Gun Rally: Second Amendment Activists Swarm DC, VA Rallies (NEWS, PHOTOS)

Dozens of Second Amendment rights activists holstered their handguns and slung unloaded rifles over their shoulders Monday at a gun rights rally in northern Virginia, while hundreds of like-minded but unarmed counterparts converged in the nation's capital.

The gun-toting protesters in Virginia were within the bounds of the law but promised to keep the weapons unloaded. Those in Washington, D.C., chose not to carry any firearms in compliance with the district's strict gun laws, even though many believe the rules are unconstitutional.

Signs reading "Which part of 'shall not be infringed' confuses you?" and bright orange stickers saying "Guns save lives" dotted the crowd at the Washington Monument. Across the Potomac River in Alexandria, former Alabama Minutemen leader Mike Vanderboegh told the crowd armed confrontation should be reserved only for instances of the government threatening people's lives.

However, he said it might be justified if people face arrest for refusing to buy insurance under the health care reform package recently passed by Congress.

"If I know I'm not going to get a fair trial in federal court ... I at least have the right to an unfair gunfight," Vanderboegh said.

HuffPost is following developments and will bring you the latest updates from the rallies:

1 of 16

'State Of War With The People'

1 of 17

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

Alabama militia leader Mike Vanderboegh spoke to supporters at the Fort Hunt rally. "We will have the freedom and the rights that our fathers paid for," he said, adding: "We are done backing up. Done! Not one more inch." "You can push Americans only so far," Vanderboegh told the crowd.

Obama's Handshakes Around The World

Gay Marriage In The United States

Waves Of Michele Bachmann

GOP Women In Congress

Politicians' Science Gaffes

11 Professions Less Trusted Than Bankers

Alabama militia leader Mike Vanderboegh spoke to supporters at the Fort Hunt rally.

"We will have the freedom and the rights that our fathers paid for," he said, adding: "We are done backing up. Done! Not one more inch."

"You can push Americans only so far," Vanderboegh told the crowd.

comments(19017)

featured comment

Reply | Share

Midnightrain said on 19 Monday 2010 pm30 10:43 pm: Can we keep it real? This group wants to be able to terro rize the president and by association, all black and brown skin people.

Total comments: 19017 | Post a Comment

1 of 17

This News

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Unimportant Crazy

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Top Developments

loading...

Top Developments

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[picott]

01:02 AM on 04/24/2010

Before reading the other 18,999 other comments -- actual figure --, I'll try and
answer one of the signs, the one asking "Which part... confuses you?"
Most Americans do not use SHALL in their use of the future tense. In fact, even
the Brits hardly ever use "shall" in the third person. "He shall" is as exceptional
a turn of phrase as "She Hate Me", used for a movie which wasn't a b.o. success
mainly because the public at large thought there was an illiterate grammatical
error in the title.
So? what's the diff between "I shall" and "I will", which we all simplify into the
innocent-looking "I'll".
WILL marks the intent, the decision that this will be. It contains a promise which,
if not accomplished, makes a LIAR out of you.
SHALL implies a "caveat", a restriction. There could be a "force majeure",
an "act of G*d", I don't know, a "freak" accident...
"Accidents will happen", another movie title, comes to mind.
"We Shall return" said a great general (about Burma.)

And the word INFRINGED, not used as often as "IMPEACHED"
(Wonder why?) contains the word "fringe", which would be more familiar
to some of us, unconditional Regressives or not.

[OdinsEye]

01:24 AM on 04/24/2010

Your attempted distinction between shall and will fails. Most Americans do use shall to apply to the future, just as they do with will. Both are what is known as enforceable language. When written in a set of rules, laws, regulations, or codes, the two are used interchangably to denote a provision which is required to be complied with. This is opposed to provisions which say "should" or "may", which imply an option.

