That is what the people of Great Britain thought too - then one day they woke up to total confiscation. It's worse than you folks think it is, and you need to wake up.
I think you are making a number of assumptions that you have no basis for---not only about how bad it is, but what people currently think about it.
In addition, making that an argument for deliberately breaking the law in a way that is LIKELY to lead to accidents, injuries, and possible deaths (carrying loaded firearms en masse in a place where is it not legal, in public so that anyone who wants to turns it into something horrible has a free shot) seems to me to be---counterproductive.
There is a time and place for protests that break the law---and in the past, intelligent people who have done precisely that
have done so to make a point of the law being bad, and made arrangements with police so that errors and accidents (leading to injuries) do not occur. If the point is to publicly break the law, be arrested, and be allowed to fight it in court and make your point---then the point is to NOT have it cause problems, the point is to make it public, safe, efficient, and NOT a media disaster.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming that you don't want a massacre, a riot, or any injuries or deaths. I'm also assuming that you don't want any martyrs "for the cause" nor any policeman being killed for simply doing their job.
Under that benefit---how will this march IN ANY WAY benefit the cause of the 2nd amendment? If the point was to show the law is wrong, and to attempt to change it in court, wouldn't it be possible to do that with UNLOADED guns, that were shown to be unloaded, so that any errors that occurred could NOT have come from the protestors? (Still is a dumb idea, but it at least minimizes the chance that injuries/deaths would be attributed to the protestors.)
I'm curious---when the police stop the protestors (which they will do, as it will be their job), do you think that having lots of loaded weapons (that the protestors should NOT be using to resist, as the police are doing their job and following the law) that the police will need to clear and confiscate, is going to be a good idea? Or do you think that the protestors should violently resist being arrested for obviously breaking the law?
I'm not understanding: What's the point of this protest? If the protest is against gun laws, why do the guns need to be loaded? Isn't possession of the firearm enough? Is there a reason why fighting rhetoric is being used?
It is quite simple, really: If this protest occurs, and the weapons are loaded, the chance is very high that something will occur that can and will be used against gun owners for YEARS. And if nothing occurs---what positive thing will occur that couldn't have happened if the guns were unloaded? Or better yet, the protest didn't even happen?
What positive will come from this, as currently planned? Other than negative media attention (which we don't really need) what exactly is happening to help the 2nd amendment?
