As I have stated, it appears this person was there as part of a protective detail by the organization mentioned.
It's not relevant. Regardless of why he was there, it's still true that his presence either positively or negatively affected our cause. (Neutral effect is, in this case, positive since if it's not seen as negative it accomplishes the goal of normalizing the presence of firearms.) He could have been there to protect the pope and people would still have an opinion, depending on the other circumstances, about whether he helped or hurt the cause of firearm rights.
The question isn't whether or not he's doing something legal. It's not even if he's doing something important or something that can be justified. The question is whether or not what he's doing is hurting our cause.
RE: interference, I was commenting in regard to the Baptist church protesters who were engaged in the interference with veteran funerals, in a manner to disrupt those funerals by their presence. They probably could have been charged with other offenses without making a "new law" to limit their protest activity.
I understand your comment but it is not relevant.
They were publicly using their freedoms and rights in a legal manner but doing so unwisely--in a manner which the majority see as negative. They could not be charged with other offenses because they were careful to stay within the law and as a result, a new law was passed restricting their freedoms and rights.
This is a perfect example of how something
legal can negatively influence a cause and result in new restrictions on freedoms and rights. This is a perfect example of why we need to think about what we do, not merely from the perspective of whether or not it's legal, but also from the perspective of whether it is likely to help or hinder the accomplishment of our goals.
You do not seem to understand what is going on at this (photograph in OP) protest site, and what the nature of the opposing side is in this case.
It might be worth re-reading everything I've posted on this thread. Because nowhere did I claim that what the person in question did was unwise or that it hurt our cause. I have merely asked some "thinking questions" to prompt constructive thought and pointed out that it's important to be smart about public actions if the goal is to help our cause and not hurt it.