Sooo, ghetto kids and Liberal wackos will storm the steps of D.C. on Saturday..huh?

[bodecea]

They will BEG Father Government to strip them of constitutional rights granted by our founders...they will beg to be protected from themselves and the very same lowlifes they stand shoulder to shoulder with....haha
Think about that...you can’t make this shit up. Do we really need to wonder why nobody sane can take these Loons serious?

Change is coming. These young people are the voters of tomorrow.

Anyone who will vote to amend the 2nd Amendment deserves to be euthanized. No joke.

And....you plan on killing your fellow Americans who vote in a way you don't like........or else you just like to talk about doing it.

 

[bodecea]

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What about my right to use my legally earned money to buy a ticket to a perfectly legal and peaceful event, and attend it without having to break through a line of rude, profane, insult shouting snowflakes?

What about my right to enjoy a tour of our nation's capital with my children and/or grandchildren without having to avoid some places because they have been taken over by an angry, littering, property defacing/destroying mob that frightens peaceful, law abiding citizens just passing by?

You're giving the coming protest and protesters a lot of blame for things that have not happened. What makes you believe that the kids and other marchers are less than law abiding citizens?

Because of their track record. I have never seen one of these protests that didn't involve a lot of profanity and civil disobedience. Not here. Not in any other state. And not in DC. I'm sure the ANTIFA and BLM folks are already polishing up their gear.

Well. There WAS American Spring. Surprising devoid of profanity and civil disobedience.

 

[Hossfly]

They will BEG Father Government to strip them of constitutional rights granted by our founders...they will beg to be protected from themselves and the very same lowlifes they stand shoulder to shoulder with....haha
Think about that...you can’t make this shit up. Do we really need to wonder why nobody sane can take these Loons serious?

Change is coming. These young people are the voters of tomorrow.

Anyone who will vote to amend the 2nd Amendment deserves to be euthanized. No joke.

And....you plan on killing your fellow Americans who vote in a way you don't like........or else you just like to talk about doing it.

What's wrong with a harmless little helicopter ride? Also, most potential Democrap voters will have been aborted by that time.

 

[Foxfyre]

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What about my right to use my legally earned money to buy a ticket to a perfectly legal and peaceful event, and attend it without having to break through a line of rude, profane, insult shouting snowflakes?

What about my right to enjoy a tour of our nation's capital with my children and/or grandchildren without having to avoid some places because they have been taken over by an angry, littering, property defacing/destroying mob that frightens peaceful, law abiding citizens just passing by?

You're giving the coming protest and protesters a lot of blame for things that have not happened. What makes you believe that the kids and other marchers are less than law abiding citizens?

Because of their track record. I have never seen one of these protests that didn't involve a lot of profanity and civil disobedience. Not here. Not in any other state. And not in DC. I'm sure the ANTIFA and BLM folks are already polishing up their gear.

Well. There WAS American Spring. Surprising devoid of profanity and civil disobedience.

I wasn't there so can't say. Were you?

 

[WEATHER53]

Mayor of D.C. Proclaims loudly and often that she "hates guns" this is the base of all this, the emotion of hate
I respect guns I hunted and I know what they can do. My perspective is fact.
Little more parenting and would not have very isolated wack job teens running around blasting away but Libs prefer emotion as default

 

[rshermn]

Mayor of D.C. Proclaims loudly and often that she "hates guns" this is the base of all this, the emotion of hate
I respect guns I hunted and I know what they can do. My perspective is fact.
Little more parenting and would not have very isolated wack job teens running around blasting away but Libs prefer emotion as default

I have a number of guns, and have hunted for over 50 years. And I am of the opinion that no one needs an assault rifle.
Except those that can not shoot straight.

 

[rshermn]

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is the government attempting to stop them? I must have missed that.

Your position seems to be that you support the parts of the constitution as you interpret it and would deny other parts of the constitution you disagree with.

If you want people to support your alleged 'right' to bear a military style weapon, you must also support the right of people to protest it.

There was once a time when noble people would say "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it."

Nobility is gone. Today people say "I have the right to bear any type of weapon I chose, and you should sit down, shit up and accept that."

That isn't My position. I oppose the government taking My rights away from Me. These kids want to march, it is their right. By exposing their idiocy, I am not threatening their rights. Just as I am defending My rights to the Second Amendment when I oppose government writing useless laws punishing the innocent gun owner.

Now, I support ALL of the Constitution. That means that I support restrictions on what government can and cannot do.

How about you?

First, I call anyone who says of a bunch of kids who faced the business end of an assault rifle, and saw their friends killed and wounded, are idiots, is un-american. and basically a dipshit. They can take away my right to own an assault rifle any time they want. Because an AR is simply a gun used primarily to shoot refrigerators and buicks in garbage dumps.
I have a large number of guns. More than I really need. But none are AR style guns. And I can say with absolute certainty that during the past 50 years of hunting, I never missed one at all.
ARs are simply made to shoot lots of people. Nothing else. So, if you want to equip mass shooters with an AR, you should call yourself an idiot.

 

[rshermn]

LOL ******* leftists....that's it throw rocks at someone who is shooting at you. Good gawd

Pennsylvania students will be armed with rocks in case of school shooting, superintendent says

SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, Pa. - There’s a rocky controversy when it comes to school safety in one Pennsylvania County.

The superintendent of the Blue Mountain School District is in the spotlight after telling lawmakers in Harrisburg his students protect themselves against potential school shooters with rocks.

“Every classroom has been equipped with a five-gallon bucket of river stone. If an armed intruder attempts to gain entrance into any of our classrooms, they will face a classroom full students armed with rocks and they will be stoned,” said Dr. David Helsel, testifying to the House Education Committee last week in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania students will be armed with rocks in case of school shooting, superintendent says

Assault rocks! You can’t have those until you’re 21 if you buy them at Walmart, it’s considered ammo.

What happens when some daffy loon tells you to go after a shooter with a rock...

They should carry a rock the size of a grapefruit. And when a shooter shows up just beat yourself in the head with it chanting “I wish this was a gun” over and over until they get shot.

They will BEG Father Government to strip them of constitutional rights granted by our founders...they will beg to be protected from themselves and the very same lowlifes they stand shoulder to shoulder with....haha
Think about that...you can’t make this shit up. Do we really need to wonder why nobody sane can take these Loons serious?

Change is coming. These young people are the voters of tomorrow.

Oh yes and it’s going to be great when communism shows up. Always is.

Damn, communism is going to show up. Wow. I have been looking for a real american communist for over 50 years. And here you knew where they were all the time.

 

[Foxfyre]

Mayor of D.C. Proclaims loudly and often that she "hates guns" this is the base of all this, the emotion of hate
I respect guns I hunted and I know what they can do. My perspective is fact.
Little more parenting and would not have very isolated wack job teens running around blasting away but Libs prefer emotion as default

I have a number of guns, and have hunted for over 50 years. And I am of the opinion that no one needs an assault rifle.
Except those that can not shoot straight.

People who don't hunt, who don't do recreational shooting of any kind, and who will probably never face a threatening situation requiring the use of a firearm technically don't NEED a firearm of any kind. But the second amendment says absolutely nothing about anybody's personal need. It does suggest that when citizens are called to defend their country, they should be allowed arms to do so. In such a case an AR type weapon might come in very handy.

But we don't NEED many things that we like to have. What logic applies for somebody like me to not have an AR-14 rifle? I have never used a gun in any manner to threaten somebody or defend myself and have never harmed a living thing with any kind of weapon except maybe a tree if I missed the target, but if I just enjoy having an AR-15 in my collection, what harm is there in that?

And what principle of the constitution says that my rights to a peaceful outing with my family to visit the U.S. Capital Building or any other site should be cancelled or made inadvisable because the place is flooded with a bunch of angry people most likely practicing poor citizenship and might or might not be dangerous to innocent bystanders?

 

[Nosmo King]

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What about my right to use my legally earned money to buy a ticket to a perfectly legal and peaceful event, and attend it without having to break through a line of rude, profane, insult shouting snowflakes?

What about my right to enjoy a tour of our nation's capital with my children and/or grandchildren without having to avoid some places because they have been taken over by an angry, littering, property defacing/destroying mob that frightens peaceful, law abiding citizens just passing by?

You're giving the coming protest and protesters a lot of blame for things that have not happened. What makes you believe that the kids and other marchers are less than law abiding citizens?

