LEAGUE CITY — About 400 people, including elected officials, rallied Saturday in support of gun rights and to protest bans on firearms.

The Clear Lake Tea Party organized the rally on the Day of Resistance, which was recognized Saturday in cities across the country amid possible firearms-related bans.

Contact reporter Chris Paschenko at 409-683-5241 or chris.paschenko@galvnews.com.

Locations

Recommended for you

(20) comments

Gary Miller

Both AR's in the picture have 20 round magazines inserted. Are they loaded? What difference would that make? Neither owner is there to kill something.

Gary Miller

If all 400 at the rally were carriying "loaded and cocked" guns the number of dead would be the same.
No gun is dangerous until a dangerous person holds it.
A muzzle loading single shot in the hands of a killer is more dangerous than a 200 round machine gun in a safe person's hands.

Gary Miller

Just remember.
A liberal with a voter registration card is more dangerous than a CHL license holder carring a loaded gun.

Steve Fouga

IHOG, you're trolling Lars, aren't you?[beam]

Lars Faltskog

IHOG ! ....he's so trolly. LOL. Children with rifles strapped to their backs?? Sounds like an irresponsible way to try to make a point.

Did y'all hear about the boy in rural Ft. Bend who was walking with his great-grandfather, and a stray bullet from a shooting range grazed his leg?

Then, there was a story about some ruckus going on near a shooting gallery in North Houston.

Don't people have better hobbies to embark upon besides gun shooting? Sounds obsessive. Those kids should be home doing homework and reading up on something meaningful instead of idling time on a shooting range.

Gary Miller

Sverige1
Defending the constitution that protects you from government should be viewed as a responcible way to spend "quality" time with your children.

Kevin Lang

The Constitution IS government. It is not the foundation of anarchy, but of what we call "our" democracy. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution because they believed in government, but also felt that the government needs certain boundaries and restraints in order to avoid some of the totalitarianism they perceived from England.

If you believe the government is our enemy, then the Constitution offers little salvation. If the government wants to squash us like little bugs, the 2nd Amendment will give us very little hope of meaningful resistance.

If we expect the government to respect the checks and balances of the constituiton, the people also must respect the checks and balances that go with our freedoms.

Yes, we have the right to keep and bear arms. However, we do not have the right to shoot anyone that we think is looking at us cross-eyed. And, I don't think we want guns in the hands of those that would shoot at anyone looking cross-eyed.

Certainly, we can presume that we should ensure that Lars doesn't get a gun, for we know that "liberals" are too unbalanced to be trusted with guns. Fortunately, for us, we have this forum to point to for backup on that. However, what about all those liberals that keep their mouths shut? If we don't do some serious checks on them, how do we keep people that un-American from getting their hands on guns? How would we propose making people like Lars answer all those questions, will ensuring that IHOG never has to fill out a single one of those forms?

If we all agree that we don't want murderers, burglars, thugs, and crazy people to have guns, how do we identify them before they get their hands on guns and kill people?

We know that the liberals are too loopy and stupid to solve this problem. Where is the wisdom and sanity of the conservatives to tell not only the left, but all of us in between how we can stop this madness? Will more armed guards and fewer "gun-free" zones be enough to save us? How will the armed guards know that the 20 guns in the school all belong to benevolent "defenders" and not some organized attack squad? How will mall shoppers know that the 20 guns are all aimed at 1 bad guy vs. 20 bad guys targeting the 1 good guy with a gun?

Steve Fouga

I actually don't think the Government would stand a chance in a fight against the citizenry. Our Government would have to rely on our military to enforce its will, and I doubt the military would follow through. A lot of people would die, but the citizenry would eventually prevail.

BTW, I don't think the Govt is our enemy, just sayin' what I think would happen.

Lars Faltskog

Response to HOG ! posted at 10:10 am on Mon, Feb 25, 2013 -

If you show me solid proof that our President wants to strip all reasonable means of our ability to defend ourselves from invaders, then I'll join in the protest.

"Reasonable means" does not call for endless stockpiling of weaponry. These teaparty-type protests are smokescreens for groups of white folks to express continued dissatisfaction that we have a mixed-race President. Get over it - maybe the tubby guy from NJ will make President in 2016. But, I doubt he'd please the reactionaries around here. He seems too much for compromise.

Steve Fouga

Oh, and Lars... Shooting is FUN! I'm sure people can make a case for any number of hobbies -- I enjoy fishing, cycling, reading and music just as much as shooting -- but I bet a lot of the shooting naysayers would love it if they tried it.

