Regardless of how you feel about his delivery, he and others are getting it done.IMO
What they seem to be achieving is a lot of fervor through screaming and shaming narratives that applying some acute pressure. The pressure to do something, anything, such as token bans on bump stocks and potentially bans on select gun platforms that won't stop shootings.
I don't see how they can sustain the attention their emotional tirade is currently providing. There's a point at which an audience tunes out the same rant/rage theater, different day.
It's as if they don't connect the dots between the political history of the generations they think are too stupid and old to have a voice, and their own current right to use their voices. ?
The remarks within the 'movement' that the Constitution is essentially archaic are frankly astounding.
The march signs quoting content from retired Justice Stevens' op/ed three days before it was published in the NYT are also fascinating. Not only in a psychic kind of way, but because some of the most vocal protestors have insisted that repealing 2A is not one of their goals. The Stevens remarks say two things pretty clearly:
"They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment...
Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.
That simple but dramatic action would move Saturdays marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States unlike every other market in the world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html
So, 2A repeal is indeed a goal. And it's about weakening the impact and influence of a particular political lobby. Let's let that just hang out there for a moment. A former SCOTUS Justice wants to amend the Constitution to silence the NRA and kick an annoying legal rule to the curb that protects select market actors. Or, another way to look at it is, on a claim of too much stymied legislative debate, Stevens would like to change up the Constitution to stymie the NRA's ability to debate legislative actions.
Didn't we settle 1A a long time ago, or are we repealing that too? Or, are we just limiting speech and market access to certain lobbies?
You really have to wonder how all this supports the claim that "We don't want to take away people's guns" and "It's not about red or blue".
Here's where the test lies: What other political lobbies would it be reasonable to silence by Constitutional amendment? My guess is, SCOTUS will be answering that. I guess we'll have to stay tuned to see if the Constitution is all that archaic.