Because of their track record. I have never seen one of these protests that didn't involve a lot of profanity and civil disobedience. Not here. Not in any other state. And not in DC. I'm sure the ANTIFA and BLM folks are already polishing up their gear.

I know it's a common and unfortunate way to react to a demonstration that one disagrees with. Belittle the demonstrators, dismiss them,as thugs, kooks, loons and, in this case, wet behind the ears know,nothing children. It makes those who disagree somehow feel superior, pushing down others. It's as if every lesson we learned since the playground can be disposed of out of convenience due to lack of conscience.

Why does this sort of criticism meet with the sounds of crickets whenever pro-lifers or those who oppose Gay rights march? I guess it all depends on whose or is being gored. I wonder what it would be like if a counter protest held by gun toting folks who refuse to see nuance and havoc and fear through the smoked glass lens of absolute gun rights? Who would call them less than law abiding citizens and complain of disruption,before the march begins?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

LOL ******* leftists....that's it throw rocks at someone who is shooting at you. Good gawd

Pennsylvania students will be armed with rocks in case of school shooting, superintendent says

SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, Pa. - There’s a rocky controversy when it comes to school safety in one Pennsylvania County.

The superintendent of the Blue Mountain School District is in the spotlight after telling lawmakers in Harrisburg his students protect themselves against potential school shooters with rocks.

“Every classroom has been equipped with a five-gallon bucket of river stone. If an armed intruder attempts to gain entrance into any of our classrooms, they will face a classroom full students armed with rocks and they will be stoned,” said Dr. David Helsel, testifying to the House Education Committee last week in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania students will be armed with rocks in case of school shooting, superintendent says

Assault rocks! You can’t have those until you’re 21 if you buy them at Walmart, it’s considered ammo.

What happens when some daffy loon tells you to go after a shooter with a rock...

They should carry a rock the size of a grapefruit. And when a shooter shows up just beat yourself in the head with it chanting “I wish this was a gun” over and over until they get shot.

They will BEG Father Government to strip them of constitutional rights granted by our founders...they will beg to be protected from themselves and the very same lowlifes they stand shoulder to shoulder with....haha
Think about that...you can’t make this shit up. Do we really need to wonder why nobody sane can take these Loons serious?

Change is coming. These young people are the voters of tomorrow.

Oh yes and it’s going to be great when communism shows up. Always is.

Damn, communism is going to show up. Wow. I have been looking for a real american communist for over 50 years. And here you knew where they were all the time.

Quite a few on this forum....look around some

 

[Missouri_Mike]

LOL ******* leftists....that's it throw rocks at someone who is shooting at you. Good gawd

Pennsylvania students will be armed with rocks in case of school shooting, superintendent says

SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, Pa. - There’s a rocky controversy when it comes to school safety in one Pennsylvania County.

The superintendent of the Blue Mountain School District is in the spotlight after telling lawmakers in Harrisburg his students protect themselves against potential school shooters with rocks.

“Every classroom has been equipped with a five-gallon bucket of river stone. If an armed intruder attempts to gain entrance into any of our classrooms, they will face a classroom full students armed with rocks and they will be stoned,” said Dr. David Helsel, testifying to the House Education Committee last week in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania students will be armed with rocks in case of school shooting, superintendent says

Assault rocks! You can’t have those until you’re 21 if you buy them at Walmart, it’s considered ammo.

What happens when some daffy loon tells you to go after a shooter with a rock...

They should carry a rock the size of a grapefruit. And when a shooter shows up just beat yourself in the head with it chanting “I wish this was a gun” over and over until they get shot.

They will BEG Father Government to strip them of constitutional rights granted by our founders...they will beg to be protected from themselves and the very same lowlifes they stand shoulder to shoulder with....haha
Think about that...you can’t make this shit up. Do we really need to wonder why nobody sane can take these Loons serious?

Change is coming. These young people are the voters of tomorrow.

Oh yes and it’s going to be great when communism shows up. Always is.

Damn, communism is going to show up. Wow. I have been looking for a real american communist for over 50 years. And here you knew where they were all the time.

I don’t think you looked very hard. If you need a hint they’re all in one party.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Never was granted by the framers, too have assault weapons or even for each person to have a gun, it was for state militias.

