Second Amendment Foundation: We Don’t Support Guns at Political Protests

The Second Amendment Foundation is one of the most effective advocates for Second Amendment rights. They’ve won crucial Supreme Court and lower court battles bolstering the Second Amendment’s status as a fundamental individual right. They clearly believe that everyone has a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Except, it seems, at protests . . .

Following the riots in Charlottesville where gun control activists had their knickers in a twist about the presence of armed protesters (despite the fact that there were no injuries or arrests involving these individuals), the SAF’s Alan Gottlieb is trying to split the difference and appear to be the “reasonable” voice in gun politics.

“We are not a fan of armed protests and highly discourage that,” said Alan Gottlieb, the founder and executive vice president of the SAF. “Firearms serve a purpose, and the purpose is not a mouthpiece. It’s to defend yourself. If you are carrying it to make a political point, we are not going to support that.”

That distinction — designating firearms for self defense, not political expression — limits the scope of the Second Amendment, not to mention gun owners’ First Amendment rights as well. The RKBA was intended as a guarantee against a tyrannical government. One of the best ways to remind elected officials of that fact: put them on display, normalizing them in the eyes of the public.

Following the Sandy Hook shooting, Gottlieb supported the failed Toomey-Manchin Background Check Bill which would have put severe restrictions on the ability for Americans to purchase firearms. He’s remained open to making a deal on background checks with anti-gun legislators.

As gun rights supporters have shown over the last 30+ years, politics is the art of the possible. The SAF has a history of trying to appear as the “moderate” alternative to the National Rifle Association. While that may earn them some points across the aisle, it doesn’t generate warm fuzzies among gun owners.

comments

  1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Yeah, SAF (& the CCRKBA) does get a bit squishy at times. That puzzles me given done of the cases they’ve supported.

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      I’m having a hard time visualizing any civil right that it would be okay to be squishy on. Seems pretty much all-or-nothing for any i can think of. Pick a side, left or right – those who stand in the middle of the road will get run over.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        Personal opinion here…
        They aren’t saying don’t do it, or, worse, it’s wrong, but t hey are instead saying they don’t support it.
        And I see their point; armed protests, especially where those arms might increase the possibility of violence, isn’t really a good idea. While it may be your right, that doesn’t make it right to do it.
        If we, as POTG, fail to see more than one side, and insist that our rights are absolute (and they aren’t), we will lose support.
        I, personally, tend to avoid protests, because I’ve seen what happens all too often. Attending a protest that has nothing to do with guns, and attempting to make it about guns, simply tempts fate to step in and fu*k you, one way or another.
        Seeing the other points than yours doesn’t mean you have to agree with them, but I have found that it tends to make you a more reasonable person when you see what the other people are saying.

        1. avatar BLAMMO says:

          The right to peaceably assemble and the R2K&BA are not mutually exclusive. I don’t attend protests either because they’re invariably a waste of time and energy and I prefer to avoid stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places at stupid times. But if I were to attend a peaceful protest, I would prefer to be armed because of counter-protestors who want to infringe my rights (like spraying me with pepper spray and throwing condoms filled with urine and feces).

  2. avatar AngryAz says:

    Ahh yes rights we support… BUT no buts 2nd amendment absolutist here

    1. avatar Craig says:

      Pound sand 2nd amendment foundation and Gottlieb. All or nothing.

  3. avatar Wildman says:

    The same SAF that sided with Joe Manchin on background checks a few years back. Gottlieb needs to get some balls.

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      “Balls” is not what Mr. Gottlieb is after. Gottlieb is a capitalist, plain and simple. Just because he is supposedly pro-2A means diddly-squat when the almighty dollar is the primary objective.

      Manchin-Toomey-Gottlieb Bill was my last straw with these guys.

  4. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

    As long as this is a pragmatic opinion, I have no objection although I disagree. The moment the SAF gets behind legislation to ban weapons at political protests is the moment I will object vociferously.

  5. avatar The Punisher says:

    Solution is easy.

    Dissolve the Federal government and State governments and then sell any “public” lands to any private person who has the means to buy it and then they can say what happens on their property.

