than 5 rounds in their gun for huntin!”

    • I want to give a shoutout to the dude with (what looks like) a mosin carbine!

      +1 for originality (glares at boring AR-15’s)

      • The mosin gets the point across and it’s not as expensive as AR types. If the cops wind up taking it for some reason, it’s not a major financial hit.

      • It does seem like the AR-15 is everywhere these days.

        I don’t live in Texas and I am wondering what I would have brought to this.

  2. I get that carrying a long gun openly is legal and a right. But do you think this hurts the cause? Why not just protest with your concealed weapon?

    Just a thought. Hope all goes well in SA.

    • If you’re going to protest with a CC why bring a gun at all?

      Responsibly OCing is what shows the pants-shitters we mean business, but we are no threat to them.

    • One of the goals is to get open carry for handguns legalized in Texas. So a rally of a bunch of concealed-carriers doesn’t really help much there. I think the point they’re trying to make is, a gun is a gun. If it’s okay to carry a baby-killing death machine around, why do I have to have special permission to carry a much less powerful handgun around? The rifles highlight how arbitrary and ridiculous the laws are.

    • Thanks for clarifying. To answer, “why bring a gun at all”? I never go anywhere without it. But yes, those fearful need to know we aren’t going to go batshit crazy just because we have a gun.

      If it is a rally for open carry, then I stand corrected. I thought it was for gun rights in general.

      Again, thanks for the responses.

    • Those that want to take our guns and rights away want to make open carry associated with the criminal and mentally derranged. The more lawful citizens that carry openly ( of all political leanings) the more this lie is dispelled. How people perceive gun owners and how we carry guns is a central part of our fight to protect our 2a rights. Gun grabbers know they can only win by painting legal gun owners with a facade of criminality and extremism.

    • I can’t decide if Alex Jones is sincere or if he’s a planted agent whose mission is to make anti-government people look ludicrous. If it’s the latter, he’s probably due for a bonus, because he’s doing a great job.

    • Every time a Fudd says “I am all for gun rights but who needs an EBR (or a 30 round magazine, or…) an anti-gunner smiles.

      • They met up to go shopping together and talked extra loud about bad evil mean gun owners while browsing through Marshall’s for early Christmas deals.

        • There was supposed to be “press conference” at City Hall. THEN, they are headed to Macy’s, Ruta Maya, and finally to a fancy shancy dinner at Sullivan’s.

    • Austin is only about 78 miles from San Antonio. I run up to Austin all the time to have lunch or go to short meetings. It was a lot easier years ago before the traffic got so bad though. Austin and San Antonio are growing like crazy.

  3. I’m all for 2A rallies, but the moment Alex Jones and his ilk show up is the moment I have to leave. Sorry, but he’s as crackpot as they come.

  4. If moms demand action are there, they’re in the right place. I saw a bolt action, an AK action, an AR action. Heck, they have some nice choices on actions.

      • I was all prepared to come here and say, “Wow, that was the most reasonable and measured I’ve ever seen Alex Jones be. He made a lot of sense, and did it without being an idiot.”

        Then I got to the last 90 seconds, when he went all Alex Jones on us, with “huge armies with mobile execution vans,” and it went downhill from there.

        • Did I miss something? I saw at the end him saying that govt has killed millions of civilians in the 20th century, where they have taken away firearms.

          Don’t get me wrong…not a fan of his…or his voice…but that video wasn’t crazy

        • “Huge armies with mobile execution vans” didn’t do it for you? It wasn’t the words that he used after that, so much as it was he started screaming and waving his arms instead of being calm and measured. Screaming handwaving often makes people think he’s a crazy person, even if they may agree with the words he’s using.

        • Matt,

          you seem stressed. Why don’t you step into this black van which will take you to the huge de-stressing camp out in the badlands.

          muwuhwhahahaa….

        • I’m not sure why an army would need a “mobile execution van” when they have warehouses full of guns and ammunition.

        • @stinkeye, They can have all the guns and ammo they can muster, but when they don’t have enough people willing to fire them…

        • I get that, but my point was that Jones’ claim about “mobile execution vans” is pretty ridiculous. Why would an oppressive government need to construct an elaborate device to kill people, when historically, a Luger or Makarov round to the back of the skull has proven to be a very efficient method? Governments have at their disposal a dizzying array of methods to kill people, they probably don’t need “execution vans”.

          It’s these kinds of claims that make Alex Jones easy to ignore. Which is a shame, because at least 30% of what he says is stuff people should listen to. But then he goes off about the RAND Corporation, saucer people, and reverse vampires, and most people tune him out.

        • Well, it would make even less sense, if you think about it. You’d hope your mobile SWAT van would be mobile, otherwise it’s a pretty shitty van.

        • My point was only that the thing about “Mobile execution squads” was presented as a ridiculous extremist view of what the martial law will look like, and I was merely pointing out that there are already vans full of what are essentially storm troopers who have been known to kill a person here and there.

          I’m only grateful that the existing ones are under local control, mostly.

      • I’ve never even heard Alex Jones, but I can tell you that the reference to “huge armies and mobile execution vans” is a straightforward reference to contemporary mainland China. The mobile execution vans are literally that: They go from place to place providing execution services for local police departments, applying it to criminals condemned to death. There’s nothing far-fetched about it.

  5. I see moms demand action sent the best and brightest to represent… “It doesn’t make sense”. How about if your so worried about protecting children, arm up and even the odds?

