Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The blame for that fiasco lies solely at the hands of the senators who inexplicably voted against.

And tell me, why do you think they voted against it? It was certainly not "inexplicable."

Or do you just bury your head in the sand and hope that all the evidence which conclusively demonstrates that the NRA is a destructive organization that has no interest in reasonable solutions to gun violence will just...go away?

They decided being re-elected was superior to passing what was possibly the most universally agreed-upon piece of gun control legislation ever to have come about.

Doesn't matter who put them under pressure.
They had the option to pass it anyway, consequences be damned.

And if they actually cared enough, it would have been passed. And even if their constituents had voted them out and replaced them with people willing to try repeal the law, they'd have been completely unable to succeed.

[Choronzon]

Not sure what you think that proves. No one ever said that only whites owned guns. What was said was that the demographic of people who are organizing and participating in this protest are not only white, but tend to be racists.

You realize that by noticing and commenting on the racism of gun rights activists, you are yourself being The Real Racist Here(tm).

Just like when we make basic observations regarding obvious misogyny, we are really just being misandrists. I am familiar with the "logic" pervasive on NSG.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Less ban it, more arrest most of the people involved.

I'm entirely down for that.

[Choronzon]

And tell me, why do you think they voted against it? It was certainly not "inexplicable."

Or do you just bury your head in the sand and hope that all the evidence which conclusively demonstrates that the NRA is a destructive organization that has no interest in reasonable solutions to gun violence will just...go away?

They decided being re-elected was superior to passing what was possibly the most universally agreed-upon piece of gun control legislation ever to have come about.

And...their reelection chances were threatened by whom?

Doesn't matter who put them under pressure.
They had the option to pass it anyway, consequences be damned.

"Its not the NRA's fault! Its theirs! They were pressured by the NRA, but it doesn't matter who pressured them! Its not the NRA's fault!"

You're an intellectually dishonest shill.

And if they actually cared enough, it would have been passed. And even if their constituents had voted them out and replaced them with people willing to try repeal the law, they'd have been completely unable to succeed.

They'd have faced a primary challenge who was backed by the NRA and NRA money. The NRA made this threat public. Just because you chose to bury your head in the sand and ignore it doesn't suddenly make it go away.

[Bottle]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if you and your gun-totting buddies all posse-up and converge on an a major metropolitan area for the sole purpose of terrorizing people - isn't that pretty much the definition of a terrorist organization?

No, no, they want to break the law and walk around openly wearing deadly weapons as a way of celebrating peace and freedom, not as a threat!

I mean, that's why anybody carries a gun openly, right? You wear it so that everyone who sees you will know that you are less threatening than those who don't wear guns! You want everyone to know that you are armed with a weapon because then they will fully appreciate your commitment to peace!

[Occupied Deutschland]

If they don't break the law they won't go to jail.
I'm pretty sure DC law requires a find and prison sentence for breaking this law, but I'm not 100% on that. Perhaps you'd like to prove that jail time is optional?

Are you obtuse? Can you really not understand what I'm saying when I say "No one will be arrested," ? It means that the question of a sentence wont even come up, because authorities wont even make any arrests.

It wasn't all that subtle. It wasn't even really an implication. More just a statement of fact.

Its a statement of fact that I want to imprison people for disagreeing with me now, is it?

Well that doesn't seem possible seeing as Kokesh plans on being arrested. I mean, the guy may be nuts but he knows what civil disobedience is and what it implies.

Unless you're claiming he just magically isn't going to be arrested because of his skin color? I guess there is some precedent with David Gregory...

And no, it's a statement of fact that those not being arrested will not be getting arrested because of not crossing into DC. Your constant claims of they won't be arrested suggested to me you believed they wouldn't cross into DC, and you sounded dismayed over this fact. You have since clarified (kind of, see the above) that they won't get arrested when they cross into DC because...magic.

[Greed and Death]

I don't think they seek a challenge in the court of law, I think they seek a challenge in the court of public opinion.

No, what they "seek" is to intimidate the general populace, particularly those who disagree with them, into acquiescence by staging a blackshirt style march through the capitol.

They would have done that at the state capitols if they had the goal of a Putsch, they also would have did it on a day when the federal government was in office, you know so there would actually be something to take over.

As for the right of Nazi's to march through holocaust survivor filled neighborhoods Supreme court has already protected that. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977).

[Occupied Deutschland]

Less ban it, more arrest most of the people involved.

I'm entirely down for that.

That sounds fine to me too and I agree with these guys.

NSG agreement, Huzzah!

[Choronzon]

Well that doesn't seem possible seeing as Kokesh plans on being arrested.

This in no way means he will actually be arrested.

We tango a lot, and you always end up looking incredibly foolish. I figured you'd have just...given up by now.

[Bottle]

Its a statement of fact that I want to imprison people for disagreeing with me now, is it?

I'm excited to see him quote this "fact" for the rest of us, cause I sure can't see it.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

They decided being re-elected was superior to passing what was possibly the most universally agreed-upon piece of gun control legislation ever to have come about.

And...their reelection chances were threatened by whom?

Doesn't matter who put them under pressure.
They had the option to pass it anyway, consequences be damned.

"Its not the NRA's fault! Its theirs! They were pressured by the NRA, but it doesn't matter who pressured them! Its not the NRA's fault!"

You're an intellectually dishonest shill.

And if they actually cared enough, it would have been passed. And even if their constituents had voted them out and replaced them with people willing to try repeal the law, they'd have been completely unable to succeed.

They'd have faced a primary challenge who was backed by the NRA and NRA money. The NRA made this threat public. Just because you chose to bury your head in the sand and ignore it doesn't suddenly make it go away.

Since it wasn't the NRA who were actually doing the voting in the House, I didn't see why it mattered they were putting on the pressure.
I haven't mentioned the NRA all thread. I rarely bring it up in most gun threads. I praise it as a concept, but not what it is.
I am not defending the NRA. I don't like the NRA. I have no interests in defending it.

Frankly, the NRA's own leadership has probably done its best to kill its own organisation politically more than its less sane adherents.

The senators buckled. No-one else.

[Choronzon]

And...their reelection chances were threatened by whom?

"Its not the NRA's fault! Its theirs! They were pressured by the NRA, but it doesn't matter who pressured them! Its not the NRA's fault!"

You're an intellectually dishonest shill.


They'd have faced a primary challenge who was backed by the NRA and NRA money. The NRA made this threat public. Just because you chose to bury your head in the sand and ignore it doesn't suddenly make it go away.

Since it wasn't the NRA who were actually doing the voting in the House, I didn't see why it mattered they were putting on the pressure.
I haven't mentioned the NRA all thread. I rarely bring it up in most gun threads. I praise it as a concept, but not what it is.
Frankly, the NRA's own leadership has probably done its best to kill its own organisation politically more than its less sane adherents.

The senators buckled. No-one else.

Oh, I see the problem. You are totally and unapologetically ignorant when it comes to how politics work in America.

The NRA threatened to back primary challengers against congressmen who voted for the bill. They made this public. This is a statement of fact. Congressmen who reside in districts filled with the type of people who are swayed by NRA smears voted against it out of fear. This is also a statement of basic political reality.

The NRA had a hand in sinking the bill. Pretending otherwise is either a mark of ignorance or dishonesty.

[Jamzmania]

And tell me, why do you think they voted against it? It was certainly not "inexplicable."

Or do you just bury your head in the sand and hope that all the evidence which conclusively demonstrates that the NRA is a destructive organization that has no interest in reasonable solutions to gun violence will just...go away?

They decided being re-elected was superior to passing what was possibly the most universally agreed-upon piece of gun control legislation ever to have come about.

Doesn't matter who put them under pressure.
They had the option to pass it anyway, consequences be damned.

And if they actually cared enough, it would have been passed. And even if their constituents had voted them out and replaced them with people willing to try repeal the law, they'd have been completely unable to succeed.

If they would have been voted out of office obviously it wasn't agreed upon very widely. The fact that you think lawmakers should pass laws against the will of the people is bad enough. If, in your view, we the people are ruining our country then that's our problem, anyone who disagrees is free to move to Socialist Europe or elsewhere.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Since it wasn't the NRA who were actually doing the voting in the House, I didn't see why it mattered they were putting on the pressure.
I haven't mentioned the NRA all thread. I rarely bring it up in most gun threads. I praise it as a concept, but not what it is.
Frankly, the NRA's own leadership has probably done its best to kill its own organisation politically more than its less sane adherents.

The senators buckled. No-one else.

Oh, I see the rpbolem. You are totally and unapologetically ignorant when it comes to how politics work in America.

Since I live in England and barely understand my own political system, most likely.

Are you insinuating I'm unaware of the existence and goals of the various groups that lobby politicians?

[Samuraikoku]

Just like when we make basic observations regarding obvious misogyny, we are really just being misandrists. I am familiar with the "logic" pervasive on NSG.

But in both cases, racists and misogynists do what they do because they want you to argue "well rather than fallaciously".

[Choronzon]

Oh, I see the rpbolem. You are totally and unapologetically ignorant when it comes to how politics work in America.

Since I live in England and barely understand my own political system, most likely.

Then you should just stop arguing with people who actually do know what they're talking about.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I saw "Koresh" organizes, and wondered if I stepped into the "Way Back" machine.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Well that doesn't seem possible seeing as Kokesh plans on being arrested.

This in no way means he will actually be arrested.

We tango a lot, and you always end up looking incredibly foolish. I figured you'd have just...given up by now.

If he breaks the law, he gets arrested.

I think that's a reasonable standard to have. Right now, we have his word that he will break the law. I don't have a lot of knowledge of the man, but I do recall he said he'd break the law by dancing in the Jefferson memorial and he did that, so I'd say there's a decent chance of him carrying through on his word.

Generally, when someone with a history of breaking the law says they will break the law, they will break the law. And he should be arrested for this.

Edit: 'this' in this case meaning breaking the law and not saying he will do so.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Since I live in England and barely understand my own political system, most likely.

Then you should just stop arguing with people who actually do know what they're talking about.

No thanks, I'm good.

[Choronzon]

Generally, when someone with a history of breaking the law says they will break the law, they will break the law. And he should be arrested for this.

No shit he should.

What I said is that he "wont."

Now, I'm done talking to this particular brick wall.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Its a statement of fact that I want to imprison people for disagreeing with me now, is it?

I'm excited to see him quote this "fact" for the rest of us, cause I sure can't see it.

Never said it was a fact. It was a reading of Choronzon's words in the context of what he had said up to that point.

He has since clarified that his claims these people wouldn't be arrested was actually directed at the people who would be getting arrested and not those who weren't breaking the law.

[Choronzon]

Are you insinuating I'm unaware of the existence and goals of the various groups that lobby politicians?

I'm not so much "insinuating" it as I am "making an observation based on your total inability to wrap your head around this concept."

[Occupied Deutschland]

Generally, when someone with a history of breaking the law says they will break the law, they will break the law. And he should be arrested for this.

No shit he should.

What I said is that he "wont."

Now, I'm done talking to this particular brick wall.

Source.

[Choronzon]

No shit he should.

What I said is that he "wont."

Now, I'm done talking to this particular brick wall.

Source.

The fact that we live in America.

[Choronzon]

I'm excited to see him quote this "fact" for the rest of us, cause I sure can't see it.

Never said it was a fact. It was a reading of Choronzon's words in the context of what he had said up to that point.

He has since clarified that his claims these people wouldn't be arrested was actually directed at the people who would be getting arrested and not those who weren't breaking the law.

You really do have no idea whats going on, do you? You have no frame of reference. You're like a kid who has just wondered into a theater in the middle of a movie...