Texas Gun Owners Stage Rally at the Alamo


“We are here to show that an armed society is a polite society.”  Not exactly the rhetoric of “gun nuts” or supposedly racist “tea partiers” but rather, a concise aphorism demonstrating the common sense wisdom of a sovereign philosophy.

Disinfonauts please meditate on this little slice of wisdom, “It is not right to hurt others, it is also not right to not be able to defend oneself.”  – Bodhidharma (patron saint of kung fu and karate)

By Simon Moya-Smith, Staff Writer, NBC News

Photo: Nick Leghorn

Photo: Nick Leghorn

Hundreds of gun-rights advocates, many toting rifles and shotguns, gathered early Saturday at the Alamo in San Antonio to rally in support of gun ownership and the right to bear arms.

The rally, called “Come and Take It San Antonio,” comes in response to what organizers called San Antonio police’s “disregard for Texas law and The Constitution.” Organizers said the police department has harassed gun owners and created a hostile environment for legal gun ownership.

Gun-rights proponents flooded a plaza near the historic site — considered a shrine of Texas liberty since a small band of Texans fought and died in a battle against Mexican forces there in 1836. Many of those gathered carried banners, flags and sundry firearms.

The rally launched with remarks from organizers: “We aren’t here to start a war today,” one said, according to the San Antonio News-Express. “We are here to show that an armed society is a polite society.”

The day’s keynote speaker, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, is a Republican candidate for the lieutenant governor and an avid gun-rights advocate.

Patterson told NBC News that the rally was about the right of Texans to openly carry their pistols.

According to Texas law, gun owners cannot openly carry handguns, but there is no such law prohibiting the carrying of long guns. San Antonio police have recently made arrests of people carrying long guns, citing a more restrictive city ordinance banning weapons in public places.

“The premise is that someone who is openly carrying a handgun is not a criminal,” he said, adding that “criminals tend to be discrete” when carrying a hand gun.

Read more

73 Comments on "Texas Gun Owners Stage Rally at the Alamo"

  1. TiredMemeCat | Oct 20, 2013 at 12:26 pm |

    The bigger the gun, the smaller the penis.

  2. Liam_McGonagle | Oct 20, 2013 at 1:20 pm |

    Gotta say it: Seeing the streets crowded with people packin’ heat makes me feel awesome. The Tea Party is but one bad muffler away from exteriminating itself.

    • Liam_McGonagle | Oct 20, 2013 at 2:52 pm |

      But for cereal, when’s the last time a public demonstration achieved anything other than allowing the police to collect a bunch of biometric info on potential troublemakers?

      All meaningful policy debates are done in private. In places you’re not only unwelcome, but of which you are totally unaware.

  3. jasonpaulhayes | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:18 pm |

    Yes you do have the right to bear arms. Should you be taking them to political rallies? Probably not. Why? It’s a thinly veiled threat and an admission that words have already failed you. The politeness of a society is measure by how we treat one another not by how well armed and entrenched we are.

    P.S. I have a French WWII Rifle for sale… It’s never been fired and only dropped once.

    • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:31 pm |

      bear [bair] verb, bore; borne or born; bear·ing.

      1. to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
      2. to hold or remain firm under (a load): The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.
      3. to bring forth (young); give birth to: to bear a child.
      4. to produce by natural growth: a tree that bears fruit.
      5. to hold up under; be capable of: His claim doesn’t bear close examination.


      bare [bair] adjective, bar·er, bar·est, verb, bared, bar·ing.

      1. without covering or clothing; naked; nude: bare legs.
      2. without the usual furnishings, contents, etc.: bare walls.
      3. open to view; unconcealed; undisguised: his bare dislike of neckties.
      4. unadorned; bald; plain: the bare facts.
      5. (of cloth) napless or threadbare.

      …As “grammar-Nazi” as that is, I’m only correctly you because “bare arms” would suggest the near-opposite of “to bear arms”.

      • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:35 pm |

        Does this also have to do with the cupcakes in the other article?

        • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:41 pm |

          Are you calling me a cunt?

          • That escalated fast.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:45 pm |

            Tsk, I just wanted to see what he’d say. 😛

          • This makes me think of cupcakes with gun wielding cunts on them. Now I wonder what would call for cupcakes to require such decor.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:57 pm |

            Didn’t Lady Gaga have a video like that? Maybe without cupcakes, but I’m pretty sure she gave birth to a gun or something. Man, I hate that girl…

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:58 pm |

            There are probably subliminal climate change graphs in her vids as well.

          • There was that Die Antwoord video where she gave birth to a giant grasshopper or something.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm |

            an armed locust of the apocalypse?

          • The Pilgrim Travellers – Jesus Is The First Line Of Defence


          • There’s this youtube video of this pastor or what not talking about being Locusts for Jesus. I’ve tried to find it for a year or so, but alas.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 5:07 pm |

            I think you may be referring to a sermon by TD Jakes. It looks like those vids have been removed for copy violation. There was a whole host of dominionist joel’s army crap that’s been taken down over the past year.

          • I bet that’s it. Pretty scary shit.

          • The Well Dressed Man | Oct 20, 2013 at 5:30 pm |

            Jello is so stoked about the Jelvins! It’s good to see that guy still knows how to have fun

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm |

            It was a prawn. They were referencing the video I just mentioned. Hilarious. 😀

          • District 9 reference as well. I would like Lady Gaga more if she’d spend half as much time on her music, as she does on looking absurd.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:07 pm |

            I’d secretly held out hope that her new album would be good…that she’d only been so shitty as a gimmick for “the fame” and that the big reveal would be that she actually had talent.

            Disappointing, but not as disappointed as I would have been if I’d *actually* believed that spoiled rich brats from the Upper East Side were capable of anything more than asking daddy for a pop career.

          • She’s looks like a damn idiot in all that getup. It’s distracting.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:22 pm |

            I don’t find her outfits at all “distracting”, but then again, I genuinely like practically all of the 70’s glam and 80’s new wave examples she steals her looks from…old-skool David Bowie might be the only example you’re familiar with…

            I also really like some hair bands, un-ironically. I generally enjoy flamboyant fabulousness. Don’t even get me started on 90’s J-Rock and “Visual Kei”…

          • It’s all she has going for her. Not that I have an issue with appearance, but it’s not what is important. I am familiar with the stage attire of older groups. For example the the near leotard like suits worn by early Rush. Or the Nudie suits worn by The Flying Burrito Brothers.

            I get it, it’s a way to add an element to an act. When it everpowers is when it’s a bad thing. All I remember from her songs are repetitious words. Like poker face, or Alejandro. That’s all.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:44 pm |

            Yeah, that’s because her music is completely awful. I have the dubious honor of hating her before anyone else did. I used to work at a teenage clothing store in the mall that played her first record (before the one with “Poker Face”, etc.) and there was this one terrible song…I can’t even describe how horrible it was without you hearing it, and I’m not looking it up because every time someone listens to a Lady Gaga song, an angel commits suicide.

            In this way, she really isn’t that different from the 90’s Japanese phenomena of “visual kei”, since their main criticism was that they were all looks, no substance. Lucky for me, I can’t understand what the hell they’re saying, so it didn’t bother me as much.

            As for her other fashion “influences”, you should look up “Dale Bozzio” from “Missing Persons” and tell me you don’t see the resemblance…(Lady Gag, that thieving whore!)

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:50 pm |

            Reasons why Dale Bozzio was better than Lady Gaga:

            1.) Dale made her own outfits. Gaga has a team (not unlike Jeff Koons) who find her the most “outrageous” outfits of current haute couture. In this way she serves as a walking advertisement for their fashion lines.

            2.) Dale was the “real deal”. Lady Gaga says she was a stripper, but really she just had a lame burlesque act. Dale Bozzio was an ex-Playboy bunny.

            3.) Dale went crazy and became a genuine cat lady. Gaga will never be interesting enough to be crazy. She’ll just become desperate and pathetic (not unlike Marilyn Manson).

          • Dale is more attractive.

          • Apathesis | Oct 24, 2013 at 4:59 pm |

            Dale is more attractive, original, and her music is far better.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 8:09 pm |

            I know…I have “Rhyme and Reason” on vinyl, despite not really having a proper record player. Sometimes my roommate lets me borrow his, though. 😛

          • Nigh spitting image! Lady Gaga is a god damn vampire.

          • Eric_D_Read | Oct 22, 2013 at 12:45 pm |

            At least she provides great material for Weird Al.


          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:46 pm |

            repartee my friend

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:44 pm |

            Only if you want me to.

            I was thinking more along the lines of homophonist.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:48 pm |

            Hm…homophones of “cupcake”…homophones of “vagina”…?

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:50 pm |

            bare: naked
            bear: give birth

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:56 pm |

            *facepalm* Right…*sigh* 😛

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:57 pm |

            of course I will gladly use ‘cupcake’ as a metonym.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:59 pm |

            Aw, that’s so much nicer than “meat curtains” and other such examples of horrifying slang… 😛

      • jasonpaulhayes | Oct 20, 2013 at 3:47 pm |

        LMAO Fixed… that’s the nature of the beast when you use auto correct!

        • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:03 pm |

          Wow, speaking of auto-correct (and I’m going to leave it there for posterity), did anyone else notice that it had changed my word from “correcting” to “correctly”? As in, “I’m only [correctly] you because…”

          Damn you auto-correct!

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:06 pm |

            I thought you were having a transpersonal experience.

