The Myth of Effective Gun Rallies

Why emotional optics don’t equal strategic outcomes, and what real leverage actually looks like.

Every year, in a state with a long and conflicted gun-rights history, thousands of people gather for a gun rally.

They come from surrounding regions. They open-carry, bring their flags, wear statement T-shirts, and roll deep in group formation. There are speeches, chants, photos, and a kind of reverent celebration of patriot identity. It’s a good time; I used to go to that particular rally every year.

People make lots of contacts. They might even come away with a few new recruits for their group.

When the rally ends, people go home.

No laws change.
No pressure campaigns follow.
No institutional leverage is gained.

But people leave feeling like they did something.

The problem is that feelings don’t get the work done.

The Illusion of Political Theater

Rallies feel productive because they produce:

• High emotional arousal: unity, anger, righteousness

• Peer affirmation: “I’m not alone.”

• Visual documentation/validation: “See, look at how popular this belief is and how many of us there are.”

• Identity reinforcement: “I belong to something bigger than myself.”

This has short-term psychological utility, and offers people a way to put more weight on the validation side of the scale that balances their validation with their shame. In short, if you break it all down and people are brutally self-honest, these are the underlying reasons why they like going to events and rallies.

It’s also the reason why certain belief systems persist even when the data shows the opposite to be true: emotional currency.

But when measured through a strategic lens, these outcomes are not accomplishments. They are emotional discharges. That means they’re pressure relief valves, but the system that holds them isn’t stable.

They do not:

• Shift legislation

• Alter power structures

• Put pressure on legislators, who are adept at telling you one thing and then voting the opposite anyway.

• Build sustainable counter-capacity

And crucially, they don’t create consequences for the systems they oppose.

Without meaningful cost imposition, there is no incentive for change.

But What About Civil Disobedience?

Let’s contrast the above with another gun-rights demonstration, only this time it was a one-time rally focused on a specific legislative grievance.

In this case, the law in question criminalized private gun sales by requiring universal background checks not only for transactions, but even for simple handling of another person’s firearm.

So what did activists do?

• Showed up at the state Capitol

• Conducted hundreds of technically illegal private sales and trades

• Publicly handed firearms to each other in full view of law enforcement

• Advertised their actions with signage like “BREAK THE LAW: TOUCH MY GUNS”

Capitol Police observed. No arrests were made.

In the short term, this demonstration created a de facto nullification moment—an act of mass strategic noncompliance. It forced open a very real question for both legislators and prosecutors:

If hundreds violated this law and you prosecuted none of them, how can you justify selective enforcement?

This, unlike traditional rallies, highlighted an operational weakness in the law: specifically, its unenforceability without either mass surveillance or politically risky prosecution.

So, mission accomplished? You’re probably thinking (however begrudgingly) that yes, this one was a win.

But no. It was not even close to a real, needle-moving win.

Tactical Shock Does Not Equal Strategic Pressure

Ten years later, that law still exists. People like to point out that as of 2023, “only” one person had been successfully prosecuted under it.

That may look like a win. It’s not. First off, I’m pretty sure that the person who was successfully prosecuted didn’t find it comforting to know that he was the only one, and I also bet that the people touting the “only one” language wouldn’t be shrugging their shoulders if they were that particularly lucky person.

A law doesn’t have to be enforced broadly to remain dangerous. Even by just existing, it still:

• Creates prosecutorial leverage against individuals

• Expands the state’s legal justification for surveillance

• Normalizes permission-based ownership models

• Acts as precedent for further restrictions

In short: A unenforced law is not the same as a law undone.
Mass civil disobedience is not the same as pressure that leads to repeal, replacement, or system-scale withdrawal.

If a moment doesn’t result in infrastructure change—or at least sustained friction and pressure—it’s just theater. It might be brave, or risky or even dangerous. It might inspire you or make you feel amazing. It’s still just a performance.

---

Why Most Gun Rallies Don’t Do Anything

Here’s the core issue: most resistance efforts mistake attention for leverage.

Below is a breakdown of five common action types and what they actually generate when assessed through a strategic lens instead of a sentimental one:

• Emotional rallies create short-lived feelings of unity and group identity. They offer social validation but result in high burnout and minimal memory retention. The system’s response is simply to ignore, minimize, or mock it.

• One-time acts of civil disobedience may generate optics and highlight legal contradictions, but without follow-up pressure or infrastructure, their disruption is momentary. The system simply waits them out. If they inconvenience the uninvolved public, such as making them feel unsafe or blocking their commute, now you’ve created a public image problem too.

• Sustained pressure campaigns, which include economic leverage, policy disruption, or coordinated public withdrawal, create perceived cost to those in power. They’re effective, but require planning, logistics, and organizational endurance.

• Institutional infiltration works quietly and slowly to change outcomes from within. Expect internal resistance and pushback, but also reform over time if done correctly. (The problem, of course, is that most groups aren’t interested in the long game because they need the more immediate validation-based dopamine.)

• Parallel systems (black/gray markets) reduce dependency on regulated or hostile structures, such as firearms, food, finance, or communications. These are highly sustainable and subversive, which is why they trigger legal suppression and surveillance efforts.

If your action doesn’t generate friction, cost, or structural tension, it is performance rather than effective resistance.

---

“But At Least We Raised Awareness…”

This phrase is the activist equivalent of saying “I meant well” in a leadership failure.

Awareness without consequence is inert. The public already knows that gun laws exist. Lawmakers know opposition exists. Police know gray-market trades occur.

What they don’t feel most of the time is a cost or consequence to them.

That’s why they don’t bother to respond. They might let you come to their office, or show up at your rally for some photo ops. They might even be your keynote speaker and bring some fiery rhetoric that gets everyone fired up.

Then they go back to their office and keep doing what they’ve been doing.

Awareness is not pressure.
Visibility is not leverage.
Participation is not power.

What We Must Learn (or Keep Repeating)

• Symbolic acts serve morale; strategic acts serve results.

• If your event is mostly about being seen, you are working upstream of actual influence because the focus is you and your feelings/needs instead of the cause.

• If your civil disobedience doesn't escalate into either repeal or routinized noncompliance, it just ends up being an interesting historical story.

• If you don’t follow the theater with an actual economic, reputational, or political consequence, the system absorbs your protest and moves on.

Real resistance requires patience, precision, and pressure over time. Passion on display is just for you.

If your action doesn’t impose cost or alter capacity, it doesn’t move the needle, no matter how good it felt.

We don’t need more public demonstrations of strength. We need more private demonstrations of skill. And we need fewer one-time events and more repeatable infrastructure that converts discontent into leverage.

Your rally is not the problem.

But if it’s your only tool?

You’re performing for your own needs.

Reorienting for Impact: A Practical Framework

Instead of thinking in terms of “when can we do another rally?”, ask these five questions: