Several women and men did not allow past intimidation from gun-toting MAGA sympathizers to protest against Congressman Dan Crenshaw and Trump’s destructive policies.
MAGA gun intimidation didn’t stop these women
Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
I am late with this one. I was taken aback when these two women told me about their encounter with MAGA gun-touting cowards. I wanted to be more profound in how I spoke about not being intimidated, though being careful. But more importantly, I want to acknowledge the bravery of these protesters. People are watching, and you are making sure we all know we are already empowered to act!
Summary
When conservative motorists brandished firearms and intimidation tactics at protestors near several Indivisible and other events, two women—Christina and Teresa—refused to back down. Rather than retreat, they returned with signs and resolve, challenging the narrative that resistance is violence. Their persistence underscores that democracy and dissent must not cower under the threat of guns.
- A man reportedly rolled down his window, gave a finger gesture, and pointed to a gun at his waist in response to protest signs reading “He’s not a king / don’t be his pawn.”
- In a separate incident, a man in an American-flag outfit reportedly flashed a rifle between his legs at protestors.
- The women argue that violence is misattributed to progressives and liberals, while the right weaponizes gun intimidation.
- They insist that showing fear would concede ground to authoritarian impulses and that protest must continue.
- They critique mainstream media complicity in underreporting or reframing violence and argue for independent media as a counterweight to corporate narratives.
In the face of explicit threats and gun-brandishing, Christina and Teresa demonstrate that resistance rooted in moral conviction refuses to flinch. Intimidation may aim to silence voices, but they returned to the streets not out of courage for its own sake, but because democracy needs persistent witnesses to injustice.
In the video, two women—Christina and Teresa—share what should be shocking stories: they were protesting, carrying signs a few days ago, only to be met with explicit threats of violence. One motorist lowered his window, gestured obscenely, and pointed to a gun at his hip, apparently in response to their sign. In another episode, a man in a patriotic outfit wielded a rifle, flashing it between his legs at them. Rather than retreat in fear, these women returned and persisted in their protest. Their resolve offers a potent metaphor: in an era when authoritarian posturing and gun culture are weaponized against dissent, democracy demands citizens who will not cower.
The first lesson is that intimidation by force is never a substitute for laboring through consent or governing by mandate. The very strategy of brandishing guns or using fear tacitly acknowledges weakness: it signals that ideas and consent cannot carry the contest, so violence must enter. The perpetrators implicitly concede that their arguments alone will not be enough to persuade. Christina and Teresa’s refusal to back down punctures that tactic. They reclaim public space and moral authority by refusing to be silenced.
Second, their defiance strikes at a false narrative that equates protest or liberal values with violence. In their voice, they insist that the gun threats, the intimidation, the spectacle of violence — these are the tactics of radicalization and reaction, not progressive dissent. They reject the smearing conflation that dissent is disorder, that critique is chaos. They insist that when violence enters public discourse from one side, the other cannot afford silence; to do so is to yield space to force.
Third, their remarks about media complicity deepen the context. They note that local and national media frequently underreport such intimidation or frame it in a way that shifts blame onto the protesters. “Mainstream news media is also complicit,” one says. In effect, the machinery of representation becomes part of the intimidation mechanism: if violence is hidden, minimized, reframed, or blamed on the victims, then the cost of protest is magnified. This dynamic amplifies chilling effects among would-be dissenters.
Fourth, the protestors locate these threats in a broader cultural matrix: Texas’ gun culture, the normalization of weaponizing violence, and the impersonation of patriotism with threat. As one says, “the guns they’re using … these high-powered weapons … they should only be used by military and police, not by civilians against civilians.” Her argument is not blanket gun bans (though she supports stronger laws), but a moral point: the current deregulated, permissive gun environment becomes an ecosystem for intimidation. The protest is not just about Crenshaw, or one community event—it is about who holds legitimacy, who monopolizes public discourse, and who enforces it by force. It is framed as defending national integrity—a dangerous binary.
Fifth, in returning to protest after threats, Christina, Teresa, and their cohort perform a crucial civic act: they assert that no amount of fear can displace the dignity of dissent. Their return is not bravado, but calculation: acquiescing under threat would concede that coercion is effective. They become visible witnesses, signaling to others: the cost of protest is real, but the cost of silence is greater. Their testimony forces the public gaze to reckon with the asymmetry: dissenters risk more to speak; intimidation rewards the aggressor with invisibility.
From a progressive perspective, their struggle underscores an enduring imperative: the fight for democracy is not only about policy but also about the terms of public discourse. If you can disrupt opposition by the threat of violence, you have weaponized fear into governance. To dismantle that weapon, the act of protest must be unbreakable. Every time someone yields to intimidation, the boundary of fear expands. Every time someone walks into the street again, holding a sign, returning after threats, democracy reasserts its claim.
Moreover, their critique of media as complicit is central. Progressive strategies must not only mobilize on the streets, but also build independent platforms that report truth unfiltered—so that intimidation cannot slip into the shadows. They see independent media as a bulwark against erasure, distortion, and the subtle legitimizing of weaponized narratives.
In the final analysis, Christina and Teresa’s story is not an isolated incident. It belongs to a broader tradition of protest under duress—the civil rights movement, women’s rights, anti–war sit-ins, labor marches. Whenever power feels challenged, it lashes out. The progressive challenge is to maintain pressure, narrate truth, document intimidation, re-engage communities, and build layered defenses: legal, media, moral, and grassroots. As they said, the threats will not stop, but retreating is the valid concession. They return because democracy demands presence, and dissent remains one of its clearest signals.