          • jasonpaulhayes | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:14 pm |

            You’re ridiculous and I find that agreeable.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:20 pm |

            Hm…maybe I should give up on school and just become a stand-up comedian…cheaper…no need to take out loans…but how will my text-based humor translate to an auditory experience?

          • jasonpaulhayes | Oct 20, 2013 at 9:54 pm |

            I would rather ponder… to whom will it translate? Written or Spoken.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 11:21 pm |

            Well…perhaps you would like to make a donation to my non-existent Paypal account?

  4. I wonder what would happen if a bunch of kids with squirt guns showed up to this, and ya know start a water fight.

    • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:47 pm |

      Obviously they would be have to be charged w/ terroristic threats & actions.

  5. DeepCough | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:26 pm |

    “We are here to show that an armed society is a polite society.”
    That’s like saying a “Civil War” is a “polite war.” And I will again point out
    that the whole purpose of the Second Amendment is for–and I’m quoting here–“the
    Security of the State.”

    • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 4:27 pm |

      “The Civil War was neither civil, nor a war–discuss!”

    • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 21, 2013 at 12:21 pm |

      I love when people cherry pick things out of context.. especially when they try to pooh-pooh the Constitution. I don’t see anything about “the whole purpose” in here…

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..

      ..is first clause.. talking about a militia, or organized armed group..

      Don’t forget to quote the second clause..

      the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Stay with me now, that pesky word at the end is a great one.

      Infringe – to limit, or restrict. limit, now there’s a good word. You may not limit this right at all. Note the period after that wonderful word.

      Shall not be infringed. Period.

      So, now, for all you Constitution pooh-pooh’ers.. There’s another neat part of this document that gets your poo all over you like a hippo at a zoo (ever seen it?)

      the 9th and 10th are my favs, cuz they show the founders weren’t forkin around..

      9th – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      —- Any of you brilliant brainiacs here on disinfo want to explain what this 9th means to those unaware, or do I need to do it?

      10th – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      How bout this one?

      9th – So, the fact that we listed some of our important rights here DOES NOT mean these are our only rights. We never assumed any responsibility whatsoever for producing an exhaustive list of *our* rights.

      10th – BUT, just in case there’s any confusion… we DID produce that comprehensive list of *your* rights (the U.S. Govt, that is). And here it is.

      I don’t expect people from other countries to get this, so your welcome for the lesson. You should make your govt follow the same rules, even if it takes bloodshed.
      I also don’t expect youth to know this even though they’re fresh out of poli-sci. But if you’re an American over 30, and you don’t understand and support the importance of this concept, then your are by definition an uneducated, sorry excuse for a citizen; unworthy of your own freedom. imho

      • I don’t need a document made by rich white men a couple centuries ago to determine my rights. not that they’re all wrong, or I totally disagree with them, but I refuse to enter into their covenant. I have made my covenant w/ the Most High, Jesus Christ, my creator. He has determined to me what my “rights” are. But, if they didn’t respect His rights then, I surely don’t expect them to respect my rights now.

        • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 21, 2013 at 5:08 pm |

          You didn’t read my post, or the Constitution apparently. That’s exactly what these brilliant men were saying.. That we’re not about to define our rights. Instead we’ll define the government’s rights, and retain all others, since they are inalienable and, for lack of a better word, divine. Although I do admire your eloquence, you are extremely arrogant.. probably just young, so that makes it ok in my book. Cheers.

          • ok. now, I see what yer getting at concerning the constitution enumerating the rights of government as opposed to the common misperception that they were enumerating the rights of individuals. although, it seems to me the document still purports to declare what some individual rights are.
            but my real disagreement is with the feeling of reverence many hold to the Constitution. it means nothing to me because the letter of the law is dead. sure, I admire some of its ideas. but, in my opinion, it doesn’t nearly go far enough and I see no reason that a document written by men of a different time and therefore a different context should determine what is Law, now. I do agree that many of its truths are timeless, I just think that it can get in the way of discourse when people expect others to hold its precepts as self-evident Truth. Mind you, I am in no way a liberal and I understand how some on the right like to use the constitution as a bulwark against those who strip us of liberty. But its apparent to me that it has no real authority to protect us.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 23, 2013 at 12:49 pm |

            Yes, they did enumerate some important rights, though many thought they shouldn’t include the Bill of rights. They put the ninth and tenth in there to alleviate those fears, and protect us from government overreach. No real authority? Really? It seems to have done pretty well for us, under the interpretation of the judiciary for the last 228 or so years. And, forgive me for thinking it absolutely *should* get in the way of discourse when that discourse leans toward the natural tendency of people to think the government has the answers, and that people are not capable of being independent and responsible. When the best “discourse” you have is, tax the rich so communism will work, you should refer to the Constitution and the Declaration, to set yourself straight.