As for infringe: While in English this appears to be a compound centered on the root "fringe", it really isn't. The root of infringe is actually "frangere" (to break), which is more familair to people from the modern word "frangible" (breakable). The word fringe comes from the word "frenge" (border or edge).

[picott]

01:44 AM on 04/24/2010

I'll make good note of your enlightened comment.
One thing for sure though: You shall not overcome.
btw, you repeat "ad infinitum" that the US are a Republic,
not a democracy. Would you welcome or oppose
democracy in the United States?
Haven't you spent half your life enforcing the ideals
of Democracy "Over There," in far-away lands?

[morg]

02:23 AM on 05/04/2010

I've always considered that "shall" carries a certain imperative connotation. as in "you shall obey the law", and such as when the constitution reads "Congress shall..." (fill in the rest where appropriate). If this is the case then Congress has willfully disregarded the constitution on more than a few occasions.

[picott]

05:55 AM on 05/04/2010

Pls bring me some grammatical evidence of yr understanding of "shall" as imperative.
You may be right, but then all my English teachers (in France) were wrong, for eight solid years.

[ForVivi]

03:02 AM on 04/22/2010

Militia prepare for combat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7_iEQEg4n8&feature=related

[mizerello]

02:54 AM on 04/22/2010

The headlinein this piece uses the word "swarm." The first sentence of the article then says "dozens" of gun owners. This is not a swarm. It's a few dozen people. That's it. In my small community, a few dozen people gather in the local cafe for breakfast everyday.

So if you're an NRA shill or a Tea Bagger, you rate wall to wall coverage on both the national and local media? A few dozen people get wall to wall coverage because they holster guns across beer bellies and then complain that Obama wants to take those guns away. A few hundred, or even a few thousand Tea Baggers gather in DC or in cities across the US and the media covers their "rallies" as though hundreds of thousands of Americans are somehow involved.

During the build up to and throughout the Iraq War, demonstrations occurred in big and small cities throughout the US. Hundreds of thousands of people marched in NY, Seattle, San Francisco etc. And did CNN or MSNBC or, god forsake, FOX cover these demonstrations? No. They merited a small mention when they bothered to cover them at all and it was usually with a wink and a sneer. And the right wing complains about the "liberal" media?

[JimInHouston]

12:40 PM on 04/23/2010

Say, how many arrests were made at the 2A or TEA demonstrations?

How does that compare with those other demonstrations you mention?

[HawaiiSteve]

08:55 PM on 04/24/2010

Well Jim, I guess when you can't come up with a valid answer to the question at hand, a straw-man argument is always a good second choice, isn't it?

[teetee5225]

02:04 AM on 04/22/2010

I'm a gun owner and feel no need to openly carry a gun or even a concealed weapon. Can't imagine what these gun totting people are afraid of? The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gun ownership and I respect that decision. However, the decision did not say an individual or group could buy as many guns as they desire, nor did the decision give the gun totting people the right to carry guns anywhere they want to. Therefore, gun control is needed to restrict the number of guns, type of guns and where they can be carried openly or concealed. We need to wake up in this country so it can be greater than it is now.

[HawaiiSteve]

03:52 AM on 04/22/2010

I do not like guns, and won't own one. Having said that, I do respect your sense of responsibility when it comes to owning guns. I wish more gun owners felt like you do. We could have a much safer society.

[JimInHouston]

12:41 PM on 04/23/2010

"We could have a much safer society."

Can you cite any statistical evidence supporting this assertion?

[lionel2055]

08:15 PM on 04/21/2010

Which part of "a strong militia for the common defense" confuses YOU?

[ladyvader]

11:33 PM on 04/21/2010

What part of national guard is the militia don't you understand?

[3 Boxes Of BS]

11:48 PM on 04/21/2010

LadyVader,

What part don't you understand that the National Guard is only part of the militia?

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[Rooster Coburn]

12:02 AM on 04/22/2010

"Disperse, you rebels; damn you, throw down your arms and disperse!"