  6. #1= you will take a hit because you support the 2 ond ammendment
    #2= you will take another mhit for mentioning God ..

    Why give em that much more ammo to use against you?
    Stick to one topic and you can win
    split it to two topics and you will loose
    Robert Seddon

  7. “I’m not used to seeing so many guns… It doesn’t make sense.”

    You do realize you’re attending a public gun rights rally, right?

    Were you expecting to see everyone carrying puppies and kittens…?

    Are you also shocked by the

  8. Are you talking about” Mom’s Demand to Be Victims”? I believe we should post signs at all their leaders homes stating- “Public Notice —THIS HOME HATES GUNS AND DOES NOT AND WILL NOT HAVE ANY- SIGNED MOM’s Demand Action Committee .So if they would put their money where their mouths are MAYBE,somebody would respect them.If they WON’T{YOU CAN BET THEY WON’T} THEN THEY ARE HYPOCRITES!

  9. Nick, cute girl in red, white, and blue, carrying an AR (with a tactical toothbrush ziptied to the quad-rail, showing her sense of humor is intact) with a Nintendo Duck Hunt half-sleeve on her right arm (and I think I see some more ink peeking out on her left bicep).

    Please, please, tell me you got her number.

  10. Great pictures.

    I would love to get an estimate of the numbers. I saw a bit of the rally from a webcam across the street. It did not fit all of the crowd into the frame. My guess was a couple of thousand showed up.

    Robert, were you able to get a better estimate. Thanks for being there.

    There is a great article if we can get pictures of the Moms about something vs the Alamo rally. Nice contrast and compare piece.

  11. Awesome! I wish I could have made it, but SA is so very far from DFW and my chores were so many. That’s what I get for going hunting the last two weekends in a row.

  12. I live in SA but I’ve been sick, so we didn’t get down there until it was almost over. I think I saw Nick at the Alamo as the rally headed off to Travis Park. I saw at least one guy had a loaded pmag in his rifle. We didn’t bring any ammo.

    It was a beautiful day, and as my husband and I walked around downtown, our Bushmaster didn’t get a second glance from anyone. When we got to Travis Park for the end of the rally, the cops were all clustered under a tree chatting with each other, bored with the whole scene. I took their boredom as a good sign.

    My husband and I took the obligatory pictures of each other in front of the Alamo, only this time we were holding our “assault weapon” in the pictures.

  13. Sad I missed it.

    The first amendment has freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I’m don’t want to hear people quoting the bible to me, but I don’t have any right to tell you to stop.

    That said, it doesn’t help the cause. So help yourself send the message you want and shutup about the bible while talking about human rights.

    • “The first amendment has freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I’m don’t want to hear people quoting the bible to me, but I don’t have any right to tell you to stop.”

      Actually, when you think about it, that’s true. The First Amendment isn’t about freedom from religion. The Second Amendment is the one for that. 😉

        • Matt in FL Sez: “…castle doctrine applies”
          I looked it up, and I like it. I was kind of surprised to find that “A man’s home is his castle” was made law in 1628. So technically, it was already law when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. Somehow, I find that kind of kewl. 🙂 I wonder if Piers Morgan would be pleased to learn that the 2nd Amendment merely incorporated and codified the existing King’s law at the time? >:->

        • “How close is religion allowed to get to you?”

          That’s irrelevant, because I don’t have a bone to pick with religion per se. When you start using force to require obedience to any religious tenets, then we have a quarrel. On the personal savior level, If you get in my face, I’ll ask you to get out of my face, but other than that, you can go fly a kite for all I care. No offense intended to anyone of course.

          Just thought of an example: I was peacefully playing video games in an arcade one day, and some thumper came up with his “Have you heard the word of the Lord today” stuff, and I said, “Too late.” He said, “It’s never too late for Jesus.” I said, “No, I mean it’s too late for you. I’m a Diabolist, and if you’re not out of my sight in three seconds, I’m going to put a hex on you.”

          I wish there’d been such a thing as videocams back in those days. 😉

      • Studies show that if you let them get within 15 feet they can convert you in 1.2 seconds if your defenses aren’t up.

  14. I want to know if the MDA (Mentally Disabled Activist) was asked by the reporter, “Don’t you think it’s odd that you are safer here than in your Mothers’ arms?” (see what i did there?)
    If the place was so chaotic, didn’t make sense to her, why would she be there, other than infiltrate and hope for a PR jackpot?
    She witnessed a peaceful (gasp Republi-Libtertaria-Pendent) rally and is still too MDA drunk to notice.

  15. Thanks Robt and Nick- good show.

    Another vote for saving the bible-thumping for other venues, with respect,

    and

    Alex Jones to stick to his own show ,
    instead of hogging the lime-light making responsible gun-folk look nutty by association.

    Good speech by Mike Vanderboegh of SipseyStreet.
    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/

  16. Holy moly, look at all that diversity! You’ve got AR’s, AK’s, Mausers, bolt actions, shotguns, all together in one place!!!

      • Hey, speaking of epiphanies, I don’t remember which article talked about the former anti’s first shot epiphany, but I wanted to comment on it.

        I didn’t have any epiphany when I first shot, but probably because I’ve always been pro-gun.

        But I’ve been skydiving.

        The connection is, once while getting trained while hanging in a harness, the trainer said, “Don’t look at me. There isn’t going to be anybody up there but you and God. And God don’t talk to skydivers; He thinks we’re crazy.”

        I think it’s like that. My very life itself is in nobody’s hands but my own.

        I like that feeling. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *