Gun grabbers get unexpected help from the “other side”

I don’t know why they had to do it, but a small group of crackpots (whether they’re genuinely right wing or agent provocateurs I don’t know) unfurled a banner which called for the hanging of State Representative Angel Cruz:

HARRISBURG – Members of the Legislative Black Caucus called yesterday for a state police investigation into the display of what they called a racist banner in the Capitol that said a Latino lawmaker should be “hung from the tree of liberty for his acts of treason against the Constitution.”

Here’s a picture of the blasted sign:

Sigh.
The bill in question had no chance of passing, but as anyone with the slightest knowledge of politics should be able to understand, the sign shifted the debate completely.

“People want to hang me for doing my job,” Cruz said, adding that his bill was aimed at trying to reduce gun violence in his district.
“I am appalled by the actions by a group of demonstrators,” State Rep. Jewell Williams (D., Phila.) said. “We will not tolerate people making threats against members.”
Williams was one of 10 Philadelphia-area lawmakers who appeared at a news conference yesterday afternoon to denounce the banner’s language as a “terroristic threat” that raised the ugly specter of mob violence against African Americans.
Cruz, who is of Puerto Rican ancestry, is a member of the Black Caucus.

The first question in my mind was who were the idiots responsible for such a monumentally ignorant job of PR, so I read on.

Rally organizers had hoped to promote bills to ease restrictions on gun purchases, but anger over the sign took center stage in the Capitol and on the floor of the House.
State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R., Butler), lead organizer of the rally, said he knew nothing about the banner and distanced himself from what he called “rogue extremists” responsible for it.
“I condemn that language in the strongest terms,” he said.
Paul Estus of Ridgway, who was holding the banner, told the Associated Press the lynching tree was “just a figure of speech.”
“You’ve got to make a stand,” he added.

Great, just great. A figure of speech! It isn’t often I get this angry at idiocy, but I find it incredibly annoying that the organizers couldn’t manage to police their followers (who quite obviously are in serious need of policing).
While it might have been “just a figure of speech” to Mr. Estus, the sign proved to be a bonanza for the gun control opportunists:

State Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland (D., Delaware), chairman of the Black Caucus, called the sign “an act of racism and bigotry” and said those responsible for it should be brought to justice.
Among the tragic lessons of the massacre at Virginia Tech was that people did not take threats literally, Kirkland said.
A spokesman for Gov. Rendell also condemned the sign.
“Vitriolic, personal attacks such as the one on Rep. Cruz are shameful and have no place in the public arena,” Chuck Ardo said. “The threat implicit in the banner does not advance the debate nor the cause of the demonstrators.”

No, it didn’t.
I can think of few better ways to help the gun grabbers.
Recently I’ve been worried about a nascent campaign (in the wake of the Cho shooting) to paint the “gun lobby” as getting their way by physically threatening their opponents. It ties right in with the “eliminationist rhetoric” meme, and this Paul Estus character is all too happy to oblige.
While I’d never heard of him until today, Estus seems to be some sort of fringe candidate of the type who run for office and lose, and he’s with a breakaway outfit of radical Buchananites called the America First Party.
Naturally, the First Amendment protects his right to free speech and to unfurl his stupid banner, just as it protects the right of psychotic Islamists to issue death threats against “apostates.” And naturally, we’ll only read about the former in the mainstream media.
I think I’m about as pro-Second Amendment as any pro-Second Amendment blogger, and while didn’t drive to Harrisburg to speak up yesterday, I’m now glad I didn’t, because I don’t want to be associated with types like the crackpot who held up that sign. Yeah, I know it’s not logical to feel that way, but I suspect that I’m not alone.
In the name of the First Amendment, a few people did the Second Amendment a serious disservice. I can do little more than disagree with them even though I defend (barely) the right to free speech that they have so abused.
Which leaves me simply wondering why. Why did they do this?
In all honesty, I have no idea.
AFTERTHOUGHT: The more I think about my initial concern (about whether the sign holders are “genuinely right wing or agent provocateurs“) the more I’m convinced that their motivation doesn’t especially matter. What they do matters more than why they’re doing it.
MORE: Commenter MikeT thinks my post “shows the weakness that always destroys freedom.” I’m going to stick my neck out and venture that I don’t think it’s “weakness” to oppose hanging legislators who sponsor unconstitutional legislation. Nor is it weakness to oppose a very poor political tactic.
Or am I wrong? Did the Second Civil War already start without my hearing about it?