All three of you completely miss my point, which is:
No, I got your point, I was merely pointing out that i believe it to be off-the-mark...
You don't like these demonstrators because 1) they had some association with a "leftist" group you don't like, and 2) they "broke the law".
Actually, I think Code Pink is about as ineffectual and obnoxious as you do. They are rude, disruptive, and not funny. They are abusive, racist, sexist, obscene, and almost NEVER bring good publicity to their "cause". Quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Code Pink actually gets large amounts of funding from the very people they are protesting most of the time, and are actually a disinformation op, being used to discredit valid protesters... Their actions certainly have all the earmarks of such an operation...
1. The Law is the Law, which is why we don't OC in DC.
No, we don't OC in DC because we'd get imprisoned or shot by the "badges" if we did, and most of us are not so committed to our cause that we are willing to risk long-term incarceration or death to prove a point.
I mean, in DC, the police draw down on you if you throw a snowball at a someone's car...
2. These "protesters", (who included the founder of Code Pink) were breaking the law.
See my above analysis of Code Pink...
Plus, Code Pink has nothing to do with organizing or publicizing this event--they were riding on the coat-tails of Kokesh, much as they do with the MAJORITY of their ops. Code Pink rarely initiates action--they usually tag along on other people's protests--which is
another reason I think they are actually an agent provocateur operation. They often show up at protests for good causes, and turn them into a circus of shouting, obscene behavior, and violence. Luckily, they behaved themselves this time, but it was a rare thing for them...
3. The protestors' excuse was the "protest of an unjust and unconstitutional law"
Excuse?
No, they were fulfilling their Constitutional Rights and Duties as Citizens, by actively engaging their Government in a legal, lawful, and CONSTITUTIONAL manner, addressing the Government for Redress of Grievances.
You know, that pesky little detail called the
First FREAKING Amendment. You know, the one right before the SECOND, of which you are so fond?...
4. This time, they did not even get arrested, ticketed, etc.
This is becoming a tactic of the Feds with groups like this. The first time they protest--ESPECIALLY if it is a small, unannounced, and loosely-organized event with no official press coverage--they arrest them and shuttle them out of the public view.
But when they come back, with hundreds more protesters, mainstream press, and dozens of Bloggers and Vloggers in tow, the common response these days is to ignore them for a while, and then just move in, shut down the venue, and herd everyone out...
If there is not venue, there can be no protest.
If there are no arrests, there can be no Civil Rights Violations cases brought.
It's a very clever, subtle, and insidious way for the Feds to render such protests ineffectual, and most of the public just aren't sophisticated enough to "get" just how evil and insidious this "law enforcement" tactic is...
5. What is more unjust and unconstitutional than DC's gun laws?
We've got to choose our fights. We need to consider the predictable response of the government to different types of protest, and modulate our protest tactics accordingly.
The appropriate way to address an absurd, ridiculous, nonsensical Court Ruling that is anti-1A is to protest in an expressive manner, using absurdism, ridicule, and nonsense. If that provokes a violent response from the Government, and there are National Media cameras rolling, then that looks GREAT for the protesters and VERY bad for the government.
But if a bunch of armed protesters show up and get shot and jailed, it's going to get spun by the media (especially the rabidly anti-gun DC and MD media) as "a bunch of racist Radical Militia members stormed the Capital and this insurrection was put down by our brave Uniformed Officers". And that would NOT be good publicity for us.
So instead, we choose the Courts, and unarmed protests.
This isn't rocket science...
6. HOWEVER, if some folks were to conduct a "carry in", they would be ARRESTED for a FELONY.
No, they would be shot.
And like I said, most of us aren't willing to die for our cause in some parade...
7. The RTKBA is SPECIFICALLY protected. The so-called "right to dance" is NOT.
Well, no actually, the Courts have ruled that "Expression" covers a whole LOT of different things, including musical performance, dance, poetry, and even sidewalk art.
Dancing may not be explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, but it has been included in court cases in the past, and has generally been considered to be part of "expression".
8. One of the protesters held up a copy of the Constitution and said that it was his dancing permit.
And according to most previous court cases, he is right. It is only in the recent ruling regarding the arrest of Mary Oberwetter in 2008 that has stated that dancing is NOT protected by Freedom of Expression, at least not in the specific location of the Jefferson Memorial...
9. Good luck with telling a judge that the Constitution is your gun permit.
Yeah, you are right. I guess Alan Gura is just a clueless chump, who has it all wrong...
10. Code Pink was involved with this, majorly so. How do you think this patently Leftist group feels about RTKBA?
No, they were on the periphery, and most of them weren't even dancing--just standing on the perimeter shouting and trying to instigate a violent response form the NPS officers--as they are often wont to do. Code Pink is NOT an "activist" group. They are agent provocateurs, being sent in to give REAL protesters a bad name, and to sully ANY cause that has legitimate Constitutional validity. Look at their track record...
As regards this Rerpublican war hero, I thank him for his service. However, the ranks of highly decorated war heroes who have gone on to damage the Republic include Benedict Arnold and Tim McVeigh.
And Alan Gura never served at all in the military. Neither did Benjamin Franklin. So what?
Wrapping Kokesh into the same fold as Arnold or McVeigh is nothing more than slandarous muck-raking, and a shoddy attempt at guilt-by-association. It is nothing more than the same tactic used by the anti-2A folks when they try to say that ALL gun owners are the same as people like Seung-Hui Cho or Jared Lee Loughner.
You can do better than that...
The Bill of Rights is NOT a "Chinese Menu". You either support the ENTIRE thing, or you are against the Republic.
Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?
Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them. 
