The drums of gun control are beating and beating hard. Every since Charlottesville, where there were a lot of guns but remarkably little shooting, the left has continued to drone on about how the presence of guns at political gatherings is problematic. After all, they argue, only an idiot would want to take a gun to such a thing.

An idiot? Or someone who understands that some people may be intending to hurt others at such events?

Alameda County Sheriff’s considered the woman’s sign to be too large. Berkeley Police Department tweeted Roark was arrested for carrying a “banned weapon” and swiftly sent out her booking photo. In fact, the department tweeted five of the nine mug shot photos and the reasons they were arrested.

The other woman, 20-year-old Hannah Benjamin of Fremont, apparently witnessed the arrest of the first woman and allegedly spat on an officer. Police tweeted her booking photo as well and said the arrest was for “battery” of an officer and that she too was carrying a banned weapon.

A third booking photo of a male, Michael Paul Sullivan, 29, of Hayward was tweeted out by Berkeley Police at 9:37 p.m. Police say the arrest was for carrying a banned weapon. He was arrested near Bancroft Way and Telegraph Avenue.

At a briefing late in the evening, UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennett said at that point, there were four to five arrests.

“Banned weapons.”

In other words, they brought things that were expressly forbidden because they could be used as weapons to injure political opponents. Some people don’t want to play by the rules, especially since we know that crowds at this location have assaulted opponents previously. When conservative provocateur Milo Yiannapolous tried to speak at Berkeley earlier this year, the campus erupted in flames.

A short time later, off-campus but still in Berkeley, a free speech rally was actively attacked by Antifa. The rally attendees repelled the assault in what has been called “The Battle of Berkeley” since then.

As a nation, we’re divided by ideology, and there are many who simply don’t see their opponents as human. For example:

Of course, this individual refused to acknowledge that he’d done anything wrong by claiming that pro-gun advocate Dana Loesch wasn’t even human, and that’s kind of the point.

When you find yourself facing opponents who won’t even regard you as human, you have a very real reason to fear for your life. This is not a bad thing in their minds, however. If you’re scared, then you’re less likely to speak against them and they can pretend their part of the conversation is the only part of the conversation.

Conversely, you can stand up and make your voice heard. That means either risking life and limb or wanting to be armed so you can defend not only your right to free speech but also your life. Is it that hard to imagine why someone would want to carry a firearm to a protest?

Let’s also note that despite the prevalence of firearms at Charlottesville, the militia present has been credited with stopping violence.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily a good idea, mind you. That’s a value judgment that I believe relies on the individual to determine what is in their best interests. What I am saying is that it’s not an unreasonable thing for someone to want to do.

What do you think? Are lawfully carried firearms at protests wrong, even if legal?