    Crazy you say? I don’t think so. Thousands of years of organized government has proven to me what crazy is and the definition of insanity.

    But, as it is, we have the right to free speech, we have the right to protest and we have the right to bear arms…and if all of this is done on “public” property and in peace then there isn’t a dang thing anyone can do about it. If any group comes with violent intent then there’s always going to be a problem.

    Try having a public debate in a civilized manner to get both opposing viewpoints vs just having a protest that is mostly preaching to the choir.

    1. avatar GunDoc says:

      Perfect.

      Then People like Google, Facebook, and Amazon can take over from the Corporate entities that own them currently (BLM, Department of Interior, etc.)

      Horrible, horrible idea. The land needs to be parceled out and turned over to the States.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Step 1: dissolve the BLM; any lands surrounded completely by Forest Service lands go to the national forests, any surrounded or adjacent to national parks go to those parks, any adjacent to state parks go to those parks, any currently in use by ranchers or lumber companies gets offered for sale to those people, and the rest gets handed to the states.

        Let that situation settle down for a decade, then review.

      2. avatar George says:

        Then the states will do what Nevada did and sell 99% of it. Bad Idea.

    2. avatar HoosierBudgetGunGuy says:

      If Federal and State governments are dissolved, how are people expected to pay, since the currency would no longer be valid. I don’t keep piles of gold at home. Do you?

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Good catch. Besides that, who is doing the selling, and thus who gets the money?

        The way to go is actually an old libertarian position not uncommon at the time of the Founding, namely that the whole country and its resources belong to everyone; property taxes levied by government would thus not be on land but only on things built on it, and in fact government would have to pay us fr the use of land. Instead of property tax those with land would pay rent, and the revenue from that rent (less a small amount for administration) would be divvied up equally among all the citizens (a more modern version would allow some of the revenue to be used for national parks and such).

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I believe this to be utter fantasy. Cite your sources.

          Unless you are talking about the First Nations/Native Americans/Indians, our founders were very solid on the notion of land ownership. Now it’s possible that only improvements were taxed, but no one advocated paying rent to the state for the land one occupied (aside, perhaps from those who viewed it as a property tax, but in that case the ownership was legally with the individual, not the state).

          I really do wish you’d take your false libertarianism elsewhere, or at least accurately label it as socialism.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          LOL

          That’s about as far from socialism as you can get. It’s a position that was advocated by Thomas Paine, among others, on the basis that there is no rational argument for why any individual should be allowed to own something they didn’t produce — land. But in order to defend land as private property, he and others came up with this system, which is extremely libertarian in that it allows no room for government or any other entity to have a de facto monopoly on a country’s land, placing in in the only rational place, the people as a whole. It is thus not socialism but in fact capitalism with the country being a corporation of “We, the people”.

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          If “nobody” owns my land, then someone will nevertheless have to decide what to do with it.

          That will end up being “society” meaning whatever pukestain ends up in office.

          Same result as with socialism.

        4. avatar Roymond says:

          If government has to pay rent on all the land it uses, how is that the “same result as with socialism”? Government would be just another renter with no more say over anyone else’s land than you would have.

          Actually the only difference from the present system in terms of government is that government gets cut out of the loop except for one thing, and that would be protecting property rights. And it would give a rational foundation to land ‘ownership’ other than the current one, which is nothing but “might makes right”.

          And as a side benefit, with the corporation of the people receiving the land rents and distributing them equally to everyone, a lot of socialist ideas would go out the window since everyone would have an income directly related to the country’s prosperity.

  6. avatar Timothy says:

    A, isn’t all open carry a form of political protest? Aren’t you openly saying that you will not allow politicians to infringe upon your rights?!?

    B, isn’t like a rally where the KKK and ANTIFA are clashing the literal best time to defend yourself? A concealed pistol won’t protect you from a rock to the back of the noggin, but a group of guys holding rifles will.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Exactly.

      So long as political protests could be expected to be respected and peaceful there was no particular NEED to be armed, concealed or otherwise. The current leftist fascists have shown that ANY political protest they disapprove of is fraught with significant danger of assault and injury by their jack-booted (and club wielding) thugs. How much better that they keep their distance (AR-15 reliable range 200-300 yards) from your free speech than to have to take them on hand-to-hand?

      No compromise. The Second Amendment exists for a reason and protection of First Amendment rights is one of its main functions, whether we approve of the speech or the people speaking or not. They have the same rights as any other citizen to petition their government for redress of supposed grievances and the government has the same right to say no. Fascist leftist hate groups DO NOT have the right to tell them no.

    2. avatar The Duke says:

      > B, isn’t like a rally where the KKK and ANTIFA are clashing the literal best time to defend yourself?

      I’d argue that’s the best time to be at home, not having to defend yourself

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Nah — in the coffee shop across the street, with popcorn. 😉

    3. avatar Roymond says:

      Timothy, if all open carry is political protest, then whatever one may wear or not wear is political protest (with the logical result that nudity counts as free speech).

      I never open carried as any kind of statement until they decided that in order to carry otherwise we citizens had to subject ourselves to being treated like criminals both to get the privilege and in conforming with the accompanying “Papers, please” law.

    4. avatar Big Bill says:

      A, no. I have carried when my business took me to places I wouldn’t want to go unarmed. Saved me from a dog attack by killing the dog (ruled a defensive shooting), and saved my ass more than once without having to draw it.

      B, I’m smart enough to NOT attend such rallies. The best way to defend yourself is to not get into fights in the first place.

  7. avatar Deathwish says:

    I find it interesting albeit unsurprising that Gottlieb’s views on the desirability of restricting 1A rights align precisely with those of the ACLU. Seems as though we need some new “civil rights advocates” whose only agenda is, y’know, defending our civil rights…

  8. avatar Rincoln says:

    A good solid GFY from this 2A absolutionist

    1. avatar Always Armed says:

      I don’t think that word means what you think it means…

      ab·so·lu·tion
      ˌabsəˈl(y)o͞oSH(ə)n/Submit
      noun
      1. formal release from guilt, obligation, or punishment.
      2. an ecclesiastical declaration of forgiveness of sins.
      “the priest administered absolution”

      1. Perhaps it’s a combination of “absolutist” and “abolitionist.” Might have potential, if it didn’t already mean something else. 😉

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    THIS is whereTTAG should have an up or down thingy. Anywho 😡😡😡😡

  10. I do not support the 2nd amendment foundation. the SAF does not seem to support the 2nd amendment . you can’t pick and choose which parts of it you want to support, it’ all or nothing. something they should learn. and I think the one in charge is a liberal. and right there , tells you there is something wrong with the SAF.

  11. avatar Char says:

    If we do not defend the rights we have, no matter what they are, they will be slowly whittled away.

  12. avatar Jason says:

    They didn’t say they wanted to make it illegal, basically that it’s just a bad idea. I’m inclined to agree. Nothing good can come of two loud, angry, groups of emotionally volatile herd beasts squaring off at each other while armed. A mass casualty incident seems inevitable.

    There are a lot of perfectly legal things that are a terrible idea.

    1. avatar Tacbear says:

      WOW….. someone who is using common sense.

    2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      By this logic, it’s a wonder that armed officers at these rallies don’t regularly open fire on the “loud, angry, groups of emotionally volatile herd beasts” especially when pelted with rocks and bricks. Also a wonder that open carry rallies don’t degenerate into bloodbaths.

      Those with self control will be responsible, while those without will do what they damn well please, irregardless of law and availability of “weapons”.

      1. avatar COtt says:

        They did last nite in AZ with non-lethal means via tear gas and rubber bullets…the cops, not the open carriers. But it’s only a matter of time before one of the crazier antifa types wants to be a martyr for the “cause” and provokes an incident.

        1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Indeed, “non-lethal means” with very lethal firearms held as a last resort. This goes back to that self control and all that. When the price one may pay for their transgressions is death, there tends to be some hesitation to take things too far unless absolutely necesssary.

      2. avatar Jason says:

        I’d argue that’s just a matter of time as well. Time will tell, but the whole thing is a powder keg.

