Hilarious Video: Libertarians Crash Gun Control Rally on 4/20

Libertarians Crash Gun Control Rally

Libertarians Crash Gun Control Rally

Boy did the gun control advocates make a mistake! Since 2010, liberty activists and cannabis users have gathered every year on April 20th at 4:20pm to take part in mass cannabis civil disobedience at the state house steps. Of course, given that the state house is public property, you never know who else might show up and this year the gun grabbers held a rally very nearby the 4/20. Theirs was right out by the street while the 4/20 was up by the state house steps.

As Shire Liberty Media blogger Carla Gericke points out in her blog covering both events, the contrast between the two events was stark – one group wanting to just be left alone (the cannabis users) and the other wanting to be controlled and to control others (the anti-gunners).

After blazing up some primo herb, guns-and-weed-loving libertarians targeted the authoritarian gun controllers for a little trolling. Some came prepared, open carrying guns or armed with pro-freedom, pro-gun signs like “Scared of Guns in NH? Move to: Massachusetts ‘the Nanny State'”. The reaction of the freedom-hating gun-grabbers was hilarious. They made a desperate effort to try to cover up the libertarians’ signs with their own, which made for some hilarious video, captured by Vincent Freeman at Shire Free Media on YouTube:

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. LOL, WONDERFUL! \WISH I COULDDA BEEN THERE! (The last 1/2 second had the best comment of the entire video…)

  2. I have to applaud you for this one freekeeners. I do wonder what would have happened if the anti gunners would have wandered into your rally. I’m sure someone in the 420 would have called the police.

    The funny thing to the anti gunners, guns are a 30 billion dollar business. I seriously doubt the government will cut the numbers of gun ownership.

  3. Hear, hear, Jacks. Say, did you know that it was also libertarians that helped to make NH into a constitutional carry state? Fun fact.

  4. OMG! Hilarious! What could be more edgy and daring than smoking pot on the State House steps! What a bold, fierce statement! Then harassing people who had a permit! OMG! Hilarious! Wagging your guns at people you disagree with! That’s so edgy! Free speech has to be squashed! Those peaceful, unarmed people hurt our gundamentalist cult fee fees!

    Boy, you showed them! Hilarious!

  5. It’s called “First Amendment”, Susan. The only person arguing for squashing free speech is you and your anti-gun, anti-Semitic leftist friends (“Never Again” Jews know the value of the 2nd Amendment, unlike the liars on the left.) And no one “wagged their guns” at anyone there (it’s against the law), you leftist liar.

  6. Did you see that, Susan my dear? A man just contradicted you! I’ll just bet that’s because he hates women! You’re not going to let him get away with that, now are you?

  7. Gee thanks Jim! Allow me to translate: when other people have different views from my cult, that means we can disregard their right to speak, and trample on them, because our rights matter more. That’s a novel interpretation of the first amendment.

    What a bunch of frightened little white boys you all are.

  8. Susan my dear, protesters in a public space don’t have any right to be cushioned from the views being voiced by a counter-protest. You left-leaning types don’t think you’re harassing anyone when you’re out there counter-protesting pro-life rallies or anti-immigration demonstrations, now do you?

    You know, Susan – if you folks really want to be safe from the threat of dissenting opinions, then why don’t you organize your protests on private property instead? How about your house for instance? I’ll bet your garage has perfect acoustics for a sing-along.

  9. Oh, poor Dracoff’s tender feelings have been poked, along with his racism! Immigration demonstrations? No wonder we haven’t seen any of you white boys complaining about the illegal highway pop-up immigration stops. Then again, we didn’t see any of you white boys/copblockers in Ferguson arming up the black folks, either.

    The FSP continues to be a bastion of white men, clutching fearfully at their guns, trying to impose their will on everyone else.

    Oh, and Dracoff? You don’t get to lecture anyone about dissenting opinions. I show up here using my real name, something you’re too cowardly to do.

  10. Let’s see: According to Susan Bruce you’re not allowed to speak about freedom of speech unless you use your “real name” here. What does one have to do with the other? Who knows? Good thinking Susie! 🙂

  11. Susan the bruce is such a mental midget that she has to pull the race card in a discussion about gun and weed rights. Sad!

  12. Don’t fret too much about our dear friend Susan here, Jim. Susan has no choice but to fall back to the only refuge she has when she’s losing an argument: accuse her detractors of being bad people. She’s funny that way.

    Anyway Susan my dear, now that you’ve finished showing off to our dear friends just how righteous you are, let’s get back to the lecture. It seems to me, Susan, that you’re completely oblivious as to how all-inclusive democracies are designed to work. You see my love, in these types of democracies there are a variety of different people (demographics if you will) that have ideas on how their politicians should conduct policy. Your kind for instance wants to transform a large portion of the population (even the peaceful ones) into instant criminals by making all sorts of popularly-owned firearms and unpopular forms of speech illegal. Your rivals of course understand that it’s in their best interests to keep this from happening.

    I’m sure you see where I’m going with all of this, Susan. Your rivals aren’t going to just roll over and give in to your demands, because your stated goals are to deprive them of their property and the way they choose to speak. They also understand that once you have power, you won’t stop at just that. This is why your side is losing the argument with so many other people. And even after your side has lost so much power, you’re still not able to understand this. It’s fun to watch you gnash your teeth in frustration about all of it, though.

  13. Susan Bruce don’t worry Dracoff won’t be around for long. He claims to be an old frail man of liberty. It’s only a matter of time. Until then…

  14. And our dear friend Ernesto comes in with the assist! How exciting! It’s just like old times, isn’t it puddin’? Say Ernesto my love, what do you think we should call this ingenious defense of yours? Argumentum volentes mortis?

  15. Our dear friend Susan can’t possibly fight the specter of racism in America by being honest, Ian.

  16. Can someone tell me who this Susan Bruce chick is? Everyone here seems to know her and be friends with her except for me….

  17. Susan the Bruce? Oh she’s a pistol, that one! Why just the other day we were discussing how in all-inclusive democracies it’s essential that counter-protesters be free to protest public demonstrations, when suddenly she found a racist amongst us! It was all very scary. Fortunately for us, Susan has very keen senses for these sorts of things. Too keen, it seems, because she tends to find racists almost everywhere.

    Anyway Tim, you can find out everything you need to know about Susan on her blog. You’ll find it here: https://susanthebruce.blogspot.ca/

    Take note, though. Unlike FreeKeene.com, Susan moderates her comments section with an iron fist. If you don’t agree with everything she says, and want to make a comment saying why, it’s unlikely she’ll approve the comment. She’s funny that way, I’m afraid.

  18. Ian – I haven’t forgotten that you were shamed into taking a principled stand about the checkpoints. Where were the rest of the Free Staters? The silence was/is deafening.

  19. Oh, poor Drac-off. You must be one of the many cult members who drop by my blog to call me a cunt. That’s why I moderate with an iron fist.

    Of course it’s my blog – so I get to do what I want with it. Isn’t that the kind of free market ethos you culties are supposed to worship?

    No hypocrisy to be found here! Now, go back to Draccing off to Ayn Rand, like a good lad.

  20. I really see no reason to be making groundless accusations here, Susan my love. After all, we’re all dear, dear friends here, aren’t we?

    By the way, Susan, I actually do read your blog from time-to-time. I even troubled myself to post a comment there once. And I assure you, unlike your own writing, it was absolutely free of vulgarity of any kind. You refused to post it anyway, of course. You take it very personally when people find fault with your conclusions, don’t you Susan?

  21. Oh, and Susan dear? In a free market, it’s perfectly acceptable for customers to point out the flaws found in the products they consume – such as the ones found in your delightful little blog. In fact, it’s one of the market’s most necessary components. But I don’t blame you for not knowing that. When you’re in the business of saving the world from white men, you can’t afford to waste any time pondering about how the world really works.