Make up your mind. You can't arm for the militia without "assault" weapons.

You have a choice. Either, you can argue that the second amendment excludes assault weapons, or you can argue that the second amendment only applies to actually arming organized state militias. You can not argue both. So which incorrect argument will it be?

 

[Foxfyre]

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What about my right to use my legally earned money to buy a ticket to a perfectly legal and peaceful event, and attend it without having to break through a line of rude, profane, insult shouting snowflakes?

What about my right to enjoy a tour of our nation's capital with my children and/or grandchildren without having to avoid some places because they have been taken over by an angry, littering, property defacing/destroying mob that frightens peaceful, law abiding citizens just passing by?

You're giving the coming protest and protesters a lot of blame for things that have not happened. What makes you believe that the kids and other marchers are less than law abiding citizens?

Because of their track record. I have never seen one of these protests that didn't involve a lot of profanity and civil disobedience. Not here. Not in any other state. And not in DC. I'm sure the ANTIFA and BLM folks are already polishing up their gear.

I know it's a common and unfortunate way to react to a demonstration that one disagrees with. Belittle the demonstrators, dismiss them,as thugs, kooks, loons and, in this case, wet behind the ears know,nothing children. It makes those who disagree somehow feel superior, pushing down others. It's as if every lesson we learned since the playground can be disposed of out of convenience due to lack of conscience.

Why does this sort of criticism meet with the sounds of crickets whenever pro-lifers or those who oppose Gay rights march? I guess it all depends on whose or is being gored. I wonder what it would be like if a counter protest held by gun toting folks who refuse to see nuance and havoc and fear through the smoked glass lens of absolute gun rights? Who would call them less than law abiding citizens and complain of disruption,before the march begins?

Do I object to demonstrations conducted by people who don't block vehicle or pedestrian traffic or entrances to businesses or public buildings, who pick up after themselves,and who are courteous to those who pass by? Nope. I have participated in a number of those myself.

Do I object to people shouting profanity, blocking vehicle and pedestrian traffic, shouting insults and threats to people who don't join them, who commit arson, vandalize, and destroy property, and generally terrify everybody in the area? You can pretty well count on it.

You can also count on me referring to them in very uncomplimentary terms.

 

[rshermn]

Mayor of D.C. Proclaims loudly and often that she "hates guns" this is the base of all this, the emotion of hate
I respect guns I hunted and I know what they can do. My perspective is fact.
Little more parenting and would not have very isolated wack job teens running around blasting away but Libs prefer emotion as default

I have a number of guns, and have hunted for over 50 years. And I am of the opinion that no one needs an assault rifle.
Except those that can not shoot straight.

People who don't hunt, who don't do recreational shooting of any kind, and who will probably never face a threatening situation requiring the use of a firearm technically don't NEED a firearm of any kind. But the second amendment says absolutely nothing about anybody's personal need. It does suggest that when citizens are called to defend their country, they should be allowed arms to do so. In such a case an AR type weapon might come in very handy.

But we don't NEED many things that we like to have. What logic applies for somebody like me to not have an AR-14 rifle? I have never used a gun in any manner to threaten somebody or defend myself and have never harmed a living thing with any kind of weapon except maybe a tree if I missed the target, but if I just enjoy having an AR-15 in my collection, what harm is there in that?

And what principle of the constitution says that my rights to a peaceful outing with my family to visit the U.S. Capital Building or any other site should be cancelled or made inadvisable because the place is flooded with a bunch of angry people most likely practicing poor citizenship and might or might not be dangerous to innocent bystanders?

Yeah, that would be terrible. How does that stack up against a nut case getting an AR and killing tens of people, me boy. Must be much worse. I mean, not having an AR or missing your day at the capital building must be about as bad as those 50 people who were killed. Though, in my humble but correct opinion, you could just not have the ability to shoot an ar and have the results we see in other countries, with no mass killings.

 

[Bush92]

Mayor of D.C. Proclaims loudly and often that she "hates guns" this is the base of all this, the emotion of hate
I respect guns I hunted and I know what they can do. My perspective is fact.
Little more parenting and would not have very isolated wack job teens running around blasting away but Libs prefer emotion as default

I have a number of guns, and have hunted for over 50 years. And I am of the opinion that no one needs an assault rifle.
Except those that can not shoot straight.