        Since the two sides hate each other with such a foaming-at-the mouth fervor, I propose a thunderdome. Let’s just get it over with in a manner that eliminates risk to the normals so the adults can get back to work.

        The world would be a much better, nicer, place without alt-righters and anti-fas.

        1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          “I’d argue that’s just a matter of time as well. Time will tell, but the whole thing is a powder keg.”

          Most likely there will be some type of incident to eventually culminate in violence and death, on that there is consensus. However, what may or will happen is not a justified reason to deny potential victims their right to preventative and defensive measures.

          Not all people at these events are there looking for trouble and violent confrontation. Removing a potential means of self defense from the sick, frail, old or outnumbered would not only deny them their 2nd Ammendment, but also their 1st. Even those deemed to be Antifa and Neo-Nazis have their 2A and 1A rights.

          If, or rather when something occurs, then and only then may the guilty parties be punished.

          “Since the two sides hate each other with such a foaming-at-the mouth fervor, I propose a thunderdome. Let’s just get it over with in a manner that eliminates risk to the normals so the adults can get back to work.”

          Like lining the ghetto streets of Chicago with belly-dump loads of meth and cocaine. Throw several truckloads of automatic firearms into the mix, and yell out to the hoodlums that the last one standing gets it all. Such a measure would no doubt speed events along to their inevitable conclusion.

          Humorous to think about, but also horrific.

          “The world would be a much better, nicer, place without alt-righters and anti-fas.”

          If only the world were simple enough that one could so easily classify every other person as either “alt-righters”, “anti-fas” or A-OK. Sadly the world and people in general tend to be quite complex, and all have their vices and various redeeming qualities.

          A shame that civil discourse cannot be had between these opposing sides, as Esoteric Inanity believes that the furthest thing from hate is understanding. However, sometimes a consensus cannot be had and one cannot comprehend another that has no real understanding of their self.

    3. avatar COtt says:

      Yeah, I’m totally onboard with you. There is a saying around here….”people playing stupid games” works rather well for both parties. Especially when elements of both parties show up just for the brawl.

    4. avatar Porkchop says:

      I agree. There is also the question of what the political statement is intended to be, what effect it is intended to have, and how it is interpreted by the recipients. Political statements are ultimately statements about what public policy ought to be. Is the message intended to convince someone to agree with your position? Or is it to convince someone that you will never change your position? Open carry at these events may effectively convey the latter message, but it most likely won’t win any new supporters.

    5. avatar K-PAX says:

      Like my late marriage………….
      So SAF isn’t perfect. It’s still pretty useful most of the time.

  13. avatar Geoff PR says:

    H’mm.

    And here I thought the 2AF actually *supported* the 2A…

  14. avatar MeRp says:

    Well, Gottleib, you just got me to change my amazon smile recipient from the SAF to the NRA Defense Fund. GG

    As someone else already pointed out: a) protests that turn violent (ie any that antifa decides to attend) are precisely the place where attendees need to be armed for self defense, and b) open carry, itself, is an effective form of free speech that has actually won support for the pro-gun rights movement.

    Trying to torpedo that is patently ridiculous, coming from a gun rights supporting organization.

  15. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    Do not people carry firearms at open carry rallies to “make a political point”? Also if the purpose is indeed to “defend” oneself, then a potentially hostile rally seems the appropriate place.

    It would appear that Alan has yet again shot himself in the proverbial foot. Take heed Mr. Gottlieb, otherwise there won’t be a leg to stand on soon.

  16. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Does the white jewish lead SAF have a problem with law abiding racist practicing their 1st amendment rights????

    As a teenage black kid way back in the 1970s, in Sacramento CA, I was told by white Jewish lawyers that the KKK had a right to march in all black neighborhoods while carrying guns. It was against the law in California for blacks to open carry. But the jews said its was good for white people. Has anything changed????

