Originally Posted by tomrkba
The purpose is to exercise a right not used in a long time. The people have not organized themselves in a long time. The idea is to show up, be counted, recite the pledge, show your rifle, and leave. Why does it have to be so difficult?
I think there are some ambiguities in the idea you express here.
"The people" express and organize themselves in many different ways. They routinely do this every two years in elections, and in the 1930s they organized themselves to elect a Congress that gave us the NFA. So, let us recognize that "the people" organizing is not an activity uniformly consistent with an expansion of liberty.
Sentiments that rest on the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment seem to resonate best with people who are small "d" democrats, i.e. not necessarily members of the American democrat party, but those who place of authority in popular expression. However, as the patchwork of our state gun regulations indicate, popular sentiment is not a frequent companion of civil liberties. On the contrary, the exercise of these liberties appears to be better served by removing their protection from popular sentiment and leaving it with the judiciary.
My general sense is that your suggestion for a rifle bearing protest is most likely to occur, be tolerated well and supported in parts of the country where most voters would already comfortable with it.
Nationally, we have a vice president who suggests all we really need is a double-barreled shotgun (you know, because you do not have to aim those) and a Congress who have most recently focused on whether they should ban items in common use, a genre of legislation unlikely to pass the standard suggested in Heller. I like the chances of prevailing in that controversy.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.