Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Greed and Death]

Mayor of DC says he will allow the march and the police will not enforce the law!!

[The Steel Magnolia]

So you support banning guns.

Weren't you complaining about such a position being a "strawman" earlier?

I do. Doesn't mean the majority of gun-control advocates do. I complained that you assumed that was true when at the time not a single person had said such.

Except. You did. And I quoted you.

So.

[Edlichbury]

Gun ownership is the most important factor in whether or not someone will commit crimes with a gun, race isn't.

Not the same.

And no, considering the benefits of societies with no civilian gun ownership, I'd hardly consider that "useless" or "terrible."

"Race is the most important factor is whether or not someone will commit a robbery." This statement is technically correct as robberies are predominantly done by minority groups. I wonder if possibly there's other factors involved here and in the case of people using guns in crimes? Or is that just crazy talk.

Your opinion is worthless if you honestly think no civilians should own guns. Largely because even the places you point to as examples of how peachy such a situation is STILL HAVE PRIVATE FIREARM OWNERSHIP.

My most common places don't allow private firearm usage. In fact, I can't remember a single place I used as an example (besides possibly Australia, I'm not quite sure on all the details there) that have private firearm usage.

And tell me, how does one commit gun violence without a gun? If there is a method, then I might consider my position to be unfair profiling. Otherwise, I continue to hold that believing minorities are a bigger threat is not the same position as stating gun owners generally are responsible for gun violence.

[Edlichbury]

I do. Doesn't mean the majority of gun-control advocates do. I complained that you assumed that was true when at the time not a single person had said such.

Except. You did. And I quoted you.

So.

You stated that the real goal of any gun control is to eliminate all guns. I'm hardly representative of the whole, so using my position as a substitute for everyone's is still a strawman.

Edit: You stated "plenty" have that goal. My bad. I still hold that one =/= plenty by any means.

[The UK in Exile]

Except. You did. And I quoted you.

So.

You stated that the real goal of any gun control is to eliminate all guns. I'm hardly representative of the whole, so using my position as a substitute for everyone's is still a strawman.

this is quite odd, I've never seen anyone use the "no true scotsman" arguement on themselves before.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Except. You did. And I quoted you.

So.

You stated that the real goal of any gun control is to eliminate all guns. I'm hardly representative of the whole, so using my position as a substitute for everyone's is still a strawman.

I most certainly did not.

I'm a gun control advocate after all.

[Edlichbury]

You stated that the real goal of any gun control is to eliminate all guns. I'm hardly representative of the whole, so using my position as a substitute for everyone's is still a strawman.

this is quite odd, I've never seen anyone use the "no true scotsman" arguement on themselves before.

I refuse to consider my position that of all gun-control advocates. From my experience, I'm by far and away not representative.

Also, I've done it before. As a Republican from South Dakota that's incredibly pacifist, I have quite frequently argued I don't count as a standard representative of a population.

[Occupied Deutschland]

"Race is the most important factor is whether or not someone will commit a robbery." This statement is technically correct as robberies are predominantly done by minority groups. I wonder if possibly there's other factors involved here and in the case of people using guns in crimes? Or is that just crazy talk.

Your opinion is worthless if you honestly think no civilians should own guns. Largely because even the places you point to as examples of how peachy such a situation is STILL HAVE PRIVATE FIREARM OWNERSHIP.

My most common places don't allow private firearm usage. In fact, I can't remember a single place I used as an example (besides possibly Australia, I'm not quite sure on all the details there) that have private firearm usage.

And tell me, how does one commit gun violence without a gun? If there is a method, then I might consider my position to be unfair profiling. Otherwise, I continue to hold that believing minorities are a bigger threat is not the same position as stating gun owners generally are responsible for gun violence.

Australia, England and Germany, Austria all have private ownership. So does Japan, though it's even more difficult there than in the European locales you mentioned.
Seriously, this should be common knowledge if you're using these places as your examples.

Perhaps this is because you wish to punish the innocent along with the guilty? Y'know...kind've like racial profiling.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I suppose this has kind of gone off-topic hasn't it? (It seems to be a requirement for any thread involving guns in any way).