-- Major John Pitcairn, April19, 1775, at Lexington, Massachussetts, while waving his sword in the air.

I think we all know where that led.

[HawaiiSteve]

04:05 AM on 04/22/2010

You forget one thing my friend, the Americans fought the British over representation, they wanted a vote in how they were governed. We have the vote now, you guys just lost the last election, and instead of being adult and conceding defeat, you want to act like spoiled children and try to intimidate us with the size of your guns.

We have a representative government. If it doesn't represent you, then go out and vote. We did and we won!

[ForVivi]

05:13 PM on 04/21/2010

These 2nd Amendment rallies which, thank God, were non-violent, came at a time when the inflammatory rhetoric, personal threats to elected officials and actual acts of aggression are very much a part of the political climate of our country.

In this context, and taking into account the lies being told by these groups, the rallies were a cause of concern. I'm glad they decided against their original plan to bring unloaded weapons. An accidental discharge or an intentional provocation would have added to this tragic day -the anniversary of an American terrorist act, a choice of dates that does not reflect well on the groups).

How you compare the Million Man March to this ridiculous display of misguided bravado tells me you are an older white person. For those not familiar with the march:

"The Million Man March was a mass gathering held in Washington, D.C., on October 16, 1995. Under the leadership of Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan, black men from across the United States converged on Washington in an effort to “convey to the world a vastly different picture of the Black male” and to unite in self-help and self-defense against economic and social ills plaguing the African American community. The march took place within the context of a larger grassroots movement that set out to win politicians’ attention for urban and minority issues through widespread voter registration campaigns."

mggwa, I call your comment a rationalization.

[CC1]

01:40 AM on 04/22/2010

Why should either of you bring race into this?

And who cares what race the person commenting is?? Unless you're racist yourself.

[ForVivi]

01:52 AM on 04/22/2010

I had to respond to this preposterous comparison:

"The Million Man March did not proceed from fear, it was a demonstration of support, but also a demonstration that you could have a very large group of men in one place without violence. 2nd Amendment rallies serve the same purpose."

I think being biracial and in a biracial marriage I do have a different perspective than an all-white person.

[ForVivi]

01:45 AM on 04/22/2010

Correction:

"I'm glad they decided against their original plan of bringing loaded weapons".

[JimInHouston]

12:37 PM on 04/23/2010

Please cite your assertion about "their original plan of bringing loaded weapons".

To my knowledge, there were NO plans, at ANY point, of bringing ANY weapons, loaded or not, to DC.

[3 Boxes Of BS]

04:44 PM on 04/21/2010

Let me as a simple question of all the anti-gun folks out there:

If you could pass a single law concerning firearms tomorrow, what would it be?

[mizerello]

03:06 AM on 04/22/2010

Automatic and Semi Automatic Weapons would not be available to the general public; only to those serving in our armed forces. Armor piercing bullets would be illegal.

One more thing; ownership of a gun is at least as serious as driving a car. I would require a license and a test, similar to a driving test to ensure that the person buying the gun knew what the he!! they were doing. And the gun show loophole would go bye bye.

[HawaiiSteve]

03:58 AM on 04/22/2010

Fanned - Simple and sane recommendations for an insane situation. You should have to get a license to own guns, and you should have to review it every couple of years. I think its only reasonable that if you do pass a background check, and latter commit a violent crime, you should lose the right to own a gun. How can anyone with any common sense argue against that?

[MycroftHolmes28]

03:43 PM on 04/22/2010

"Armor piercing bullets would be illegal. "

Please define "armor piercing bullet."

Be specific.

[snesich]

04:26 PM on 04/21/2010

When I ask the gun nuts to tell me, specifically, "What legislation has President Obama offered that restricts the rights of gun owners?" they respond, "Uh, eh, uh, eh...well, duh, uh...."

When I ask the gun nuts to tell me, specifically, "What regulations has the Obama Administration proposed or passed that restrict the rights of gun owners?" they respond, "Eh, uh, duh, eh, uh....."

But, every now and then, one of the gun nuts will respond, "WELL, I DON'T CARE!!! EVERYONE KNOWS HE'S SECRETLY PLANNING SOMETHING!!!" or "I JUST HATE HIM BECAUSE HE'S A MUSLIM, MARXIST, HIPPY, SOCIALIST, NAZI, COMMUNIST, (N WORD)"

At least the latter group is honest...

[InYourWorld]

04:42 PM on 04/21/2010

While I am not a gun 'nut', I fully support the 2A.

I can speak for everyone, as there are crazy folks at either end of any group, but Obama was not a supporter of gun rights as a senator. Pelosi, Emanuel weren't either.

I fully believe that if the WH was to push a drastic change in gun laws right now they would fail in 2012. Our country has SO many problems right now that are infinitely more important.

[ladyvader]

11:27 PM on 04/21/2010

Why do you think they have not even talked about gun control? It is way down on the list of what needs to be taken care of first.

[okakura]

02:46 AM on 05/09/2010

Like the NRA propaganda machine, you are conflating supporters of stricter regulation of gun rights with those who want an outright ban on private gun ownership - the latter being a very small and politically weak group.

Name 2 nationally prominent Democrats who are advocating for a comprehensive ban on private gun ownership. And, please, no slippery slope crap. Cite names, specific speeches or writings, and dates.

So sick of the NRA's phony-baloney straw man arguments and flag-wrapping self-righteousness. May I remind you that the NRA is currently DEFENDING the rights of suspected terrorists to buy firearms - preferrably without a background check? Unbelievable...

[OdinsEye]

09:41 PM on 04/23/2010

Obama repeatedly advocated bringing back the ineffective and poorly written AWB. It was part of his campaign and it was on his White House "urban agenda" webpages for several months.

[snesich]

04:20 PM on 04/21/2010

Why so much coverage for only a few hundred paranoid extremists who sleep with loaded weapons and believe racist and anti-semitic nonsense?

[CC1]

01:41 AM on 04/22/2010

Ah, that old reflex action again, scream racist at those who have different political views than yourself. Works well these days doesn't it??

[Jubb3500]

01:45 PM on 04/21/2010

A couple of dozen fat assed fools in Virginia and a couple of hundred jowly malcontents in D.C. hardly deserve the term "swarm" in the headline.

It's more like a "trickle" or a "handful" or a "smattering", isn't it?

[IDisgoodfittingjeans]

01:16 PM on 04/21/2010

aw c'mon -- they are just being manly men
myself, i prefer a man who instead opts to wield a sharp mind and a well-aimed word
i would just as soon let those who'd rather pack as civilians live in some designated packland with other fellow packers so that i can live out of range of their archaic rights and their sights -- let them have at it, muster and bluster and all.

[jdowg]

02:57 PM on 04/21/2010

uuummm...like segregate them?

[ladyvader]

11:28 PM on 04/21/2010

The pen is mightier than the sword.

[Julia Bailey]

12:50 PM on 04/21/2010

Are they wearing yellow banners to show they are cowards without their guns?

If you don't like the government - do what we did - organize, organize, organize. We managed to get a black man with a funny name elected to the office of President because we spent a lot of time, hard work, and money to do so. Go ahead teabaggers - do the same. And if you can't, don't threaten us. We do have the US military on our side.

[CC1]

01:43 AM on 04/22/2010

I'm sure they're really scared of you, LOL. And of course you have to bring race and a thinly-veiled threat into the debate. yet all the more proof you hold as much water as a fishnet.....

[highking1979]

11:18 AM on 04/21/2010

Oh Huffington Post, so like Fox News yet so far away. You can't use the headline: "Second Amendment Activist Swarm DC, VA Rallies" and the begin your article with "Dozens of Second Amendment rights activists" Time to get back to journalism and stop with the playing at Action News gotcha headlines.