People who don't hunt, who don't do recreational shooting of any kind, and who will probably never face a threatening situation requiring the use of a firearm technically don't NEED a firearm of any kind. But the second amendment says absolutely nothing about anybody's personal need. It does suggest that when citizens are called to defend their country, they should be allowed arms to do so. In such a case an AR type weapon might come in very handy.

But we don't NEED many things that we like to have. What logic applies for somebody like me to not have an AR-14 rifle? I have never used a gun in any manner to threaten somebody or defend myself and have never harmed a living thing with any kind of weapon except maybe a tree if I missed the target, but if I just enjoy having an AR-15 in my collection, what harm is there in that?

And what principle of the constitution says that my rights to a peaceful outing with my family to visit the U.S. Capital Building or any other site should be cancelled or made inadvisable because the place is flooded with a bunch of angry people most likely practicing poor citizenship and might or might not be dangerous to innocent bystanders?

Yeah, that would be terrible. How does that stack up against a nut case getting an AR and killing tens of people, me boy. Must be much worse. I mean, not having an AR or missing your day at the capital building must be about as bad as those 50 people who were killed. Though, in my humble but correct opinion, you could just not have the ability to shoot an ar and have the results we see in other countries, with no mass killings.

Your right...other nations like North Korea and Iran don’t have mass shooting.

 

[Nosmo King]

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What about my right to use my legally earned money to buy a ticket to a perfectly legal and peaceful event, and attend it without having to break through a line of rude, profane, insult shouting snowflakes?

What about my right to enjoy a tour of our nation's capital with my children and/or grandchildren without having to avoid some places because they have been taken over by an angry, littering, property defacing/destroying mob that frightens peaceful, law abiding citizens just passing by?

You're giving the coming protest and protesters a lot of blame for things that have not happened. What makes you believe that the kids and other marchers are less than law abiding citizens?

Because of their track record. I have never seen one of these protests that didn't involve a lot of profanity and civil disobedience. Not here. Not in any other state. And not in DC. I'm sure the ANTIFA and BLM folks are already polishing up their gear.

I know it's a common and unfortunate way to react to a demonstration that one disagrees with. Belittle the demonstrators, dismiss them,as thugs, kooks, loons and, in this case, wet behind the ears know,nothing children. It makes those who disagree somehow feel superior, pushing down others. It's as if every lesson we learned since the playground can be disposed of out of convenience due to lack of conscience.

Why does this sort of criticism meet with the sounds of crickets whenever pro-lifers or those who oppose Gay rights march? I guess it all depends on whose or is being gored. I wonder what it would be like if a counter protest held by gun toting folks who refuse to see nuance and havoc and fear through the smoked glass lens of absolute gun rights? Who would call them less than law abiding citizens and complain of disruption,before the march begins?

Do I object to demonstrations conducted by people who don't block vehicle or pedestrian traffic or entrances to businesses or public buildings, who pick up after themselves,and who are courteous to those who pass by? Nope. I have participated in a number of those myself.

Do I object to people shouting profanity, blocking vehicle and pedestrian traffic, shouting insults and threats to people who don't join them, who commit arson, vandalize, and destroy property, and generally terrify everybody in the area? You can pretty well count on it.

You can also count on me referring to them in very uncomplimentary terms.

The march happens tomorrow, yet you have already accused the marchers of arson, assault and battery, vandalism and general mayhem.

Are you prescient or merely biased?

 

[Bush92]

The only march I care for is one with cadence.

 

[Foxfyre]

Mayor of D.C. Proclaims loudly and often that she "hates guns" this is the base of all this, the emotion of hate
I respect guns I hunted and I know what they can do. My perspective is fact.
Little more parenting and would not have very isolated wack job teens running around blasting away but Libs prefer emotion as default

I have a number of guns, and have hunted for over 50 years. And I am of the opinion that no one needs an assault rifle.
Except those that can not shoot straight.

People who don't hunt, who don't do recreational shooting of any kind, and who will probably never face a threatening situation requiring the use of a firearm technically don't NEED a firearm of any kind. But the second amendment says absolutely nothing about anybody's personal need. It does suggest that when citizens are called to defend their country, they should be allowed arms to do so. In such a case an AR type weapon might come in very handy.

