Women’s March on NRA

The same people that organized the gigantic post-inaugural Women’s march decided to target NRA headquarters. The number I’ve heard is 212 people, including press. Pictures would seem to back that up.

As I saw on social media: “I’ve taken shits bigger than that rally.” That’ll show em! How many do you think will make the 17 miles to the DOJ building in DC? It’s a pretty long walk even to the Metro.

I will continue to assert: the left doesn’t give a shit about gun control. Ladd Everitt’s theme lately is trying to convince Progressives not to buy guns. He’s come seriously unglued over this. This is not what a successful movement looks like.

And why on earth would you march people 17 miles in July when you know you have commitment issues, and most of the people who care about gun control are old? The whole idea is a recipe for fail. But I’m not one to interrupt my opponent when they are in the middle of making a mistake.

28 thoughts on “Women’s March on NRA”

  1. “…the left doesn’t give a shit about gun control.”

    Some semantics need to be established there; the left not only does not give a shit about gun control, they are increasingly opposed to it.

    Liberals or progressives may consider themselves a subset of “the left,” but the left is currently in the process of rejecting them; in any case spending a good deal of time ridiculing them, in most cases with a higher degree of accuracy than “the right.”

    “Liberals” support gun control; but even with them, it falls dead-last among motivators.

    A couple reflections: If it is true that “the extremes define the center,” it follows that with fascism again in ascent, people that used to be “center” now find themselves left of center; “the border crossed them.” They are re-calibrating their alignments.

    However, neither extreme holds promise for gun rights if it comes close to achieving exclusive political power; political power inherently cannot stand having its monopoly on the use of armed coercion to be challenged, so both left and right will eventually embrace gun control. Each may look different, and produce different favored classes, but those difference will be a wash for anyone not in a favored class.

    1. Forgot to include earlier, that it is amusing to see those people making the same mistake gun rights advocates usually make.

      The cover graphic with that opening video appears to show Linda Sarsour (sp?) whose chief bag is Muslim rights with a minor in feminism.

      That’s not to imply her position(s) on Muslim rights are either good or bad; it’s that they (and she) are linking a laundry-list of other, unrelated issues to their support for gun control.

      Sarsour I believe is the woman in that iconic poster-image carried at many liberal demos. Whatever her causes are, she has chosen to link them to gun control, which very likely, is not very high among her priorities. I would speculate that just as social conservatives do with gun owners, she believes she can expand support for her cause by pandering to the gun issue.

    2. You are making excuses for the left again. All you have to do is look at places where the left has control like CA or NY or CN or MD to see how interested they are in gun control. There is big leftist money in the gun control movement as well. Bloomberg and Soros come to mind. These people are not just gun control funders they are all purpose leftists whose agendas include but are not limited to gun control. Note that I am not making excuses for the right. I follow events in the UK an Australia to closely to make that mistake. So the right does need to have their feet held to the fire. But the left wants us powerless if not dead so that is a more pressing danger.

      1. “All you have to do is look at places where the left has control like CA or NY or CN or MD to see how interested they are in gun control.”

        Are you talking about the left, liberals, or Democrats? ;-)

    3. ” … it follows that with fascism again in ascent, … ”

      Oh, you mean like the Black Bloc and BLM, with their rioting and anti-speech political violence? You may have a point.

      1. You can define it as you will. It is everywhere in its ascendancy, again.

        Technically of course it has always been there, so is not exactly “ascending,” but until recently needed to be at least a little subtle. Its ability to abandon subtlety — while having a large percentage of people pretending they don’t notice — is probably the best barometer of ascendancy.

  2. And the Lord smiled and the heat index was over 105 degrees. Stupid should hurt and a boatload of hurt is being caused by the weather. Does my heart good to see it. I only wish we could have open carriers handing out ice cold water bottles to the “Mommies Without Jobs”. Who else could do this on a Friday?

  3. The armed guards are a nice touch. Sure makes a statement about their position.

  4. There’s basically 2 ways to get really passionate about gun control (pro or anti) in this country. Own a gun, or be harmed by one.

    Which one happens more often, do you think?

    1. “There’s basically 2 ways to get really passionate about gun control (pro or anti) in this country. Own a gun, or be harmed by one.”

      I dunno. In my wider social circle, most of the people I would classify as “liberals” are fairly passionate in being anti-gun, but that is only by the measure of how often they bring it up on their own initiative. And most of them have no experience with guns, one way or the other, so I assume their degree of passion comes from being told they should be passionate. (How that translates into voting I don’t know; my guess is they would vote Democrat no matter where the candidate stood on the issue.)

      The guys like that who frustrate me most are the veterans of my generation; if they never fired a gun again after Basic Training, it should have been totally impossible to go through training and remain totally ignorant about anything involving firearms, but somehow they seem to have managed.

      1. It was an intentionally overbroad statement; but I stand by it – how many people will be single-issue on the subject, rather than buying into it for tribal reasons?

        (Also, replace “owns a gun” with “has fun with one” – for the symmetry)

        1. “…how many people will be single-issue…?”

          I’m not trying to be argumentative, but, how many really are “single issue” in the first place, as opposed to being merely tribal — as you aptly put it — or just cynically using the single issue as a decoy to win political support and votes for the issues they really care about? And at the head of that list of issues is, their own political power.

          Admitting up front this is anecdotal, more than 20 years ago two Republican Party operatives attended one of the meetings attempting formation of a statewide gun rights coalition of local and regional groups in our state, and stole the sign-in sheet. I had coded my name and address precisely so it could be tracked. Over the next 15 years or so the amount of political junk mail, from every right-wing-stereotype organization you can imagine, and originating from that stolen sign-in sheet, continued to grow, and probably would still be growing if I hadn’t given up that P.O. Box.