          • just because I don’t worship the constitution doesn’t mean i’m a liberal and believe in taxing the rich, socialism, etc. I know that’s what the media makes it seem like, but there are alternatives to the left/right dichotomy.
            tell me how the constitution has any authority? am I wrong to say that we are rather ruled by the corporations and laws are created to appease their wishes? and the only alternative we are given in mainstream politics is to be ruled by a powerful State and its wishes. the real authorities are the corporations and the State. they determine how to interpret the constitution. has the 4th Amendment protected any of us from gov’t surveillance? did the 1st Amendment really protect those who protested and spoke to power when it really meant something?
            no, and there has never been an American golden age where the constitution protected the people if those in power really wanted to step on their “rights”. the constitution is and always has been only a propaganda tool to lead people to believe that their rulers have their best interests. it seems to have worked pretty well for that, judging by your words.

      • DeepCough | Oct 21, 2013 at 6:35 pm |

        Why so butthurt?

  6. The Well Dressed Man | Oct 20, 2013 at 5:33 pm |

    If any of ya all Texans see my bike down there at the Alamo, could ya let me know? Heard it was in the basement…

  7. BuzzCoastin | Oct 20, 2013 at 7:05 pm |

    wasn’t this a scene from Pee Wee’s Big Adventure?

  8. As in the case of the Temple PD violating CJs rights SAPD Chief McManus violated the Constitutional Rights of the three law-abiding citizens that were recently charged at Starbucks for carrying their rifles.

    What is NOT being reported is the fact that SAPD Chief McManus is being sued in Federal Court for violating the rights of other law-abiding citizens he banned from City Hall and public meetings in violation of the Constitution and the Texas Open Meeting Act. McManus used his same tired ” threatening” excuse to justify violating the Constitution when he signed an illegal, unconstitutional criminal trespass warning knowing that there was no threat and no danger.

    San Antonio TX Mayor Julian Castro ( Obama campaign co-manager) , city attorney Michael Bernard ( brother of White House Social Secretary Jeremy Bernard) and SAPD Chief William McManus are being sued in Federal Court for Constitutional violations after they banned a law-abiding citizen from City Hall and public meetings for almost four years in an effort to conceal public/police corruption. Along with
    Councilman Diego Bernal, Councilman Cris Medina, IT Director Miller, etc .they
    have been reported to the DOJ, HUD, the FBI, etc. for helping cover-up decades
    of grant fraud, bond fraud, theft, falsification of government documents, perjury, obstruction, theft/misuse of 911 funds ( 25% failure rate for emergency calls) , Open Meeting violations, two” frauds upon the court” – 2009 and 2013 financed with tax dollars, HUD theft/fraud where city persons submitted false statements to federal
    investigators in case HL-10-0465, etc…

    The Free-Speech / Freedom of Assembly lawsuit is moving forward and former City
    Telecommunications Manager John E Foddrill Sr obtained the representation of a
    Dallas TX law firm. US District Judge Xavier Rodriguez has denied the City’s
    motion to dismiss the lawsuit …5:13-cv-00051…stating- ” Each day that Plaintiff was allegedly barred from accessing public facilities he suffered a constitutional
    injury” and “the fact that for close to four years Plaintiff was prohibited from exercising his rights to free speech and assembly”.

  9. I wonder what would happen if a group of Muslims started their own militia. You know, the right to bear arms thing….

    • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 21, 2013 at 11:50 am |

      I suppose nothing at all unless someone tried to infringe their right to do so.

    • good question for the Right wing!
      but I do agree that is ok for people to band together to be able to defend themselves with weapons if necessary. yes, there is a potential for more violence, but its not a foregone conclusion and might induce the opposite, because an animal backed into a corner is more likely to strike out. if you take away the tools people can use to defend themselves, it seems to make a threatening statement to them. also, its the question of more freedom and more security. they have really herded us with this left right dichotomy. each side is willing to make certain sacrifices of their freedom and when the poolicies are made it seems its never a case of sacrificing security for the sake of freedom.

      • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 21, 2013 at 4:51 pm |

        Some of us were raised to be true democratic citizens. *Some* of us will stand up for others’ rights to do things that we ourselves detest. Some of us would say, “if I treat all smokers like pariahs and support the authorities in the quest to rid the world of cigarettes because my mom died of lung cancer, then I open the door to all kinds of abuses of power, and confiscation of rights, and so no, I will stand with the smokers, even though it disgusts me and killed my mom.”

        “if you take away the tools people can use to defend themselves, it seems to make a threatening statement to them”
        – ya’ think?
        Are you for real?

        • all of us were raised (indoctrinated, rather) to tow the line or pay the costs. “true democratic citizens”? or cogs in their death machine.

    • Then the right-wing becomes anti-gun:


  10. The Alamo. Perfect. :-/

  11. lilbear68 | Oct 21, 2013 at 11:19 am |

    keep the spirit of re-call alive, recall all that do not do the will of the people

Comments are closed.