As long as these guys accept their inevitable arrest peacefully, I see no problem with this activity. If any of them start shooting or brandishing the weapons, obviously they need to be arrested quicker and with some force.

[Marquette of Pacific]

I have explained this literally hundreds of fucking times.

GOD GAVE US FREE WILL! HE WILL NOT INTRUDE ON THE FREE WILL. WE WILL BE JUDGED ABOUT WHAT WE DO WITH THE FREE WILL IN THE AFTERLIFE!

There! Now do you understand this simple as fuck concept?

Because something that does not exist cannot judge me, or grant me anything.

Sorry, who does not exist? There is very much a God, so you can't possibly be talking about that!

[Edlichbury]

My most common places don't allow private firearm usage. In fact, I can't remember a single place I used as an example (besides possibly Australia, I'm not quite sure on all the details there) that have private firearm usage.

And tell me, how does one commit gun violence without a gun? If there is a method, then I might consider my position to be unfair profiling. Otherwise, I continue to hold that believing minorities are a bigger threat is not the same position as stating gun owners generally are responsible for gun violence.

Australia, England and Germany, Austria all have private ownership. So does Japan, though it's even more difficult there than in the European locales you mentioned.
Seriously, this should be common knowledge if you're using these places as your examples.

Perhaps this is because you wish to punish the innocent along with the guilty? Y'know...kind've like racial profiling.

Japan also places enough restrictions that standard guns are almost nonexistent. Shotguns are about all they can own, and even that requires training and courses.

But for clarification: I don't mind some "civilians" owning guns, but I disagree with the thought of allowing civilian ownership of a gun without enough checks to make that "civilian" look more like law enforcement or soldiers than average citizens in regards to weapons training.

[The Whispers]

Australia, England and Germany, Austria all have private ownership.

I can't speak for the Germans or Austr(al)ians, but in the UK, it's basically impossible to get a handgun license (it's basically restricted to ex-Generals and .22 pistols for vets to kill dogs with), and getting a rifle is nearly as difficult. Very specific kinds of shotgun are easier to obtain (because farmers use them), but there is nothing like the same prevalence of guns as in the US, and the general view is that many Americans have basically given up on their other civic rights and have become utterly fixated upon gun ownership "for a revolution or whatever", but only in the defence of gun ownership, rather than for actually good reasons.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Australia, England and Germany, Austria all have private ownership. So does Japan, though it's even more difficult there than in the European locales you mentioned.
Seriously, this should be common knowledge if you're using these places as your examples.

Perhaps this is because you wish to punish the innocent along with the guilty? Y'know...kind've like racial profiling.

Japan also places enough restrictions that standard guns are almost nonexistent. Shotguns are about all they can own, and even that requires training and courses.

But for clarification: I don't mind some "civilians" owning guns, but I disagree with the thought of allowing civilian ownership of a gun without enough checks to make that "civilian" look more like law enforcement or soldiers than average citizens in regards to weapons training.

Well that's a much more reasonable position.

One I still have contentions with, but much less than 'ban all the gunz!'. I apologize.

[Dooom35796821595]

Australia, England and Germany, Austria all have private ownership.

I can't speak for the Germans or Austr(al)ians, but in the UK, it's basically impossible to get a handgun license (it's basically restricted to ex-Generals and .22 pistols for vets to kill dogs with), and getting a rifle is nearly as difficult. Very specific kinds of shotgun are easier to obtain (because farmers use them), but there is nothing like the same prevalence of guns as in the US, and the general view is that many Americans have basically given up on their other civic rights and have become utterly fixated upon gun ownership "for a revolution or whatever", but only in the defence of gun ownership, rather than for actually good reasons.

a license needs to be signed by the home secretary.
and they need exceptional reason, a secure gun cabinet and for ammo to be stored separately.

[Edlichbury]

Japan also places enough restrictions that standard guns are almost nonexistent. Shotguns are about all they can own, and even that requires training and courses.

But for clarification: I don't mind some "civilians" owning guns, but I disagree with the thought of allowing civilian ownership of a gun without enough checks to make that "civilian" look more like law enforcement or soldiers than average citizens in regards to weapons training.

Well that's a much more reasonable position.