  17. What about automobiles?

  18. avatar Jon Roland says:

    Having the right to keep and bear is subject to regulation by militia unit commanders (not regulation by law). All of the armed men present should had unit commanders to tell them to keep their firearms unloaded. That is the way we have done it in Texas.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2A.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Not really; he’s described pretty much how “gun control” was done in colonial days: the local militia commander, elected by the local people, knew everyone and with input from clergy and other community leaders could judge if an individual was “competent to bear arms” — and not being competent included being known for a violent temper or being mentally deficient. Government had no say in the matter, and I think that’s his point: the only people who can judge if you are competent to bear arms are your (gun-bearing) peers as represented by the officer you had a part in electing.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      Good way to get you gun taken away from you then beaten to death with it.

  19. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I think the sticking point for some people is that we have a right to PEACEABLY assemble and being armed suggests that our intention is not peaceable … therefore negating our right to assemble.

    The key word there being “suggest” which shows that this is an emotional argument. Proof that this is an emotional argument: every year murderers use their hands and feet more often than rifles and shotguns to murder people. Thus, people who say that demonstrators must not have rifles and shotguns should also be demanding that demonstrators be in handcuffs and shackles. But we do not see anyone demanding that.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      “Thus, people who say that demonstrators must not have rifles and shotguns should also be demanding that demonstrators be in handcuffs and shackles.”

      Also gagged, mustn’t forget that. After all, society can’t have people saying things without permission. Prio restraint and all, why somebody might get offended otherwise.

  20. avatar William Ashbless says:

    Since the cops are merely puppets of the city council and mayor…..

    Peaceful, unarmed members the left doesn’t like will be screwed.

    Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

  21. avatar Boba Fett says:

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with carrying or displaying firearms in public for any purpose. The important part is that those involved don’t act like a bunch of d-bags and make the rest of us look bad.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I’m going to assume by “any purpose” you mean “any lawful purpose” as in not things like robbery or murder.

  22. avatar Baldwin says:

    The bottom line, no sh!t, for-real purpose of the 2nd Amendment IS ARMED POLITICAL PROTEST! And anyone that says they support the 2nd Amendment and then proceeds to include the word “but” or “except” is only exercising their 1st Amendment right and is NOT supporting our 2nd Amendment.

  23. avatar Nanashi says:

    Looks like I’m changing my Amazon smile beneficiary. Any suggestions?

  24. avatar Ralph says:

    I always thought that Gottlieb looked suspiciously like Mr. Spacely.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Now that Ralph mentions it, indeed a carbon copy of Spacely. Joy to say that such a revelation has made this one’s day!!!

  25. You do not support the Second Amendment at all, if you do not support the Second Amendment at all times, all places, and all functions. You’re just a bunch of hacks no better than the anti-gunners.

  26. avatar Rev R Vincent Warde says:

    There is a difference between what is (or even should) be illegal and what is wise. Do I think that carrying a gun to a protest should be illegal? Nope. Do I think that protests where people show up with long guns and openly carrying is unwise? Absolutely.

    If I think that my life is going to be endangered and I may have to use deadly deadly force, I simply won’t go. There are many other, less dangerous and more productive ways to make our voices heard…….

  27. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “We are not a fan of armed protests and highly discourage that,” said Alan Gottlieb, the founder and executive vice president of the SAF. “Firearms serve a purpose, and the purpose is not a mouthpiece. It’s to defend yourself. If you are carrying it to make a political point, we are not going to support that.”

    Um, what if my political point is my right to defend my own person, when whack-jobs and weenies with a habit of mass violence are getting themselves all wee-wee’d up at political protests? The 2AF hasn’t thought it through.

    My point: I have the right to protect myself, even, perhaps especially, when the government I’ve empowered to protect me can’t or won’t do that, even, perhaps especially from violence undertaken to drive me out of the political process. The 2AF may agree with me or not, but I do wish they’d say, with smaller words and shorter sentences. I can’t tell where they fall on this one. Sad.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The 2AF hasn’t thought it through.”

      Perhaps they have.

      Think about it.

  28. avatar Joe R. says:

    Bellevue, WA ?

    Why, for the time zone. Sounds like a communist (D) trap $$$ grab. Like the UN; World Wildlife Foundation; Heifer International; . . .

  29. avatar CLarson says:

    Seeing a lot of we support the constitution BUT going on as soon as the rubber hits the road. Of course I don’t blame the SAF. They have to have money to operate and the Left could erase their income streams and online presence in a heartbeat. They have to be careful about what they say.