But we don't NEED many things that we like to have. What logic applies for somebody like me to not have an AR-14 rifle? I have never used a gun in any manner to threaten somebody or defend myself and have never harmed a living thing with any kind of weapon except maybe a tree if I missed the target, but if I just enjoy having an AR-15 in my collection, what harm is there in that?

And what principle of the constitution says that my rights to a peaceful outing with my family to visit the U.S. Capital Building or any other site should be cancelled or made inadvisable because the place is flooded with a bunch of angry people most likely practicing poor citizenship and might or might not be dangerous to innocent bystanders?

Yeah, that would be terrible. How does that stack up against a nut case getting an AR and killing tens of people, me boy. Must be much worse. I mean, not having an AR or missing your day at the capital building must be about as bad as those 50 people who were killed. Though, in my humble but correct opinion, you could just not have the ability to shoot an ar and have the results we see in other countries, with no mass killings.

And what countries would that be? The ones with much higher percentages of households with guns than we have but that are small, homogenous populations with decent shared values and strong emphasis on personal responsibility and accountablility? The ones like Finland and Switzerland have very low crime rates involving guns or anything else.

Or countries like Honduras with rigid gun controls and ranked 88th in the world for the number of households with legal guns but has the highest homicide rate in the world, more than 76% due to gun crime?

The problem is not the number or type of weapons. The problem is a cultural one. Create a society in which personal responsibility and accountability is expected of all citizens, put biological fathers back into the homes, and allow God or religious faith that inspires peace and appreciation for life back into the schools and other public institutions, and I am reasonably certain that within a generation we won't be seeing guns as much of a public issue at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

What about my right to use my legally earned money to buy a ticket to a perfectly legal and peaceful event, and attend it without having to break through a line of rude, profane, insult shouting snowflakes?

What about my right to enjoy a tour of our nation's capital with my children and/or grandchildren without having to avoid some places because they have been taken over by an angry, littering, property defacing/destroying mob that frightens peaceful, law abiding citizens just passing by?

You're giving the coming protest and protesters a lot of blame for things that have not happened. What makes you believe that the kids and other marchers are less than law abiding citizens?

Because of their track record. I have never seen one of these protests that didn't involve a lot of profanity and civil disobedience. Not here. Not in any other state. And not in DC. I'm sure the ANTIFA and BLM folks are already polishing up their gear.

I know it's a common and unfortunate way to react to a demonstration that one disagrees with. Belittle the demonstrators, dismiss them,as thugs, kooks, loons and, in this case, wet behind the ears know,nothing children. It makes those who disagree somehow feel superior, pushing down others. It's as if every lesson we learned since the playground can be disposed of out of convenience due to lack of conscience.

Why does this sort of criticism meet with the sounds of crickets whenever pro-lifers or those who oppose Gay rights march? I guess it all depends on whose or is being gored. I wonder what it would be like if a counter protest held by gun toting folks who refuse to see nuance and havoc and fear through the smoked glass lens of absolute gun rights? Who would call them less than law abiding citizens and complain of disruption,before the march begins?

Do I object to demonstrations conducted by people who don't block vehicle or pedestrian traffic or entrances to businesses or public buildings, who pick up after themselves,and who are courteous to those who pass by? Nope. I have participated in a number of those myself.

Do I object to people shouting profanity, blocking vehicle and pedestrian traffic, shouting insults and threats to people who don't join them, who commit arson, vandalize, and destroy property, and generally terrify everybody in the area? You can pretty well count on it.

You can also count on me referring to them in very uncomplimentary terms.

The march happens tomorrow, yet you have already accused the marchers of arson, assault and battery, vandalism and general mayhem.

Are you prescient or merely biased?

I cited the history of these kinds of things and that history makes what will happen pretty predictable. Are you deliberately avoiding that argument in order to defend people who I see as violating the rights of the peaceful and law abiding?

If this turns out to be a peaceful, respectful demonstration by courteous demonstrators, I will acknowledge it. But I wouldn't be taking my kids or grand kids there knowing the demonstration was scheduled. I bet you wouldn't either.