[InYourWorld]

04:45 PM on 04/21/2010

Activist is a word with bad connotations. Allowing our government and media to push stereotypes and broadly categorize citizens in to groups is a great way to turn the public against itself while the true atrocities are happening in DC and Wall Street. I bet Obama's lobbyists in the cabinet and the Wall Street bakers love seeing the media foam at the mouth over the tea party and gun groups, it takes the focus off out our government selling out it's citizens to banks and military contractors.

[Freethinkinggal]

08:35 PM on 04/21/2010

Yes, I concur

[CC1]

01:45 AM on 04/22/2010

Yes, I 100% agree! And if all else fails, they (Obamabots) label those "racists" who disagree with their views, instead of expending the mental energy required to back up their convictions.

[psue321]

05:55 AM on 04/22/2010

Did you not bother to read further than the first line? It says dozens carried weapons and further on it says hundreds were not armed. What number officially constitutes a swarm anyway?

[Artemis34]

02:54 AM on 04/21/2010

With rights come responsibilities.

What I hear these folks saying is we want our rights without responsibility.

Many would consider the right to vote among our most cherished rights, and yet you cannot do it whenever you want, where ever you want, however you want as many times as you want. And you will likely be asked to register.

It is a distraction. To distract us from actual reform that is needed, financial reform for example.

[oldpol2]

03:08 AM on 04/21/2010

I believe your last sentence is the most telling. The entire adgenda of the corporatists is to keep the citizenry divided. If we are busy arguing over non issues we won't be paying attention to who has their hand in the cookie jar at any given moment. It gives whole new meaning to divide and conquer.

[G52]

05:41 AM on 04/21/2010

Both good posts! I agree with you both. There are multiple reasons for the time and place but a lot of it has to do with getting media attention, [not that impressive] and to distract. This really has very little to do with open carry and more to do with politics and right wing thought.
They want to change local laws in the DC area and the District of Columbia. Guns are attention getters and are being exploited in the wrong manner. They do not need to be a part of politics, and they give all owners who believe in the second amendment [including myself] a negative image. They are radical right fringe groups and I wont have anything to do with them!

[molonlabe]

08:49 AM on 04/21/2010

Wow, a strawman and a red herring back to back. congrats.

You and many others are reading way too much into these protests. Founded or unfounded, there's a growing discontent in the US over the current administration, and what better way to garner the attention of politicians and people alike than to use the most polarizing issue in america, guns, as a platform to voice said discontent.

No one's saying they want rights without responsibility, just differing opinions about what those responsibilities should be.

Obama's voting record on gun legislation while a US Senator was far from gun friendly. The 2A protesters have every right to look their elected representatives in the eye and shout loudly that they will be held accountable should they pursue any unconstitutional legislation.

[oldpol2]

02:41 PM on 04/21/2010

If assuming things were an olympic event you would win the gold, hands down! The protesters in the VA park were allowed there because Obama signed a bill into law allowing guns in national parks. There's a real unfriendly gun bill for you!

Assuming that people who post here are against guns and the right to carry is another problem. I own, Carry and have a concealed weapons permit.

The whole point was that someone led these people to believe they had reason to fear someone taking weapons. FEAR is the number one weapon of the right.The evangelicals use the fear of God in this life and the fear of destination in the next as their weapon of conformity. The right politicos use fear of the boogeyman to keep people drooling at their feet. Most importantly , anyone who thinks Obama is a socialist doesn't know Karl Marx from Groucho Marx!

[bordway]

09:59 AM on 04/22/2010

"Obama's voting record on gun legislation while a US Senator was far from gun friendly."

Yet his signing legislation easing restrictions to enable the carrying of arms in national parks is for the most part, throughout this entire thread, overlooked. They should be celebrating.

[kingstupka]

01:37 AM on 04/21/2010

Are these people really so sick in the head that they would have a shoot out over health insurance? If so it seems they may need the healthcare most.