  30. avatar Norincojay says:

    Open carrying rifles while decked out in a vest covered in extra mags at a political protest is fricken stupid. Militia coming to observe and protect not involved in the protest is fine. Carrying a handgun open or concealed for self protection anywhere legal is legal and should be encouraged. Fuzzy distinctions for some, common sense to others.

  31. avatar David J. says:

    SAF will not get my money. I cannot knowingly support an organization that is willing to trade off some of my rights in the name of safety. After all, as Founding Father Benjamin Franklin stated in 1775, “They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Any organization willing to trade away our birthright as American citizens needs to be disbanded in order to prevent them from doing so.

    1. avatar Jason says:

      What rights did they trade off? They didn’t advocate outlawing anything, nor did they directly tell people what to do or not to do. All they basically said was that going armed to protests like the one in Charlottesville is a dumb idea they can’t get behind.

      I wouldn’t like my neighbors having 5 a.m. shooting parties every morning, but that doesn’t make me anti-gun. It makes me anti-dickhead.

  32. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    I just hope these protests stop and calmer people take charge of the various groups.

    Armed confrontation between whomever only leads to more and after the last protest I can see it happening.

    Concealed carry at protest I agree with. Long guns I’m not so sure about. Sure it’s legal but I don’t think it’s a good idea.

  33. avatar Vitsaus says:

    Our country was founded by armed protesters.

  34. avatar Mad Max says:

    Gottlieb is correct that it is best to avoid carrying openly a a heated political protest (as long as it doesn’t become a law or regulation). Avoid Stupid People in Stupid Places Doing Stupid Things (the very definition of a political protest that includes the KKK and Antifa).

    A RKBA rally would be the appropriate type of political rally to open carry. Everyone should expect it there. Otherwise, concealed carry everywhere.

  35. avatar Evan says:

    As much as I support the right to open carry, it tends to be exercised by some odd ducks who don’t always think it through for every situation.

    Also, an open carry protest is one thing, and going to a rally like Charlottesville where you know violent left wing groups like antifa are going to show up are a completely different thing. This is especially true after it was known that most of the “right wing” groups(white nationalist etc) who were going to show up are not people the average oathkeeper should want to share a stage with even while respecting their right to speak.

    Just play it through, if some young kid with a brick decides he doesn’t care that you have a rifle. Are you prepared to shoot said kid in that situation. You have a right to, it would be self defense, but avoiding stupid people and stupid places(don’t be there) gets talked about a lot here to.

    The fact that over 1/4 of a million people signed a petition to declare antifa a terrorist org says the average American doesn’t need any additional convincing that the left has gone unhinged.

    You have to look at the nuance vs the do they don’t they support it.

  36. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    Ok in a way I agree. I don’t think one should use guns as a mouthpiece for protesting. The exception being protests about guns like open carry.

    I do think that protestors have the same right to carry and defend themselves as anybody else. I also think protestors are by their very nature targets of those who oppose them and thus may have even more reason to be armed than the average person. I think that carrying a rifle is better than a handgun for defense. And I think that openly bearing arms can be strong deterrent to violence against protestors. This is especially true if it’s a large group of armed people.

    Now aside from it’s a right, there is the matter of politeness and strategy. Things to consider :

    1. Whata the protest about? Honestly if your protesting in favor of gay rights in San Francisco your unlikely to encounter violence compared to somebody protesting for white supremacy in downtown Atlanta.

    2. How large is your group ? If you have 200 people protesting the war you are unlikely to get a violent response. The kind of guys that are likely to oppose your protest are likely to respect your rights. And your really protesting the government not individuals. The government isn’t getting super violent with protestors , not this week anyway.

    3. Maybe a large protest group should carry concealed and just designate some people to carry open. Maybe have those guys wear “security ” on their shirts. It says to the public they are here for protection not as a threat.

    4. Towns and cities would not have as many armed protestors if they would handle AntiFa and the other b@tch a$$ anti freedom POS groups better.