          So, tell me if those fellows who purloined our gun owners’ sign in sheet were there to help gun owners, or for that matter, to help any of the other causes they sold or swapped their mailing list to. Or did they just recognize easy marks for their scam?

          1. Primary issue, rather than single issue?

            Outside of the handful of urban enclaves, support for gun control is paper-thin and spotty. The pro-gun support may be only micros thicker, but it’s a LOT wider.

            Most people don’t care at all, of course, or at least only give the barest lip service.

            1. I think you and I are fundamentally in agreement; what I wonder about all the time is how people with supposedly extensive and sophisticated polling and analysis capabilities don’t see the depth/breadth factor for what it is.

              I’d only comment that my casual and unscientific observations have been, that even in urban areas gun control is not that big a motivator. E.g., in a multi-candidate, multi-issue urban Democratic primary race, I have never seen the candidate focusing primarily on gun control do well at all. (Here in PA, I’m thinking of Dwight Evans in Philadelphia.) That also has proven true in the “liberal” suburbs, where a candidate can get elected while being anti-gun, but if gun control is all they got, they won’t be.

              That can certainly feed conspiratorial thinking, since the only rational explanation for generally self-serving candidates to go on embracing an issue that is a non-motivator for voters, is either delusional True Belief (a factor in all ideologies) or totally evil motivations.

              1. I think we are in agreement, and that you’ve helped me polish up my thinking.

                Sebastian has noted that almost no politicians really care one way or another about gun control beyond the required obeisance for or against for their tribal affiliations. One wonders why Bloomberg cares as much as he does.

                1. “One wonders why Bloomberg cares as much as he does.”

                  I suppose it’s simplistic, but I always return to my theory that no power-seeker can tolerate the thought that his/her grand plans for what they consider a beautiful society, could have an element of that society say “no” to their plan and have the means to make it stick.

                  And of course I make people mad by saying that is as true for “the right” as for “the left,” even if “the right” chooses to delude themselves that it will never be true for them. Stalin and Hitler were approximately equal gun-controllers.

                  (And I will now await the essays about how Hitler and the historical fascists in general were really “leftists” because they did things we don’t like, and pretty much mirrored, or in some cases originated, what their opponents on “the left” were doing or would do.)

                  1. In that case – the harm is to his Grand Plans – and the proof is neatly self-demonstrating.

                  2. Stalin and Hitler were also both hardcore socialists, so your argument against the ‘right’ falls pretty flat if that’s all you got. You’d get more traction if you didn’t parrot the same line that literally every radical leftie uses to smear conservatives.

    2. …or be a parent who constantly loses your mind about things that could, theoretically, in some way affect your children.

      most people i know who are rabid for gun control are mothers with young children living in incredibly safe areas thinking ANY MINUTE NOW a privately-owned gun will kill all their children. and it’s hard to debate since it’s not about being rational.

      1. “most people i know who are rabid for gun control are mothers with young children…”

        I admit this is a stretch for an analogy, but I’m thinking of the anti-vaxx movement because I’ve been discussing it backchannel with someone recently.

        Quite simply, when it comes to protecting ones children, all you need to do is plant a seed of doubt in someone’s mind, and you can feed them all the statistics you want to counter their fears, and they will continue to doubt, even if it takes paranoia and conspiracy theories to support it.

        Maybe I’ll come across as a male chauvinist, but that is especially true for mothers. (I consider it just a Mars/Venus fact of life/reality.) Anyone who has raised children knows that their mother will remain obsessed about their welfare, long after they reach adulthood. Probably for as long as the mother lives.

  5. Those creeps may be weak at the Federal Level, but they are still giving us hell in their local strongholds.

    In fact that now seems to be the current political focus of the gun-control morons, preventing the Feds from spoiling their fun, as they toy with the little people still under their thumb.

  6. Long time reader, first time poster: fun fact, in addition to the heat index there was a torrential downpour in the D.C. Metro area this afternoon at approx 4pm. Followed by some of the swampiest, muggiest humidity I’ve felt in quite some time. Hope they had fun, doubt a single one of them is dry.

  7. They can spin this any way they want, it was a bomb. The press needs to call this out as a publicity stunt. The press had helicopters and tons of equipment expended to cover this. The main stream media is our enemy.

    I wake today and can find no new updates on this 2 day event. No one mentioning the rain, the heat. For all we know they might not make it. But the press will not give us a fair shake.

    The NRA was the only ones calling out the armed paid guards. (Wearing black in that heat?!? Idiots).

    Maybe I missed something, my search engine was looking, but found no embarrassing story, nothing saying FAILed.

  8. Interesting that the Washington Post reported that HUNDREDS of women participated in the March and the protest.

    As hundreds of protesters led by Women’s March organizers gathered in front of the Justice Department on Saturday morning, a small group of counterprotesters gathered on the Pennsylvania Avenue median to make their voices heard.

    Another Washington Post article also cited “hundreds” of protestors.

    Women’s March organizers led hundreds of protesters Friday on a 17-mile march from the the National Rifle Association’s headquarters to the Justice Department in blistering heat to decry what demonstrators called the gun lobby’s disregard for the lives of people of color.

    A march in front of the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax County led off the two-day event. On Saturday morning, demonstrators will gather for a second rally in front of the Department of Justice in downtown Washington.

    It was absolutely atrocious weather in DC on Friday. Consider me skeptical that there were “hundreds” of people outside anywhere.

  9. It was a march of 17 miles and It was very hot I have checked and have yet to confirm they completed the march Any one knows?

  10. To the basket of doubts stated above about MSM reporting, I’ll add, have you ever heard them report doubts about what the police say about a demo, especially when arrests were involved?

Comments are closed.