My problem is finding a decent place to shoot around here. [sad]

Kevin Lang

Jake, I tend to think you're right. However, I'm sure there are scenarios where the government could squash us without using the military. They'd need a lot of our DOD's weaponry, but I would tend to think they wouldn't tryi to engage us with armed forces until they were sure the military was convinced that they weren't attacking Americans.

Theoretically, they have more than enough firepower to squash us like bugs. However, whether they can get all the pieces to work together to carry it out is a big question mark.

I believe that if the government were to exert the power needed to justify IHOG's statements, whether we have AR-15s or not will nto be the tipping point. They definitely have enough skill and tactical ability on their side to where it comes down to if we can't get off one shot, what difference does it make if we have 2 or 75 rounds in the magazine? That's not to say that we shouldn't have 75 round magazines. However, there's much more to the picture than just having a gun, knowing how to shoot it, and having enough rounds of the right type in it to ward off the number and types of potential attackers.

Marine One

Military folks are just like everyone else...Americans. Most are seriously patriotic and I would bet would never follow an order to attack American citizens. The mentally insane major at Ft Hood was a needle in the haystack.
I believe we would see almost all of them walk away from their posts to return home to defend it from the very idiots that think it up. Remember we have the regular military, reserves and national guard.
This isn't the original colonies when brother fought brother, etc....America has come centuries from that.

Steve Fouga

kevjlang, as far as I know, the U.S. Govt has NO warmaking capability aside from the military -- none. Sure, the CIA, FBI, and agencies of that ilk are well-armed, but tiny. There are very few in the Government with the knowledge to use the military's weaponry, aside from the military itself. Aircraft, tanks, and submarines cannot be operated by any other than trained military personnel. So then the fight becomes a few Govt guys (okay, maybe a few thousand) with M-16s against several hundred thousand with AR-15s and deer rifles dispersed over almost 4 million square miles. Plus, like BOI said, it wouldn't take long for the military to join the citizenry.

Seriously, this would be a blowout of the first order. Our Govt without the military would be powerless in armed conflict.

Even with the military against the citizenry, I'd still put my money on the citizens. They could NOT squash us like bugs -- without going nuclear, they don't have the firepower. Too big a country, too many people.

Kevin Lang

I think we're in agreement that IHOG's argument doesn't hold up. My point is that IF the government could muster up all its forces against us, the could squash us like bugs. However, you'd have to subscribe to a lot of unlikely scenarios for that to happen--scenarios that make AR-15's in our possession irrelevant.

Gary Miller

Violent crime has in the UK has increased since they let government take their guns
First the anti gunners offered free theft and liability insurance for 'registered' guns.
Then they passed a stiff penalty for not registering guns and promised registration would not be used for confiscation.
When all guns were registered they ordered all guns turned in to police.
Gun owners protested they were promissed "registration" would not be used for confiscation.
The anti gunners said "we didn't promise that". That verbal promise was made by the old government.
They didn't need the military to take guns. A $10,000 fine and two years in jail did the job.
Many Brits re-armed with pillow guns.
Two years in jail is better than forever in a casket.

Gary Miller

UK criminals didn't register or turn in their guns, bought on the 'black market' without background checks.

Kevin Lang

Of course, it's been demonstrated countless times that violent cirme tends to follow economic cycles, but in this case, it's certain that the increase in violent crime is solely connected to restricted gun ownership.

If you have people that feel desperate, I don't think their first concern is whether you're armed, but whether you have something they need. They can work around the issue of your gun merely by shooting you first.

Lars Faltskog

Response to kevjlang posted at 1:22 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013:

And that's exactly why the gun proponents have it all wrong in regard to their false sense of security while clinging to their guns.

Defending yourself and your good christian family against the terrible robbers and pillagers with a gun/rifle almost always turns out badly. When that vigilante elderly man in Pasadena chased those burglars away from his neighbor's property and shot at them - see the results for that vigilante.

Months of litigation, public embarrassment, and threats to HIS safety ensued.

Lars Faltskog

Response to IHOG posted at 12:01 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013:

/FACT CHECK/

You might want to conduct a fact check review. England has seen a successive drop in gun crimes due to tough laws of gun ownership. Of course, no measure can completely prevent killings - but they've made great strides.

They also had no choice to impose bans, since the 1996 school shooting they had there.

/This ends the FACT CHECK/

Lars Faltskog

I wonder about the GDN photos on this story. How many families squandered their Saturday to espouse unlimited dangerous gun possession and use? And, I wonder what these folks would say to the victims' families of Sandy Hook?

Interesting that the bulk of the people who attended this shindig were overweight, white teapartiers. Truth should be told: they are simply protests that a man of color got re-elected to the White House, and they're still eating their hearts out over it.

Will there be more of these "rallies" - which are simply in the guise of white supremacy meetings?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.