  22. First- great editing job Ian! I can’t believe I didn’t know about you posting this sooner. The video came out great. Well worth the time and energy to gather at the state house.

    Now to respond to Susan’s comments:

    “The FSP continues to be a bastion of white men, clutching fearfully at their guns, trying to impose their will on everyone else. ”

    I’d agree that certain people on the FSP inc board do a poor job of leading by example and quite frankly I’d call hypocrites. That doesn’t mean the majority of movers or principled libertarians like Ian are. You clearly don’t understand what a principled libertarian is- it’s someone against the use of violence to achieve social and political objectives outside of self-defense (that is when someone else tried to force you to do something, steals from you, or otherwise use violence on you). What you don’t understand and what the FSP board didn’t understand when they banned Ian for instance is that while we all believe in property rights and the right to kick people out of PRIVATE property (like your blog) it’s not a very libertarian thing to do. They shouldn’t have banned the bigoted racist Christopher Cantwell out nor Ian Freeman nor any of the other people whose messages they disagreed with. Not because they weren’t within there right to do so- but because it’s not something a principled libertarian supports. Principled libertarians are open to listening to people they don’t agree with and using words- not bans to respond to communications they don’t like- which is exactly what happened here and why Ian doesn’t ban you here. Unlike your blog nobody at the event tried to interfere with the communications at the anti-gunner rally. Opposing messages were intertwined visually with signs and in-between clear pauses within the anti-gunners speeches.

    Libertarians don’t object to getting rid of the schools and ending the taxes. That would enable you sorts to setup your own communities where guns are banned if that is what you want to do and setup your own private or quasi “public” private schools funded by your “taxes” (association fees). There is nothing stopping socialist nuters from doing that in a free libertarian freedom respecting system.

    “Ian – I haven’t forgotten that you were shamed into taking a principled stand about the checkpoints. Where were the rest of the Free Staters? The silence was/is deafening.”

    Ian was being principled in his message and it had nothing to do with shame. He’s always held the belief that there should be no boarders. Boarders in the sense that violent armed guards will prevent you from traveling. He has no problem with private property though and to the extend that someone who has a private road denies someone use is not a concern to him. Theoretically you could buy up all the land for example in a region and all the roads and then deny anybody entrance- be it “Americans”, foreigners, or “illegals”. And just because Ian doesn’t have a problem with that doesn’t make him a racist. He himself wouldn’t do that. He’s principled- and not a hypocrite like some confused “libertarians”.

    “Of course it’s my blog – so I get to do what I want with it. Isn’t that the kind of free market ethos you culties are supposed to worship? ”

    You can do what you like with your blog and we will criticize you for it. It’s just not a value Ian or any of us principled libertarians will support. But we will uphold support for your right to do things with your blog that we don’t like/support. Of course your small mind can’t understand the complexity of these principles or values to get what I’m saying- but whatever. Your not really worth our time.

  23. Poor Drac-off. That’s rich.

  24. You know Ernesto, since you’re not doing anything but waiting for our dear friend Rich Paul to get back to you, maybe you can use this opportunity to contribute something beneficial for once. Why don’t you mansplain to our dear friend Susan here how consumer feedback works? Fingers crossed that she’ll be open-minded enough to womanunderstand it, eh puddin’?

  25. Mr. Paul are you there? When can we get together? If you get in touch with poor Drac-off maybe he can get the ball rolling. Wouldn’t it be fantastic? Bye bye for now.

  26. Ernesto my love, now I don’t mean to butt in, but don’t you think that maybe you should consider trying a more direct approach instead? I mean really puddin’, the comments section of a blog is hardly the most efficient way to get in contact with someone, now is it? Especially when it’s someone as busy as Rich.

    Have you thought of joining the Shire Society Forum, Ernesto? It’s the easiest way to get in contact with individual bloggers, you know. You should try it. It might just get you what you want.

Care to comment?