  37. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I did not know SAF supported background checks for all transfers. Gottlieb is a fool to deal with those people. It is not possible to compromise with the anti-gun crowd, since their attitude is for us to give up some more of our rights, and no sooner than that happens they are coming back looking for more compromise. With that bunch compromise is just another name for gradual surrender.

  38. The quote was a partial statement and was not in its total context.

    The belief of the foundation is that if you want to bring a firearm to a protest with the intent of using it to provoke a violent reaction we cannot support that. We absolutely believe (especially in light of current events) if one feels like they must attend one of these events that protecting themselves is vital.

    By no means does SAF support any laws that would prohibit people from legally bringing firearms to gatherings.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “Mr. Gottlieb of SAF said that although he doesn’t condone armed protests, he does understand why someone might feel compelled to bring a firearm to a contentious rally for self-defense. In the case of a person legally carrying a firearm to a demonstration but being arrested or disarmed by authorities, he said the Second Amendment Foundation would consider legal involvement.” – from the quoted article.

      1. “We are not a fan of armed protests and highly discourage that”

        Talking more about that part of the quote since it seems to be the focal point.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          My point was that you’re not backtracking. I was going to post that quote anyway to show that Alan’s (Mr. Gottlieb’s might be confusing here) position was more nuanced than the TTAG article makes it out to be.

          I’d have more respect for a more equivocal statement stating that carrying openly as a political statement is protected under both the 1A and 2A (or some combination thereof).

          SAF is still going to get my tens of cents from Amazonsmile purchases either way. SAF is still on the forefront of 2A litigation. Even if y’all are a 2A moderate group, that still makes you extremists compared to most judges and the current 2A jurisprudence. It’s probably going to be decades before it matters whether or not the 2A litigation group us 2A absolutists support is moderate or not. The most important thing now is to support effective 2A groups. I haven’t seen anyone more effective than y’all, so until I do …

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Mr Gottlieb
          Do you support the actions of then Governor Ronald Reagan, when he signed Mulford Act disarming the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, because they openly carried guns in California???

          Did you or do you support the Jewish Defense League openly carrying firearms in the state of California since 1968???
          One year after the Mulford Act was passed.

  39. Gottlieb’s concerns about the risks of openly carriying firearms at a protest rally are understandable, but ought to be outweighed by relief there were no shots fired, despite the volatile mixture of emotions and lethal weapons at Charlottesville. Given the circumstances, that measure of self-restraint seems quite remarkable, even laudable.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Hard to believe but perhaps the people open carrying were actually trained to be restrained in their actions. Maybe they actually knew what they were doing.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        The problem here is that to open carry in many states, all you need is to be an adult and not have a felony or physc record. There is no training requirement. While I hope and pray that all open carriers are responsable gun owners, I have witnessed too much stupidity in my life to believe it.
        Personally speaking, I do not want to be within a mile of any of these hatred charged gatherings, whether the hatred is for my race and beliefs or against them.
        I do not climb in a pig pen with pigs, either.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          Darned right. Need to keep a low profile for op sec.

          The only gunfight you’re sure to win is the one you don’t have.

          Prefer to CC and stay away from trouble if at all possible.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I will say it since no one else will. The “racists” had training and weapons discipline. That’s why no one was shot. That is the primary goal of every open carry demonstration.

  40. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    In my mind, there are two sides to bringing rifles to protests (where antifa is likely to show up) these days.

    On the one side, it is unwise to be there at all (stupid people, stupid places, stupid prizes). On the other side, if defending a right is worth dying/fighting for and attending a rally/protest will advance that right, then it is (probably) something worth doing even in light of the potential for stupid prizes. Openly carrying rifles en masse is a good way to deter stupid people giving you a prize.

    (Deleted cookies and such to the beginning of time (again), let’s see if I be notified of follow up comments now).

    1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      Were you?

    2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      TX Lawyer
      When a black man in Arizona openly carried an AR15, at an Obama rally, plus extra magazines was that ok???
      He was not an Obama supporter

      When white men openly guns at Obama rallies on the east coast was that ok???
      They were not Obama supporters either.

      Is the race of the open carry person important to you???

  41. avatar rt66paul says:

    If, and only if, everyone who attends the rally is searched, guns are checked and everyone’s safety is guarenteed(and everyone has a right to sue the guards individually and as a force – if they are hurt in any way) would I go for something like that. The police have made it policy that my safety is not thier job, so it stands to reason that I should be able to be armed in that type of situation(if I ever wanted to be in that zoo).

  42. avatar Sam I Am says:

    I don’t quite grasp this. If we should be armed for self-defense, shouldn’t we be armed everywhere? Is 2AF practicing pre-crime theory, here? In today’s environment, is there not danger of being assaulted with significant (if not deadly) weapons? If you can’t see to your own defense, why go to a political event? Just being intimidated to stay home is what is wrong with all this today.

    Don’t the anti-gunners throw it up that some places are too sensitive to allow people to exercise civil rights?

  43. avatar dwb says:

    A few hundred “protesers” armed with rifles is called an army. It’s a statement all right, not the one you think.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Unless they’ve trained in unit tactics and have officers, they hardly count as an army. I think the appropriate term, if you’re insisting on labeling them as some sort of fighting force, is “rabble”.

  44. avatar Hank says:

    Then I don’t support SAF. Should change its name to BAF. Benedict Arnold Foundation. They’ve clearly decided being PC is more important than principle.

  45. avatar Anonymous says:

    I disagree with this. If you were just a regular Joe with a work place near one of these “protests” or if you incidentally was walking through and police stopped you for any reason, they would assume you are part of the protest and arrest you for being armed. So … no. Furthermore, if you were a peaceful protestor with a concealed weapon and were assaulted with knives, bats, and sharp steel objects, I fully support your mag dump in that situation.

    And what Robert said.

  46. avatar J says:

    Id like to know where they grt their funding……..Maybe a campaign to defund SAF is in order…..

  47. avatar Ragnar says:

    So…

    Armed with guns = Bad

    Armed with baseball bats and bricks = Good?

  48. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    2nd Amendment Foundation = CUCKS

    That’s all I have to say about THAT.

  49. Alan Gottlieb is reportedly a convicted felon who spent 10 months in Federal prison. His opposition to Open Carry, like nearly every convicted felon, is well known and longstanding.

    The NRA also opposes Open Carry because its leadership is composed of wankers and board members like Ted Nugent who shouldn’t even be allowed to possess cutlery.

    You will be hard pressed to find any so called gun-rights group which supports Open Carry.

    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be banned.

    “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

  50. avatar Burley says:

    how about at a riot!?

  51. avatar textopcat says:

    As with most cases, political protests are places where violence is more likely than not these days, so as a responsible armed citizen I do not go to such places.
    However, should you find yourself in such a place the ability to protect yourself and other innocents just might be necessary. Normally, there are police there that would handle attacks like the “car attack” we saw, but with the cities taking sides and ordering the police to not take action, who knows what the future will bring.
    I think the argument for concealed carry at such a time would be stronger than open carry.

  52. avatar James Bardwell says:

    Alan Gottleib’s groups have been on the wrong side of this issue many times before. See, for example, https://www.redstate.com/jhayward13/2013/04/17/the-gun-control-bait-and-switch/ You can’t compromise with gun controllers. You can’t decide the RKBA can be rationed by the government, as with background checks. The problem with background checks is not the danger of registration, it’s the involvement of the government in a right that is supposed to be a check on the government. Likewise, you go armed to a protest when you can be reasonably sure the government is going to enable counter-protesters to physically attack you. Which is what happened in Charlottesville. However despicable the protesters message was (and it was), having the government enable counter-protesters to attack you is a reason for the 2nd amendment.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The problem with background checks is not the danger of registration, it’s the involvement of the government in a right that is supposed to be a check on the government. ”

      Precisely. But what difference does it make?

      The SC declared long ago that the SC (a branch of a potentially tyrannical government) can and will apply government oversight of the right of the people to keep the government in check. The SC found hidden wording in the second amendment, wording that permits government to have a “compelling interest” in curtailing rights protected by The Constitution. With that threshold established, the entirety of the constitution is subject to curtailment by a potentially tyrannical government that determines there is no limit on government subjugation of the populace.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email