That is what I'm thinking. At first I went along with the speculation that Gamboa was intending to shoot into the crowd. But after reviewing the video, it looks more like he was just walking and open carrying with the rifle pointed down. It might not have been the best move in hindsight, but he had the legal right to do so.

Also after listening to his Slugmag interview I'm just not seeing the motivation for a mass shooting. Unless maybe he intended to shoot cops or something. He just doesn't seem to fit the profile & ideology of a mass shooter.

Edit: the interview if anyone is curious https://www.slugmag.com/soundwaves/episode-364-rade/

Yeah in another thread there's an interview of the rifleman from his time in a punk band talking about the system. This is likely going to be a shit show when the partisan pundits pick it up

It looks like the peacekeeper thought he was a shooter

As he should.

Brandish a firearm in public, you are attempting to intimidate others, so you'll get treated like the terrorist you are.

Yea what I read was that he was "pointing a rifle at protesters".

Don't aim a gun at a person if you are not ready to fight and die.

I would argue this is not only self defence, but public defence.

Edit: looks like its not completely clear if he was brandishing the rifle or just open carying, obviously my argument doesn't technically hold water if he was just open carrying.

I would also argue that open carying a weapon well know for use in mass shootings right next to a large crowd is probably a dumb idea even if it's legal to do.

Exactly. The peacekeeper who shot into the crowd should be charged instead.

It's being reported that Arturo is an activist who regularly open-carries in support at protests. Meanwhile you're making confidently incorrect claims that he is a conservative traitor and terrorist. Stay classy.

You mean the thugs hired by 50501?

I know Arturo, and if you did any sort of due diligence, you’d know he’s a hardcore leftist.

If you think Arturo was a ‘conservative traitor’, I think you have more problems with simply accepting what our right wing media apparatus chooses to push.

I think it was like this: A was protesting, B takes out a rifle and aims at protesters. Police (or whatever the 'peacekeeping team' consists of) start shooting at B but they missed aim training on thursday so they kill A instead.

Yup. If you brandish a firearm in public, you are clearly trying to intimidate others. You deserve to be shot down.

Maybe guns are bad, and maybe if you bring a rifle to a high tense situation and hold it in any manner that may seem threatening, you deserve to get shot.>

Maybe guns are tools, and maybe if the majority of protesters were visibly armed then the police would not escalate tense situations to high intensity riot conditions and beat the protesters. Had the state had to hesitate to use violence on peaceful protesters, at least there would be a bunch less abuse of the media and civilians.

The Black Panthers proved this, which is why Reagan started gun control. Modern open carry armed protests have also proven it's still true. Cops are cowards, Uvalde proved that, even with superior equipment they will find a reason not to start. Getting the left to disarm and put their protection into the hands of the very governmental authority they continually protest against has got to be the biggest con job in history

weird situation indeed

I’ve protested standing directly next to the man and his guns multiple times, the official story here is a bunch of horseshit. Only one person committed gun violence and it wasn’t the well known gun rights and safety advocate.