One I still have contentions with, but much less than 'ban all the gunz!'. I apologize.

I suppose my definition of "civilian" is not quite in line with the standard. Clarification is probably beneficial on all sides.

[The UK in Exile]

I can't speak for the Germans or Austr(al)ians, but in the UK, it's basically impossible to get a handgun license (it's basically restricted to ex-Generals and .22 pistols for vets to kill dogs with), and getting a rifle is nearly as difficult. Very specific kinds of shotgun are easier to obtain (because farmers use them), but there is nothing like the same prevalence of guns as in the US, and the general view is that many Americans have basically given up on their other civic rights and have become utterly fixated upon gun ownership "for a revolution or whatever", but only in the defence of gun ownership, rather than for actually good reasons.

a license needs to be signed by the home secretary.
and they need exceptional reason, a secure gun cabinet and foe ammo to be stored separately.

just the chief of police.

[Ifreann]

Kokesh is a real patriot I hope he shows our Government that our freedoms will not be taken

By getting arrested for having a firearm in public, if not terrorism? Yeah, that'll show 'em.

---

Mayor of DC says he will allow the march and the police will not enforce the law!!

Getting the Marines in instead? Should be a lark.

---

I suppose this has kind of gone off-topic hasn't it? (It seems to be a requirement for any thread involving guns in any way).

As long as these guys accept their inevitable arrest peacefully, I see no problem with this activity. If any of them start shooting or brandishing the weapons, obviously they need to be arrested quicker and with some force.

The whole point seems to be threatening the government, so I say arrest them as soon as they show up.

[Zavea]

although i completely understand the idea of marching/protesting to advance a political goal, this idea really does kind of rub me the wrong way since well and honestly, the weapons of the protester should be like... crudely-painted signs, words and megaphones. carrying around one's firearms in a public place as a prop for a political message seems like a really, really irresponsible idea. i have to think that hundreds of impassioned people with handguns on their hips congregating in one place multiplies the threat of an accident or someone stepping too far over the line quite a lot.

whatever their actual intent is, i feel like the message they're going to send is "we demand gun rights, and we're willing to get up in your face in a public area while armed with a lethal firearm to get them!"

would really be more reasonable to leave the heat at home...

[Mike the Progressive]

It's a violation of gun laws I don't see it ending well and I support the second amendment.

So I guess Rosa Parks should've just went to the back of the bus like she was told to.....

Well we all have our opinions on that, but let's keep it to ourselves.

[Ifreann]

although i completely understand the idea of marching/protesting to advance a political goal, this idea really does kind of rub me the wrong way since well and honestly, the weapons of the protester should be like... crudely-painted signs, words and megaphones. carrying around one's firearms in a public place

Illegally, don't forget.

as a prop for a political message seems like a really, really irresponsible idea. i have to think that hundreds of impassioned people with handguns on their hips congregating in one place multiplies the threat of an accident or someone stepping too far over the line quite a lot.

whatever their actual intent is, i feel like the message they're going to send is "we demand gun rights, and we're willing to get up in your face in a public area while armed with a lethal firearm to get them!"

would really be more reasonable to leave the heat at home...

How can they threaten the government with their guns if they leave their guns at home?

[The Evenstar]

An armed march on the capital?

The die is cast

[Occupied Deutschland]

An armed march on the capital?

The die is cast

I think you have to wait until they cross the Potomac to say that .

[Maroza]

An armed march on the capital?

The die is cast

I think you have to wait until they cross the Potomac to say that .

True, they don't even have 3,000 yet if you count all the maybes.

[Mkuki]

It's a violation of gun laws I don't see it ending well and I support the second amendment.

So I guess Rosa Parks should've just went to the back of the bus like she was told to.....

The fact that you think the two situations are anywhere near comparable is, frankly, disturbing and ignorant.

[Lafayette Ronald Hubbard]

on 420 every year in Vancouver we have activists gather in front of an art gallery to get high together. Every year, they fail to get arrested, instead cops are so out numbered they can do nothing but sit there and watch.

I wonder how the people getting all shocked about this would feel reading the above. Is it really not the same thing? in b4 people use the "I'm shocked" shame tactic.